Ukraine (bbabo.net), - Olaf Scholz is the most independent European politician. Albeit rarely, in a quiet voice, with a lecherous smile, he allows himself to object to the US Secretary of State, NATO Secretary General and even the press secretary of the Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs! Here, he announced the possibility of returning to a "peaceful order" in relations with Russia. Of course, the carrot is loaded with different "buts" and "ifs", but this opinion "runs counter to the position of Putin's most assertive opponents" (The Times).

The phrase of one of the heroes of the “Game of Thrones” is popular on the net, which leaves no stone unturned from the 3000-year-old art of diplomacy: “Everything that comes to the word“ but ”is bullshit.” But on December 1, at a round table of the Berlin Security Conference, Olaf Scholz delivered such a florid speech of sentences connected by conjunctions: “but”, “however”, “a” and “if” (the same as: “but only if”, us you can’t fool it!), which became completely incomprehensible where the chancellor was talking bullshit, and where he was talking about the secret. Scoundrel. Probably watched Game of Thrones too.

It remains to analyze what, in fact, he said. First, a couple of anecdotes.

“Russia has ruined the peace order that we have been working towards for decades, and we agree that there should never again be attempts to change borders by force. And what is Russia doing today? It returns to the imperialist methods of the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries, when powerful countries thought that they could simply take territory from a neighbor, considering the neighboring country to be their deep rear and a place where they could establish their own rules, demanding their implementation. This is completely unacceptable."

Ay! Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

But the fact that Scholz omitted the imperialist methods of the 20th century is understandable: if he had dared to draw an analogy between Russia's actions against the neo-Nazi Kyiv regime with the actions of Nazi Germany, there would be nothing to talk about with him. Hence the conclusion: the addressee of the Chancellor's message is Vladimir Putin.

The following anecdote, with all the desire, is difficult to attribute to the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This topic seems to be taken out of the brackets and it is only about Russia-NATO relations:

“We must return to the agreements that have been in force in recent decades and which have served as the basis for peace and security in Europe. And for Russia, this means that it must recognize the existence of open, open-minded societies, democracies that have a completely different system of government and that attract people in a different way. As a result, aggression does not come from the member countries of the European Union and from NATO, and all issues of common security can be discussed and resolved. There is a readiness for this.”

Is this Ukrainian society “open, broad-minded”? Is it Ukraine - "democracy and a completely different (God, is it really European?!) system of government"? Then why is it still not in the European Union? And if this passage is not about Ukraine, then the question is: in which particular country should Russia “must recognize” the existence of all these benefits? Why "should" at all? But what about freedom of thought? Actions matter! In what way should this recognition be expressed? Should we not interfere in the referendums in Catalonia and Scotland? It seems that the mayor of some Fard-on-the-Seine complained that he was voted out because of the intrigues of the Russians. Should they catch and hand over the Skripal cat? Should we forget the alpha and omega of the doctrine: “military planning is based not on the statements of a potential adversary, but on its capabilities”? Must believe that Poland or Estonia were admitted to NATO to protect against Iran and North Korea?

And why don't you believe when we say that we are not going to attack Poland with Estonia? BUT! We must believe you, but you do not believe us, because we are a priori bad, and you are a priori good? Stop! Some kind of nonsense turns out: we are bad and therefore we must believe the good?! It happens? Did the Chancellor really utter this whole stupid passage with his mouth only in order to squeak at the end: “All issues of general security can be discussed and resolved. Is there a readiness for this? The inconceivable courage of the leader of the largest democratic state in Europe!

The hardest question: do any negotiations with such a successor to Otto von Bismarck make sense at all? Perhaps a little easier is the question of what kind of agreements the chancellor had in mind when he said:

"We must return to the agreements that have been in place in recent decades and that have served as the basis for peace and security in Europe."

The agreements are clearly not economic, which the West itself destroyed in a figurative and literal sense: by acts of economic aggression (“sanctions”) and sabotage (“Nord Stream”). Although economic ties are the most reliable foundation for peace and security: after they break, the rest break like threads, sometimes in one day.By and large, political agreements are concluded in order to ensure and secure economic ones. Just imagine that all (!) trade, cultural, scientific ties, transport, any communications are broken between the EU and Russia. What political agreements will we need? Maybe something about the return of fishermen carried away on an ice floe, etc. Otherwise ... they can paint Russia in the form of a white ice cap, we can drown them in the Atlantic Ocean. Denoting only the contours in the form of reefs and swamps, expelling poisonous gases. Because of what you have to fly around and bypass this dead sea.

So what agreements does Scholz propose to revive? Agreements "which have been in force in recent decades and which have served as the basis for peace and security in Europe." If we take those in which the United States did not de jure participate and which are directly related to the current armed conflict, then the Minsk ones come to mind first of all. In which the parties to the conflict were named in black and white. Political: "government of Ukraine" and "separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine". And the military: "Ukrainian troops" and "armed formations of certain regions of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine." On both sides - Ukraine. War is civil.

The order of execution of Minsk-2 was spelled out to the smallest detail. And immediately after it was signed in February 2015, the "partners" began to emasculate it. Already in October 2015, the then head of the German Foreign Ministry, and now its president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, proposed a formula that changes the procedure for the entry into force of the law on the special status of Donbass (by agreement: first the law, then the elections; according to the formula, first the law, but " temporarily”, and if the elections are recognized by the OSCE as valid, the law will enter into force permanently). The Kremlin was either confident in the choice of the people of Donbass, or saw no reason to interfere with them, no matter what they turned out to be, but they easily agreed with the “Steinmeier formula”.

