Editor’s note: Last week we have published the final article in a series about the revised concept of American domination, i.e. how the United States suppresses both its enemies and allies, makes its allies pursue American goals. U.S. controls global media and manufactures the public opinion of European citizens to force the leaders of European countries to make the decisions America needs. U.S. spies on European leaders and ordinary Europeans and involves Europe in an economic partnership, which will make Europe lose economic sovereignty.
Bearing this in mind (public consent manufactured, leaders spied on, decisions harmful for Europe made by politicians), it becomes obvious that Europe is currently not sovereign. Thus, several questions arise: is Europe itself satisfied with this? Is there something Europe should do about this?
Europe needs to restore sovereignty. This article and the one we will publish next week present the opinion of politicians and intellectuals, who gathered in Sophia, Bulgaria, on April 25, 2015, to discuss the course and political actions which will lead towards the sovereign Europe. When Europe will be sovereign it will be able to choose its own political future. Before this happens, the only future Europe will have is the one that the United States will doom it to. One more thing to consider is that it’s not like America is Europe’s friend and promises it a bright future. It’s indeed the opposite: as the Vice President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding said in October 2013: “Friends and partners don’t spy on each other”.
Bulgaria, a member of the Bulgarian Socialist Party Supreme Council, the president of the Slavyani Foundation of Bulgaria.
We are meeting on the eve of the Great Victory [victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 – Editor]. This date is now a focus of attention not only for historians but for the whole world community including the political elites. Because the world is lost in contemplation at a new historical crossroads. I am referring to the civilizational aspect, the geopolitical changes. And not only the future of civilization, the existence of humanity itself is at stake and depending on whether humankind will choose the right direction.
Why? The answer is not so simple and requires a systematic approach. Formulated briefly, we can state that the dissolution of the Soviet Union, one of the centers of the bipolar world, has led to the unipolarity in the global system of security. However, like a man who cannot stand on one leg the world risks falling down due to its present, unstable foundation – unipolarity.
Is there any hope in this regard? I think there is, as it is now that a second geopolitical centre of the modern world is being actively formed. This process came back to life in that very place where Yalta world order originates. In Moscow. Today a new international community is being formed, based above all on the relations between Russia and China. It brings hope that the world will stand, at last, on both legs, that world bipolarity in the XXI century will oppose the globalist philosophy and imperial ambitions of the most powerful state of our time, the USA.
Multipolarity is, in fact, a form of irresponsibility in the world politics as there can only ever be two poles. Not only in nature, not only in geophysical, biological, and physical aspects, but in terms of geopolitics as well.
Latvia, member of the European Parliament
Dear friends, I cordially greet you and thank the Bulgarian hosts of our meeting, the Slavyani Foundation, for the efforts which made it possible for us to gather here today.
My favourite saying left to me as legacy by my grandfather is, “There are no hopeless situations”. Probably that is what makes us, politicians, to take active action. And the times are calling for us to tirelessly search for the ways out of the situation at hand.
The one and a half years that passed since our first meeting have proved the validity of the predictions stated in the First Sofia Declaration. Let us make a short summary of events of the past one and a half years. We met in October 2013, a month before the Vilnius Summit. At the time Viktor Yanukovych was still ready to sign Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement and the free trade agreement. After Yanukovich changed his decision in November – to postpone signing of the agreement – the events unfolded rapidly. Euromaidan appeared and everything that followed it. This situation, in my opinion, became radically new. Prior to that, the European Union was building the so-called new Berlin Wall around Russia from the Baltic to the Black Sea and further, to the Caspian Sea. The construction of the part of that kind of a wall had already been started by Yatsenyuk on the Russian-Ukrainian border.
