The epoch of other boundaries
The topic of unfair borders is very painful in modern Europe. Suffice it to recall that World War II began precisely because of the conflict over Danzig’s affiliation. After 1991, the United States, with its privileged satellites, single-handedly appropriated the right to reshape borders in any part of the world. At the same time, the system built after the "cold war" envisaged the humiliation of Russia as a losing country in the cold war, which, according to the logic of the "winners", should not have any interests outside its borders, and limited sovereignty was established within the state. The combination of these two postulates was the reaction of the United States and the European Union to the second Chechen campaign, when Moscow was also threatened with cruel punishment. While the Russian army destroyed the militants, Washington and Brussels openly argued that Chechnya needed a transitional period to prepare a referendum on independence, and threatened Russia with sanctions for "Chechen genocide."
The events in Crimea in February-March last year marked the beginning of a new era in which the leaders of the old world suddenly found no place for themselves. It is significant that today one of the initiators of the anti-Russian persecution is Berlin, which clearly wants historical revenge. Angela Merkel's regular statements that the events in Crimea are an exceptional violation of international law in post-war history do not stand up to criticism. The annexation of territories and even entire states using military force has happened more than once in the modern era. These are the annexations of Goa and Sikkim by India, as well as the conquest of West Papua and East Timor by Indonesia. We will not even talk about Israel. If Mrs. Merkel had in mind modern Europe specifically, then there have been no overt annexations in the foreseeable future, but Germany would be better off not mentioning this topic, and not at all because of Hitler's actions. The era of the forceful redistribution of borders in post-war Europe began in March 1999, when the first bombs fell on Yugoslavia, or in February 2008, when Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by most Western countries. Germany took direct military part in the aggression against Yugoslavia, and then recognized the illegally proclaimed independence of the region. If the intervention in the conflict between Serbia and the republics of Yugoslavia could still be justified by the fact that the latter, supposedly, are independent states within a voluntary federation, then this argument definitely did not work with Kosovo. So Germany, as well as Great Britain, Italy and all the others are aggressors according to the definition of the same UN. Although Kosovo did not join Albania, its existence is absolutely illegal and illegitimate. After all, if Kosovo can secede, relying on NATO troops, why can't Crimea, relying on the forces of Russia? And it does not matter that sovereign Crimea decided to transfer its sovereignty to the Russian Federation. Saarland transferred its sovereignty to Germany, and no one objected to this.
However, nothing in the past has caused such fury of the “international community” that the Crimea has caused. The fact is that the current boundaries, with the exception of a couple of episodes, were quite satisfactory for the G7. Of course, the same Germany would not mind joining the former eastern lands, but the “big brother” vigilantly ensures that the vassals do not cross the line beyond which the obedient satellite turns into a master. One of the unwritten postulates of the unipolar world is that only Washington has the exclusive right to revise the borders. If the United States cannot, in fact, directly draw the desired border in this particular place, then they still officially indicate the desire to revise the boundaries. For example, you can bring a story with the receipt of "Green Card" for different regions of one country. Not only Crimeans are considered to be residents of Ukraine, not Russia, but also Russians of South Sakhalin and four South Kuril Islands are listed as belonging to Japan. The hint is fairly transparent. In the same place, for example, Northern Ireland is considered separately from Great Britain, etc. There are other examples of indirect encouragement of separatism in other countries that are not considered completely loyal or disloyal at all.
Russia in the fateful 2014 year, encroached on the sacred right of Washington to single-handedly redraw the borders. Unlike the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it was not just the unauthorized secession of the subject that occurred here, but its accession to another state. If, on the whole, the splitting up of countries is quite satisfactory for Americans, with the exception of frankly critical cases, such as last year’s Scottish referendum, then strengthening the geopolitical rival in a similar way in the White House was perceived as a challenge. The precedent, when the border in favor of another state was moved by force without the consent of Washington, may be attractive. First of all, China is remembered here, although it is not only he who can take advantage of the unique historical opportunity to change the status quo. Therefore, they decided to punish Moscow in order to discourage others from engaging in such activities. What is allowed to Jupiter ...
Another reason for the sharp hostility from the United States lies slightly in a different plane. As mentioned above, forceful accessions in the post-war history occurred before, but then the United States reacted, though nervously, but still calmly. Everyone knew that America does not intervene, not because it can not, but because it does not want. The current situation has highlighted another situation where the States have weakened and already "can not." Albeit in a particular region, it is difficult for them to resist someone not only with military force, but also through political and economic pressure. Of course, this will become obvious if Russia survives under the blows of sanctions and the actions of the internal “fifth column” in the government and the Central Bank. In the meantime, Obama hurried, saying that the Russian economy is "torn to pieces." The purpose of these statements is to demonstrate to everyone that America is still strong and can punish disobedient, if not bombs, then the dollar.
