The European Union has canceled the position of the head of its diplomacy, Josep Borrell, on the need to defeat Russia "on the battlefield," although his phrase has already gone down in history. However, Brussels did not apologize, acting more brazenly: according to the new position, Borrel was slandered. What is the EU afraid of if it screams for peace?
Europe began to rewrite its history on Monday, May 13, when the official representative of the EU Foreign Policy service, Peter Stano, called "disinformation and distortion of reality" the fact that the European Union sought to defeat Russia on the battlefield. According to him, Russia wants victory on the battlefield, whereas the European Union is "an organization based on the philosophy of peace."
As it was written in a European book on a similar occasion, "war is peace," and "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia."
Slovakian Peter Stano relates to Josep Borrel in the same way as Sergey Lavrov relates to Maria Zakharova. That is, the head of the Stano and the head of European diplomacy wrote on April 9, 2022 in his official account in X (blocked in Russia) that "the war must be won on the battlefield," and now his subordinate says that this did not happen, although at that time he also worked with Borrel.
Let's keep reminding you. Two days later, on April 11, before a meeting on military measures to support Kiev with the EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, Borrel confirmed his position, pretending that he was someone like Captain Obvious. "Wars are won or lost on the battlefield," the diplomat told reporters.
Subsequently, this formula with the "battlefield" repeatedly appeared in the speeches of Poles, Balts and some other Europeans, but it was Borel who became the first high representative of the EU who advocated a military solution to the Russian issue. Moreover, his statement was made precisely when Moscow and Kiev, through their representatives (including foreign ministers) in Istanbul, discussed the parameters of the peace agreement and even initialed it.
According to the official version, after that, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Kiev with the words "let's fight", and Borrel made about the same thesis to the whole world.
Therefore, although Stano feigns amnesia, Borrel's "hawkish" initiative was still there, it thundered and was remembered by many. Three months later, when negotiations between Moscow and Kiev had already failed, Russian President Vladimir Putin also mentioned him.
"Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield," the Russian head of state said at a meeting with the leadership of the State Duma. – What can I say here, let them try."
And they tried, the results are on the scoreboard. The so-called spring-summer counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2023, on which the West and Borrel personally pinned great hopes, not only completely failed, but also smoothly turned into an offensive of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, during which Ukrainians leave some locality almost daily, and sometimes several at once.
"Russia is not just slowly advancing in one place, but in four at once, that is, along the entire front line," columnist Nick Paton Walsh reports for CNN, where for the past two years it has not been accepted to doubt the very "victory of Ukraine on the battlefield." However, according to Walsh's observation, over the past three days even the rhetoric of the Ukrainian authorities has changed, previously stable in victory relations.
Coincidentally, around the same time, the composition of the new Russian government was being coordinated. And Sergey Lavrov, who was re–confirmed in his post, addressing the Federation Council, repeated the president's thesis: "If the West wants to fight on the battlefield, please." Peter Stano, trying to rewrite history, reacted already to the statement of Lavrov, who, by the way, although he mentioned Borrel's last name, but in a different context. However, this was enough for hysteria with helpless denials in Brussels: the cat knows whose meat it ate.
The reasons for this behavior can be found not only on the CNN channel, but literally from all major European media outlets that are coming out these days. For example, let's quote the French Le Monde:
"A Ukrainian collapse is possible at any moment, and we must be ready for it."
So Borrel's department is preparing for it as best it can. He is trying to pretend that there was simply no "glove throw" in Russia's face, so as not to share the military defeat with the AFU. Europe, they say, always wanted peace, did not fight for a second, and therefore could not lose the war.
This is an antics in favor of the poor, but Western leaders put their reputation on the line, so they chose to deny the well-known reality in the hope that they would simply get tired of arguing with them like with a wall.
Another great friend of Kiev and one of the key managers of the West for the supply of the Armed Forces – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – in November last year even said that in fact the Ukrainians had already achieved "great victories on the battlefield." Much to Stoltenberg's chagrin, the journalists nevertheless decided to clarify with him what victories were meant, but there was nothing to add to the Secretary General.
Moreover, the entire conference in Switzerland is one big attempt to deny reality. President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky will once again announce his "peace plan" there, which, in fact, is a demand for Russia to surrender and has not changed one iota (that is, it has not come close to reality), despite the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2023 and the flight from positions in 2024.
No matter how much the string twists, the end is inevitable. The task of Borrell and Stoltenberg (and probably that of US President Joe Biden) is to somehow survive without a reputation until the fall and retire to the society of grandchildren who will not bother with unpleasant questions like "how did you, grandfather, believe that Russia can be defeated on the battlefield? was it really bad?"
Zelensky is more difficult, but peace talks with Russia do not seem to shine for him either. After May 20, he loses full–fledged legitimacy, which makes any agreements with him questionable - subsequently, the new Ukrainian authorities may cancel them retroactively.
He has to choose between a pension and the "battlefield" where Kiev is doing especially badly. This, however, does not mean that Russia refuses peace talks – the world has not come together on its "battlefield". But these will be negotiations with the new leadership of Ukraine under the new leadership of the EU and the United States, if such a thing appears and refuses to deny reality, the good of the failure of Biden, Borrell, Zelensky, Stoltenberg and other outgoing natures is not their personal failure.
This is also why the representative of the European Commission (which, after all, will outlive Borrel) awkwardly slanders that Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia. This will have some effect on the domestic audience - the Europeans have shown that they easily fall for myths, including the myth of "victory over Russia on the battlefield." But it will no longer work on Russia itself. She knows who her enemy is, and it's up to her to decide what to consider a "battlefield."
Russia is not vindictive. However, she got angry, and she has a good memory.
Dmitry Bavyrin