Then, in October 2013 the European Parliament adopted a quite peculiar definition of the relations between Europe and Russia, “critical cooperation”. However, now, instead of a new Berlin Wall, a frontline is being drawn up. Even the rhetoric changed. I have here in my hands the materials of the group hearing which took place in European Parliament on April 21 and which had been prepared by the largest fraction of EP, European People’s Party. The topic of was the state of EU-Russia Relations. The heading of the hearing press release is laconic and harsh, “EU should tell Russia we are ready to go to war”. As they say, it’s perfect to a tee. Politicians who directly shape the position of the European Union foreign policy participated and made speeches at that hearing: Chairman of the EP’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok from Angela Merkel’s party, and his deputy, MEP from Poland Jacek Saryusz-Wolski. During the recent parliamentary session debates Saryusz-Wolski for all intents and purposes delivered an ultimatum to the European elites, which had to do with the tragedy in the Mediterranean, when 900 people drowned on a vessel coming from the shores of Libya. Back then during the Emergency EU Summit it was proposed that all EU countries, and not just Italy, Malta and Greece, would share the burden of solving the refugee crisis. So, Saryusz-Wolski’s ultimatum ran like this: we are not going to help to solve the problem, unless you meet our demands about the East (meaning, unless you adopt a tough stance toward Russia).
It is especially dangerous that these scaremongers, who dared to speak the word “war”, and not just “cold war” but “hot war”, are ready to open a second front. Not only the front in Ukraine, but a front in the Baltic states as well. At the hearing of April 21 another representative of EPP spoke, Gabrielius Landsbergis, a grandson of the famous Vytautas Landsbergis. The Foreign Affairs Committee authorized him to prepare a resolution on the state of EU-Russia relations. This text is already available and it’s so horrible that they say even Elmar Brok [himself] told Gabrielius that the text needed to be rewritten as he couldn’t accept this draft. In the text written by young Landsbergis he claims without doubt that after Ukraine Russia is planning to attack the Baltic countries, having first organized a preliminary provocation on the borders.
Foreign journalists literally swarmed into our republic and our party, Latvian Russian Union. They ask if we are going to proclaim a republic in Latgalia following the example of Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. They ask similar questions about the North-East of Estonia. The latest meeting of the kind I had with a very imposing correspondent of New York Times Andrew Higgins, who spoke excellent Russian. All the questions he posed to me and my colleagues in Riga concerned the same thing: was it true that preparations for the proclamation of the Latgalian republic were underway? He cited and even showed us the printouts from some website. I replied that it was an obvious provocation as such sites could be created a dime a dozen at will.
Clearly, they are trying to intentionally escalate the situation. What can be used to counter such actions? Where can resistance points be found? For that we should refer to the results of the votes in European Parliament on anti-Russian resolutions and resolutions about Ukraine. The votes against come from two wings: the left-wing fraction in the one side of the hall and the extreme right-wing on the other side. Plus individual MEPs in the center. This alliance which is being formed by itself looks quite strange and unnatural. Moreover, it, forgive me this colloquial word, bothers the left-wing. At every opportunity they are blamed that their position matches with that of the right-wing. It would be interesting to discuss today if that agreement of position is tactical or if there is some strategic subtext to it.
Now I want to tell you about the center. Or to be precise about сenter-left parties which are represented by three politicians present. Apart from me, that is Anna Moranda and Iñaki Irazabalbeitia. Our parties are a part of an all-European party called European Free Alliance. It is also called a party of regionalists and national minorities. The party fundamentally distances itself from the right-wing nationalists. This position is secured by the political platform and in all resolutions of the Alliance congresses. We offered something new, a new combination – left-wing nationalism. Although the right-wing politicians, for instance Van Rompuy, who presided over the European Council for 5 years, told us that nationalism, allegedly, couldn’t be left-wing. But I saw with my own eyes how our principle works in the Basque Country. This Spanish region, not anywhere near the best in terms of natural conditions, is now a leading region according to all the economic indicators. The policy and actions of its regional government, its local authorities are based on that very idea of combining healthy patriotism, or if you prefer, nationalism, with the idea of social justice. Many projects grew out of that idea, including the famous Mondragon Corporation.
