Today: 21 September 2018
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website Cyplive.com
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
The Crown of the West was too great for Angela Merkel

The Crown of the West was too great for Angela Merkel

28.11.2017
Tags: Merkel, Germany, Politics, Analytics, Europe, West, EU

The problem with the formation of a new government in Germany leads not only to the political crisis in this country. Sunset career Angela Merkel reveals a crisis of leadership in the West as a whole. Moreover, both in individual countries, and in the West-wide scale - the place of the leader of the "free world" has been almost free for almost a year now. How long?

Angela Merkel won the election, but lost negotiations on the formation of a new coalition. Even if it still succeeds in forming its fourth government, it will not last long - and for a new election its party will already go with another leader. But if it is difficult to find a substitute for Merkel in the domestic German life, but perhaps, then it's all very bad in the selection of candidates for another role, to which she tried on.

The West always had leaders. Even when the era of kings and emperors passed, even when the generals and Fuhrer left, even when the strong-willed Churchilli and the Nixons ended. Of course, as globalization drained authority from national states, their leaders were tiny. It started back in the 80, and in 90, with the acceleration of globalization, the formation of the European Union and the change of generations, it became clear to everyone. But even then there were at least nominal figures playing the role of leader.

By default, they were US presidents. Clinton or Bush Jr. in any case were not just the presidents of the world's strongest state building its world order, but also leaders of the entire Western world. Not even simply the West (designed in the form of NATO and the "Big Seven"), but the whole "progressive world," the whole "free humanity."

After all, if there is a single humanity that is happily moving along the path of globalization under the leadership of the advanced ideas of liberal democracy and multiculturalism, then should someone step first and feed the people? Barack Obama also willingly played this role. Not to mention that he himself was the most cosmopolitan president in US history, the countries whose presidents, as a rule, at the time of their election, were new to the outside world.

But a year ago everything broke - instead of a new hereditary queen Hillary, the impostor Donald became the US president.

His anti-globalization, neo-isolationist views in the eyes of the global elite deprived him not only of the right to be president of the United States, but also the ability to lead the united West.

Another thing is that Trump himself did not want to be the leader of the West, considered his existence harmful to America and was going to revive the self-reliant United States - so that the wishes of the parties coincided. Trump will not be the leader of the free world. But until it is overthrown, who will be the acting "leader of the West"? Who will play this role, while the global elite understands the billionaire who seized the "hail on the hill"?

It immediately became clear that it was impossible to take on an American role. First, it should be the acting head of state or government. Secondly, even if we consider someone from the former, it must be someone with an impeccable reputation and weight throughout the Western world. Not exactly defeated Clinton. But who? None of the four American presidents accept this role, although Barack Obama tried to mold a "king in exile" - he traveled to Europe, congratulated the winners of the elections there, met with the heads of European states and governments. But it was clear that this is not all that, to become a symbol without real, visible institutions of power is impossible. It was necessary to search in Europe.

There was a time when the Atlantic world was led - not in reality, but as a media image - a "great couple", two leaders. Almost all 80-e were under the leadership of Reagan and Thatcher - two great conservatives, two great fighters for freedom, two great anti-communists. So they were called already in those years - which, naturally, was only propaganda.

At the same time, Thatcher, who headed her country from 1979-th year (and Reagan from 1981-th), really was a strong fighter - it's enough to remember that she decided to fight with Argentina. By the end of her premiership, she enjoyed great influence in the world - unlike, incidentally, from her own country, where many people hated her both in the people and in the establishment (which overthrew her in the course of an intraparty conspiracy).

But now there is simply no figure in the West that has comparable influence at least on the scale of Europe.

Long gone are not even war veterans, even if they are Mitterrans. Even the politicians who replaced them left. Moreover, the Trump crisis was only the final wave of the process that has swept the whole of Europe in recent years: a total crisis of confidence in the ruling elites as such. Not to individual politicians, but to the whole system with its parties and rules. Italy, Spain, Greece, Austria, France, further everywhere.

The United Kingdom got into trouble at Brexit - there local elites thought to fool the people by playing ahead of the referendum, hoping to get the majority of votes against getting out of the EU. Remained only Germany - the locomotive of the European Union, a stable political system and the most experienced politician in the whole West at the head of the government. All eyes turned to Angela Merkel.

