An Anti-Russian Europe Is a Europe That Destroys Itself!
© Public Domain
This European Union is demonizing the country that saved it from Nazi-fascist terror by rewriting its past, desecrating its dead, misrepresenting its thinking and conspiring with its achievements.

According to Syrsky, the new commander-in-chief of Kiev's troops, the lives of Ukrainian soldiers are the most important thing the army has. An assumption that was only made when it became obvious to everyone that there was no chance of victory in a direct fight against Russia.

As long as it was possible to feed the idea that "Ukraine was beating Russia", when it was Russia that had the initiative — and never lost it — the lives of Ukrainian soldiers were worth little. Men — and some women — in their hundreds of thousands were thrown into muddy trenches, poorly fed and with ammunition in short supply, against an opponent who never lacked anything.

The fact is that when the Kiev forces had combat capability — not to be confused with "the ability to win" — the official communication was that "Ukraine was winning the war"; when it became clear that the cost of fighting the Russian forces was so high that it could not be sustained, the pro-Kiev media, financed by Uncle Sam's NGOs and primary sources of Western official information, began to say "Ukraine cannot lose the war"; when it could no longer be hidden that the "counter-offensive" had failed and with it, the hopes — fanciful — of a Kiev victory, we moved on to the "Ukraine and Russia are in a stalemate" phase.

The Ukrainian reality, under the Kiev regime, is characterized by always being in direct contradiction with the Russian reality and, coincidentally, with the concrete observable reality. This is why the relationship between the two realities is an invaluable dialectical example from a pedagogical point of view.

While living with Russia, Ukraine has become one of the world's greatest powers. There is not, and never has been, a successful Ukraine without Russia on its side. Vladimir Putin did not lie about the fact that Russia has always helped Ukraine. For those who don't know, it wasn't out of any kind of adventurism that the Donbass was annexed to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1917, Ukraine was an eminently rural and de-industrialized region of the Russian empire, so, in 1918, in order to guarantee conditions for the territory's development and, in this way, a more harmonious development of the nascent Soviet state, the Donbass became part of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, as a way of guaranteeing the progress of the newly formed homeland.

The truth is that, in 1991, Ukraine had more than 50 million inhabitants, one of the largest armies in Europe (perhaps the second largest), an enviable military-industrial complex, a highly qualified, talented and productive population, capable of revealing itself in all aspects of human life, from the arts to science, from agriculture to sport.

After surviving many tensions imposed from outside and introduced by the usual suspects, in 2004-2005, the Orange Revolution accelerated the process of creating an anti-Russia. The idea was not new and had already crossed the minds of people linked to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and beyond. From then on, the balance of power between the Russian-speaking and Russian-sympathetic peoples and the peoples who had become "Russian-phobic" began to reverse and, gradually, the anti-Russian forces began to infect the entire territory, gradually conquering new strongholds, from the outskirts of Galicia to the center of Kiev.

From then on, what would be the imported "solution" to fill Ukraine's lack of national identity began to take shape. As a country that had never existed until 1918, and only became fully independent in 1991, Ukraine had to create a national identity in order to guarantee its existence. Not an easy thing to do in a country built up by ruler and square in successive waves of annexation. The induced "choice" was to turn Ukraine into an "anti-Russia". Everything Russia would be, Ukraine would have to be the opposite.

It's clear to see that this "choice" would have to be induced, since in the case of a country with the same language, or languages with the same root (for those who separate "Ukrainian" from "Russian"), with the same religion, culture and national past, the natural choice would never be antagonism, since one and the other thrived on a symbiotic relationship. And this relationship was mutually fruitful right up until the moment when Russia did everything it could to free itself from US domination in the terrible 1990s, and Ukraine did everything it could to integrate itself under US control, mainly from 2004 onwards. The chronological succession leaves no doubt: Russia freed itself from American tutelage during the late 90s and early 2000s, Ukraine embraced it from 2004 onwards.

