"We have made a number of mistakes and lost the opportunity to bring Russia closer to the West... Like, for example, the promise that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. This truly sensational confession was made not by anyone, but by the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell. In fact, Europe has publicly admitted to a grandiose lie to both Kiev and Moscow. Who will bear responsibility for this and what consequences will it all have?
"Europe's chance for renewal." That is how Foreign Policy called the Russian special operation in Ukraine. German publications write in approximately the same tone. According to the journalists, the events in Ukraine will unite and inspire the European Union and give courage to its leaders. And as a result of this crisis, Europe will emerge strong, united and subjective.
In fact, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to a kind of renewal of Europe. Except that we are not so much talking about regaining its subjectivity, as about a woken up foreign policy honesty. First of all, in relation to the Eastern European neighbors of the European Union and the prospects for their Euro-Atlantic integration - that is, accession to the EU and NATO.
Lies and temptation
The problem is not that Ukraine was not even granted candidate status at the French summit. Even Ukrainians admitted that the country is not economically ready to join the EU, while Europe promised at the summit to someday include Ukraine and called it part of the European family. The fact is that the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrel personally stated that the West has been deceiving Ukraine all these years. At least on the issue of the country's membership in NATO.
"I am ready to admit that we have made a number of mistakes and that we have lost the opportunity to bring Russia closer to the West... There are moments that we could have done better, there are things that we proposed and then could not implement, such as the promise that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO... I think it's a mistake to make promises that you can't implement," he explained.
This statement raises many questions that European and with them American leaders have to answer. If not to Russia and Ukraine, then at least to their own voters.
No Collaboration, but Lies
What mistakes did Borrell speak of? Maybe the constant refusal of the EU and the U.S. to cooperate with Russia in a constructive manner? The refusal to take Russia's interests into account (for example, in the process of integrating post-Soviet countries with the EU and drawing them into NATO) or the unwillingness to negotiate with Moscow to create a system of collective security? From the projects of common security space "from Vancouver to Vladivostok" or at least "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" proposed by President Dmitry Medvedev?
Or about more recent mistakes - the refusal of Brussels and Washington to discuss the rules of the game with Russia in the post-Soviet space, including the non-expansion of NATO to the east? The refusal, which was one of the reasons that forced Russia to take extreme measures to ensure its national security and launch a special military operation in Ukraine.
Are Borrell and other European leaders willing to take responsibility for this?
Or is it perhaps an attempt to build their policies in the former Soviet Union on lies and temptation? For years, Brussels has been seducing Eastern European countries with the prospect of Euro-Atlantic integration (i.e., accession to the EU and NATO). Joining, which would not only solve the lion's share of social and economic problems of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and other splinters of the Soviet Union, but also make them part of the large European family of nations. It would create a sense of belonging to the "civilized world," which would warm, feed, and protect them.
And it was a categorical and unambiguous choice that was being staked on. Europe did not acknowledge "multi-vectorism", the desire to benefit from integration with Russia and cooperation with the European Union. According to the EU and NATO, Euro-Atlantic integration was supposed to lead to a reorientation of the country, turning it into an anti-Russian bridgehead.
As a result, the West has made Euro-Atlantic integration an end in itself for a large part of Ukrainian civil society. It is the real panacea, the only salvation for Ukraine. Seduced by this hope, Ukrainians went to the Maidan, dismantled their state, got involved in a civil country and a conflict with Russia - and are now suffering from their delusion.
Are Borrell and other European leaders willing to take responsibility for this?
No rules and no responsibility.
Or was it a mistake, in his view, that Europe abandoned the gentlemen's rules of the game with Russia in 2013-2014?
This game involved competition between European and Eurasian integration projects with the right of a third country to decide which one to join. When Ukrainian industrialists, having read the association agreement proposed by the European Union (which assumed the opening of the Ukrainian market for duty-free supplies from Europe in exchange for minuscule quotas on the sale of goods to the EU, as well as a number of other unpleasant moments for Ukrainian businessmen), came to President Viktor Yanukovich, they convinced him not to sign this document and thereby actually postpone entry into the European project.
In response, a part of the population, disappointed in their Euro-Atlantic dreams, revolted on the Maidan. The EU and the U.S. supported the rebellion, fomented it, and staged a coup d'état in Ukraine. After which the new Ukrainian government signed everything they were offered.
Are Borrell and other European leaders willing to take responsibility for this?
Borrell announced that the limit of financial sanctions against Russia has been reached
No, they will not be held responsible. In the best case scenario, following Borrell, the European elite will admit that they were wrong; most likely, they will just retrain their steps and attribute it to "changed circumstances. That is, the successful Russian policy of solving its problems by its own forces, which has put Europe before the need to change course in the Russian direction.
In fact, it is this change of course that Moscow (which does not refuse to dialogue with the West) and the inhabitants of post-Soviet countries (who have begun to realize all the harm that belief in Western lies has brought them) are now waiting for. And finally, the inhabitants of the European Union itself, who do not want to live in conditions of sharply rising prices.
Will there be a change of course? If Borrell's outspoken statements are not refuted or blurred by the European bureaucracy in the near future, it will mean that his point of view is shared by the European elite. They have realized the limits of their own capabilities, the priority of national interests and the pointlessness of using the post-Soviet space for a Russian-European confrontation. Neither Europe, nor Russia needs it. This is why some experts already call Borrell's statements (on sanctions and on NATO) the beginning of the pushing back of EU-Russia relations from the bottom where European lies have plunged them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.