Saturday, May 31, 2014

Western Reset of Fascist Aggression Towards Russia

Finian CUNNINGHAM  Comments: 2

People in the West may perhaps find this year’s commemorations marking the end of World War II a little disorientating, especially in light of the current Ukraine crisis. 
A Western-backed fascist regime in Kiev is unleashing deadly violence against dissenting pro-Russian citizens, with the latest victims numbering 20 in the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol. That death toll inflicted by state forces working with neo-Nazi paramilitaries on the orders of an unelected fascist junta in Kiev – backed by the West – comes days after dozens of Ukrainian citizens were killed in the eastern Donetz region and in the south-western port city of Odessa…
These deaths at the hands of Western-backed fascist forces attempting to strangle Ukraine come in the same week that the world is supposedly celebrating the defeat of the very same fascist forces 69 years ago. But, unbeknownst to many in the Western public, the present situation in Ukraine is not a curious contradiction; it is a consistent geo-strategic policy of Western aggression towards Russia.
This year, as in every year, the Second World War commemorations pay homage to the millions who died in the struggle to defeat European fascism, in particular the defeat of Nazi Germany, which from the late 1930s until 1945 embarked on aggressive conquest of other countries and a program of mass extermination. The sacrifice of many Western soldiers and citizens is not doubted; but what needs to be examined is the real motivations of the Western rulers preceding the Second World War, during it and afterwards, and up to the very present day.
Pitted against Hitler’s Germany and the fascist Axis Powers were apparently the Allied forces of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union. 
Yet this year, we see a seemingly curious contradiction. The US, Britain and other Western allies have emerged as allies to the revival of Nazism in Ukraine. The regime that the Western powers helped to illegally install in Kiev in February earlier this year, by covert CIA-sponsored murderous street agitation, are the self-proclaimed heirs to the legacy of former Ukrainian fascists who collaborated with Nazi Germany in its attempted conquest of Russia, beginning in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa. 
The present-day Svoboda party and its ministers in the Kiev self-declared government proudly trace their political lineage to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists led by arch Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. Bandera and his cohorts participated along with the Wehrmacht’s Einsatzgruppen SS in the mass murder of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and others. That collaboration paved the way for the Nazi war machine to reach within 30 kilometres of the gates of Moscow in late 1941.
The heroism and massive sacrifice of the Red Army and the Russian people gradually led to the reversal of the Nazi war machine all the way back to Berlin and its eventual defeat during this week 69 years ago, on May 9, 1945.
Russia’s place of honour in the international war commemorations this week, as in every year, is undisputed and indisputable. It was the Red Army that defeated Nazi Germany. Up to 14 million Russian soldiers gave their lives in the historic fight, compared with some 400,000 each of British and American military. Out of the apparent three war allies, it was Russia that bore the brunt of Nazi German aggression and it was Russia that inflicted the eventual historic defeat. Some 90 per cent of all German military losses in the entire war were incurred on its Eastern Front against the Soviet Union. 
Bear in mind, too, that the Americans and British did not launch their European offensive against Nazi Germany until the summer of 1944, despite several appeals from the Soviet leader, Josef Stalin, for the Western allies to join the struggle sooner and thus alleviate Russia.
Total deaths, both civilian and military, from World War II are put at 60 million, occurring across 30 countries. Of this total, some 30 million were suffered by Russia and its Soviet allies. There is thus no doubt as to the eminent place accorded to Russia in the heroic defeat of European fascism. This is why, despite the ongoing East-West tensions over Ukraine, the French President, Francois Hollande, this week renewed an invitation to Russian leader Vladimir Putin to attend the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy scheduled for next month. That event will be also be attended by US President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Britain’s head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. Well, of course, Putin should be present because, as noted, it was Russia that actually won the war – and these Western powers know that. For Putin to be absent, out of churlish Western exclusion, would make the spectacle farcical. Imagine it. France, whose Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazis, is to hold an event marking the defeat of Nazi Germany, and yet the war’s real victor, Russia, were to be absent.  
The 90 per cent military losses incurred by Nazi Germany on its Eastern Front with the Soviet Union is an important corrective perspective to Western hubris. Both the US and Britain entertain vain notions that they won the war. Think of the number of Hollywood films that reflect the popular notion in the West that it was the heroics of America and Britain that «liberated Europe».
But there is another salutary lesson from the disproportionate destruction suffered by Russia during the Second World War. This aspect has been virtually suppressed in Western history books because of its shocking truth about the real cause and motivating logic of the war. A proper understanding of WWII also exposes Western hubris about its supposed noble role in defeating Nazi Germany as completely fraudulent.
In their book, The Hitler Chamberlain Collusion, Alvin Finkel and Clement Leibovitz, show that the Nazi war machine was covertly and deliberately built up with the help of Western ruling classes during the 1930s. US corporate investment in Hitler’s Germany between 1929 and 1940 grew faster than in any other European country, thus ensuring, in part, the massive industrial rearmament of the Third Reich – despite prohibitions under the Versailles Treaty signed at the end of First World War in 1918. 
The British ruling class was particularly instrumental in Hitler’s aggrandizement of power. When the Fuhrer remilitarized the Rhineland during 1936, Britain turned a blind eye. The British ruling Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain held a series of secret meetings with Hitler and the Nazi leadership during 1937 and 1938, culminating in the Munich Declaration in October 1938. When Chamberlain returned to Britain waving a piece of paper and declaring «peace in our time» he was, and still is, widely accused of «appeasement». But, as Finkel and Leibovitz documented from their examination of the covert British-German official correspondence, the policy of London was not appeasement but rather collusion with Nazi Germany.
In an earlier clandestine meeting in Godesberg, on 23 September 1938, Hitler told Chamberlain «there should be no conflict between us». The Fuhrer viewed Britain and Germany as «the two pillars of European social order». The British Prime Minister, his Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and other senior members of the London government told Hitler that his «powerful force of nationalism and racialism» was much appreciated.
Why? We have to understand the rise of Nazi Germany and other European fascist regimes – Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal – in its historical context. In particular, the Russian Revolution of 1917 heralding the emancipation of workers and the expropriation of capitalist power had earth-shattering repercussions for the ruling class in all Western capitalist countries. 
