EU Expansionism NOT Putin Caused Ukraine/Crimea Crisis ©

Before condemning Russia for using veto in UNSC, ruling Crimean referendum illegal or blaming Mr Putin for the Ukraine crisis, let us remember our glass houses, or our record of interventionism  and above all EU role in creating this crisis in the first place.

ِTwo million voters in Crimea decided  by over 97 percent yes in a  referendum,  to rejoin Russia (going back to 1954 status quo before the peninsula was given to Ukraine by Moscow without the Crimeans being consulted )  one day after Russia vetoed an American sponsored  UN Security Council resolution aiming  to  block the referendum.  Given the ethnic balance of the peninsula population  the result was no surprise. Even a ‘no’ vote wouldn’t have kept the 1954-2014 status-quo since the other choice would have been more power to Crimea and less rule from Kiev.

While our Foreign Secretary carry on condemning the result, with a  growing American size mouth, and threatening nonsensical un-implementable sanctions , and our Fleet Street subs coming up with cold-war-era headlines, let us just remember some historic facts about glass houses, goose and gander and the the like metaphors. We, and our American allies hailed elections in Afghanistan and Iraq ( countries with no traditions of fair elections or fair-play , and who don’t play cricket) as great democratic steps forward, even though they were held under military occupation ( or our & American troops kicking down doors while families having dinner was  not “occupation” the same way Arabs and Muslims wouldn’t consider colnialising Spain, Egypt, and formally Christian lands AS  occupation, but god’s liberation from infidels?);  elections held while and terrible strife going on with car bombs round the corner from almost every polling station.

On the Russian veto in the UN on a Security Council resolution nullifying the result of the referendum before it was held:  are we supposed  to be surprised, and then rushing to condemn it?

On June 14,1982, we vetoed ( Panamanian-Spanish drafted )UN SC  resolution 502 calling for ceasefire, in the Falklands ( USA Abstained contrary to promises made letting us down for their own interest in Latin America) . and the war went on with hundreds of casualties on booth sides.  Let us just bear in mind facts on geo-strategic terms:  Our main land of Great Britain and Northern Ireland  distance from  the Falklands to that of Crimea’s proximity to Russia and the peninsula’s   strategic importance from a defence view point to Russian mainland and as a  base of its mighty Black Sea Fleet.

Before rushing to condemn Vladimir Putin as trying to resurrect “a neo-Soviet Union,” as sound-bitten by boys-commentator still licking OxBridge exam ink off their soft fingers;  and BBC hacks peppering their copy and reports with degrading adjectives like the first voters seen  ” behind  a shabby curtain” in polling booth, and voter ”not folding her ballot paper before depositing it in the box,”  let us remind ourselves how did this crisis start, and who has triggered it.

Last week the German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, ” Europe will not allow the annexation of the Crimea to by Russia “. Two days earlier, our  Prime Minister David Cameron made a statement to the House of Commons announcing measures against Russia .  Measures like freezing the assets of Russian oligarchs who back  President Putin, and blocking or  freezing visas to enter and stay in UK. He was making a statement  after  returning from an emergency meeting in Brussels. It seems to be measures to implement the EU strategy to  support for Ukrainian nationalists ( and disregarding  the rights of a third of Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian, or Russian speakers or by  culture  ) .

Has Mr cameron, once hailed for vetoing EU attempts to ram the Euro down our national throat has finally made us Brussels’ poodle, implementing a secrete EU agenda while disregarding our own interest; the same way Tony Blair made us America’s poodle for almost a decade?

It is puzzling, both to City of London traders and fiscal experts  as why a British leader would rush with measures- or talk of measures that is likely to hurt the  economy for the sake of Europe?

Russian Oligarchs have already started  to withdraw their assets and investments worth billions from the city and other areas where they might be frozen. They are likely to sell real Estate and property worth billions  leading  the collapse of real estate values and unemployment in that sector.  .

Mr Cameron’s unwise statement ( combined with our Foreign Secretary American size mouth) are giving  negative signals to enrich the world’s super rich and international its investors  that their money, assets and investments are not as safe in Britain as they have thought. They would turn away from London financial market and the City, through-which half the world money transaction go every day, and invest with our competitors instead. . .