So Crimea is a kind of unique phenomenon. A Russian victory there can completely cancel only the defeat in the Donbas. It is precisely this, together with incompetent economic policies that can lead to the collapse of the central government, after which the neighbors will begin territorial increments at the Russian expense. Army and nuclear weapon here they will be useless, since the coordinating center in Moscow after the coup will be predominantly engaged in persecuting representatives of the former elite and redistributing the most delicate state property, banks and commodity companies. When these processes end, the post-coup power will be put before the fact of the existence of new borders of the Russian Federation, with which it will only agree, in the best case for monetary compensation.
The fact that the abstract neighboring country has no official claims to the Russian Federation does not mean at all that they do not exist. The mood of the media, bloggers, well-known public and political figures here are a more accurate indicator than the statements of employees of foreign policy departments. As well as the characteristics of certain historical events in official sources. If you study them, it turns out that there are more than enough claims to Russia that are factual, but not yet expressed. This is China’s interest in the Primorsky Territory, which was already given away under the Qing Empire, and the Finnish species in Eastern Karelia and much more. Russia also had no state claims to the Crimea (although it had every right to present them to Sevastopol), but in our country they never forgot that Crimea and the Donbass are originally Russian lands. At the same time, it would be absurd to expect historical amnesia from other countries.
Recall that the FRG, before the Moscow (Peaceful) Treaty of 1970, refused to recognize Kaliningrad as Soviet. There is no doubt that Berlin is ready to denounce that treaty under any plausible excuse if it decides that the time has come. As for Japan, there are high hopes for Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tokyo, to be held this year. Separately, we recall the Ukrainian plans for the Crimea, which are being broken down only because of the heavy fighting in the East.
Of course, all these events are possible only with a real coup and loss of control over the country. Then Russia's loss of parts of the territory will be presented to the world as a punishment for the Crimea, and the United States will remain a hegemon for another ten years, until China inevitably challenges them.
The rest of Europe so far delicately avoids the issue of unilateral redistribution of borders, but sometimes the forbidden topic still pops up in the most unusual forms. In 2009, a diplomatic scandal triggered a Slovenian film with the provocative title Trieste Nash. Also, hundreds of maps of “great Greece”, “great Albania”, etc., are walking on the Internet. So, the territorial issue will come up again and again when politicians understand that the time has come for it.
The events in Crimea in February-March last year marked the beginning of a new era in which the leaders of the old world suddenly found no place for themselves. It is significant that today one of the initiators of the anti-Russian persecution is Berlin, which clearly wants historical revenge. Angela Merkel's regular statements that the events in Crimea are an exceptional violation of international law in post-war history do not stand up to criticism. The annexation of territories and even entire states using military force has happened more than once in the modern era. These are the annexations of Goa and Sikkim by India, as well as the conquest of West Papua and East Timor by Indonesia. We will not even talk about Israel. If Mrs. Merkel had in mind modern Europe specifically, then there have been no overt annexations in the foreseeable future, but Germany would be better off not mentioning this topic, and not at all because of Hitler's actions. The era of the forceful redistribution of borders in post-war Europe began in March 1999, when the first bombs fell on Yugoslavia, or in February 2008, when Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by most Western countries. Germany took direct military part in the aggression against Yugoslavia, and then recognized the illegally proclaimed independence of the region. If the intervention in the conflict between Serbia and the republics of Yugoslavia could still be justified by the fact that the latter, supposedly, are independent states within a voluntary federation, then this argument definitely did not work with Kosovo. So Germany, as well as Great Britain, Italy and all the others are aggressors according to the definition of the same UN. Although Kosovo did not join Albania, its existence is absolutely illegal and illegitimate. After all, if Kosovo can secede, relying on NATO troops, why can't Crimea, relying on the forces of Russia? And it does not matter that sovereign Crimea decided to transfer its sovereignty to the Russian Federation. Saarland transferred its sovereignty to Germany, and no one objected to this.