In addition to racist ideology of «master race» and «Untermenschen», the European fascists were deeply hostile to Communism and the Soviet Union in particular – despite Hitler’s movement calling itself «national socialism». Hitler personally loathed Marxism to a pathological level, as did all the leadership of the Third Reich.
It was this rabid anti-Communism of the Nazis that appealed most crucially to the Western capitalist rulers. Hitler was viewed as a strategic bulwark against the spread of Communist revolution at a time when capitalism was in deep crisis from the Great Depression and widespread poverty in Western countries.
The collusion between Chamberlain and Hitler was a secret pact that reflected the geo-strategic anxieties of the American and British ruling classes. The Nazi war machine was hence to be built up and aimed at destroying the Soviet Union. This is what really lay behind the apparent British appeasement of Nazi Germany. The policy was designed to give Hitler’s Germany a «free hand» to expand eastwards. That is why Britain did not object to Hitler’s annexation of Austria and the Czech Sudetenland during 1938. The British rulers had explicitly, but secretly, agreed to give Hitler a «free hand» to «uphold the European social order» of capitalism over the potential rise of Russian-inspired Socialism.
In effect, Hitler’s Nazi Germany was essentially a client regime of the Anglo-American capitalist axis, just as the other European fascist regimes were too. This explains why the Nazi war machine directed its massive firepower towards the Soviet Union, where the worst diabolical excesses of «Untermenschen» extermination were to be carried out. Hitler was doing what he was expected to do by the Western ruling classes that had helped bring him to power owing to his rabid anti-Soviet ideology. The barbaric suffering inflicted on Russian and other Slav populations is on a different scale to what the Third Reich committed in Western Europe or towards British and American prisoners of war. 
As in all Western power-client relations, the nexus is subject to changing tactical calculations. For instance, the US and Britain fomented and sponsored Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the 1970s and 80s in order to wage war against Iran, only for the Western powers to turn against the Iraqi dictator subsequently when he became a regional threat to their interests. Ironically, the oft-superficial comparison by Western imperialists between Hitler and Saddam, to justify the Western war on Iraq during the 1990s and 2000s, is at a deeper level very apposite. The Western imperial powers were, in both cases, merely taking down a dictator of their own creation for expedient, cynical reasons that mutated over time.
Likewise, Hitler’s expansionism beyond the tacit remit of destroying the Soviet Union turned his Western patrons against him. Thus, ironically, the Western powers entered an expedient «alliance» with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany even though the latter had been fomented in order to destroy the former. 
However, as noted above, the wartime alliance was marked by Western ambivalence. Russia was permitted to soak up German aggression for three years before the West finally launched troops into Europe, and that move was probably hastened because the Red Army’s dramatic gains against the retreating Wehrmacht threatened to give Stalin conquest of all of Germany and other Central European territories. 
The underlying strategic imperative for the capitalist West in 1945 was therefore «reset» to 1917 – when the priority back then was the defeat of the Soviet Union. The Hitler option had been exercised by the Western ruling classes to vanquish the Russian Communist threat – and that option turned out to be a reckless bad bet. In the end, the Nazi anti-Soviet war machine had to be terminated with extreme prejudice for cynical Western geopolitical reasons – reasons that we hear none of in subsequent official Western war commemorations. 
But at the end of the Second World War the latent geopolitical concerns of the Western capitalist powers remained intact – namely, the continued existence of the Soviet Union and its potential threat to the capitalist world order. Western elite fears were heightened even further because of the prestige that the Soviet Union gained among the Western public, who knew the heroic sacrifices of the Russian people to defeat European fascism. There was also a palpable perception among the Western masses, to some degree, that their ruling classes had indulged in facilitating the rise of fascism. For example, this contempt for the ruling class was why British Conservative leader Winston Churchill (who took over from Chamberlain in 1940) was kicked out of office by the electorate just after the war, and a Socialist Labour government was voted in for the first time. This was in spite of Churchill being portrayed as the doughty war leader.
No sooner had the Second World War ended than the British and American ruling classes instigated the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Stalin went from ally to villain in an overnight Western transformation. The nation that defeated murderous European fascism – Russia – was henceforth cast as the enemy, with Western propaganda going into overdrive declaring «the Red Menace» and «Evil Empire». Decades of massive Western public brainwashing instilling fear of Russia and Socialism would ensue.
Today, the Russian state may no longer espouse Communism as an official ideology. But nonetheless a strong Russia is still a geo-strategic threat to the order and desired global hegemony of Western capitalism. Russia is seen especially by Washington as an impediment to its expansionism in the Middle East and Pacific. Moscow’s trenchant political support for Syria, for instance, has largely thwarted Washington-led regime change efforts in that country, which in turn has vitiated American ambitions to undermine Iran, another Russian ally.
More than 20 years after the official end of the Cold War following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have witnessed a relentless aggressive expansion by the US-led NATO military alliance towards Russia’s borders. This dynamic is scarcely questioned in official Western discourse. But the answer is profoundly telling.
This strategic aggression towards Russia by the American-dominated capitalist West is consistent with how the Western powers viewed Moscow as an enemy to their hegemony back in 1917 following the Bolshevik Revolution. It is consistent with how the Western ruling class enlisted European fascism as a bulwark against the Soviet Union during the 1930s – igniting the worst global conflagration in history. It is consistent with how the former Western allies immediately switched on the Cold War in 1945 that froze the Soviet Union out of normal international relations for nearly half a century. And it is consistent with why Washington and its European capitalist allies are currently pursuing an agenda of aggression towards Russia under President Putin over tortuous allegations and fabrications in the current Ukraine crisis.
Above all, the deep, underlying geo-strategic hostility of the Western powers towards Russia is manifest today in the following seemingly absurd contradiction: the 69th anniversary marking the defeat of European fascism is today the occasion for the capitalist Western powers to be in alliance with the neo-Nazis that usurped power in Kiev. The purpose and strategic target, as always, is Western imperialist aggression towards Russia. 
This gives the real meaning to the so-called «reset» in Washington’s relations with Moscow. The Western capitalist powers will ally themselves with any force no matter how depraved and despicable – to further their hegemonic objectives. The little-known alliance between the West and Nazi Germany is of the same essential quality as the present-day Western alliance with neo-Nazis in Ukraine. 
At a profoundly troubling level, it can be said that the Second World War never really ended for the Western capitalist powers. It was merely paused, restarted with the Cold War, and is today being resumed by the Western capitalist powers against their long-time perceived enemy – Russia.| 10.05.2014 | 00:00

