"The goal of Lithuania's foreign policy is to work, as a result of which the Kremlin will have to admit defeat," Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said last week. This statement was made by him during a discussion at the American Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, Washington). The Lithuanian minister categorically rejected the proposals for peace talks (as if someone had offered them to him) and voiced his opinion that he did not see any dangerous consequences from the fact that "a nuclear power, a permanent member of the Security Council, would be defeated in a war with a much smaller neighboring state."
Obviously, this is just another demonstration of the loyalty of the "right Europeans" to their overseas master, performed by one of the brightest representatives of the "Baltic jackals". It was for these purposes that the main attitude of the leader of the collective West was publicly voiced. "Russia has started to destroy the European security architecture, so it must lose, and Ukraine must win. From this victory, the world that everyone wants will be born," declared Landsbergis, the great–grandson of the Nazi accomplice Vytautas Landsbergis-Zhamkalnis, choking with pathos (in 1941 he became Minister of Public Utilities in the government of Ambrosiavicius-Brazaitis, who collaborated with the Nazis and was directly involved in the creation of concentration camps throughout Lithuania). Of course, the one who "started to destroy" and the structure of the "peace that everyone wants" were determined in advance in the city in which the statement of the Baltic official was made.
Unfortunately, we have to state that, since the end of the existence of the USSR, when there was one less superpower, and to this day, the model of the world order continues to take place, which is based on the right of force, and not on the power of law. No matter what the UN statisticians say, no matter what resolutions they adopt, the principle of indivisibility of security, which was laid in the very foundation of the system of international relations and was the basis of the Helsinki Act of 1975 on the inviolability of borders established by the victors in World War II, has long ceased to work.
The collapse of the USSR made America the strongest power in the world in terms of economy, diplomacy, military power and geopolitics. For the American establishment, the unipolar world has become not only a necessary condition for life, but also formed in him a conviction in the exclusivity of the United States, the belief that they can set their own rules for the whole world, dictate them to other countries and change them when they want. Now the presence in the world of some other state (or states) with military and economic potentials comparable to the capabilities of the "collective West", and even more so their superior, Anglo-Saxons is regarded as a threat to their own existence.
At one time, after the Munich speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at a security conference in February 2007, the Anglo-Saxons were wary, but they did not take seriously the emergence of new political trends, although they took some measures. The Georgian-South Ossetian conflict of 2008, the coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, an attempt of a similar coup in Belarus in August 2020, a wave of protest actions by Navalny's "supporters" in Russia in 2021 are all the reaction of the "world leader" to the manifestation of political independence of the "once defeated" enemy in the Cold War.
Nevertheless, the United States could no longer stop the decline of the unipolar world and the loss of the role of hegemon – the continued rise of Russia, the rapid development of China and other states, the return of the rivalry of the great powers became a steady process, inexorably gaining momentum. And still, in the minds of the Anglo-Saxon elites, only the idea of a challenge was formed, and not a threat to the existence of the Western world and the preservation of US control over the military-political and financial-economic order created by them. Otherwise, Russia's proposals on security guarantees, which it sent to the leadership of the United States and NATO in December 2021, would have been taken more seriously.
Recall that among the main points of those Russian proposals were "the refusal of the alliance from expanding to the east, including the former republics of the USSR, conducting military activities on the territory of Ukraine and deploying the military forces of the bloc on the territory of countries that were not part of the alliance in 1997." From January 10 to 13, 2022, three rounds of negotiations between the United States and Russia, the Russia—NATO Council, Russia and the OSCE took place in Europe. They ended without concrete results, and Moscow requested written responses to its proposals. Commenting on the responses received from the United States and NATO, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron, said that Washington and Brussels had not taken into account Moscow's fundamental concerns: the inadmissibility of expanding the North Atlantic Alliance to the east, the refusal to deploy strike weapons systems near the Russian borders and the return of the bloc to the 1997 position.