Therefore the three of us represent a peculiar political framework. Last week, in the city of Bautzen, Eastern Germany, the home of Lusatian Sorbs, the Congress of the European Free Alliance took place. EFA consists of more than 40 parties, but, unfortunately, only 7 MEPs represent the alliance in the European Parliament – it is quite difficult for the minorities to achieve representation at the EU level. The largest Alliance parties are Scottish National Party and a left-wing party from Catalonia Euskerra Republikana, which initiated independence referendums in their respective countries. Although the referendum in Catalonia wasn’t recognized by Madrid and during the referendum in Scotland the independence demand polled the minority of votes (London was ready to accept the results of the referendum but that same London did everything so the end result would not be in favor of separation), now those regions continue their struggle. And here is the reaction for you: Scottish referendum defeat notwithstanding, there came a huge membership explosion in the Scottish National Party with its numbers increasing tenfold (!). Now, a week before the elections in Britain this party, according to the polls, is going to take all the 58 seats allotted in the House of Commons in Westminster for Scotland. And Catalonians plan to go their own way in a consistent manner and consider the regional elections scheduled for September a plebiscite on the question of independence.
On a plane yesterday I read an article in New York Times, whose author is very concerned about the situation in Scotland. New York Times is horrified by the idea that the Scottish National Party will be well-represented in Westminster and will be a competition to conservatives and labourists. What is interesting is that New York Times also considers Scottish National Party to be more left-wing than labourists.
So, there are such political parties and such a political force in Europe. Anna and Iñaki will tell you more about them. For my part, I think it is necessary to continue searching in that direction, rejecting the political narrative uncharacteristic for the left wing. It’s is easy to draw the line here. The point of departure can be the formula from the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” If this formula is a part of the program of any given party then we share the same path. To put this in perspective I will give an example of a completely different formula. After the well-known events in Paris in January (terrorist attacks – Editor) one of the ideologists of National Front, an EP member Aymeric Chauprade in an interview to the Russian television (I admit that he might be more careful with his words in France) stated the following: “Muslims should either assimilate or leave France.” Of course we cannot have a strategic alliance with politicians representing such a position. Though we sometimes happen to vote identically on some resolutions.
In conclusion I’d like to get back to what Zahari Zahariev began with, to the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory. The attempts to rewrite the history of World War II in order to downgrade the role of USSR in defeating Nazi Germany are gaining momentum in the EU countries. And arguably the loudest anti-Russia and anti-Russian signal today is coming from Poland. The recent insulting and scandalous statements of Polish officials make my heart ache. In our family archive we keep the letters from my uncle who died in Poland shortly before the Victory Day. We don’t know the exact place of his death. That’s why, when we buried his mother in Riga, on her tombstone near her name we added her son’s and the words “died in Poland in April 1945”. Because of that alone I am disgusted with the shenanigans of the Polish political mainstream of today, and I consider Saryusz-Wolski my personal political opponent. I seriously got to grips with him back in 2007 while discussing the events in Estonia concerning the relocation of the so-called Bronze Soldier; at the time he presided over the Foreign Affairs Committee. But today I am glad to see here, among the others, a representative of Poland who assumes a completely different stance. The truth must prevail.
Italy, MEP (2004-2009), Group Socialists and Democrats;
President of the Alternativa political association
We all understand that now we’ve found ourselves in the most dangerous situation of the whole post-World War II period. Nothing of the kind happened until 2014. In my opinion, the Third World War is a real possibility. Unfortunately, few think about this and public opinion is not at all ready to give serious thought to the threat of a new war. However, two years ago when Damascus was being bombed even the Pope said openly: we are drifting into the Third World War. I think he was right.
It is clear that this is the result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the world turning from bipolarity to unipolarity. But that was only one of the reasons. Now something else is happening, more serious, more fateful.