Clear ! Makes all sense now... The way Finian Cunningham patiently takes us through time step by step. I was born during WW2 ... some things I knew BUT many I did not know... and I did not have the step by step as there were holes in my knowledge. Russia will be in full knowledge of this at least the people who are in power, and the people who are old enough. The whole 'thing' is horrendous... horrendous also because the US/UK Axis has fooled Europe for so long and still is... however.... today the world looks different and Russia is now sitting with a weapon that was "made" in the West... West needs hydrocarbons, like the dessert needs water, Russia has them, AND Russia and China today has something neither EU or US has - MARKETS - AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THEY HAVE THE WILL TO WINN AND THEIR ARMIES HAVE A PURPOSE TO DEFEND THEIR FATHERLAND - EU's AND US's CAPITALIST/ FASCIST GOVERNMENTS DO NOT HAVE THAT. EU and US are weak, tired, sick, infected by a deadly virus: GREED, a greed that know no limits, that eats them up from inside. They are almost gone. 

Very good article.

An additional reference:
'How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power'

I wrote too about the use of fascism into the western political game in this recent article (in french):

Russische Gegenoffensive an der Ostfront
Der US-Versuch, die Russische Föderation zu isolieren, um sie daran zu hindern dem ukrainischen Volk zu helfen, hat den gegenteiligen Effekt gehabt als erwartet: er drängt Moskau in die Arme von Peking. Auf lange Sicht wird also der osteuropäische-asiatische-Block, der sich konsolidiert, die Macht des Westens überschreiten.


JPEG - 32 kB
Während die NATO in Brüssel ihre 28 Verteidigungsminister einberuft, um ihre Truppen in einer anti-russischen Funktion zu stärken, indem sie auch die Ausbildung des Militärs und des Paramilitärs von Kiew intensiviert (einschließlich der bewaffneten Banden, die versuchten, den Sekretär der kommunistischen Partei der Ukraine zu töten), und während die Europäische Union Sanktionen gegen Russland ergreift, kommt die Antwort nicht aus Moskau, sondern aus dem entfernten Peking.
Präsident Putin beginnt heute seinen offiziellen Besuch in China, während dem etwa 30 bilaterale Abkommen unterzeichnet werden, dessen erster Effekt sein wird, den Washington-Plan zu Nichte zu machen, der darauf abzielt, „Putins Russland zu isolieren, indem man seine wirtschaftlichen und politischen Beziehungen mit der Außenwelt abschneidet“.
Die Tragweite der Vereinbarungen ist von strategischer Bedeutung. Ein Vertrag von einem Wert von $ 270 Milliarden zwischen dem russischen Staatsunternehmen Rosneft und Chinas National Petroleum Company sieht vor, dass Russland in den nächsten 25 Jahren mehr als 700 Millionen Tonnen Öl China zur Verfügung stellt. Ein anderer Vertrag sieht vor, dass das staatliche russische Unternehmen Gazprom China 38 Milliarden Kubikmeter Gas pro Jahr bis 2018 liefern wird, d.h. etwa ein Viertel von dem, das es heute an Europa liefert. Auch mit chinesischen Investitionen von $ 20 Milliarden plant Moskau die Pipeline von Ost-Sibirien bis zum Pazifik zu ermöglichen, und flankiert sie mit einer 4000 km langen Gasrohrleitung um China zu beliefern. Peking ist auch an Investitionen auf der Krim interessiert, insbesondere für die Herstellung und den Export von verflüssigtem Erdgas, für die Modernisierung der Landwirtschaft und den Bau eines Kornterminals. Zur gleichen Zeit spielen Moskau und Peking mit dem Gedanken, den Dollar als Währung für den Handel im asiatischen Raum aufzugeben. Und die Russische Föderation ist jetzt dabei, ihr eigenes Zahlungssystem nach dem Vorbild der chinesischen Union Pay voran zu treiben, deren Kreditkarten in mehr als 140 Ländern weltweit verwendet werden können, dem zweitgrößten System nach der Visa-Karte.
Die russisch-chinesische Zusammenarbeit beschränkt sich nicht auf wirtschaftliches Gebiet allein. Diplomatischen Quellen zufolge werden die Präsidenten Xi Jinping und Wladimir Putin eine "inhaltsreiche Erklärung" über die internationale Lage abgeben. Die Konvergenz der strategischen Interessen wird durch das gemeinsame Manöver veranschaulicht werden, das die Flotten der beiden Länder im Südchinesischen Meer gerade nach dem großen US- Marine Manöver auf den Philippinen machen werden. Eine militärische Vereinbarung ist praktisch abgeschlossen: im Rahmen dieser Vereinbarung wird Moskau Peking Suchoi Su-35 All Zweck Jäger, U-Boote der Lada-Klasse und die modernsten S-400 Raketen-Verteidigungs-systeme liefern.
JPEG - 20.5 kB
Die Konferenz auf Interaktion-Maßnahmen und Vertrauensbildung in Asien (CICA) wurde 2006 auf Initiative vom Kasachstan gegründet und hat sein ständiges Sekretariat in Almaty. Die rotierende Präsidentschaft wird für die Eröffnung des nächsten Gipfels von Schanghai am 21. und 22. Mai 2014 von der Türkei an China überreicht.
Um die Konvergenz der Interessen zwischen Moskau und Peking zu unterstreichen, spricht Putin auf der Konferenz über Maßnahmen zur Interaktion und Vertrauensbildung in Asien (CICA), unter dem Vorsitz von Xi Jinping, in Shanghai am 21. und 22. Mai, Konferenz, an der insbesondere der irakische Ministerpräsident Nouri al-Maliki, der afghanische Präsident Hamid Karzai, und der iranische Hassan Rohani teilnehmen. Ein Schlag für die Vereinigten Staaten, die in den Kriegen im Irak und in Afghanistan 6 000 Milliarden Dollar verpulvert haben, jetzt aber China in diesen Ländern wirtschaftlich immer aktiver sehen. China kauft in Irak rund die Hälfte der Ölproduktion des Landes und macht große Investitionen in der Ölindustrie; in Afghanistan investiert es vor allem im Bergbau, nachdem die Pentagon-Geologen reiche Vorkommen von Lithium, Kobalt, Gold und anderen Metallen entdeckt hatten. Und da Russland und China dem Iran die östlichen Märkte geöffnet haben, machen sie in der Tat das Embargo der USA und der EU praktisch zu Nichte.
An der Westfront sind die Dinge für Washington nicht besser. Die von der Obama-Administration erwähnte Möglichkeit, die russischen Gaslieferungen nach Europa um mehr als 25 % in einem Jahrzehnt zu verringern, und sie durch verflüssigtes Erdgas aus den USA zu ersetzen, erweist sich allmählich als reiner Bluff. Was diese Tatsache bestätigt, ist, dass trotz der angekündigten Sanktionen von Berlin, die deutschen Unternehmen weiterhin in die russische Energiewirtschaft investieren: das RMA Pipeline Equipment Kehl, Hersteller von Ventilen für Öl- und Gaspipelines eröffnet gerade seinen größten Standort an der Wolga. Und Gazprom hat alle Verträge bereits unterzeichnet, darunter einen von 2 Milliarden Euro mit der italienischen Firma Saipem (Eni), für den Bau der South Stream-Pipeline, die unter Umgehung der Ukraine das russisches Gas durch das Schwarze Meer nach Bulgarien, und von dort, in die EU bringt. Selbst wenn es den Vereinigten Staaten gelingen sollte den South-Stream zu blockieren, könnte Russland sein Gas nach China umlenken.
Der „East-Stream“ ist von jetzt ab offen.
Horst Frohlich

