Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

EU to Boycott Russia for being “anti-Western” but Russia is more Western than the West

The idea that Russian civilization is less “European” than Western Europe must be put to rest

Published

on

28 Views

A member of the German Green Party is urging EU Governments to boycott the Russian-hosted June 2018 FIFA World Cup, in an open letter as reported on by Zero Hedge.

Her letter is filled with the age-old Russophobia spouted by smug westerners for centuries, and is in itself, nothing surprising. The letter is a self-righteous piece containing the typical praise of “western values”, and condemning Russia for various crimes she didn’t commit – without any evidence, as usual. It contains statements referencing what she considers “Vladimir Putin’s mockery of our European values“, with undertones of an implied moral high ground the west allegedly has. The entire letter can be summed up in the crowning moment of arrogance in the closing paragraph:

The world is looking at Europe in these difficult times. Our governments should not
strengthen the authoritarian and anti-western path of the Russian President, but
boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia and raise their voices for the protection of
human rights, of democratic values and peace.

Normally, this is a story that would fly under the radar. There are so many more important issues concerning Russia and the world, than the fantasies of a misguided woman’s desire to boycott a sporting event. Her open letter is not an official decision from the EU, although it is worth noting that according to Zero Hedge, Sixty Members of the European Parliament from 16 member states and 5 different political groups are supporting her call.

It is important to understand that even if the EU adopted her proposal, the European football teams would still play in Russia, all that would happen is EU officials wouldn’t “shake Putin’s hand” as she described it.
OH NO!!! Putin won’t get to shake hands with a bunch of Russophobes! How tragic!
For these reasons, I normally wouldn’t shed any attention on this story, and give the letter or it’s author any more publicity, however one major thing stuck out, was worthy of an academic level of scrutiny.
There was the line which referred to a “mockery of our European values” and another, which even worse, had the audacity to pull the “western values” card on Russia. This was the portion saying the EU must “raise their voices for the protection of human rights, of democratic values and peace” against Russia and her President’s “anti-western path”. Such words can ignite polymic fire in Russian philosophers.
It was the arrogant assumption that first of all, “Western” or “European values” are equivalent to “human rights, democratic values, and peace”. The second is her assumption that Russia, a key member of Western Civilization long before German principalities were united, and the eastern bulwark of Europe can be “anti-Western” or Anti-European.

Anna of Kiev – Western Kings begged for the hand of this “eastern” princess

This is an argument often used, that Russia is a “young Asiatic country”, however, Rus’ was an ancient nation, married into the Eastern Roman Imperial Family by the 10th century. French Kings begged for the hand of Anna of Kiev, daughter of Russian Knyaz Yaroslav, and granddaughter of Vladimir of Kiev and the Eastern Roman Emperors.

Anna of Kiev – Queen of France

At the time Russia was founded, there was no “Germany” but simply “East Francia”, and modern Germans were divided into hundreds of tiny fiefs for centuries.
As a result, it is worth discussing Russia’s true role and history in Europe, even if Russian philosophers argue over her destiny and identity.

Russia at the Crossroads

A Knight at the Crossroads by Viktor Vasnetsov

The idea that Russia is or isn’t western, or European is a very old debate, a very aggressive debate which can separate even friends. Some Russian thinkers like Lev Gumilev see Russia as something in-between “Eurasian”, whereas others think Russia constitutes a completely unique civilization.
In this context though, when Western European leaders argue that Russia is not western, or European, this deserves much examination. First of all, it is not their right to declare Russia’s civilization and path – this belongs only to the Russian people.
To say “Russia is going down a non-western path” is in this context, profoundly racist, in its implications. It’s an argument which is advocating the lie that Western Europe is – and has always been – a great bastion of freedom, whereas Russia is an Asiatic “prison of nations” (Тюрьма народов) as Lenin slandered her.
When the author of the letter speaks of a “western path or values” in her mind, she is referring to peace, love, diplomacy, freedom, etc. This is obvious from this sentence:
Our governments should not strengthen the authoritarian and anti-western path of the Russian President, but boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia and raise their voices for the protection of human rights, of democratic values and peace.
To her, that is what “western” means, sugar, spice, and everything nice, so to speak.
The natural conclusion of her statement, therefore implies what is “western” is always good, that the west is a white knight, and what is non-western or eastern is a barbaric horde. That level of racist presumptions is quite unpleasant, and brings back bad memories for Slavs to hear it from a German.
Germans really should not be lecturing anyone about peace, human rights, and European values, considering that both World Wars which radically messed up the state of European civilization, were started by Germanic powers.
But is Russia truly not western?