And then a "circus with horses" began in Kyiv - protests of "activists" on Bankovaya and near the Verkhovna Rada with guns and grenades. Indeed: the Muscovites lost once, and the second will give way. And Petro Poroshenko shrugged his shoulders: “The people…” and demanded “compromises”: the Donbass should be represented at the talks by the “refugees” from Donbass living in Kyiv, the candidates of all-Ukrainian parties should move freely and speak in the Donbass, which means they should have protection, and the people's militia must be disarmed, all former residents of Donbass, now living from Kharkov to Lvov, must participate in the elections. The remarks of the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk that in this case their campaigning should also extend to the whole of Ukraine, and the Kyiv security forces were disarmed, were met with laughter or insults, depending on the tide of mood of the vice-speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and a member of the negotiating group, Irina Gerashchenko.

Vladimir Zelensky, upon taking office, also made his eyebrows look like a “house”:

“And what will happen if the border is first transferred under the control of Ukraine, and then elections are held?”

But… in December 2019, in the midst of the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump (precisely in connection with the “Ukrainian case” — an attempt by the Republicans to obtain dirt on Hunter Biden, the son of the current US president, from Kyiv), Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron managed to snatch the initiative from Washington and to persuade Zelensky to sign at the Quartet summit in Paris an obligation to implement the Steinmeier formula. This was the last success of Berlin and Paris. Zelensky refused to implement the formula, and 2021 became the year of absolute US dictatorship in the Ukrainian issue. In order to somehow remind themselves, Macron, Merkel and Scholz, who replaced her, had to demand as loudly as possible from Russia "implementation of the Minsk agreements"!

In December 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry published draft agreements between Russia, the United States and NATO on mutual security guarantees. Moscow suggested that the partners finally recognize the principles of indivisible and equal security proclaimed by the CSCE Helsinki Act. Do not build your security at the expense of harming the security of others, refrain from expanding NATO, and in those states that were admitted to the bloc after 1997, stop building up its infrastructure. These Russian proposals were categorically rejected. At the same time, Moscow invited Berlin and Paris to decide on the Minsk agreements: to clearly state whether they agree with how the parties to the conflict are defined in the text and what they consider the status of Russia to be. There was no response at all here.

And on December 1, at the round table of the Berlin Security Conference, this same Scholz makes the only meaningful proposal on security - about Berlin's readiness for a dialogue with Moscow on the topic of arms control and the deployment of missiles in Europe. To which Macron immediately joins, adding a couple of beautiful phrases “about a new security architecture and guarantees for Russia” and making a direct (!) Reference to Russia’s proposals from December last year:“We are talking, in particular, about the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is approaching the borders of Russia, deploying weapons that can threaten it. We need to think about how we can protect our allies and at the same time give Russia guarantees for its own security at the moment when it returns to the negotiating table.

Listen, these two just admitted so easily and calmly that a year ago NATO committed a crime by refusing a Russian proposal on this very topic - arms control and missile deployment in Europe! They also admitted their “personal meanness” when they refused to admit that it was Kyiv that broke the Minsk agreements. Have you wiped the dew from your eyes (and the blood from your hands) and offer a “dialogue”? And ... will we discuss American missiles in Poland with Scholz and Macron?

Scholz and Macron are not idiots. They are rascals. Which do not decide anything, and for whom such a situation, given their formal status, of course, weighs. And we willingly support this informational noise and garbage. I repeat, there, to the west of the Russian lands where the civil war is going on, there are only reefs and swamps: the whistles and hoots of their inhabitants are of no use. For almost a year of conflict in Europe and the United States, nothing was said acceptable for its resolution. Once again: nothing.

I had to write about all these gestures of Scholz and Macron in order to once again try to draw attention to the obvious. The politics of our media is secondary. It is still set by the trends of Eurocentrism, as it was 20-30 years ago: he said, this one showed. We are manipulated and led. We do not know how to impose our themes on them.

Two examples. The vile execution of prisoners of war by the Nazis of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, a video about which appeared on November 12. Yes, it should have been talked about and talked about. But the result was something that the Kyiv regime is applauding with a standing ovation: millions of Russian citizens, not too deeply immersed in events, thought: “They are all Bandera there.” What will be the next thought? One that the Kyiv regime will continue to impose on us: “build a fence”, “this is not our war”, etc.?

Hush up? Not! But to multiply the flow of information, indicating that not "all" and not even the majority. On November 17, there was news that the leading Russian news agencies simply did not notice! Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Anna Malyar:

“Millions of Ukrainians today are subscribed to Telegram channels, which are filled and maintained by the Russian Federation and its representatives. We have repeatedly published this list, but, unfortunately, their Ukrainian audience continues to grow for some reason.”

Part of the media fished out this news from the same Telegram, unsubscribed and forgot. And it was supposed to become the main one for weeks, get developed, set a theme. For their media to refute it, twist it, ridicule it - it doesn’t matter. The important thing is that millions more Ukrainians, and not only them, will subscribe to Russian channels.

And returning to the topic. Do you want to talk? Why not talk, since you yourself have sincerely acknowledged your responsibility for the bloodshed. You "don't see Russia's interest"? We do not see your interest. Demonstrate it. It's simple:

1. Termination of arms supplies to Kyiv, removal of other obstacles to Russia's actions to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine;

2. Apologies to the peoples of Ukraine and Russia for your actions since the end of 2013;

3. Cancellation of all sanctions against Russia, compensation for damages and lost profits;

4. Compensation from the US and the EU for the human and material losses of Ukraine and Russia;

6. Bringing NATO infrastructure to the line in 1997;

7. Withdrawal of US troops from Europe;

8. Bringing neo-Nazi criminals and their patrons to justice everywhere and without a statute of limitations.

This is the beginning of negotiations on the restoration of relations, and then we'll see. Funny? How is December 2021? Well, laugh for another year.

bbabo.Net