Friday, May 30, 2014

Economic Union in Heart of Europe

Yuri BARANCHIK | 31.05.2014 | 00:00

The experts were still discussing the results of historic Russia and China summit and the strategically important gas agreement signed on May 21 as another, no less important, event took place on May 29. In Astana the presidents of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the treaty on establishing the Eurasian Economic Union also known as the Eurasian Union (EaU) to come into force starting from January 1, 2015. «Today we are creating together a powerful and attractive centre of economic development, a major regional market which brings together more than 170 million people», Russian President Vladimir Putin said, adding that the union accounted for one fifth of world gas reserves and about 15% of oil reserves in the world. Meanwhile, the troika has a well-developed industrial base and strong personnel. The total EaU GDP is around $2, 6 billion. Customs barriers are to be eliminated uniting the markets of goods, services and labor. In 2015 the process of gradual unification of energy, transport, financial and economic systems will start creating the conditions for switching to single currency. The aggregate GDP of the states participating in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) will increase by about $900 billion by 2030. «The Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union is aimed to improve the welfare and the quality of life in Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus, to ensure free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, and to carry out a coordinated economic policy. As a result of the integration process, the aggregate GDP is expected to expand by about $900 billion by 2030», emphasized the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. 
Some moot points affecting bilateral relations were resolved, like the ones related to alcohol and tobacco between Russia and Kazakhstan, customs duties for oil between Russia and Belarus. Everyone made some concessions and got gains in return. The parties know well the general positive effect will by far outweigh any potential losses. 
It is planned to have a unified energy market by 2019 and oil and gas market by 2025. Head of the Eurasian Economic Commission Viktor Khristenko said unified rules to be in effect are the result of coordinated efforts. He noted that the treaty has updated the goals and tools to achieve the four freedoms of movement of goods, services, capital and labor. «For example, the treaty touches upon the areas that were left beyond the scope of integration before, namely energy, oil, and gas. The treaty clearly sets out the goal towards the common market, and also a clear time framework», said the Chairman of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission. According to him, 2025 is not just a date anticipated without applying any efforts; there are lot things to be done. For instance, in 2016 the member states are to adopt a common policy concept for oil, oil products and gas markets. 
The process of financial markets integration is to be over by 2025. By January 2016 the governments are to come up with the plan aimed at harmonization of sectoral legislation. Common rules for banking, brokers and insurance licenses are to be established by 2017 to be mutually recognized after 2020. The unification of banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms oversight regulations is expected to be over by 2019. 
The introduction of single currency is not on agenda as yet. According to the Eurasian Economic Union’s press-service, the estimates show that level of economic integration is not sufficient for introduction of one currency, at least not till 2025. 
The currency union is the highest form of integration to be reached after taking coordinated microeconomic steps, in particular adopting common economic policy with the aim to create a single financial market by 2020. The direct convertibility of currencies is a must. Any intermediate settlement phases with the use of the dollar and the euro must be eliminated. 
No matter the presidents avoided direct comments on the political significance of the Astana treaty, it’s clear that this is the event of momentous importance to influence the world politics. The large-scale Russia - China gas treaty also has political significance. It’s a proof that all the talk about Russia being isolated is nothing more than just empty words; the world of business does not understand the language of sanctions. 
There is a new economic entity emerging in Eurasia with its own interests and goals. It will facilitate the protection of members’ economic interests. Two more countries – Kyrgyzstan and Armenia plan to join the union this year. The Eurasian Economic Union is located in the heart of European continent. It’s hard to implement large-scale economic projects going around the territories of the member-states. 
The new association strengthens the position of its members in their dialogue with the United States and Europe. After Shanghai and Astana nobody perceives Eurasia as a chessboard with the United States moving pieces and calling all the shots.
Tags: Eurasian Union Belarus Russia Ukraine

Eurasian Economic Union to Become Economic Power West Has to Reckon With – Lawmaker

News | 29.05.2014 | 19:53
The nascent Eurasian Economic Union (EAU) will soon become an economic power that the West will have to reckon with, and its creation was a logical response to attempts by Western partners to establish unfavorable rules of the game, Russian lawmaker Anton Zharkov said Thursday.
“The EAU will soon become a power that the West will have to reckon with, the Union has the potential, it is also oriented not only to the cooperation within its members, but also to the expansion of ties with the Asia-Pacific partners,” said Zharkov, a member of the Russian State Duma.
The creation of the block has propelled its member states to a higher level of integration. The signatories have made commitments to ensure coordinated policy in key economic sectors, including energy, industry, agriculture, transportation.
According to the lawmaker, the creation of such an economic structure, which will be open for the accession of new members, is not only a logical development of economic relations within the former Soviet republics, but also a response to the West’s attempts to thrust unfavorable rules of the game on its partners.
On Thursday, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus signed an agreement on the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, which is to enter force next January.
The deal stipulates integration and free trade between its three member states. More countries are expected to join the block as well.
Earlier in the day, Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev announced his country was planning to join the union by the end of the year.
The leader already met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss a roadmap for the accession, with Putin saying Russia was ready to assist the country in the process.
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan also said Armenia was set to join the EAU Treaty by June 15. The Russian President hailed the initiative, saying the deal should be signed as soon as possible.