What is “The West”

Before we can address that, we must truly understand what Western meant in its historical context, and address any evolution of that meaning by today’s era. Unfortunately, this article does not lend itself to a deep scholarly discussion, so I will be brief.
The primary issue seems to be, that there are two profoundly different visions of what is Western civilization.
The first, and archaic vision is that the Western world, and what is western, is synonymous with Christendom. It was born when European civilizations adopted a uniting Christian faith, along with a certain Greco-Roman legacy.
You could argue western civilization began when the Emperor Saint Constantine the Great accepted Christianity as the faith of the Roman Empire, and united it under one autocrat. It began the idea of a Christian monarch ruling over a Christian land, and it predates the separation of Europe into tribal nation-states. The divine right of Kings, the use of the Cross on shields and heraldry, a certain union between the Church and the State, even the Nicene Creed and the Bible as we know it was formed under Constantine, who died in 337. His example defined one thousand years of European civilization.
This was the first definition of what was “western” and it remained a united consensus until Charlemagne’s election as “Holy Roman Emperor” – when he was really a Germanic king – conflicted with the already existing Roman (Byzantine) Emperor in the East. The East-West Schism, which divided the Christian church into two parts became a source of division, and later more rifts would emerge.
Never the less, the idea of Christendom as being synonymous with “western” was the prevailing belief until the 18th century.
After the enlightenment, and the French rationalists, the western world underwent a secular transformation. They overthrew ancient monarchies and faiths, and began a new civilization based on individualism and “reason”. This evolution slowly evolved into the liberal social values of these days, support for LGBT, abortion, secularization, what some refer to as “Cultural Marxism”, even if the term is a misnomer. For the sake of brevity, one can argue the West by 2018 changed its religion from Christianity to “Democracy”
Never the less, we have two definitions of western now
  1. Christendom (the Old Classical World)
  2. The so-called “democratic, human rights” secular powers of today – US, EU, and their allies.
From this point of view, it is clear that Russia is an inalienable member of the first definition. This is why the title of this article said “Russia is more western than the west”. By the definition of Christendom, Russia is far more western than Western Europe.

Priests, Cossacks, and Soldiers lead a cross procession of over 100,000 people in modern Saint Petersburg

Even Russian Christianity is more traditional, as it’s often blended with monarchism, and the high church rituals of the Orthodox Church are devoid of liberal reforms, and the church hierarchy operates more or less as it did in medieval times (in a positive sense).
In all honesty, Russian society was far more “western”, than Western Europe, even historically. The Czars of the “Third Rome” remained autocratic like Roman Emperors to the very end, as opposed to western monarchs.
Russian society remained closer to medieval Western Europe, than Western Europe was to its own history.
Russia today remains, in this way, far more traditionally “western”, in values, leadership, society,
and Faith, than Western Europe with its ultra social liberalism.

Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Onufry leads a cross procession in Kiev – Holy Russia yet lives

However, if we consider these forms of socially liberal values to be the new European values, then Russia most certainly does not share the same values as The West.

A tale of two Europes – a gay parade in Berlin

Russia may have been more Western than the west, but The West has changed, and Russia is no longer part of that civilization. This conclusion is also expressed by renowned Russian conservative thinker Mikhail Remizov (MR) in an interview with Professor Paul Robinson (PR).

PR: You said that Russian culture, in your opinion, is a European culture. But there are many conservatives who say that Russia is a separate civilization, a Eurasian civilization. Do you consider that Russia is part of European civilization, and if so does that mean that Russia’ future must lie in Europe?

