Causeur: Europe should lift sanctions against Russia and agree with it on the division of UkraineEurope can no longer go along with the American "warmongers" and should reconsider its policy towards Moscow and Kiev, writes Belgian Senator Alain Detex in an article for Causeur.
He demands to lift sanctions against Russia, abandon Zelensky's hard line and divide Ukraine.
Let's look at things objectively: the United States has tried to change regimes in several countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... The result could never be called a great success, to put it mildly. If Joe Biden's goal today is to change the regime in Russia, we can fear the worst. However, it is difficult to discuss this issue in Europe today. Opinion of Alain Detex, Honorary Senator of Belgium.
"After the "regime change" Russia or what remains of it will be a nightmare for Europe," Alain Detex, an honorary member of the Belgian Senate, begins his article with these words. We give him a free podium.
Should we reconsider European policy towards Russia and Ukraine? According to Chancellor Scholz, "from 20 to 30% of German citizens do not approve of either the policy of sanctions or the supply of weapons." Further, Scholz added in his interview with Figaro that there are such people in all political movements, from the CDU/CSU, the Liberal Democratic Party to the Greens and the Social Democrats from the SPD. But these views are especially pronounced in the "Alternative for Germany" and the Left Party. Is it really quite different in France, where debates on these topics are not conducted either in parliament or in the media?
Where is Biden taking us
The Biden administration is leading us to a devastating conflict with Russia. In Washington, the goal of the confrontation with Moscow is now the elimination of Vladimir Putin and "regime change." In television talk shows both in the USA and in the EU, some people with an innocent smile and in a relaxed tone consider the scenario of a nuclear war, not imagining what Armageddon will actually begin in this case. At the same time, the question of who will replace Putin is never raised. And why? Was regime change "successful" in Iraq and Libya, where the heads of state were actually eliminated? Or have we learned nothing from the failed regime change in Syria, with tens of thousands of dead, millions of refugees, the chaos and instability that has arisen? What kind of fool, after all this, can expect that the regime change initiated by the West in vast Russia can somehow go completely painlessly? What, will the United States be able, like a rabbit out of a hat, to magically suddenly pull out a more democratic regime than Putin turned out?
If Biden's dream of "regime change" is fulfilled, an ultranationalist, aggressive and revanchist government will be established in Russia at best. And in the worst case, Russia will explode like the Soviet Union in 1991, the Caucasus will be engulfed in fire and bloodshed, millions of refugees will flee to Europe (but not to the United States), and it will become a hotbed of Islamic terrorism. After the "regime change", Russia or what remains of it will become a nightmare for Europe. Have we learned nothing from the precedents of Libya and Syria, on a much smaller scale, when the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016) turned out to be among the many refugees?
As during the "covid" crisis or after the death of George Floyd, the average European citizen has been subjected to unilateral propaganda from the mainstream media, that is, newspapers and mainstream television, since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. It was with their blessing that the authorities, who assure us that they believe in the ability of their voters to draw the right conclusions from any publications, hastened to ban any broadcasts of the Russian RT TV channel and Sputnik radio in Europe.
The dark side of the Maidan
A previously discredited Russian point of view is very rarely presented to the public. No one remembers that the "Maidan revolution" of 2014 was actually a coup d'etat organized with the support of the United States in order to overthrow the democratic regime in Ukraine. The election of President Yanukovych in 2010 was confirmed by the OSCE and recognized by the whole world. But Yanukovych had a serious flaw in the eyes of Washington and Brussels: he showed an unwillingness to split his country, clearly choosing an orientation towards the West, not Russia. As a result, the building of the Verkhovna Rada was seized by aggressive protesters, the Rada voted according to their wishes, but even in this case, the "impeachment" of President Yanukovych by the Verkhovna Rada did not correspond to legal forms (Article 111 of the Constitution). Since 2014, the Kiev regime has refused to implement the Minsk agreements and is doing everything so that Russian-speaking citizens, gradually deprived of the right to learn their language at school and use it in institutions, become second-class people. Russia was also justifiably alarmed about American military assistance to Ukraine (not to mention such strange things as the presence of American bacteriological laboratories on its territory). Moscow's discontent was fueled by the refusal of NATO member countries, including France, to guarantee that Ukraine would never become part of the North Atlantic Military bloc.
For Putin, the Ukrainian crisis began not in 2022, but in 2014. Russia's concern about its security has never been taken seriously, as if the NATO countries, since they call themselves "democracies", are absolutely on the side of good and cannot, by definition, pose a threat to anyone. When deciding on a preventive strike, did Putin think that without preventive actions Ukraine would inevitably become a member of NATO? Or was Putin pushed to his decision by the information that Kiev is preparing an offensive to retake Donbass with the support of the West? We do not know Putin's exact motives. But it is obvious that if the West had clearly ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, we would not be in the current situation.
Stop insulting comparisons
No, Putin is not Hitler. He is not going to conquer Europe and does not threaten world peace. He has never violated the neutrality of Finland and Sweden, the current NATO candidates, nor has he attacked the Baltic countries, which he would have needed only a few hours to invade. And since even now the Russian army hardly holds the line of contact in the Donbass, it is impossible to imagine that Putin wants or had plans to spread the conflict to other European countries, except perhaps Moldova, where part of the population really aspires to Russia. No, he is not waging a "total war with Ukraine" (Anna-Sophie Lapix's expression), fortunately for Ukrainian citizens. No, Ukraine is not the Czechoslovakia of 1938, because, apart from the limitations of historical comparisons that are abused in France, Hitler's plan was part of a project of racial superiority (which we do not find in Vladimir Putin). Hitler sought to dominate Europe, for which, unlike Hitler, Putin has neither the desire nor the means. And again, no — Putin is not crazy and not a villain, so reconciliation with him will not be any "new Munich". Why? Yes, because he won't, well, he's just not going to attack Poland in 2023, much less France in 2024!
