Today: March 23 2019
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
Emergency "statement of four" brings conflict with the West to a new level

Emergency "statement of four" brings conflict with the West to a new level

Tags: West, Russia, UK, Germany, France, USA, Analytics, Politics

Leaders of the four leading countries of the West issued a statement that was extremely sharp in its intonation. They accused Russia of "the first chemical attack since the Second World War" in Europe. This brings confrontation between Russia and the West to a new, much more serious level. What is the motive of Western leaders - and what should Russia answer them?

The campaign against Russia, launched after provocation with an attempt to poison former Colonel GRU Skripal in London, reached its apogee. There was a joint statement by Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and Theresa May, sustained in a uniquely tough style:

"We, the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and Britain, are outraged by the attack on Sergei and Julia Skripal in Salisbury 4 March 2018. The British police officer, who also became a victim of the attack, remains in serious condition. The lives of many innocent Britons were in danger ...

This use of a nerve agent in a military model created in Russia was the first chemical attack in Europe after the Second World War ...

This is an attack on British sovereignty, and any use of such substance by the state is a clear violation of the Convention on Chemical Weapons and International Law. This is a threat to our common security.

The United Kingdom detailed its allies' affairs and told them that it is probably Russia that is behind the attack. We share the position of Great Britain that there is no alternative plausible explanation of what happened ...

Russia's refusal to respond to the legitimate demand of the British government underlines the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the attack. We call on Russia to answer all questions in connection with the attack in Salisbury. Russia must provide a full dossier on the program "Rookie" to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ...

Our concern also intensifies against the backdrop of Russia's earlier irresponsible behavior. We call on Russia to fulfill its duties as a member of the UN Security Council to maintain international peace and security. "

Such a statement is of an emergency nature. And such collective demarches with accusations against our country were not in four years, since the Crimea returned.

The tone and content of the statement leave no doubt that the West has appointed Russia guilty of an attempt on the Skripal and does not intend to take into account any objections and refutations. The call to Moscow to answer all questions on the program "Beginner" is formal. Against Russia, various measures have already been taken - from the expulsion of our diplomats from Britain and to the announcement of new sanctions by France.

There is a reasonable question: why should the West now exacerbate and so tense relations with our country?

What happened? Do the four leaders really believe that Vladimir Putin gave the order to kill Skripal? That is, they believe that our president, recognized by them as the strongest and most experienced geopolitical player, has turned into a caricature villain from Bond films? With all the contempt for their level of intelligence, it is impossible to believe in it.

Hence, they themselves do not believe in what they blame Russia for - and they do it for purely political purposes. Which ones?

The goal is to banally exert pressure on our country, in demonstrating to it the solid, rigid position of the West. To knock out if not concessions, then progress on a number of conflict and controversial issues.

About what the West does not like in Russia's policy, the editorial article "The Washington Post" gives a good idea. According to her publications, as in some articles in the Financial Times, it is possible, as in the Soviet times in the editorials of Pravda, to get an idea of ​​the position of the ruling party (in our case, the Atlantic elite). An article called "Great Britain punishes Putin. America must join it "was published before the" declaration of four "appeared on Wednesday. But all of its settings are very specific:

"Western governments are not able to keep the regime of Vladimir Putin from ever more daring acts of aggression. The British government's conclusion that "it is highly probable" that Russia is behind the attempted murder of the former Russian spy and his daughter sounded a week after the military offensive of Russian irregular troops - with the support of artillery and tanks - on the position of the Americans in Syria. In addition, Moscow has made numerous attempts to intervene in the Western elections, and its military aircraft have more than once violated the airspace of Western states.

Mr. Putin continues to increase the intensity of his provocations - some of them are unprecedented even by the standards of the Cold War - because he saw that he would not have to pay any significant price for them.

However, to stop Mr. Putin, London's actions will not be enough. This requires a coordinated response from the entire Western alliance.

An adequate international reaction to Mr. Putin's actions will deter Russia from further adventures on all fronts: in Syria, where, as the United Nations found out, Russia was implicated in committing war crimes; in Ukraine, where Russian-backed forces continue to seek military advantage; In cyberspace, which infested Russian hackers and bots. In the absence of such actions, Mr. Putin's ambitions and his impudence will only grow. "

Everything is extremely simple: Syria, Ukraine, the internal affairs of the West. In other words, roughly speaking, Moscow should not only cease to conduct an offensive geopolitical game, but also become more accommodating on the Ukrainian, Syrian and European fronts. But all these dreams of the West are impracticable - so what's the point of pressure on Moscow?

It is clear that Trump, Macron and Merkel are guided by different motives when signing the current statement. Trump needs to protect himself as much as possible from accusations of indulging Russians. Macron should show his solidarity with the common line (which will not prevent him in two months to come to Russia to the St. Petersburg Economic Forum). Merkel, who only yesterday completed the epic on the formation of a new coalition, is also not going to begin its fourth term with a "softness toward Putin" (which is exactly how the Atlantists would regard the refusal to sign a joint statement).

As a result, we are dealing with the solidarity of the four leading Western countries, to which Russia should be responded. How exactly? Tough and cold-blooded. Russia categorically rejects groundless accusations and names the true reasons for their appearance. We call things by their proper names: provocateurs are provocateurs, and followers are led.

We do not break off relations, do not be surprised, do not be rude in response. We have all seen this in our relations with the West more than once and not twice - hundreds of cases of collective pressure and pressure on our country since we entered the number of great powers that decide the destinies of the world three centuries ago. We are not accustomed to external pressure. We will continue to continue our course, to achieve our goals, to build the configuration of the world forces that we need.

The four great powers, three of which are members of the UN Security Council, are, of course, a great force. Only they are managed, as their reaction to the "Skripal case" showed, from one center. The sovereignty of these states is limited, and this is their main difference from Russia. Which, like China or India, is in fact really an independent great power.

Peter Akopov
G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!