MR: How to understand the idea of civilization is a big question. If you consider a civilization to be a project built around religious or quasi-religious values, some project of organizing life, the image of man, society, power, then in Europe we can see a new civilization being built, one which is connected to a new set of quasi-religious coordinates founded on the religion of human rights and emancipation. And in this sense it is a new post-Christian civilization. Again, that is if we view civilization as a project, not as roots, but as a project. But if we understand civilization in terms of its roots: antiquity, Christianity, a certain Jewish component through Biblical thought, plus Slavic, Celtic, German, Indo-European roots, myths, then we are quite close to Europe. We have common roots. And our cultural codes are also similar. If we look at Russian stories and those of the Brothers Grimm, we can see one and the same subjects. But if we see civilization as a project, then, no, we are now separate civilizations.

The Problem with Russia’s so-called “Anti-Western Path”

At this point, one may ask was all this necessary, just because a hysterical German MP called Russia “non-Western” in her open letter to boycott Russia. The issue was never the letter itself, but the spirit of the letter. The Russophobia contained therein, the implication that Russia’s “path” is inferior to the “Western values” must be debunked. The whole East vs West sham must be debunked.
One could say it is obvious the German MP wasn’t saying Russia isn’t a Christian country. There is no evidence she even imagines the west as being Christendom.
She isn’t saying Russia is Asian, or that being Asian or non-European is bad. This has no racial or religious implications. She is clearly speaking of western values in the modern, secular sense. She means the West represents, as she said herself, “human rights, democratic values, and peace”
The issue with this is two-fold.
First of all, even if she isn’t denying Russia’s place in Western civilization (Christendom), she is still implying “The West” i.e. Western Europe and North America have superior moral values to Russia. She is implying the west has at the very least been known for its humanitarian nature in recent memories.
That is nonsense!!! Is this the same west which dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan? Which killed legions in Vietnam? Which practically invented modern radical Islam by funding the mujahadin to fight the Soviet Union. The west which plunged the Middle East into the endless bloodshed of recent years. Is this the west that waged a war against Yugoslavia and then Christian Serbia. Which tore Kosovo from the still-beating heart of Orthodox Serbia and gave it to Muslims? Did the West forget that Kosovo was the spot of the martyrdom of Czar-Saint Lazar Hrebeljanović who fought Ottoman Murad, defending Europe from invasion? Or has the West long since, ceased to care about such things.

The west that supports a fascist-sympathizing regime to rule Ukraine, bringing endless suffering on the people, and to prostitute and sell the people of Ukraine like one would sell in a marketplace soulless grain?
If this is the “western path” Russia is rejecting, then by rejecting it, Russia is taking the moral high ground. The idea that western values are synonymous with humanitarianism is as cynical as the words “Arbeit macht frei – Work will set you free”.
And finally, the liberal “humanitarian superpowers” are proving themselves very racist, by continuing to use the word western like this, and equating it with what she called “human rights, democratic values, and peace”
This is because when someone uses the word “Western” in this context, it’s impossible for a European not to have some vague image of that Christian Greco-Roman past. Even in a secular sense, one thinks of Greco-Roman pillars and domes over government and legal halls, the Renaissance masterpieces, the great composers.
It conjures a vision of that idealistic European golden age. She is implying the liberal state and values of Western Europe, is the natural evolution of this glorious golden age whereas Russia is moving to something foreign.
A closer look would reveal Russia remained western by the old standard, and it is the West which has changed and became something different.

Saint Petersburg – if that is not “Western” I don’t know what is

By implying that Russia is not western, if taken to the logical conclusion, they are saying Russia is some Asiatic backwater. They are implying the West is all human rights, democratic values, and peace, whereas anything “anti-Western”, to use her own term, is the opposite.
To use the terminology of SJWs, (not to agree with them, but maybe it will sink in better), saying that Russia isn’t western is a microaggression. It’s also moronic, and devoid of both cultural knowledge and common sense, so please stop doing it.

Eternal Russia

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Multipolar World Order in the Making: Qatar Dumps OPEC

Russia and Qatar’s global strategy also brings together and includes partners like Turkey.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The decision by Qatar to abandon OPEC threatens to redefine the global energy market, especially in light of Saudi Arabia’s growing difficulties and the growing influence of the Russian Federation in the OPEC+ mechanism.