Have we forgotten during the Falklands war, how America, to protect her interests within the Organisation of the American States, left us diplomatically isolated, when UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick abstained instead of joining UK to veto a resolution ( which would have kept our troops on Royal navy task-force ship in the middle of Atlantic winter for months)  the vary moment president Ronald Reagan was sitting next to Prime Minister Thatcher for dinner at the G7 summit in  Versailles?

So why did Mr Cameron put our economy at risk instead of taking a leaf off America’a own self interest book.?

Unlike Tony Blair’s ideological conviction ( like his liberal interventionism doctrine ) Mr. Cameron  foreign policy has been, so-far,  pragmatic and balanced. He often follows given advice by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ( FOC traditionally don’t like Downing Street meddling in foreign policy fearing party politics might  unlock their centuries-long work, and it became a bone of contention with the late lady Thatcher ) . This explains why he is less popular in the American media and public-opinion over there than Mr Blair, as Mr Cameron  treads a more independent path safeguarding British national interests  compared to Mr Blair’s policy which  made Great Britain a poodle  following the ” the Colonies” .

( For example, despite pressure from Jewish organisations and many backbenchers on all sides  before his visit to Israel to recognise the  ” Jewishness of Israel as the Jewish state ,” officially, Mr Cameron followed the FCO instructions and steered away from the subject  and sympathised with Israel personally in a tactful  speech well balanced with equally sympathetic with the Palestinians. No 10 lobby briefings and spokesman referred to   ” his  visit to the occupied territories ” the FCO traditional line  as defined by British drafted  UNSC resolution 242 of 1967).

Given Mr. Cameron  pragmatic approach to foreign policy, why  would he put the interests of his country in second place to that of NATO/EU and give in to Brussels and Washington pressure over Russia ?

Same question arises regarding the German Chancellor ( no evident pressure from Brussels) . Russia has become the number one trade  partner with Germany ( and vice versa ) ; Russian gas and oil imports make  20-30 % (depending on season) of German energy after the unwise decision to close most of the nuclear power plants to win the votes of the left and the Greens ( which is ideology rather than scientific studies or economic reasons ) .

The answer in the analysis had not been dealt with or looked at by vast majority of British commentators. which is a mysterious.  The handful of commentators who looked at it found the answer in the strategic undeclared long-term plans of the European Union Commission  (a non- elected group of authoritarian bureaucrats, with no mechanism to hold them accountable neither to European  Parliamentarians  or to national  parliaments who  representing voters and taxpayers in their own countries. national parliaments, like our House of  Commons  who are becoming powerless by the day to contradict rules and directives issued by the EU commission let alone gaining back power lost thanks to Lisbon Treaty – the name given to the EU constitution to get leaders who promised a referendum on the EU constitution to spit in the electorate’s  eye and welsh back on the election promise  ) .

The defacto chief of staff of this strategy in the Brussels’s expansionist bunker is non but  Frau Merkel her self, with her  country’s economic might guaranteeing the  loans to countries in southern Europe , which is sinking economically such as Greece and Spain or bribing the newer eastern members. .

What we joined in (January 1, 1973) was a Common market for goods and trade, and majority of people were convinced it would be another Commonwealth of Europe, and nobody dreamed that one day  our House of Commons would be powerless before unelected overpaid commission  ( and that is why near 60%  voted  in 1975 labour government  referendum to remain in the European Common Market NOT in a Federal European Union  ) has been evolved  by  EU commission into a strategy to create  a Federal Super-State, or the  United States of Europe, without consulting electorate, or without a democratic mandate by the voters . As if by itself isn’t bad enough, the EU expansionist strategy is to go after almost all former Soviet Union Republics, west of Russia, to include them in what American commentators frequently refer to as ” the United States of Europe” and not once were corrected by BBC presenters interviewing them.