Obamas Rede In Westpoint gegen den Strich gelesen:

Er reagiert auf die Republikaner, die  meinen" Amerika  ist im Niedergang"!
Obama kündigt bei Krisen in der Welt  mehr Zurückhaltung an!
Er betont:Schwelle für Militäroperationen müsse künftig niedriger liegen.
 Er sagt:"Eine Strategie, die bedeutet, in jedes Land einzumarschieren, das Terrornetzwerke beherbergt, ist naiv und unhaltbar."
und weiter:"In der ganzen Welt glauben sie, dass auf uns kein Verlass ist." 
Und er verkündet Truppenabzug aus Afghanistan!

Das sind trotz allen Übels Hofffnungschimmer, hier muss die Gegenstrategie einsetzen, die Erfolg haben will, so lese man den dpa-Bericht

US-AußenpolitikDie "unverzichtbarste Nation"
US-Präsident Barack Obama bekräftigt den globalen Führungsanspruch der USA. (dpa / Kristoffer Tripplaar)
US-Präsident Barack Obama hat in einer außenpolitischen Grundsatzrede den weltweiten Führungsanspruch der USA bekräftigt. "Amerika muss auf der Weltbühne immer führen. Wenn wir es nicht tun, tut es kein anderer", sagte er in der Militärakademie in West Point. Außerdem will der US-Präsident den internationalen Terrorismus weiter bekämpfen.
Obama hob in seiner Rede die herausragende Bedeutung der amerikanischen Streitkräfte in der Welt hervor: "Unser Militär hat kein gleichwertiges Gegenüber." Die Stellung der USA sei zu kaum einer anderen Zeit stärker gewesen als gegenwärtig. Er widersprach damit Kritikern aus den Reihen der Republikaner, dass sich : befinde und er den Führungsanspruch aufgegeben habe. Die USA seinen auch nach einer langen Zeit des Krieges die "unverzichtbarste Nation der Welt".
Höhere Schwellen für künftige Militäroperationen
Obama verteidigte auch die Sanktionspolitik gegen Russland in der aktuellen Ukraine-Krise. Die Strafmaßnahmen der internationalen Gemeinschaft würden Russland treffen und der Ukraine helfen, "ohne das ein Schuss gefallen ist." Das ist laut Obama "amerikanische Führung".
Obama kündigte an, dass die USA bei Krisen in der Welt zukünftig zurückhaltender agieren werden. Wenn Probleme keine direkte Bedrohung für Amerika seien, dann müsse die Schwelle für Militäroperationen höher liegen: "Unter solchen Umständen sollten wir es nicht alleine machen."
Kampf gegen internationalen Terrorismus
Stattdessen sollten Verbündete und Partner für gemeinsame Aktionen mobilisiert werden. Multilaterale Militärschläge müssten aber "berechtigt, notwendig und effektiv" sein.
Obama trat in seiner Rede für eine neue Strategie im Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus ein. Amerika und seine Partner müssten darauf reagieren, dass die Bedrohung heutzutage von dezentral organisierten Gruppen und Extremisten mit verschiedenen Zielen ausgehe. "Eine Strategie, die bedeutet, in jedes Land einzumarschieren, das Terrornetzwerke beherbergt, ist naiv und unhaltbar." Mit den betroffenen Ländern solle zusammengearbeitet werden. Der Präsident kündigte an, dass die USA andere Länder mit insgesamt fünf Milliarden Dollar (3,7 Milliarden Euro) im Anti-Terror-Kampf unterstützen werde. Das Geld solle in Training und Ausbildung fließen.
McCain kritisiert Obamas Rede
Die Republikaner haben die außenpolitische Rede von US-Präsident Barack Obama kritisiert. Die Außenpolitik des Präsidenten sei nicht länger vertrauenswürdig, sagte der einflussreiche Senator John McCain dem TV-Sender MSNBC. "In der ganzen Welt glauben sie, dass auf uns kein Verlass ist." Die internationale Gemeinschaft wolle aber ein starkes Amerika.
McCain kritisierte außerdem den von Obama am Vortag verkündeten Abzug aller US-Soldaten aus Afghanistan bis Ende 2016. Die Entscheidung Obamas sei ein Signal an die Taliban, dass sich Washington zurückziehe. "Das ist die falsche Botschaft."
Der afghanische Präsident Hamid Karsai hingegen hat die US-Pläne für einen Truppenabzug begrüßt. "Das Ende der US-Militärpräsenz und die Übernahme der Sicherheitsverantwortung durch die afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte waren der vordringliche Wunsch des Präsidenten, der Regierung und der Bevölkerung Afghanistans", hieß es in einer Erklärung des Präsidentenpalastes. 

Weiterführende Informationen
US-Außenpolitik: Erwartungen an eine Weltmacht  (Deutschlandfunk, Themen der Woche, 04.01.2014)
Afghanistan: Obama verkündet Abzugsdatum (Deutschlandfunk, Informationen am Morgen, 28.05.2014)
Terrorismus: USA helfen Nigeria mit Soldaten (Deutschlandfunk, Aktuell, 21.05.2014)

Letzte Änderung: 28.05.2014 22:31 Uhr

Listen To The Call ’ of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic Address to the International Community

Peoples’ of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic Address to the International Community
We the people of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic turn to the international community at a critical juncture calling for immediate help and adequate reaction to the developments on our land – given the impending threat of our elimination by the Nazi and fascist forces employed by the Ukrainian regime.
We state that our sole desire is life in accordance with our historical traditions and foundations, culture and customs, in peaceful and good neighbor relations with all the nations, peoples and states that are not hostile to us. Intrinsically our people are hardworking and creative, but even so they have to take arms in order to protect their lives and future, as there is no other choice left. We have never displayed aggression towards any country or nation, nor have we ever sought expansion or acquisition of foreign land. But when it comes to our land and our families, we have stood and will stand for them till the end. We have already seen it in history. We saw it during the World War II when hordes of fascist invaders stormed our peaceful land. At the expense of an immense number of victims and colossal efforts the Soviet Union in alliance with the other countries standing on guard of peace in the world overcame Hitler’s fascism that had brought sorrow and bloodshed to our lands. And now, after more than 70 years, the plague of fascism is on the rise again. There is no need in citing innumerable acts where the essence of fascism is manifest that we find today in Ukraine. Kiev, Odessa,Khmelnitskiy, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Donetsk and many other cities and towns are bleeding today with the blood of our civilians, who are guilty just because they have made a stand against a man-hateful policy of the self-proclaimed Ukrainian authorities having come to power through violent means.
Today we have no other choice but for to die refusing to surrender to man-hating fascists or to unite defending our lives and lives of our wives, children and the old, and we choose the struggle. But we are well aware that our struggle, no matter how well prepared we are, will be most bitter without the help of the international community standing on guard of peace on Earth.
According to the information that we have received from the reliable sources, the current Ukrainian authorities together with the USA are now preparing for the massive mopping-up operation on our land. They will have no mercy to women and children. This fascist scenario is scheduled for the nearest future. We, the people of the Donetsk People’s Republic andLugansk People’s Republic, are ready to face the enemy carrying death to us and our children. But we sincerely hope that the international community will not stand aside and will react at our call for help, as it is more than evident that the fascist monster that shrugs and hits us today will go further tomorrow, fed and led by the USA. Then the world will find itself on the threshold of a new global war. At the same time we certainly do not identify the establishment of the USA and a number of its European allies with the American and European peoples.
We also voice hope that the forces and persons who are responsible for mongering ethnic strife among the Slavs by means of manipulations, provocations, instigations and direct actions, including sponsorship, who back nationalist extremist organizations aiming at launching military, economic, informational and genetic strikes at our people, are fully aware that they will inevitably carry a just punishment, proportionate to the scale of their atrocities and war crimes.