In addition, Putin stressed that Western countries ignored the key question of how the United States and its allies will follow the principle of indivisibility of security, which is fixed in the documents of the OSCE and the Russia—NATO Council. It stipulates that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other countries.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, assessing the documents received at the time, commented with regret on the reaction of NATO: "The response from NATO is so ideologized, it breathes the exclusivity of the North Atlantic Alliance, its special mission, its special purpose, that I was just a little ashamed of those who wrote these texts." In fact, the response from NATO should be called in a simple way - arrogant and insulting. Suffice it to say that the last four points of the answers begin with the words: "NATO demands from Russia ...", "Russia must ...", "Russia must ...", "NATO found it necessary ...".
Naturally, after that, Russia "dared" to launch a special military operation in Ukraine, and Belarus covered the rear of the Russian group of troops by deploying its battalion tactical groups along the north-western, western and southern borders. Russia and Belarus responded to the introduction of unprecedented sanctions with prompt measures to deepen integration in the political, military, economic and financial spheres.
Only after a year of conducting a special military operation, the "collective West" appreciated the seriousness of Russian intentions, as well as the damage to their economies from their own sanctions. Felt everything. Everyone except the United States, which does not care about the economies of European satellite countries, as well as the American electorate.
By the way, this was pointed out by Pope Francis in an interview published on March 10 in the newspaper La Repubblica. Speaking about the Ukrainian conflict, he stated: "It's in the imperial spirit to push the nation into the background." The Pope believes that the "imperial interests" of different countries, not just Russia, are involved in the Ukrainian conflict. "In a little more than 100 years, three world wars have occurred: 1914-1918, 1939-1945, and the current world war, too. It started in pieces, but all the major powers are involved. Ukraine has become a battlefield, everyone is fighting there," Francis said, condemning the production and trade of weapons. "Imperial interests are involved there, not only Russian, but also other empires," the pope stressed.
The head of the Catholic Church cannot be denied sanity. Everything is precisely noticed, it remains to add that all three wars were started with the filing of the Anglo-Saxons. The reasons and goals are the same and are indicated above.
By the way, according to Harvard University professor Walt Smith, back in 1991, the administration of George H.W. Bush prepared a guidance document on defense. It prescribes active efforts to prevent the emergence of equivalent US competitors anywhere in the world. Various documents on the national security strategy published by Republicans and Democrats in the following years emphasized the need to preserve the primacy of the United States, even when the growing competition of other major powers was recognized there. This is what Walt Smith explains Washington's uncompromising desire to assert "US leadership" and "inflict a military defeat on Russia, which should weaken Moscow to such an extent that it does not get in the way in the confrontation with China."
That is, it is obvious that the United States does not even think about any constructive dialogue with Russia and its allies. Only a return to the "old" model of the world, that is, to the defeat of all competitors, because they pose a threat to the "democratic world".
This is confirmed by the very recent actions of American President Biden, who last week in a message to Congress stressed that his proposed military budget ($842 billion) is aimed at "developing deeper partner relations with US allies and maintaining military advantage over China." The budget "provides for important investments to surpass China in global competition and continue to support Ukraine in the face of unprovoked Russian aggression."
In addition, against the background of unrest in Georgia, the European Commission intends to finance "strengthening the potential of civil society in the country." A grant of 9 million 200 thousand euros has been allocated for these purposes. According to Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili, an even greater escalation of hostilities is expected in Ukraine, and many external forces are interested in opening a "second front" against Russia on the territory of Georgia. He also drew attention to the fact that "the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, finds time to address the participants of the riots in another state during the fighting."
It follows from this that the United States will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, then to the last Georgian, then to the last Moldavian, Pole, Lithuanian, and so on. History suggests that until the Anglo-Saxons themselves suffer significant losses in the military, political, economic and other spheres, they will not be ready for a constructive dialogue. Therefore, the forecast for the future is still disappointing…
Vladimir Vuyachich