When it comes to media debates, academic studies or school essays in Germany, Europe is not a foreign policy issue but an internal one as the public psyche in Germany has been programmed to accept, by media and in schools where German children are taught to think of themselves as  Europeans form Bavaria  or the Black Forest before they are German .

Of course, once can not  overlook psychological motivations and weight of history of chauvinistic aspects of post World War One  German nationalism  which gave birth to the criminal Nazism . However it is also a German strategy to economically underpin – if not fully promote-  the project of the 21 Century of a grand Federal Europe from The Mediterranean to  the Baltic Sea and and rom the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea , which ( if not fully controlled by Berlin)  would give Germany a chance to achieve, BY economical  power fiscal muscles what it failed to do in two world wars: controlling a United Federal  Europe, and  creating massive economy, and a market matching , if not surpassing  the U.S. economy .

In the 21st century, Frau Merkel is seeking to achieve an ambitious and an upgraded larger version  of Otto Von Bismarck ‘s dream  of European hegemony of the 19th century.

Since the end of the cold war by the  fall of  Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact , Brussels hastened the pace of expansion eastward ( There is a  Commissioner office for expansion and enlargement —- headed by as usual unelected  commissioner   Stefan Fule, a german speaking  Czech while the first commissioner of the expansion was the German Gunter Vergheugen    ) .

The EU strategy is to continue expansion to include the countries of the Warsaw Pact , and then swallow the republics of the former Soviet Union , western borders of Russia .

Such Strategy satisfy America (and help ease off tension over the World Trade agreement dispute over imports  ) and deploying high tech  strategic defence equipment on Mr Putin’s lawn, while placing Europe under U.S. Strategic Defense umbrella gives European nations’  an opportunity to reduce the defence budget ( including our own to keep betraying our armed forces as they did for 30 years).

President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man, became aware of the EU ‘s ambition. Thus he offered ten  billion to Ukrainian over-thrown  President Viktor Yanukovych to prevent the EU plan to swallow  Ukraine’s full membership in the European Union . he saw the step not only as to deprive Russia, for a 200 years buffer zone against threats from the west, but also  threatens a  divisive war. Residents of the eastern and north eastern Russian majorities or Russian culture and linked economically with Russia . Unlike what our politicians claim,. it is in Mr Putin’s interest to keep Ukraine united, at least asa buffer zone with a hostile west, instead of costly blood war and bringing backed Nato hostile new state on his borders.

As for the Crimea , it is a red line President Putin, like any Russian leader before him, will not allow anybody to cross..

It is no secret to the European Commission, in its expansionist strategy that no  Russian leader  – since the time of Catherine II  the Great ( Yekaterina Alexeevna)  will; permit eyes to fall upon the  sight of US  Sixth Fleet battleships docking in  Sabestapol base of the mighty southern Russian Fleet,or let Russian navy ships  shadowed in the water of the Back Sea by American war ships. You only need to see how Mr Putin holds his  nose and backs a dictator like Assad in Syria in order to keep the one base in the Mediterranean to realise that there is no way he’d give up the bases in the Crimea.

Moscow did not cause the crisis in Ukraine as much as it was caused by the expansion strategy of the European Commission , in agreement with NATO , to create a Super European Federation looking the Russians eyeball to eyeball .

Not being consulted in any democratic forum, or election on this strategy, which could lead to another cold war It is one main reason that that peoples of European nations, already distrust  their leaders who dare not  hold a referendum on EU membership..

Mr Blair reneged on a campaign pledge to hold a referendum. The referendum was also in the Conservative manifesto , Cameron too used his predecessor signing the Lisbon Treaty as an excuse to get out of his promise  but offers a referendum in 2017 if re-elected in May 2015 , which is not guaranteed. Leader of HM opposition, Ed Miliband referendum promise is joke that not even worth discussion.

Had the European Commission been in a position ever to  face the electorate  it wouldn’t have been in a position to take on Mr Putin.  Russia’s modest powerful, dertrimend nationalist leader since the 1950s , who also commands large popularity in confronting the west.


©Copyright Adel darwish 2014, not to be reprinted, reproduced,or copied in whole or in part without the author’s permission