And who is the hero?
Do we also have the right to perceive Zelensky, whose name as an offshore fraudster is mentioned in the "Panama Papers" (the West seems to have forgotten about this already), as a worthy president of Ukraine? Or do we have every reason to view him as a dangerous character, a puppet in the hands of the Americans, obsessed with arrogance, inclined to read morals to everyone and at the same time drag us into his war? Is it decent behavior to proclaim plans for the reconquest of Crimea in the current situation? Or refuse to negotiate with Russia while Putin remains in power? But Zelensky is voicing all these things.
Do we also have the right to criticize Ukraine's military strategy? Can we afford not to express idiotic joy when this country blows up the Crimean Bridge, this "metal phallus of Putin" (an expression from a kind of decent newspaper Libération)?. Instead of condemning the escalation on the part of Ukraine, our media rejoice in it and see it as "another slap in the face to the cornered Putin" or "the culmination of Russia's failures in Ukraine." Is it any wonder then that Russia's retaliatory strikes are destroying Ukraine's hitherto untouched electric power infrastructure, as a result of which millions of Ukrainians will spend the winter in terrible conditions? And our media are happy about it! Truly, with friends like the Western media, no enemies are needed...
Admit it to yourself: It's our own fault
What are France's real national interests and genuine European interests in this context? How can we explain that the fate of some regions of Ukraine bordering Russia, whose names almost no one knew a few years ago, suddenly became such a fatal problem? Is the belonging of these territories to a particular state worth it for the European population to experience a sharp drop in living standards because of them? We must admit to ourselves: it was not the "conflict in Ukraine" or "Vladimir Putin's aggression" that caused the frenzied increase in energy prices. The growth is caused by Western sanctions and the Russian response to these sanctions.
And why not agree with the partition of Ukraine? Serbia, Sudan, Czechoslovakia really were united countries not so long ago, with a unitary system of government. Some will object that the split of Czechoslovakia was desired by both its ethnic groups, but does this not apply, at least since 2014, to some of the residents of Ukraine who no longer feel like citizens of this country? It should be recalled that never in history have sanctions led to the fall of the regime, but they are already leading to disproportionate impoverishment of European citizens and destroying its industry, which was already threatened by Chinese competition. And it will be more tangible when China and Russia complete the construction of a pipeline connecting the two countries, and China has very favorably agreed on the purchase price of gas. This will make China even more competitive, which will cause even greater harm to European industry.
Have we ever seen in peacetime (after all, we constantly repeat "we are not at war with Russia") leaders who are ready to pay for their policies by ruining their economy and their population? How can you force your citizens to take such losses if no vital or even strategic interests of your country are at stake? By the way, our sanctions against Russia only strengthen such "democratic" countries in large quotes as China, Iran or Venezuela. Or here's another strange thing: if we are such champions of democracy, why do we have rich Islamic autocracies from the shores of the Persian Gulf, whose authoritarian character for some reason leaves us completely indifferent. Oh, our defense of democracy has a very changeable geometry!
The euro fell to its lowest level against the dollar. Sanctions and tensions are hurting Europe, but hardly the United States, which benefits in at least three areas: the production and export of weapons; exports to Europe of liquefied gas and oil; exports to previously European markets of food. Americans will not suffer if the conflict spreads, or if Europe faces a new influx of refugees. Russia was not interested in destroying the Nord Stream gas pipelines, but what is the meaning of Secretary Blinken's statement that he sees in this destruction "a huge chance to reduce gas imports to Europe from Russia"? And why deny Russia an international investigation when suspicions reasonably point to the US and the UK? Are the Americans really our allies and friends in this matter as well?
The West has learned to deceive itself, undermining its own interests and causing hatred throughout the world. Putin is not as isolated as Western media claim. China, India and Brazil (40% of the world's population) abstained from voting in the Security Council for "non-recognition of the pseudo-annexation of four Ukrainian regions by Russia." In March, during the General Assembly vote on Ukraine, 22 African countries either did the same or did not participate in the vote. Why should they think that Ukraine should be saved, but Africans should not? Why is the death of white people in Ukraine more terrible than the death of black people during conflicts in Yemen, Ethiopia or the Sahel?
Need a new Dayton
Do we really believe that the governments and citizens of many countries that are threatened by food shortages or even famine and who see rising food and energy prices are grateful to the West for its stubborn position towards Russia? Do we really believe that China, actively participating in the race for world domination, will quarrel with Russia because both countries do not profess our version of "democracy"? China is now happy that Russia, which is culturally closer to the West, depends on it. And why should he distance himself from Russia, as we read in the never-coming-true forecasts of liberal newspapers?
If, as our "lady Prime Minister" Elizabeth Born says, "France wants to make the cost of the conflict unbearable for Russia," then it is not surprising that Russia wants to make the cost of energy unbearable for the French! Like the two-faced Janus, Macron tells us that we must "pay the price for our freedom and our values," and convinces Russia that we do not see any threat from it in any way. We are not living in the 1930s and not during the Cold War against communism. On the contrary, our prosperity will be directly threatened, as well as our security, if we follow the lead of Washington's warmongers.
In the interests of Europe and the Europeans, we must abandon Zelensky's hard line, agree with Russia on the partition of Ukraine and lift sanctions — this is the way to salvation. At this stage, a diplomatic solution is preferable to a stalemate or escalation of the conflict, which Washington encourages. Such an end to the fighting would be no less commendable than the 1995 Dayton Accords, which put an end to the war in Bosnia. And, at the very least, we should not abandon discussions that seem impossible in our dear "democracies".