In a surprising statement, Qatari energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned OPEC on Monday December 3 that his country had sent all the necessary documentation to start the country’s withdrawal from the oil organization in January 2019. Al-Kaabi stressed that the decision had nothing to do with recent conflicts with Riyadh but was rather a strategic choice by Doha to focus on the production of LNG, which Qatar, together with the Russian Federation, is one of the largest global exporters of. Despite an annual oil extraction rate of only 1.8% of the total of OPEC countries (about 600,000 barrels a day), Qatar is one of the founding members of the organization and has always had a strong political influence on the governance of the organization. In a global context where international relations are entering a multipolar phase, things like cooperation and development become fundamental; so it should not surprise that Doha has decide to abandon OPEC. OPEC is one of the few unipolar organizations that no longer has a meaningful purpose in 2018, given the new realities governing international relations and the importance of the Russian Federation in the oil market.

Besides that, Saudi Arabia requires the organization to maintain a high level of oil production due to pressure coming from Washington to achieve a very low cost per barrel of oil. The US energy strategy targets Iranian and Russian revenue from oil exports, but it also aims to give the US a speedy economic boost. Trump often talks about the price of oil falling as his personal victory. The US imports about 10 million barrels of oil a day, which is why Trump wrongly believes that a decrease in the cost per barrel could favor a boost to the US economy. The economic reality shows a strong correlation between the price of oil and the financial growth of a country, with low prices of crude oil often synonymous of a slowing down in the economy.

It must be remembered that to keep oil prices low, OPEC countries are required to maintain a high rate of production, doubling the damage to themselves. Firstly, they take less income than expected and, secondly, they deplete their oil reserves to favor the strategy imposed by Saudi Arabia on OPEC to please the White House. It is clearly a strategy that for a country like Qatar (and perhaps Venezuela and Iran in the near future) makes little sense, given the diplomatic and commercial rupture with Riyadh stemming from tensions between the Gulf countries.

In contrast, the OPEC+ organization, which also includes other countries like the Russian Federation, Mexico and Kazakhstan, seems to now to determine oil and its cost per barrel. At the moment, OPEC and Russia have agreed to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day, contradicting Trump’s desire for high oil output.

With this last choice Qatar sends a clear signal to the region and to traditional allies, moving to the side of OPEC+ and bringing its interests closer in line with those of the Russian Federation and its all-encompassing oil and gas strategy, two sectors in which Qatar and Russia dominate market share.

In addition, Russia and Qatar’s global strategy also brings together and includes partners like Turkey (a future energy hub connecting east and west as well as north and south) and Venezuela. In this sense, the meeting between Maduro and Erdogan seems to be a prelude to further reorganization of OPEC and its members.

The declining leadership role of Saudi Arabia in the oil and financial market goes hand in hand with the increase of power that countries like Qatar and Russia in the energy sectors are enjoying. The realignment of energy and finance signals the evident decline of the Israel-US-Saudi Arabia partnership. Not a day goes by without corruption scandals in Israel, accusations against the Saudis over Khashoggi or Yemen, and Trump’s unsuccessful strategies in the commercial, financial or energy arenas. The path this doomed

trio is taking will only procure less influence and power, isolating them more and more from their opponents and even historical allies.

Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi, the Eurasian powerhouses, seem to have every intention, as seen at the trilateral summit in Buenos Aires, of developing the ideal multipolar frameworks to avoid continued US dominance of the oil market through shale revenues or submissive allies as Saudi Arabia, even though the latest spike in production is a clear signal from Riyadh to the USA. In this sense, Qatar’s decision to abandon OPEC and start a complex and historical discussion with Moscow on LNG in the format of an enlarged OPEC marks the definitive decline of Saudi Arabia as a global energy power, to be replaced by Moscow and Doha as the main players in the energy market.

Qatar’s decision is, officially speaking, unconnected to the feud triggered by Saudi Arabia against the small emirate. However, it is evident that a host of factors has led to this historic decision. The unsuccessful military campaign in Yemen has weakened Saudi Arabia on all fronts, especially militarily and economically. The self-inflicted fall in the price of oil is rapidly consuming Saudi currency reserves, now at a new low of less than 500 billion dollars. Events related to Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) have de-legitimized the role of Riyadh in the world as a reliable diplomatic interlocutor. The internal and external repression by the Kingdom has provoked NGOs and governments like Canada’s to issue public rebukes that have done little to help MBS’s precarious position.