When the Maidan events started, I immediately had one question. Why were they in such a hurry? By “they” I mean the United States. Everything was organized, thoroughly and systematically arranged and financed by the US embassy in Kiev with the support of the US State Department. Why were they in such a rush? After all, Ukraine was, for all intents and purposes, the American colony. The Ukrainian secret services were in the US pocket, the army and the representatives in the upper army echelons – the same story. They de facto controlled the situation. So why were they in such a hurry then? They could have waited for about a year and a half, could have gotten rid of Yanukovich, could have appointed a new president. Why did they organize a Nazi coup in the center of Ukraine, in the center of Europe? I want to emphasize, not just a coup, a Nazi coup.
It was no accident. And now it is obvious why it was all done. The Baltic states and Poland responded at once. They have been creating a chain: three Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine. A brilliant operation! To divide Europe with two lines, to break Europe and, of course, to strike Russia. But then again, why such a hurry? All of this they could have done calmer, in a year or two.
I am sure it was done due to the threat of a world crisis. Not the European crisis, but a world crisis. American centers of strategic management have a solid grasp of the situation: either America conquers the world now, or it will be too late.
We need to understand that Russia is the only power at the moment that is able to stop them. Their friends in Europe are already writing, “We are ready to go to war!”
All things considered, in Europe we can see, by the way, a reassuring picture. If we look at Europe as a whole, picture is unmistakable: essentially there is a political revolution underway.
It began with the elections in Italy in 2013, with the Five Star Movement. A party that hadn’t yet existed appeared in Italy and it received 25% of the votes.
Then in Greece — SYRIZA. The winner in the country was a left-wing coalition that came into power by way of election.
In Great Britain there also appears a party that has not existed before, UKIP, and it keeps up with both Labour and Conservative parties in terms of popularity.
In Spain, as well, there is a new party, PODEMOS. It received the majority of votes, to date, and its rating is about 30%.
I believe that for the first time in Europe as we know it the pact between the voters and the ruling elite has crumbled. 30 years ago the elite promised, “Vote for us and we will ensure a very high standard of living for you”. And they delivered on the promise. And now suddenly it happens that the elites are not incapable of giving everything they’ve promised. And millions of people in Europe are looking for someone to believe and to trust.
The key element nowadays is secession from NATO. Curious, that in Greece, in SYRIZA political platform there is a paragraph on exiting NATO. PODEMOS in Spain suggested a referendum as well, as UKIP does in Great Britain.
I think if we begin this struggle in Italy, we can be the first. We can gather several millions of signatures together and the picture of Europe will start to change.
Bulgaria, Member of the National Council of the Socialist Party; the chairman of the Union of Thracian Partnerships
First thing that I consider to be of utmost importance – today a new generation is being formed, the one, whose values are largely determined by people like Soros. Young people who live in Ukraine and Bulgaria are virtually deprived of values rooted in the country’s history. We have no opportunities, no power, no connections that would allow us to consolidate and counter these tendencies. We are working under the information blockade. The majority of the population has no access to objective information. All European countries, effectively, follow the instructions of the Washington, D.C. Most of the country’s population has no idea of what is really happening.
The creation of political factions has effectively stripped the local parties of sovereignty in the European Union. It’s high time to raise the issue of the necessity to preserve the sovereignty of every individual party. Parties shouldn’t abide by the decisions foisted on them by collective bodies created in European Parliament, in European institutions. We need to cement horizontal ties, the direct relationships between separate political parties.
Today dialogue is necessary between the parties of individual countries in order to determine the collective perspectives on main matters of concern. It’s a challenging task. Look what the United States is doing in the meanwhile. The US ambassador stated that 700 million euro have been provided for the development of the so-called “soft power” institutions, i.e. non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 700 million for little Bulgaria! And what opposes them? Parties with limited financial resources, unable to create counter mechanisms to such pressure. But the pressure and threats will continue and will grow more serious if the parties of those dissatisfied with the Washington policy will keep on acting separately.
Transnistria, 2011 presidential elections candidate
Before 2013, before the coup d’ètat in Ukraine, Transnistria had a relatively friendly Ukraine in the rear. It was the same in 1992, when even people who held negative attitudes toward the Soviet Union and Moscow participated in the protection of PMR. However, later under the US pressure the situation changed.