Светлана Ренц

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Syrian Scenario repeated and the German "Peace Movement" also wants to blame Russia: A Scandal!

Ukraine and EU Integration… of Popular Revolt against Oligarchs

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 27.05.2014 | 08:52

It’s a sweet irony that declared winner of Ukraine’s presidential election, the billionaire «chocolate tycoon» Petro Poroshenko, proclaimed that his electoral victory «showed that people have chosen the path of European Union integration».
Meanwhile, this week the people across the EU were voting in record numbers against the project of closer European centralization under Brussels. If Poroshenko is correct about Ukraine, which is doubtful, then the people of Ukraine are swimming against the popular tide in the EU where there is mounting disaffection with what is seen as overbearing governance by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels…
What we have in both cases actually is a popular rejection of oligarchy, whether of the Ukrainian or EU variety.
The outright electoral victories in Britain and France of the UK Independence Party and the Front National were just two of the stunning gains this week by radical right-wing political parties right across the 28-nation bloc. Similar parties polled strongly in Denmark, Austria, Holland, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Hungary. All of these parties are marked by policies that are anti-immigration and nationalistic. Some, such as France’s FN, led by Marine Le Pen, and Hungary’s Jobbick or Holland’s Freedom Party are accused of being racist and anti-Semitic.
But one view that unites the various right-wing parties is their contempt for closer integration of the EU under Brussels’ dictate, vowing to take their respective countries out of the union.
So, confectionary tycoon Poroshenko’s apparent jubilation with EU integration seems as misplaced as a toffee sweet poked into a matted rug, given the widespread euro-skeptic climate out there.
In addition, and much more seriously, are the extreme conditions of violence prevailing in large parts of Ukraine. The country is in a morass of incipient civil war, where a Western-backed coup in Kiev is waging a reign of terror on the mainly Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions.
Just as Poroshenko was being declared the presidential winner with 55 per cent of the vote in an election where large sections of the population did not even cast their ballots, the Kiev regime was launching another lethal military assault in Donetz. Some 20 people have been killed in recent days in the eastern regions, many of the victims unarmed civilians shot down by Kiev’s national guard, backed up by neo-Nazi paramilitaries and reportedly American mercenaries.
Overall voter turnout across Ukraine was said to be as low as 45 per cent this week, with parts of Lugansk and Donetz seeing voting rates of only 10 per cent. While political commentators talk about heavy rain being a factor in voter apathy in the EU, in Ukraine the problem deterring citizens was a precipitous reign of terror.
Poroshenko says he wants the so-called «anti-terror operations» to continue in the east and south, where populations have declared political autonomy from the oligarch-friendly, neo-Nazi junta in Kiev. Indeed, Poroshenko has said somewhat enigmatically that the he wants to make the military onslaught «more efficient». What does that mean? The increased integration of Right Sector death squads with the American CIA and other covert NATO forces?
In such a climate of lawlessness and murderous state violence under the auspices of a regime that seized power illegally in Kiev against an elected government in February, it seems ludicrous to talk about the conduct of a  «presidential election». And when the declared winner is now vowing to have a democratic mandate to step up repression against civilians, the issue then becomes appalling.
Ironically, the Ukraine and the EU share certain features that Poroshenko does not intend in his presumption of closer integration. The low turnouts in both jurisdictions of 45-43 per cent indicate that the majority of the populations do not support the various political authorities. Even in western and central Ukraine where the Kiev regime claims to have large support, most of the voters stayed away. 
While Poroshenko officially won 55 per cent of the ballot that figure represents only half of a national minority. The other pro-Kiev candidates showed even more lackluster performances, with Yulia Tymoshenko, Oleg Lyashko and Dimitry Yarosh receiving less than 12 per cent of the national minority voting. Yarosh, the Right Sector commander instrumental in the coup only collected one per cent of the total minority vote. Yet these politicians claim to have a mandate to launch military strikes on dissenting civilians.
Convicted embezzler Tymoshenko, also known as the «gas princess» owing to her past corruption over energy deals, made the delusional comment after the poll: «I want to congratulate the whole of Ukraine since despite external aggression, despite the Kremlin's intent to disrupt this election we had an honest and democratic election in Ukraine.» Despite no evidence of Russian interference in Ukraine and repeated denials of such from Moscow, there are reams of video evidence showing pro-Kiev Kiev military forces terrorizing civilians. Is Tymoshenko now saying that the Kremlin somehow tricked the majority of the electorate across the whole of Ukraine from not stepping out to vote, even in supposedly pro-Kiev western Ukraine?
A more plausible assessment is that the majority of citizens view the Ukrainian candidates as not having any legitimacy or democratic credentials. A majority of voter abstentions can be viewed as a massive rejection of the politicians on offer because these politicians have nothing to offer in terms of vision or policies. 
The backdrop to the dramatic rise of the nationalistic, anti-EU parties in the European elections this week is consistent with the same voter apathy, disillusionment and ultimately withholding of democratic mandate in the Ukraine. 
The victory of Britain’s UK Independence Party and France’s Front National is not necessarily a correlation of the growing popularity of racist, proto-fascist politics among Europe’s people. It is surely noteworthy that both parties topped the polls ahead of established parties. In Britain, it was the first time in over 100 years that neither the Conservative nor Labour Party won first place. 
In France, the incumbent governing (so-called) Socialist Party of President Francois Hollande slumped into third place with only 14 per cent of the vote, against Le Pen’s FN gaining 26 per cent. The drubbing for Hollande party follows the electoral meltdown in French municipal elections earlier this year. His Prime Minister Manuel Valls described this week’s collapse as «a political earthquake».  
Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, whose party won first place with 27 per cent of the British vote, doubling its tally of MEPs from the last election in 2009, said: «The penny's really dropped that as members of this union we cannot run our own country and, crucially, we cannot control our own borders.»
Britain’s voter turnout was even lower than the EU average of 43 per cent – standing at an abysmal low of 33 per cent. As in the rest of Europe, the evident apathy reflects that the majority are discontent and disillusioned with the established and even the newcomer radical right, rather than endorsing the latter parties as a genuine alternative. The partial rise of the rightwing parties is more a popular revolt against the increasing oligarchic nature of the European Union and its regimen of economic austerity. Across the EU, a record 26 million people are unemployed and 13 million of those in work are struggling below the poverty line, according to the European Trade Union Institute.
In that way, the people of Ukraine and the EU do share a dubious level of integration – one of widespread disgust with oligarchic figures such as European bankers, their political servants and industrial kleptocrats, such as Poroshenko and Tymoshenko. 
Tags: European Union Ukraine