Once this antagonism was introduced through the installation of a US client regime, first unconstitutionally (with the Orange Revolution) and then through a coup (with EuroMaidan), everything that Russia is and strives to be, Ukraine began not to want to be, even if it had to tear its own flesh to do so. Its national identity has come to be defined by direct and frontal antagonism towards its Russian neighbor. If Russia is a country proud of its history and past, then Ukraine will disregard, erase, rewrite and persecute all those who honor its history. This is clearly visible in the so-called "decommunization", which could ultimately only lead to the extinction of the Ukrainian nation. Having been created by the Bolsheviks, removing the "communist" identity from the Ukrainian past would mean — and has meant — ending Ukraine as it was: multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan, even multinational (it has many citizens with dual Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationality). If Russia embraces its history in order to exist as it is, Ukraine, led by the Kiev regime, erases its history in order to deny what it truly was.

If the Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic, multi-national country, proud of this diversity and considering it an advantage; the Kiev regime would turn Ukraine into a "purified" country, with a supremacist constitution, persecuting peoples who insist on keeping their original languages, religion and customs. The result was a persecution of all political forces on the left and center-left, perceived as pro-Russian (how convenient!!), the Russian Orthodox religion, the Russian language and the historical past, under the Russian empire and the USSR. The only one it had! Everything linking Ukraine to Russia would simply have to disappear. How can we not see that such an erasure could only lead to the loss of part of the territory? To begin with? Can any country survive intact to such an antagonism? A country without history, what future can it have?

If Russia was neither NATO nor EU — not because it didn't want to be — Ukraine would have to be very NATO and even more EU. If all Russia wanted was to be at peace with its neighbors, so that business could continue to flow east and west; Ukraine, the one than born from the bowels of Galicia, would have to be at war with Russia. And being at war with Russia began by meaning "war with the Russian-speaking and Russian-sympathetic peoples". In other words, between Russian speakers and those sympathetic or tolerant of Russia's historical presence, Ukraine, as a client of the West, entered into an intestinal war with its own entrails, breaking into pieces. It couldn't have been otherwise.

In view of the disproportionate forces, be they physical forces, such as population, military, industrial or economic capacity, or more spiritual forces, linked to historical identity and the depth of the patriotic and national soul (Ukraine is giving up what little it had), it was easy to see where this antagonism was leading. If Russia was the "being"; Ukraine, led by the Kiev regime, became the "antithesis"; and what possible "synthesis" could there be? Had the people of Ukraine, those who have embarked on this historical revisionism of their nation, known that "syntheses", resulting from dialectical antagonisms, often result in the elimination of one of the opposing forces, would they have willingly accepted such a process? And would they have accepted it? If they had accepted it, I say, neither Zelensky would have lied when he promised peace, nor would the US have needed to hide the fact that they boycotted the Minsk agreements and the Istanbul agreement, nor would Zelensky now have postponed the presidential elections. As a result, even in essence, this anti-Russian choice is antagonistic and contradictory.

Only someone completely alienated by the promises of Fukuyama and his "end of history" could consider a "synthesis" that would result in the elimination of Russia. Only those who don't know Russian and European history, and its identity and patriotic aspects, could consider that the role of anti-Russian antagonism that Kiev represents would have the strength to eliminate what is one of the three best-armed countries in the world.

But anyone who thinks that anti-Russian antagonism can only lead to the physical elimination of Ukraine, even if only partially, is mistaken. The European Union-Russia relationship also suffers from the same evils and destructive potential. In this sense, we can even speak of Ukraine as an alter-ego of the European Union.

It was in peace with the USSR — first — and Russia — later — that the European Union was born, grew and prospered. Without that peace, the European Union would never have been able to produce the economic resources to expand, even more so at the expense of paying "structural funds" to candidate and newly acceding countries.

A European Union at war with Russia, even a cold war, would lead to an existence marked by militarism, tension, closure and a loss of elasticity in terms of democracy and individual or collective freedom. The result would have been a European Union in upheaval, with no welfare state to feed a "middle" class that could sustain the powerful internal markets on which its industrial potential was built.

This is what German leaders (and others) saw when they created the Druzba (friendship) pipeline and when they later built the Yamal. The flourishing of Europe's economies was done, in substantial part, at the expense of gas, oil, uranium, fuels, lubricants, minerals and cereals, in quantity and quality, at convenient prices, the result of long-term agreements. Without this "vital food" there would have been no Franco-German axis to produce the resources needed for the "cohesion policy" and "European enlargement". It is interesting to note that this growth was produced in a situation where the Baltic countries — also rich and developed — maintained a neutral position with the USSR and, later, with Russia. This position has recently been replaced by outright antagonism.