Naturally the Americans tried to surround Transnistria. In this strategy the attack from the west was the most important. It was represented mainly by the right-wing political forces of Moldova supported by Bucharest. And from the east it was that part of Ukrainian political forces that was geared towards the United States. Besides, after the change of power in the end of 2011, the Western influence on Transnistria has increased manifold.
Clearly, they will either try to stifle us from the outside or to change the power dynamic inside Transnistria itself, striking from several directions. What directions? First. We feel a clear consistent policy – they are trying to break the unity that still exists in Transnistria between the three large national communities: Russian, Moldavian and Ukrainian. Secondly, on the Internet they are creating groups whose members are focusing on work with the Ukrainian population. They stick to anti-Russian rhetoric to try and present Russia as an aggressor, allegedly at war with Ukraine. Transnistrian Ukrainians usually don’t support this interpretation, but nevertheless they have been working on creating a schism inside the country very actively this year. The next action was a landing operation of a kind of Protestant Bandera Nazi preachers against Orthodox Christians. 50-70 preachers came to the Administration building and began to hand out materials, calling upon people to convert to their faith.
At the same time their lobbyists started propaganda in social networks. Everything is happening the same way as in other countries. A heavy blow for us in particular is the virtual abandonment of the welfare state concept that helped to preserve Transnistria and a move to the classical shock therapy model since July 2014.
The initiative on interactions with Transnistria transferred from the European Union to the Americans with the English serving as executors of their will.
Of course, the growing pressure on us is not an isolated episode disconnected from the general situation in Europe. It’s explicit American mainstream policy aimed to turn the whole perimeter of Russian European borders into a continuous arc of instability, into a frontline.
The main efforts should be focused on eradication of the atmosphere and situation which are pregnant with war. It doesn’t follow that we need to show more compliance to the demands of the radical circles in the United States. The more we give in, the stronger the pressure. What can save the situation is the increasing European independence and a military and political alliance between Russia and China.
As for our tiny state, we need only to disappoint our enemies by staying alive and to help wherever possible all those who are unhappy about the way the things are now.
Moldova, MP (2014-present), Socialist party group
With the collapse of the bipolar world not only the socialist system and socialism as an idea have lost. The principle collapsed. We are witnessing the crisis of liberalism. The monetarism is de facto failing. We see the collapse of not only the Potsdam and Yalta agreements, but of the whole system of the international law. You don’t have to look very far: Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are the living proof of that. If you will, we see the collapse of the modern economical model of capitalism itself. It means that we are in the middle of an upsurge of new chaos, effectively on the brink of huge changes as Mr. Chiesa, Mr. Kurginyan and others tell us here.
Assuming the Huntington theory that the world consists of 8 civilizations, the Western civilization model has virtually lost its essence. The main foundation and value of this civilization is Christianity. But what is Christianity like in the European Union of today? The traditional Christian values are being essentially rejected. The role of family is diminishing through the increase in the number of divorces. Legalization of homosexuality, Barnevernet-type institutions that take children away from their families, elimination of the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’, discussions on legalization of euthanasia, including child euthanasia. You know, for the people of our mind-set, for the purpose of the discussion — Eastern mindset, it all looks like a total degradation. Not to mention the existence of political parties of homosexuals in some Northern European countries. One thing is clear: the Christian values in Europe are in a serious crisis.
That same Huntington speaks of another criterion of the Western civilization, about the rule of law and democracy. Here it has already been mentioned, in particular in the speech by the Galitsia representative, that in Europe we are witnessing the increasing totalitarian, oligarchic tendencies. Not to mention such incidents as the emergence of secret prisons.
Even more frightening things are happening. In particular, legalization of fascism and Nazism in one form or another, with experiments in the Baltic states and in Ukraine. Elements of such experiments can be also found in Moldova. What are they for? Apparently, preparations for a major war are underway and legalizing all these forms serves to mobilize and drag the maximum amount of people into the war.