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

A World War is Beckoning


Why do we ­tolerate the threat of ­another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our ­indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter, is a “brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of ­hypnosis”, as if the truth “never happened even while it was happening”.
Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his “updated summary of the record of US foreign policy” which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to ­overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.
In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human ­suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in the west, despite the presence of the world’s most advanced communications and nominally freest journalism. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – “our” terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was ­nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed. In April the US state department noted that, following Nato’s campaign in 2011, “Libya has become a terrorist safe haven”.
The name of “our” enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory. The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran and Salvador Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of caricature and vilification – think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, now Vladimir Putin.
Washington’s role in Ukraine is ­different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is ­threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last “buffer state” bordering Russia is being torn apart. We in the west are backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington’s planned seizure of Russia’s ­historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato’s military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Instead, Putin has confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, by withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon the weekend’s provocative referendum. These Russian-speaking and bilingual people – a third of Ukraine’s population – have long sought a democratic federation that reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are neither “separatists” nor “rebels” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland.
Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park – run by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with “special units” from the CIA and FBI setting up a “security structure” that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month. Bussed fascist thugs burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by. A doctor described trying to rescue people, “but I was stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals. One of them pushed me away rudely, promising that soon me and other Jews of Odessa are going to meet the same fate … I wonder, why the whole world is keeping silent.”
Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting for survival. When Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from the border, the Kiev junta’s defence secretary – a founding member of the fascist Svoboda party – boasted that the attacks on “insurgents” would continue. In Orwellian style, propaganda in the west has inverted this to Moscow “trying to orchestrate conflict and provocation”, according to William Hague. His cynicism is matched by Obama’s grotesque congratulations to the coup junta on its “remarkable restraint” following the Odessa massacre. Illegal and fascist-dominated, the junta is described by Obama as “duly elected”. What matters is not truth, Henry Kissinger once said, but “but what is perceived to be true.”
In the US media the Odessa atrocity has been played down as “murky” and a “tragedy” in which “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) attacked “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”. ­Propaganda in Germany has been pure cold war, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine ­Zeitung warning its readers of Russia’s “undeclared war”. For Germans, it is an invidious irony that Putin is the only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe.
A popular truism is that “the world changed” following 9/11. But what has changed? According to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a silent coup has taken place in Washington and rampant militarism now rules. The Pentagon ­currently runs “special operations” – secret wars – in 124 countries. At home, rising poverty and hemorrhaging liberty are the historic corollary of a perpetual war state. Add the risk of nuclear war, and the question begs: why do we tolerate this?
John Pilger is the author of Freedom Next Time. He can be reached through his website:
Sent from:
 Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502  (blog)

European Parliament Elections: Old Continent Turning Right

(Some ideas may cause indignation, but it be better to instigate a truthful discussion on the below  expressed views which are not so far from a realistic look at the events, blogger's comment)