Thus, we can also say that, while the relationship was symbiotic, everyone benefited, perhaps even to the detriment of Russia itself, which was always left a little behind, "clinging" to an export economy of low value-added products, losing the Soviet space first and its economy later, from which it would recover from the beginning of this century.

And it was perhaps this just desire to assume its historical identity that produced, on the European side — and especially on the American side — the antagonism we know today. If the Cold War began with the USSR demonstrating its defense, industrial and technological capacity in the face of a West covetous of its territory and resources, the anti-Russian antagonism was recreated in Western Europe from the moment when the country governed with authority and unquestionable command by Vladimir Putin began to show the capacity to recover its full historical dimension.

Once again, the antagonistic forces are so opposed that they could only produce what we are seeing today. On the one hand, once again, a country proud of its history, a people that celebrates its heroes, in all their faults and virtues; on the other, a European Union that feeds off the sovereignty and the extinction of the patriotic soul of the European peoples. On the one side, a country that wants to be sovereign, independent, autonomous and self-sufficient, so that it can better decide its future without external interference — which is a historical lesson; on the other, a European Union dependent on the USA, which tries to copy the superficial neoliberal "culture" of consumerism, which celebrates the "end of history" and strengthens its identity by suppressing the cultural, ethnic and moral identity of the European peoples.

If Russia is proud of its history and celebrates it at every opportunity; just like Ukraine, the European Union is rewriting its own history, its philosophy, its identity. This European Union is demonizing the country that saved it from Nazi-fascist terror by rewriting its past, desecrating its dead, misrepresenting its thinking and conspiring with its achievements. Accordingly, the EU puts in its place a belief that the USSR also started the Second World War and that communism is the same as Nazism. And the most serious thing is that they teach such nonsense in universities... It reminds me of the time when at the University of Salamanca (the oldest in the Iberian Peninsula), it was taught that the world was a plate with antipodes and that it was therefore impossible to travel below the equator.

This rewriting of history also contradicts a Russia that, despite being capitalist, claims to be anti-Nazi and anti-fascist. The EU, on the other hand, is seeing neo-fascist parties flourish in its midst, fueled precisely by anti-Russian antagonism, fed by the economic difficulties resulting from estrangement and the historical revanchism that blames Russia for being what it is and for having lost more than twenty million of its children as a result. At the same time, this EU coexists with and motivates support for a supremacist regime, supported by neo-Nazi gangs, in Kiev and to which it opens its borders, against the will of its people. Today, Polish farmers are threatening to close all border points with Ukraine. The anti-Russian EU is also a Europe at war with itself.

Like Ukraine, the EU also failed to realize its strengths and weaknesses. The EU also failed to realize that it only exists because of Russia. First, against "Russia" (i.e. the USSR), as an anti-socialist political-ideological project; then, through a symbiotic relationship, enjoying the stability resulting from the power stalemate that the Cold War meant; later, reaping the rewards brought by the winds of Russia's rapprochement with the West. As an anti-Russia space, the European Union fails to grasp the essentials. The fact is that, as with Ukraine, the way in which the antagonism is resolved, the synthesis that will result from it, will almost certainly end in its own demise. At least, as it is today. Which will still be epic!

A European Union that — as a neoliberal globalist project — disregards national sovereignty, defeated precisely by the antagonistic relationship it develops against a country that, above all, strives to defend its national sovereignty! And NATO beware... It too shares the same identity with the EU, the same original sin! Both are children of the same father, the USA, which is eager to rape mother Russia!

Is there anything more prescient and dialectical than this?

About the author: Hugo Dionísio is a Lawyer, researcher and geopolitics' analyst. He is the owner of Canal-factual.wordpress.com Blog and co-founder of MultipolarTv, a Youtube Channel targeted to geopolitical analysis. He develops activity as Human Rights and Social rights activist as board member of the Portuguese Democratic Lawyers Association. He is also a researcher at the Portuguese Workers Trade Union Confederation (CGTP-IN).