In Syria, the victory of Damascus and her allies has consolidated the role of Moscow in the region, increased Iranian influence, and brought Turkey and Qatar to the multipolar side, with Tehran and Moscow now the main players in the Middle East. In terms of military dominance, there has been a clear regional shift from Washington to Moscow; and from an energy perspective, Doha and Moscow are turning out to be the winners, with Riyadh once again on the losing side.

As long as the Saudi royal family continues to please Donald Trump, who is prone to catering to Israeli interests in the region, the situation of the Kingdom will only get worse. The latest agreement on oil production between Moscow and Riyad signals that someone in the Saudi royal family has probably figured this out.

Countries like Turkey, India, China, Russia and Iran understand the advantages of belonging to a multipolar world, thereby providing a collective geopolitical ballast that is mutually beneficial. The energy alignment between Qatar and the Russian Federation seems to support this general direction, a sort of G2 of LNG gas that will only strengthen the position of Moscow on the global chessboard, while guaranteeing a formidable military umbrella for Doha in case of a further worsening of relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Constantinople: Ukrainian Church leader is now uncanonical

October 12 letter proclaims Metropolitan Onuphry as uncanonical and tries to strong-arm him into acquiescing through bribery and force.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The pressure in Ukraine kept ratcheting up over the last few days, with a big revelation today that Patriarch Bartholomew now considers Metropolitan Onuphy “uncanonical.” This news was published on 6 December by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (running under the Moscow Patriarchate).

This assessment marks a complete 180-degree turn by the leader of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it further embitters the split that has developed to quite a major row between this church’s leadership and the Moscow Patriarchate.

OrthoChristian reported this today (we have added emphasis):

A letter of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine was published yesterday by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in which the Patriarch informed the Metropolitan that his title and position is, in fact, uncanonical.

This assertion represents a negation of the position held by Pat. Bartholomew himself until April of this year, when the latest stage in the Ukrainian crisis began…

The same letter was independently published by the Greek news agency Romfea today as well.

It is dated October 12, meaning it was written just one day after Constantinople made its historic decision to rehabilitate the Ukrainian schismatics and rescind the 1686 document whereby the Kiev Metropolitanate was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, thereby, in Constantinople’s view, taking full control of Ukraine.

In the letter, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that after the council, currently scheduled for December 15, he will no longer be able to carry his current title of “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.”

The Patriarch immediately opens his letter with Constantinople’s newly-developed historical claim about the jurisdictional alignment of Kiev: “You know from history and from indisputable archival documents that the holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople…”

Constantinople has done an about-face on its position regarding Ukraine in recent months, given that it had previously always recognized the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate as the sole canonical primate in Ukraine.

…The bulk of the Patriarch’s letter is a rehash of Constantinople’s historical and canonical arguments, which have already been laid out and discussed elsewhere. (See also here and here). Pat. Bartholomew also writes that Constantinople stepped into the Ukrainian ecclesiastical sphere as the Russian Church had not managed to overcome the schisms that have persisted for 30 years.

It should be noted that the schisms began and have persisted precisely as anti-Russian movements and thus the relevant groups refused to accept union with the Russian Church.

Continuing, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that his position and title are uncanonical:

Addressing you as ‘Your Eminence the Metropolitan of Kiev’ as a form of economia [indulgence/condescension—OC] and mercy, we inform you that after the elections for the primate of the Ukrainian Church by a body that will consist of clergy and laity, you will not be able ecclesiologically and canonically to bear the title of Metropolitan of Kiev, which, in any case, you now bear in violation of the described conditions of the official documents of 1686.

He also entreats Met. Onuphry to “promptly and in a spirit of harmony and unity” participate, with the other hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the founding council of the new Ukrainian church that Constantinople is planning to create, and in the election of its primate.