Elena PONOMAREVA | 27.05.2014 | 00:00

The European Parliament is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union. On May 22-25, 2014 it held its first election after the Lisbon Treaty came into force on December 1, 2009. The event made surface problems that had been smoldering for a long time turning into burning issues as the Ukraine’s crisis flared. The Parliament has wide representation – 751 members MEPs (MEP-member of European Parliament) coming from 28 countries though it can hardly drastically change the EU policy. According to the election results, the process of Europe going right has taken an irreversible turn reflecting the people’s sentiments. 
The EU members have proportional representation depending on the population of a country. Germany boasts 96 seats leaving behind France with 74, Italy and Great Britain – 73 each, Spain – 54, Poland – 51, Romania – 32, the Netherlands – 26, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and the Czech Republic – 21 each, Sweden- 20, Austria – 18, Bulgaria – 17, Denmark – 13, Finland -13, Slovakia – 13, Ireland – 11, Lithuania – 11, Croatia – 11, Latvia – 8, Slovenia – 8, Estonia, Luxemburg, Malta and Cyprus – 6 each. New parliamentary groups will be formed by the end of June, but the general correlation of forces is clear. 
The election will go down in history as a stunning gain for Eurosceptics – the far-right demanding to curtail immigration flows, restore national boundaries and return the sovereignty of state. They want to leave the eurozone and adopt independent economic policy. 
Before this election the right wing MEPs had been conditionally divided into Eurosceptics united around the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), a conservative, anti-federalist and Eurosceptic political group, comprising UK Conservative Party (around half of the group’s strength), and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD), a right-wing Eurosceptic political group, including UK Independence Party – UKIP, which accounted for half of group’s members, and the Italian Northern League. The EFD is most hostile to European integration among all the groups in the European Parliament.
 The European Alliance for Freedom Party is expected to expand comprising the French National Front led by Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Party of Freedom headed by Geert Wilders. According to estimates, the European Alliance for Freedom may include 38 MEPs representing seven countries. Popular enough, the National Front has so far failed to become a leader of parliamentary group as it was unable to comply with the condition which envisions overcoming the threshold of minimum 25 MEPs from at least seven member - states.
The turn for the right in many EU member states reflects the rejection of globalist policy aimed at elimination of European traditional values related to the Christian faith, family and national homeland…
Before the European politics were dominated by centre-right European People’s Party (EPP, 274 seats), centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D, 196 seats) and liberal Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE, 83 seats). They formed coalitions from time to time depending on the issue discussed. For instance, on social welfare the EPP normally joined the British Conservatives or even the far-right. On European integration it cooperated with Socialists. According to first estimations, these groups will retain their leading positions. 
According to PollWatch2014, the European People’s Party will get 217 seats, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats – 201, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - 59, the far left wing European United Left-Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL) – 53, the Greens-European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) – 44, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) – 40. Independent MEPs from radical parties are to get 95 seats representing the Party for Freedom (the Netherlands), the Movement for a Better Hungary (Hungary), the National Front (France), Attack (Bulgarian nationalist party), the Freedom Party of Austria, the Flemish Interest (Belgium) and some others. 
By and large the forecasts were correct. With 43 percent of votes cast, the European People’s Party is expected to gain 211 seats, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats - 193, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – 61, Greens – 58, United Left – 47, the European Conservatives and Reformists – 39, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy – 33. Independent MEPs are to win 40 seats, while 56 seats going to the new group allegedly to be formed. 
The new group includes the National Front led by Marine Le Pen. This is the party’s first victory and it is sweeping. As exit polls show, Le Pen got 25% of French votes in comparison with the Socialist Party which suffered a crashing defeat with 14, 7% rolling down to the third place in national election. The National Front may receive 23-25 seats in the European Parliament and lead a newly formed group if joined by allies which is a likely occurrence. 
 The triumph of French National Front is doomed to influence the composition of European Commission, the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union’s treaties and day-to-day running of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 says there is a direct link between the Parliament election results and the composition of the Commission including the position of its President. 
Greens and the European Conservatives and Reformists are also forces to reckon with. In some cases they may side with the right wing MEPs. They have already presented their candidates for the President’s position. The Greens nominated two candidates at once - German Ska Keller and well-known French anti-globalist José Bové. This time the Eurosceptics refused to take part in the election of the European Commission’s President to avoid abusing the European legislation as they say. 
A presidential candidate is to get support of at least 376 MEPs in order to win. It’s possible only on the condition the Socialists and the centre-right form a coalition. The new group could influence the election outcome for the positions of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament. There are informal quotas for EU top positions. That is the way to express gratitude to East European states who serve not only Brussels and Strasburg, but also their bosses in Washington. Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski is a leading candidate for the position of European Foreign and Security Policy Chief. Another factor influencing European politics is gender policy: women must be represented in EU structures no matter if their professionalism is up to par or not. 
The EU foreign policy is an issue of special interest. The MEPs ratify international agreements. They will have to approve the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The issue of Ukrainian crisis is hot on the agenda and it is directly linked to relationship between the European Union and Russia. There is a distinct division between the MEPs who favor good relationship with the Russian Federation and who oppose it advocating hostile attitude. The far right parliamentarians are likely to take a pro-Russian stand on Ukraine. (???)They will probably oppose the cultural policy which has started to take the most repugnant forms, especially if one remembers Concita Wurst winning the Eurovision contest. The head of Washington Post's London bureau chief says European far right and far left parties make no secret of their admiration for Russian leader, whom they see as an ideological soul mate someone the contemporary Europe lacks so much. They view Russian President Putin as kind of a symbol for those who strive to protect the traditional relationship between a man and a woman, parents and children. 
The traditional values have become a yardstick for voters and an anti-thesis to the so called European values. Article 2 (Title I) of the European Union Treaty says «The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail». This maxim is hardly a heritage of European civilization only, for instance take the «respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights» – all these things have been rooted in the Russian civilization since ancient times. But this time it is not the issue in focus. The problem is that European bureaucrats desecrate these values daily and do it in the most hypocritical and perverse way. Painting itself as a leading defender of the human rights. The European Union allows itself a selective approach, to put it mildly, when tackling the rights issue in practice. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Report issued a report on ensuring human rights in the European Union. It was released in December 2013. The paper adduces many facts of systematic human rights violations in the European Union member states. 
The European Union clearly underestimates the threat of Neo-Nazism (the heroization of former Waffen-SS legionnaires in Latvia and Estonia, the activities of underground movement in Germany, the Neo-Nazi Objekt 21 group Object 21 in Austria etc.). In some cases the EU justifies their activities referring to the freedom of expression as people’s inalienable right. 
As Neo-Nazi movement is on the rise in Europe itself, so the public opinion is neither stunned nor concerned by the brutal mass elimination of civilians in Ukraine (the repetition of Khatyn in Odessa, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, and Slavyansk). The Europeans have a different headache – the growing support of Brussels for sex minorities. Homosexualism is painted as a universal norm of life and marriages of people belonging to the same become a legal norm. They say it’s natural, it’s good thing, so they want «these values» become universally legalized at government level. The perverse vision of moral norms goes too far becoming an outright absurd. The European Union was not so much worried by the death toll resulting from the flood in Serbia but by the cancellation of gay parade in Belgrade! 
The protection of gays’ rights has become a priority for all human rights institutions in Europe. It implies the destruction of traditional way of life, rejection of the historic heritage; it facilitates the process of personal degradation and leads to the annihilation of humanity as it is. In the schools of Germany and Norway little children are taught that homosexual relationship is a natural thing, they have opened a BDSM public house in Hamburg, a special brothel in Hessen for sodomites who prefer sex with animals, in the Netherlands they have legalized the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom and Diversity or the Charity, commonly known as "pedopartij" ("pedo party") in the media. They delete words father and mother in identification papers in favor of the terms parent 1 and parent 2. What is left of human self-esteem in the contemporary Europe? As the continent downgrades, it evokes indignation among morally healthy Europeans making them support right wing parties and died-in-the-wool conservatives. 
There are other issues on the agenda that raise concern among all the strata of European society. For instance the secret jails of the US Central Intelligence Agency, where they keep the people suspected of terrorist activities, the violations of migration laws, the ban on freedom of movement etc. 
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bans the propaganda of war. It says distinctly that, «prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law». Some European Union members interpret this article in their own way finding subterfuges to justify their refusal to strictly comply. For instance, Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Finland, France and Sweden make reservations to the effect of the article and refuse to adopt corresponding laws under the pretext it would contradict the right of freedom of speech and restrict the expression of opinion. As a global structure, the European Union has become a mechanism for destruction of traditional values which are two thousand years old. The May 2014 election turned the tide to the right. It’s a reflection of protest staged by morally healthy Europeans struggling against the tendency aimed at undermining the basis of human existence.
Tags: European Union France Germany Le Pen