Ex-banker Rothschild offers a strategic partnership with Putin

Spread the love
Ivan Danilov, author of the blog Crimson Alter

If one looks at Western political life from the side and rejects the ideological husks of loud speeches, then one can come to an unexpected conclusion. The whole Western strategy is determined by the search for answers to two supposedly exclusively “Russian” questions: who is to blame and what to do? If you do not find or do not assign guilty to all problems (not only past, but also future ones), it is not clear how to unite the motley gang of former empires, of which the core of the “collective West” consists.

Identification of a common enemy is often not only a matter of political necessity, but also economic expediency, because with the right combination of circumstances on the topic of counteraction to this common enemy, one can earn a lot of money, starting with the cutting of military budgets and ending with the robbery of the defeated enemy. For a variety of historical, political, geographical and even religious reasons, as an ideal answer to the European question “who is to blame for all former and future problems?” Russia was ideally suited in all its historical incarnations, from imperial to Soviet. To the question “what to do with this source of problems?”, Respectively, answers were sought for varying degrees of aggression – from British sanctions of the sixteenth century to direct military incursions of the twentieth century. In our time, for several years now, Russia has again been declared the official cause of all problems, beginning with the undermining of the international law system and ending with hacker attacks on Western democracy. In some ways, the collective West breathed a sigh of relief: it again had a normal enemy, and not all artificial misunderstandings like “Middle East terrorism,” which was created by the West, or the DPRK, which the West failed to frighten itself as it should not once. After the “appointment” of Russia to the role of the main enemy, the question “what to do?” was solved in the traditional way for the West: sanctions and diplomatic pressure came upon our country, and the most ardent heads even offered force. beginning from undermining the system of international law and ending with hacker attacks on Western democracy. In some ways, the collective West breathed a sigh of relief: it again had a normal enemy, and not all artificial misunderstandings like “Middle East terrorism,” which was created by the West, or the DPRK, which the West failed to frighten itself as it should not once. After the “appointment” of Russia to the role of the main enemy, the question “what to do?” was solved in the traditional way for the West: sanctions and diplomatic pressure came upon our country, and the most ardent heads even offered force. beginning from undermining the system of international law and ending with hacker attacks on Western democracy. In some ways, the collective West breathed a sigh of relief: it again had a normal enemy, and not all artificial misunderstandings like “Middle East terrorism,” which was created by the West, or the DPRK, which the West failed to frighten itself as it should not once. After the “appointment” of Russia to the role of the main enemy, the question “what to do?” was solved in the traditional way for the West: sanctions and diplomatic pressure came upon our country, and the most ardent heads even offered force. and not all artificial misunderstandings like “Middle Eastern terrorism,” which was created by the West, or the DPRK, which the West failed to frighten itself with as it should once. After the “appointment” of Russia to the role of the main enemy, the question “what to do?” was solved in the traditional way for the West: sanctions and diplomatic pressure came upon our country, and the most ardent heads even offered force. and not all artificial misunderstandings like “Middle Eastern terrorism,” which was created by the West, or the DPRK, which the West failed to frighten itself with as it should once. After the “appointment” of Russia to the role of the main enemy, the question “what to do?” was solved in the traditional way for the West: sanctions and diplomatic pressure came upon our country, and the most ardent heads even offered force.

The problem is that now the method of traditional interaction with Moscow (more precisely, the scheme of total opposition to Russia) breaks right before our eyes and this causes very vivid negative emotions in those for whom the struggle with it is the meaning of life, political ideology and basic business.Under fire of criticism for not enough active opposition of Russia get even those whom it is not accepted or dangerous to criticize. For example, a battle sheet of London bankers – the Financial Times newspaper came out with a devastating material “Israel reaps the fruits of an unexpected alliance with Putin,” in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was remembered by everyone: participation in the “Immortal Regiment” campaign and the fact that he ” “(And as is known from the European media,” understanding Putin “is a terrible man and the enemy of all good things), and the fact that Israel did not join the sanctions that were imposed against Russia.

Netanyahu is also accused of “flattering Moscow” for the sake of achieving his goals and seeking mutually beneficial compromises on the Syrian issue.

It would seem, why criticize the Israeli leader for successful diplomacy? In the text of the Financial Times the resentment shows: it turns out that while the rest of the West demonstrates its unity in the confrontation with Vladimir Putin, the Israeli prime minister throws off anti-Russian solidarity. And he tries to build relations with Russia, proceeding from the national interests of his country, and at the same time he finds quite rational and negotiable interlocutors in Moscow. There is something to be angry about and what to envy, but the problem is even in the other: what if other Western leaders come to the conclusion that it is possible to conduct business in a different way with Russia? Netanyahu, despite the fact that it was hardly included in his plans, created a precedent that becomes toxic (from the point of view of the supporters of the endless economic, diplomatic,

It is significant that Emmanuel Macron, when he talks about the need to reformat relations with Russia, uses arguments that are suspiciously similar to that used by Israeli diplomats: namely, that this is necessary because of a pragmatic understanding of the realities. In particular, the fact that without Russia’s assistance it is impossible to ensure the security of the country.

The French president went further and already during his visit to Helsinki on August 30 he repeated and strengthened his “Russian” thesis, which he had already expressed last week: “We have a desire that Europe should have a strategic and defensive autonomy, a desire to rebuild the European security architecture in a broad sense, as I talked about this a few months ago in St. Petersburg, with the need to rethink our relations with Russia. <…> This broader Europe should build its own security architecture with the powers that are on its border, and the great peoples with whom we have a common history. “
There is no need to be a prophet to assume that in this statement the critics will see another attempt to “flatter Moscow”, not to mention the idea of ​​building a “broad Europe” in which security will be provided by common efforts, including with the participation of Russia seems to be heretical in terms of transatlantic solidarity with the US and the traditionally Russophobic positions of the European political establishment.

The position of the Macron can be written off as meaningless (which are the words of the president of the country, which does not even have a full-fledged sovereignty?), But this would be an erroneous assessment. Macron is a person with an interesting biography, and in order to understand the weight of his words, one has to find an answer to the philosophical question: Are there former bankers in the nature of the Rothschild house? Or the high-ranking employees of the Rothschild house, as well as the high-ranking officers of the special services, are never truly “former”? The current president of France came into politics directly from the Rothschild bank, and a high-level banking business of this kind does not tolerate the free treatment of words and the frivolous attitude to issues of existential risks. If Makron speaks of the need to include Moscow in the European security architecture, then such a need,

Attitudes toward Russia will gradually change. This is a matter of time and the right actions of Moscow. We often say that ties with the West can be improved through some concessions. It’s a lie. With the West as a whole and with its specific countries, it is possible to interact only with the help of a recipe announced by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu : “Weak ones are showered, they are being killed, they are being erased from history.” The strong survive. … Strong respect, alliances are with strong, and in the end, the alliances are with the strong. “This logic is true for any country, and in the case of Russia it is fair doubly. Ironically, the only way to be friends with our Western opponents is to build up strength and responsibly use it. Fortunately, this is precisely the tactic that the Russian leadership is following.

5 Comments on “Ex-banker Rothschild offers a strategic partnership with Putin”

Comments are closed.