The Constantinople head also writes that he “allows” Met. Onuphry to be a candidate for the position of primate.

He further implores Met. Onuphry and the UOC hierarchy to communicate with Philaret Denisenko, the former Metropolitan of Kiev, and Makary Maletich, the heads of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” and the schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” respectively—both of which have been subsumed into Constantinople—but whose canonical condemnations remain in force for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The hierarchs of the Serbian and Polish Churches have also officially rejected the rehabilitation of the Ukrainian schismatics.

Pat. Bartholomew concludes expressing his confidence that Met. Onuphry will decide to heal the schism through the creation of a new church in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry’s leadership is recognized as the sole canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine by just about every other canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction besides Constantinople. Even NATO member Albania, whose expressed reaction was “both sides are wrong for recent actions” still does not accept the canonicity of the “restored hierarchs.”

In fact, about the only people in this dispute that seem to be in support of the “restored” hierarchs, Filaret and Makary, are President Poroshenko, Patriarch Bartholomew, Filaret and Makary… and NATO.

While this letter was released to the public eye yesterday, the nearly two months that Metropolitan Onuphry has had to comply with it have not been helped in any way by the actions of both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ukrainian government.

Priests of the Canonical Church in Ukraine awaiting interrogation by the State authorities

For example, in parallel reports released on December 6th, the government is reportedly accusing canonical priests in Ukraine of treason because they are carrying and distributing a brochure entitled (in English): The Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Relations with the State. The Attitude Towards the Conflict in Donbass and to the Church Schism. Questions and Answers.

In a manner that would do any American liberal proud, these priests are being accused of inciting religious hatred, though really all they are doing is offering an explanation for the situation in Ukraine as it exists.

A further piece also released yesterday notes that the Ukrainian government rehabilitated an old Soviet-style technique of performing “inspections of church artifacts” at the Pochaev Lavra. This move appears to be both intended to intimidate the monastics who are living there now, who are members of the canonical Church, as well as preparation for an expected forcible takeover by the new “united Church” that is under creation. The brotherhood characterized the inspections in this way:

The brotherhood of the Pochaev Lavra previously characterized the state’s actions as communist methods of putting pressure on the monastery and aimed at destroying monasticism.

Commenting on the situation with the Pochaev Lavra, His Eminence Archbishop Clement of Nizhyn and Prilusk, the head of the Ukrainian Church’s Information-Education Department, noted:

This is a formal raiding, because no reserve ever built the Pochaev Lavra, and no Ministry of Culture ever invested a single penny to restoring the Lavra, and the state has done nothing to preserve the Lavra in its modern form. The state destroyed the Lavra, turned it into a psychiatric hospital, a hospital for infectious diseases, and so on—the state has done nothing more. And now it just declares that it all belongs to the state. No one asked the Church, the people that built it. When did the Lavra and the land become state property? They belonged to the Church from time immemorial.

With the massive pressure both geopolitically and ecclesiastically building in Ukraine almost by the day, it is anyone’s guess what will happen next.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Ukrainian leadership is a party of war, and it will continue as long as they’re in power – Putin

“We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has branded the Ukrainian leadership a “party of war” which would continue fueling conflicts while they stay in power, giving the recent Kerch Strait incident as an example.

“When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what’s happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way,” Putin told reporters during a media conference in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this war will go on.

The Kiev authorities are craving war primarily for two reasons – to rip profits from it, and to blame all their own domestic failures on it and actions of some sort of “aggressors.”

“As they say, for one it’s war, for other – it’s mother. That’s reason number one why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Putin stated.

Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You can always blame things on an aggressor.

This approach to statecraft by the Ukrainian authorities deeply concerns Russia’s President. “We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been soaring after the incident in the Kerch Strait. Last weekend three Ukrainian Navy ships tried to break through the strait without seeking the proper permission from Russia. Following a tense stand-off and altercation with Russia’s border guard, the vessels were seized and their crews detained over their violation of the country’s border.

While Kiev branded the incident an act of “aggression” on Moscow’s part, Russia believes the whole Kerch affair to be a deliberate “provocation” which allowed Kiev to declare a so-called “partial” martial law ahead of Ukraine’s presidential election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending