The USA and Russia will sit down at the negotiating table and decide what face to give to the whole of Europe, at least until the next war.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Everything is happening very quickly: Trump excludes Europe from negotiations with Putin on Ukraine. Macron calls a meeting of European leaders in Paris to decide who will have to clean the toilets during the Russia-United States summit. After years of bombastic demagogy about weapons and conquests, the rats are now fleeing the sinking ship.
Minsk would have been enough, but no
We are approaching the tenth anniversary of an important historical event: the Minsk Agreements.
The Minsk Agreements 1 were an attempt to resolve the conflict that broke out in eastern Ukraine in 2014 between the Ukrainian coup government forces and the separatists of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The agreement was negotiated with the mediation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and signed on September 5, 2014 in Minsk, Belarus, by the Trilateral Contact Group, which included representatives from Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE.
The document contained 12 key points aimed at establishing a ceasefire and laying the foundations for a political solution to the conflict. Among the main points:
- Immediate ceasefire in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
- Monitoring of the ceasefire by the OSCE.
- Decentralization of power in Ukraine through a constitutional reform that would guarantee greater autonomy to the eastern regions.
- Withdrawal of illegal armed forces and foreign mercenaries.
- Exchange of prisoners between the parties in conflict.
- Creation of a security zone on the Russian-Ukrainian border.
- Restoration of Ukrainian government control over the occupied areas.
- Local elections in the separatist regions, in accordance with Ukrainian legislation.
- Improvement of the humanitarian situation in the areas affected by the conflict.
- Resumption of economic and social relations between the separatist regions and the rest of Ukraine.
Despite the signing of the agreement, the planned ceasefire was never fully respected. In the days following the signing, both sides accused each other of violations. Fighting continued in strategic areas such as Donetsk airport and the city of Debaltseve.
One of the main problems of Minsk 1 was the absence of effective mechanisms to monitor and enforce the commitments made. The OSCE, in charge of supervision, had limited resources and couldn’t prevent violations on the ground. Furthermore, the lack of a clear definition of Russia’s role in the conflict complicated the implementation of the agreement: Moscow denied direct involvement, while Kiev and Western countries accused the Kremlin of actively supporting the separatists with weapons and troops.
The agreement contained ambiguities regarding the autonomy of the separatist regions. Ukraine saw Minsk 1 as a means to re-establish control over Donetsk and Luhansk, while the separatists and Russia interpreted it as legitimizing their de facto independence. This divergence of views contributed to the ineffectiveness of the agreement, which was effectively rendered null and void following the perpetration of Ukrainian attacks.
The failure of Minsk 1 led to the need for a new agreement: in February 2015, as the conflict intensified, the Minsk 2 Protocol was negotiated, mediated by France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format (Russia, Ukraine, France, Germany). This new document included many of the provisions of Minsk 1, but made them more detailed and articulated, including, among other things, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front and a constitutional reform to guarantee a special status to the separatist regions.
Minsk 2 also proved ineffective in the long term. The ceasefire was repeatedly violated and the situation on the ground remained unstable. Ukraine did not implement the constitutional reforms required to grant autonomy to Donbass and continued to attack uninterruptedly until 2022, when the Russian Special Military Operation began.
An objective analysis allows us to understand a purely diplomatic fact: the agreements failed because, in the meantime, European policy towards Ukraine (and Russia) had also changed. In 2014, all European leaders condemned the Maidan coup, questioned Ukrainian crimes in the European Parliament and called for international intervention in the conflict territories. Over the years, however, the Washington puppet has managed to capture the interest of many heads of state, causing positions to shift significantly. Obviously this change was fueled and supported by the United States and the United Kingdom, with a very detailed human intelligence operation.
Yet the resulting narrative was that Europe was Ukraine’s best friend, that the Church of Rome was ready to help the Ukrainian Uniates in every way, that the Western order would triumph against the Soviet tyrant. None of this worked. When the conflict changed shape in 2022, European leaders competed to see who could try to climb on the bandwagon of the “victors”, proclaiming themselves war heroes.
Ten years on, the facts speak louder than anything else: not only has Russia gained the upper hand politically, legally and militarily, but Europe is the one that has emerged defeated and extremely embarrassed.
Everyone’s good at playing sovereign with other countries
They’re all good at playing the sovereignist with other countries, but they hardly ever think about their own internal situation. European countries are victims of a military occupation that this year turns 80 (sic!). There is no real and total sovereignty. The Americans occupied Europe and the British took political control. From that moment on, the whole European order was subverted, giving rise to a project that was certainly not that of a sovereign Europe made up of sovereign peoples, but rather that of the City of London, of transnational high finance, of Masonic lodges set up as shadow governments.
What we are witnessing today is the natural outcome of a condition of subjection. Subjects are not given the power to decide on their master’s affairs. As a result, we see the United States lecturing European leaders, while planning to divide up Ukraine with Russia without involving Europe.
In fact, to be precise, we should say that they are negotiating much more than just Ukraine: the future of the whole of Europe is at stake, both as a continent and as the European Union. Let’s try to analyze some scenarios:
– The agreement is not signed, no agreement is reached. The USA, together with the UK, call on EU member states to gather their troops and fight a proxy war. It’s up to Europe to defend its borders and interests, even if the war was started by others. It matters little, it’s the ruthless logic of the political hierarchy. The hierarch commands, the subject obeys. Best wishes to all.
The agreement is signed and peace takes shape. Russia wins politically, having managed to impose its conditions and resisting the desperate attempts of the West to advance on the front. The European leaders suffer a further setback, because none of them, and not even all of them together, have managed to achieve anything. After all, there isn’t a politician left with an intact backbone, they’re all servile to Brussels, Tel Aviv, London and Washington. At that point the USA can decide whether to abandon the project of expansion to the East, or to take a break and then start again. Obviously, it’s the Europeans who are fighting. Same scenario as before, only postponed for a while.
On the other hand, as J. D. Vance reminded us: these are the values of democracy. And it’s funny to think that an American is being celebrated for giving us a life lesson. It’s the Stockholm syndrome: prisoners love their jailer.
The EU is a symbol of Europe turned upside down, a project to subjugate the people. Mr. Vance, can you explain to us where Europe has lost its way? Or is it time we grew up and figured it out for ourselves? An American coming to Europe to give a lesson in “civilization” would be the height of ridiculousness.
The new European geography may not be decided by Europeans
Ironically – or perhaps we should say that it’s the wheel of karma – it won’t be Europeans who sit at the negotiating table on the future of Europe. Yalta 2.0 is a defeat for Europe in every sense. Once again, we are being reminded that we are losers, defeated.
This time it was the governments themselves that decided to lose the battle, by supporting the wrong side in a war that was forced upon us. The leaders preferred to prove themselves faithful and obedient servants, instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to free themselves from colonial rule.
The European states are in a serious economic crisis, with Europe being kept alive artificially, inflation skyrocketing, the cost of living increasing daily and a major demographic crisis, but they have time to waste resources on battles for non-existent rights and other people’s wars.
Now the wheel is turning again and Europe’s fate will not be in the hands of Europeans. Whether we like it or not, once again others will decide for us. We don’t have the economic strength, the political will, the collective awareness or even the human resources to undertake the battle that should belong to us more than any other, that is, the battle for our freedom.
One day, we hope, history will be called to account for the madness we are experiencing. One day someone will wonder what the rulers were thinking as they signed their own death warrants. And the masses who watched the macabre spectacle without reacting will also be called to account.
There is no real sovereignty, therefore no authority to negotiate. Diplomacy is also a power game. The USA and Russia will sit down at the negotiating table and decide what face to give to the whole of Europe, at least until the next war.
