Today: 24 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
What is the difference between attacks on Russia 2014 and 2018 years?

What is the difference between attacks on Russia 2014 and 2018 years?

29.03.2018
Tags: West, Politics, Europe, USA, Russia, International relations, Analytics

So far, Russia's response to the wave of expulsion of our diplomats, which the West has arranged, has not been announced. And in anticipation of our progress, we can compare what is happening to what happened in 2014 year. Then the West for the first time decided to collectively strike Russia - and in four years it is clear how weakened the position of the Atlanticists in the world as a whole.

In explaining the reasons why the West began imposing sanctions against Russia in the spring of 2014, and the current action to expel our diplomats, there is no fundamental difference.

And then, and now it was explained by the need to "give an answer to Russian aggression"

- then it manifested itself in the form of joining the frightened coup in Kiev, Crimea, and now - in the form of "the first use of chemical warfare in Europe after World War II," that is, the poisoning of the Violins in Britain. The West considered it necessary to rebuff Russia: then - through the imposition of sanctions, now - through the expulsion of diplomats as a sign of "solidarity with Britain." But there are fundamental differences - and they are more than revealing.

Then the West, or rather its Atlantic leadership, was seriously going not just to teach and punish, but also to isolate Russia. Although wise veterans, like Kissinger, immediately realized that Russia would not change its course and would not abandon the policy of changing the world order towards multipolarity, most of the Anglo-Saxon elite, led by the then American leadership, really believed in the possibility of inflicting tangible damage to Russia and forcing our country "to ask for peace." It was for this that it was necessary to organize large-scale and the widest possible sanctions against Russia from as many states as possible.

What did the US, which acted as the initiator of the introduction of sanctions, did then? Since it was impossible to organize them at the UN level, the Americans began to pressure the authorities of other countries, urging them to join the sanctions against Russia. It is clear that they did not offer such to their enemies like Iran or the DPRK or to Russia's allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization - but with the rest of the countries, Americans and the British worked aggressively. And what did they end up with?

Even with the vote at the end of March 2014 in the UN for a resolution on non-recognition of the results of the Crimean referendum and its accession to Russia, the West was able to collect 100 votes from 193 - while only 11 states voted against 58, 24 abstained, and XNUMX did not vote.

And economic and political sanctions were imposed only by the West itself - Europe, the US, Canada and Australia with New Zealand. Of the non-Western countries, only Japan joined - which, however, was limited to fairly formal steps. That is, the US, 29 EU countries, overseas subjects of the British Queen, Switzerland and Japan - that's the entire Atlantic zone of influence. Yes, the economic and political might of the "golden billion" was great - but it is far from being the same as in the 90 or zero years.

In order to really isolate Russia, it was necessary to involve China, India, the Islamic world in her boycott, otherwise our country, which had openly challenged the globalist world order, still had four-fifths of the world to contact. That is, even then the attempt to isolate Russia turned into a demonstration of the "loneliness of the West", which the Atlantists did not fully understand.

But they can quite see it now - when the suddenly arising business of Skripal gives us a good opportunity to compare two attacks on Russia. Yes, the goals of the current attack are much more modest - no one has even stuttered about the blockade and isolation of Russia. Not because the reason is more modest, but because there is an understanding of the impossibility of this.

Now the West just needs to play a new series of demonization of Russia and Putin, renew the dull image of the "Russian threat" with new colors. "Russian occupation of part of Ukraine", as well as "interference in the Western elections" is no longer capable of frightening neither the Western elites nor the broad masses of the people - a fresh plot is needed. Here also appears "Skripal" - at the same time switching attention and from a number of purely British problems. Moreover, the mechanism of anti-Russian mobilization for the Atlantists is now easier to operate through London and Washington, and so it has become stuck in the fight against "Russian intervention" in the form of Trump. What did you achieve as a result of the "provocation of Skripal"?

To scale expulsion of Russian diplomats went only the United Kingdom and the United States - well, Ukraine that joined them. Another 20 countries sent from 1 to 4 employees each, and four temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Moscow. Total - 27 states. This is one of those 147, where there are our embassies - 23 sent diplomats and four temporarily recalled the ambassadors. But interestingly, the EU, which formally supported the UK, actually split.

Four countries - Austria, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia - directly said that they would neither expel Russian diplomats nor recall their ambassadors from Moscow. The most concrete was Vienna:

"The expulsion of diplomats is a decision that each state makes independently. Different countries-members of the EU have acted differently here. We decided for ourselves that we will not go to such a step ... Just in hard times, we need to support and maintain the dialogue in every possible way. "

This explains the decision of the head of the Austrian Foreign Ministry Kneisl.

Another country - Malta - said that its embassy is so small that it simply will not survive the return expulsion. Initially, several more countries rested - Portugal, Bulgaria, Slovakia - but they were eventually squeezed out either for a temporary withdrawal of the ambassador from Moscow, or for the expulsion of a Russian diplomat. Why is the split of the EU important?

Not that we saw that in the European Union there are enough countries that do not want deterioration of relations with Russia and, on the contrary, insist on their normalization. This was already known - as well as the fact that these countries, in fact, even more - they just have to obey the will of the Atlantists from Berlin and Brussels.

Publicly voiced rejection of European solidarity is important because it means that the pressure limit on European national governments on the Russian theme is exhausted by the Atlantists. And if today in the ranks of the rebels nothing is just really decisive Greece and serious but not determining the course of the EU Austria, tomorrow the situation will change.

The fact is that the current decision caused a lot of dissatisfaction in Germany - and for the first time in the ranks of opponents of anti-Russian measures were not only many in the SPD, the "Left", "Alternative for Germany" and CSU, but also the "Greens", the party, as a rule , the most critical of Russia.

"It is reckless to act against Russia in this way and get involved in a new cold war without convincing evidence and only on the basis of some evidence. The West will not benefit from expulsion ", - said one of the leaders of the party, the deputy of the Bundestag Jürgen Trittin.

In general, among German politicians all these years, growing dissatisfaction with the way Germany twists his arms, forcing her to keep the anti-Russian system - and now, when Merkel has just assembled a new coalition, the aggravation of the Russian theme will clearly not add stability to her cabinet.

And even the new government of Italy, the negotiations on the formation of a coalition for the creation of which is now being conducted, will in general become a "Putin lobbyist" in Europe - as the Atlantists already call it. After all, virtually any version of the coalition - be it the Berlusconi party, the League of the North of Salvini and the Eurosceptics from the Five Star, or just the last two parties - will lead to the people who are in favor of ending the war of sanctions against Russia.

So the "action of solidarity" with the deportation of diplomats may well become the swan song of the anti-Russian front - if the new Italian cabinet starts to really sabotage the policy of pressure on Moscow.

Among those who failed to persuade the anti-Russian demarche, there are not only the above-mentioned countries of the European Union, but also those who, last time, in 2014, obediently, albeit reluctantly, joined the ranks. No Switzerland, no Japan - even a small New Zealand (whose intelligence services are among the "five eyes", that is, the Anglo-Saxon intelligence association), said that there will not be anyone to expel, because they do not have identified Russian spies working under diplomatic cover. New Zealand was pressed hard - but Japan was also tried to convince. However, unlike 2014, Tokyo did not succumb.

Because the West is no longer the same - there is no single Washington, London, which has compulsorily assumed the banner of the anti-Russian campaign, is itself in an extremely difficult situation connected with Brexit. And Tokyo, which, after waiting two years after the Crimea, began to build a long-term policy with Russia, can already afford not to pay attention to persistent "recommendations."

And especially not among those who listen to such proposals, Turkey - it was not able to involve the "blockade" in the number of organizers in 2014. And now this country, which is still in NATO, can not even theoretically be considered as a partner in anti-Russian games - Ankara's relations with Washington are very tense.

Thus, we see that there is no single position of not only the whole world, as it was in 2014, but even there is not even a single position and directly the West, the "golden billion". With each anti-Russian roll call the atlantists are losing - and the "Skripal affair" demonstrates this with all visibility.

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