It was her attempt at the beginning of this year to be crowned as the "leader of the free world" - if not she, then who? But it turned out that no leader is any Merkel. The fact is that being a leader of the West is not the same as being the leader of the European Union.

Yes, Merkel has long been called the informal leader of the European Union - and although this was a stretch, the truth was in this. Indeed, Germany is an undoubted leader of the EU, and Merkel is an experienced leader of Germany with 12-year experience. But what is the EU? The project of the formation of a single European state is just what? Unified Europe as part of a single West, which in turn is a prototype, a locomotive and the core of a single humanity? In this case, such a single Europe should live according to rules written by the Anglo-Saxons. To be Atlantic, that is geopolitically, ideologically and financially subordinated to Anglo-Saxons, the United States and Great Britain.

Such a Europe, which lost the Second World War, quite suits the globalists - and such a single Europe can have any formal leaders "from the local", be it Germans, French or Italians. And as the leader of such a Europe, Merkel is quite satisfied with the Atlantic elite.

But there is another version of a single Europe - which in itself is the center of the West: it is not manipulated by Anglo-Saxons, it itself determines its goals and methods for achieving them. And she answers for herself. There is no such Europe now, but it was this kind of Europe that was striving to create that Frankish, that the German unifiers. And in this way the current European Union may well go at some point, too - if the levers of control are in European hands. European means German. And the real Germans, and not brought up in the spirit of unconditional devotion "the only true doctrine of liberal Atlantic globalization." Such a Europe, independent and independent, feeling like the center of the West - a terrible dream for Anglo-Saxon geopolitics.

What country is Angela Merkel from? Of course, from the first. But how can a puppet become a puppeteer? That is, of course, you can ask her to play the role of director - but for this she needs to competently prescribe the whole role, and even better to convince her that she really is a director. In the case of Merkel, this can not be done. It can not and will not be responsible for the whole West.

Furthermore. All attempts to scare the European atlantists by the fact that the command post in Washington is temporarily occupied and they need to stand up for the West, lead to the fact that these pro-Atlantic Europeans suddenly begin to carry all the nonsense to globalists that "it's time for us to think about that that Europe must itself be responsible for itself. " That is, they turn into the same antiglobalizers as Trump with his "America should think about itself, and not be led to the myths of globalization."

It turns out to be a dead end - to crown those who were brought up on the original idea of ​​no alternative to the "Atlantic West", it is impossible. They will become not the leaders of the whole "free world", but the involuntary precursors of "European independence" from the single West. His gravediggers. To exist in general without a leader the West can not for a long time - this is undermined by its very unity.

Trump no longer speaks frankly subversive, anti-globalization things - but all who need it, perfectly understand that his "rotten" American-centric essence has not gone anywhere. Wait until Trump is overthrown during the impeachment or just ends his term in January 2021? And if he is re-elected?

Nevertheless, while Merkel remained Chancellor, she still had in mind as a possible "queen of the West" - for all the senselessness and unreality of such a coronation. But the chair beneath her staggered, and already the Financial Times passes its sentence in an article published a week ago:

"There are too many possible scenarios to make assumptions. But the scenario, in which Angela Merkel will again take the post of Chancellor of Germany for another four years, is unlikely. So if you are one of those who consider it the leader of the Western world, it's time to look for this leader somewhere else. "

The problem of Anglo-Saxons - and only they need a "leader of the Western world" - is that the matter is not at all in Merkel. There are no candidates for this symbolic, but very important post - as there are no countries where they can be searched. Because one can not lead that which is not there - a single West is split before our eyes.

Its split is predetermined by the collapse of the globalist Atlantist project, the collapse of the "unipolar world", the collapse of the "end of history". As soon as the idea that "the West leads mankind to happiness" fell, so immediately the split within the West became inevitable. The post-war world order is ending, the Anglo-Saxons will not be able to retain control over the unifying Europe for a long time. Contradictions within the "single West" are only just beginning to break through to the surface - but visible signs are enough to make a diagnosis.

The "free world" will no longer have a leader - and this is good news for all truly free people and civilizations.

Peter Akopov
LOOK
GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!