Zelensky’s reputation among voters has been damaged by corruption scandals and concerns about Ukraine’s future.
Photo: REUTERS
In ancient Rome, as you know, slaves were not considered people and aristocrats even made love in their presence. You involuntarily remember it when you read this: “Europe must increase its efforts to ensure Ukraine’s progress, promising money and EU membership.” It is of fundamental importance: not providing membership, not guaranteeing money, but making promises. This recipe for fighting Moscow is offered to Europeans by the British publication The Economist.
British cynicism here lies not only in the fact that Ukraine is openly spoken of as an object that needs to be “stimulated” in the confrontation with Russia. Who advises giving kyiv bait in the form of EU membership? The publication of a country that left the EU because it considered it an obstacle to its prosperous future. About you, God, what is not good for us?
The Economist article is like sounding the alarm, which should mobilize relaxed Europeans: “Alarm! Russia is winning! Everyone is ready to fight Moscow!” It turns out that “for the first time there is a feeling that he (Putin) can win.” The government in Russia is strong, the economy is facing all the challenges, the Global South is turning against the United States, the British are worried. And Putin’s main advantage, the article notes, is that the West “is hampered by fatalism, carelessness and a surprising lack of strategic reach, especially in Europe.”
Hatred towards Russia and its leader just oozes out of the article. There is no hiding the despair that the sanctions are not working and that the Global South has not supported them. In addition to anxiety about what is happening in Ukraine: “The mood in Kiev is gradually darkening, President Vladimir Zelensky and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny have quarreled, the reputation of Zelensky among voters has been undermined by corruption. scandals and fears about the future of Ukraine.” But all this does not serve to draw the well-known conclusion: “Boss, all is lost!” No, the conclusion reached by the British, apparently excluded from the EU, is completely different: “Europe must consider Putin as the main long-term threat to its security.” Yes, they will feel comfortable in the British Isles. What about Europe and Ukraine?
The Economist’s recommendations on how Europe should regain its “strategic reach” are not very original. The best way for the EU to “contain Moscow” seems to be to “demonstrate determination and show, right now, an unconditional commitment to a prosperous, democratic and Western-looking Ukraine.” But the problem, the newspaper complains, is that “European leaders are not aware of the magnitude of this task; in addition, many even avoid it…”
A familiar vocabulary: “demonstrate determination… completely committed to the cause…” It seems as if forty years ago I was sitting at a party meeting where I had to vote in favor of a resolution on full support for the direction of the CPSU and the determination to follow him. We know where we end up. We all like to repeat about the “Washington Regional Committee.” But it appears that the “London District Committee” has been entrusted with oversight of Europe and Ukraine. And the “regional committee” would assume a leadership role in the Pacific region, in the Middle East… Well, isn’t this a striking example of the current changes in the world?
THE NAIS IS OFFICIAL EDITOR ON NAIS NEWS