Huntington also speaks about economy as of a basic model of Western civilization. I don’t know if there is market economy here or not – you’d better ask the Bulgarians who were forced to give up on the South Stream and other energy projects which had promised hundreds of millions euro in revenue. Why was Hungary forbidden lucrative deals with Gazprom? Why economic guidelines which are basically destroying the economies of the Baltic states, Greece and Romania are being adopted? They say it’s Welfare Space. But why then doesn’t a single one of the states that joined the EU after 2003 flourish? The idea of the market economy is effectively abandoned. Market-based instruments only work in favor of two or three political actors, in favor of the “troika”, that my colleagues have already discussed here.
When in the 50’s the EU foundations were laid, the founding fathers insisted on the equality of all EU members. And what can we see today?
The founding fathers were talking about the mutual assistance, that every EU state can count on the help of its neighbors. In fact there is no mutual assistance at all.
The founding fathers also talked about the union based on the new unity of peoples. And what can we see? We see a hyper-centralized system.
They were talking about EU as a pacifist entity, created in order to prevent war. But later we saw EU itself or its individual members participate in military action in all possible places – in Afghanistan, Libya, not to mention Iraq. And today EU essentially directly supports the war in Donbass.
And the funny thing is, the founding fathers were talking about the EU as a separate geopolitical actor, a subject of international law. But what can we see now? Our direct dependency on the United States. Now the European Union follows the instructions of the USA, votes in strict accordance with the Washington orders, behaves as a Washington puppet and it is already giving up its autonomy negotiating Transatlantic partnership. Everyone knows that it means that EU will disappear, EU becoming an economic adjunct of the USA. Although, I think, more of a military adjunct. Which, again, is being done in preparation for a major war. A major, let’s say confrontation, with either China or Russia. Seeing that China is stronger economically, they decided to try with Russia, to deal with Russia.
They were talking about European Union as some unique economic development model, about the necessity of having strict criteria of admission of new members, that everyone has to comply with some rules. But which criteria did Romania meet? Did Romania meet a single one of the Copenhagen criteria? No, it didn’t. What about Bulgaria? Croatia?
How are the budgets spent, where does the money go? Compare the EU counties funds on social expenditure to those on military expenditure and you will realize where does the money go.
EU as the structure established by the founding fathers no longer exists. European Union as a model of Western civilization has also ceased to be. What should we do? In our opinion, we need to do several simple things.
First, to return to Christianity. On a practical level, in particular by teaching it at schools.
Secondly, it would be a good idea to go back to the basic values laid down by the founding fathers of EU.
Thirdly, to prevent a major war towards which Europe is moving, it is necessary to create a free trade zone between the Customs Union and the European Union.
Fourth, most EU states should better stop being NATO members.
Fifth, we believe it would be fine if the EU member states were also members of the Customs Union. Or, even better, because of the threat of a major war it is important for the member states to put withdrawal from EU on agenda and to take a closer look at the Customs Union as an opportunity to change the balance of power and prevent the war. We also need to stop equating Nazism with communism, stop banning communist parties. Europe is paving the way to fascism. As fascism, or more precisely, Nazism is a phenomenon of war. And if communism is banned in some place, that’s where the Nazis or fascists are coming to power, which means the world is under the threat of war.
If today we seriously analyze what is happening, we will realize that escalation of the crisis can be averted. The crisis of values, the crisis of ideologies, the crisis of international law. There is no “would be” in history. But through such collective actions as this one, through dialogue and our own active participation we can change the agenda in Europe. As well as in the world.
Source (for copy): https://eu.eot.su/?p=4522
This is the translation of the first article (first published in “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 133 on June 24, 2015) of the speeches delivered by political leaders during the “Sophia” Club round table on the topic “How to protect Europe from the American crisis?” which took place in Sophia, Bulgaria, on April 25, 2015.