However, nothing in the past has caused such fury of the “international community” that the Crimea has caused. The fact is that the current boundaries, with the exception of a couple of episodes, were quite satisfactory for the G7. Of course, the same Germany would not mind joining the former eastern lands, but the “big brother” vigilantly ensures that the vassals do not cross the line beyond which the obedient satellite turns into a master. One of the unwritten postulates of the unipolar world is that only Washington has the exclusive right to revise the borders. If the United States cannot, in fact, directly draw the desired border in this particular place, then they still officially indicate the desire to revise the boundaries. For example, you can bring a story with the receipt of "Green Card" for different regions of one country. Not only Crimeans are considered to be residents of Ukraine, not Russia, but also Russians of South Sakhalin and four South Kuril Islands are listed as belonging to Japan. The hint is fairly transparent. In the same place, for example, Northern Ireland is considered separately from Great Britain, etc. There are other examples of indirect encouragement of separatism in other countries that are not considered completely loyal or disloyal at all.
Russia in the fateful 2014 year, encroached on the sacred right of Washington to single-handedly redraw the borders. Unlike the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it was not just the unauthorized secession of the subject that occurred here, but its accession to another state. If, on the whole, the splitting up of countries is quite satisfactory for Americans, with the exception of frankly critical cases, such as last year’s Scottish referendum, then strengthening the geopolitical rival in a similar way in the White House was perceived as a challenge. The precedent, when the border in favor of another state was moved by force without the consent of Washington, may be attractive. First of all, China is remembered here, although it is not only he who can take advantage of the unique historical opportunity to change the status quo. Therefore, they decided to punish Moscow in order to discourage others from engaging in such activities. What is allowed to Jupiter ...
Another reason for the sharp hostility from the United States lies slightly in a different plane. As mentioned above, forceful accessions in the post-war history occurred before, but then the United States reacted, though nervously, but still calmly. Everyone knew that America does not intervene, not because it can not, but because it does not want. The current situation has highlighted another situation where the States have weakened and already "can not." Albeit in a particular region, it is difficult for them to resist someone not only with military force, but also through political and economic pressure. Of course, this will become obvious if Russia survives under the blows of sanctions and the actions of the internal “fifth column” in the government and the Central Bank. In the meantime, Obama hurried, saying that the Russian economy is "torn to pieces." The purpose of these statements is to demonstrate to everyone that America is still strong and can punish disobedient, if not bombs, then the dollar.
So Crimea is a kind of unique phenomenon. A Russian victory there can completely cancel only the defeat in the Donbas. It is precisely this, together with incompetent economic policies that can lead to the collapse of the central government, after which the neighbors will begin territorial increments at the Russian expense. Army and nuclear weapon here they will be useless, since the coordinating center in Moscow after the coup will be predominantly engaged in persecuting representatives of the former elite and redistributing the most delicate state property, banks and commodity companies. When these processes end, the post-coup power will be put before the fact of the existence of new borders of the Russian Federation, with which it will only agree, in the best case for monetary compensation.
The fact that the abstract neighboring country has no official claims to the Russian Federation does not mean at all that they do not exist. The mood of the media, bloggers, well-known public and political figures here are a more accurate indicator than the statements of employees of foreign policy departments. As well as the characteristics of certain historical events in official sources. If you study them, it turns out that there are more than enough claims to Russia that are factual, but not yet expressed. This is China’s interest in the Primorsky Territory, which was already given away under the Qing Empire, and the Finnish species in Eastern Karelia and much more. Russia also had no state claims to the Crimea (although it had every right to present them to Sevastopol), but in our country they never forgot that Crimea and the Donbass are originally Russian lands. At the same time, it would be absurd to expect historical amnesia from other countries.
Recall that the FRG, before the Moscow (Peaceful) Treaty of 1970, refused to recognize Kaliningrad as Soviet. There is no doubt that Berlin is ready to denounce that treaty under any plausible excuse if it decides that the time has come. As for Japan, there are high hopes for Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tokyo, to be held this year. Separately, we recall the Ukrainian plans for the Crimea, which are being broken down only because of the heavy fighting in the East.
Of course, all these events are possible only with a real coup and loss of control over the country. Then Russia's loss of parts of the territory will be presented to the world as a punishment for the Crimea, and the United States will remain a hegemon for another ten years, until China inevitably challenges them.
The rest of Europe so far delicately avoids the issue of unilateral redistribution of borders, but sometimes the forbidden topic still pops up in the most unusual forms. In 2009, a diplomatic scandal triggered a Slovenian film with the provocative title Trieste Nash. Also, hundreds of maps of “great Greece”, “great Albania”, etc., are walking on the Internet. So, the territorial issue will come up again and again when politicians understand that the time has come for it.
Information