European overtures for renewing diplomacy with Russia smack of hypocrisy and duplicity.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After four years of zero diplomacy, multiple rounds of economic sanctions aimed at crushing the Russian state, and hundreds of billions of euros fueling a futile war in Ukraine against Russia, European capitals are lately abuzz with calls for opening peace negotiations with Moscow.

No doubt part of the shifting policy is due to the economic mess that Europe has created for itself by cutting off energy trade with Russia. Escalating energy costs are destroying European industries and imposing crippling financial hardship on millions of its citizens. Realizing the self-inflicted disaster, European capitals are desperate to appear to be normalizing relations with Russia and resume affordable energy supplies.

France and Italy are advocating the appointment of an envoy to engage with Russia to resolve the conflict and the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.

Last weekend, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany – the so-called E3 – stated that they would “help mediate” a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian puppet president, Vladimir Zelensky, was feted in Downing Street on June 7 by Britain’s Kier Starmer, France’s Macron, and Germany’s Merz. They proposed taking the lead in negotiations from the United States since President Trump seems more preoccupied with ending the war against Iran.

Various names have been suggested as to who could serve as an interlocutor representing Europe. Angela Merkel, the former German Chancellor, and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi are two names that have been put forward. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has also been suggested. It’s unlikely any of them would be acceptable to Moscow, especially Merkel, mainly due to her past role in covertly undermining the 2015 Minsk Accords, thereby sowing the seeds for war that erupted seven years later.

The telling – almost laughable – thing is the paucity of any European figure with credibility as an envoy.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has become a laughing stock over her rank incompetence. Her Russophobic ranting has rendered her redundant in conducting foreign policy. So much so that there is a revolt among European diplomats against what they declaim as her “dysfunction”.

This week, Europe sent three ambassadors to Moscow to renew some form of dialogue. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Galuzin, met with representatives from Britain, France, and Germany. The Russian foreign ministry said it was open to hearing what Europe had to say.

However, Galuzin reportedly gave the visitors short shrift, reminding them that Europe cannot pose as mediators when it is a participant in the war against Russia.

Following the meeting on Thursday, Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, dismissed the European mission as not serious about addressing the challenge of finding a peace settlement.

Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”

She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”

If Europe were serious about peace, it would stop arming the Kiev NeoNazi regime and show some meaningful acknowledgment of Russia’s long-held demand to deal with the root causes of the conflict.

Europe’s backing of the Kiev regime’s call for an immediate ceasefire while expanding Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep strikes on Russian territory with European-manufactured drones, killing hundreds of civilians over recent months, is just a cynical ploy to rearm the proxy regime and give it some respite in order to resume the war with more lethal vigour at a later stage.

The duplicity of the European politicians goes back to the treachery of the Minsk Peace Accords in 2015 and the sabotage of the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022. That has culminated in the biggest war in Europe since World War Two, with millions of casualties and a real threat of spiralling into open war.

Europe’s governments and its EU and NATO bureaucrats are still wedded to the ideology of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So, too, it seems is Washington, despite Trump’s talk of wanting peace.

Arming the Nazi regime in Kiev at an increasing pace while calling for a superficial ceasefire is proof that the European leaders are not authentic in their belated espousal of seeking diplomacy with Russia.

Former German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel (2017-2018) recently pointed out a shameful truth when he said that Europe lost its chance for diplomacy in 2021.

Back then, the EU leadership and the American Biden administration both repudiated Russia’s earnest efforts to negotiate a way to avoid war in Ukraine. Moscow had clearly set out its objections to NATO expansion, in particular, the absorption of Ukraine into the military alliance, and it proposed rational solutions for collective security. Russia’s diplomacy was rejected out of hand by Washington and Brussels.

The Europeans and the Americans were bent on provoking Russia into an armed confrontation with their proxy Ukrainian regime that they had installed in the 2014 coup and weaponized. Diplomacy was rejected because the NATO axis calculated that it could defeat Russia with war and economic strangulation, or, as some Western politicians admitted, “total war”.

The European agenda, as reflected in demands for an immediate ceasefire without any cognizance of Russia’s arguments about historic claims and indivisible security, demonstrates that European leaders are not yet ready or willing to engage genuinely and meaningfully.

As 18th-century Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz might put it, their recent overtures for political talks are simply war by other means.

Una vez más, la violencia racista ha tomado las calles del Reino Unido. Una vez más, el mensaje de odio ha ganado cuerpo y ha crecido hasta su explosión en redes sociales y el incendio en el mundo físico y real. Esta semana ha sido en Belfast, la capital de Irlanda del Norte, una ciudad que creía olvidadas escenas como las que se han visto desde la madrugada del lunes al martes: gritos de odio, edificios y vehículos incendiados por una muchedumbre hostil, gente huyendo con lo puesto de sus hogares en llamas. La causa no ha sido, como hace décadas en la época de los troubles, el odio religioso entre irlandeses; el objetivo de la horda es ahora la población de origen inmigrante.

Seguir leyendo

© Peter Morrison (AP Photo/Peter Morrison)

A questão da coexistência cultural dentro das fronteiras nacionais tem desafiado as sociedades desde a sua formação. Ruturas no equilíbrio cultural para fins egoístas são autocentradas e prejudiciais para o tecido do que constitui um país. Valeria a pena salvar uma cultura que se está a fraturar ao longo das linhas de separação cultural? Na minha perspetiva sim, e daí a razão para uma discussão sobre o continente de Portugal e as ilhas dos Açores e da Madeira. As três componentes que constituem o todo de Portugal coexistem há centenas de anos e, embora tenha havido desafios no passado, tais como conversas de separação, as mentes mais moderadas prevaleceram e o país permaneceu unido. No entanto, atualmente, na era dos meios de comunicação social e da provocação e saturação do pensamento intelectual, um tipo diferente de separatismo está a erguer a sua cabeça feia.

Um microcosmo do que Portugal é existe no Canadá, um país que aceitou imigrantes portugueses há 73 anos e proporcionou condições de prosperidade que, por razões políticas, Portugal não quis resolver. Açorianos, continentais e madeirenses têm vivido num sistema harmonioso nos últimos 73 anos no Canadá, mesmo que diferenças internas baseadas no “bairrismo” tenham criado instâncias de racismo e tendências misóginas, particularmente entre continentais e açorianos. As referidas diferenças lógicas no desenvolvimento comunitário têm frequentemente desafiado a nossa diversidade cultural e processo de pensamento, o qual tem sido baseado na ignorância de autoproclamados líderes vindos do continente.

A perpetuação de retórica que promove uma versão de complexo de inferioridade intelectual tem colocado barreiras no desenvolvimento positivo das nossas comunidades, ignorando sinais de que a autodeterminação, combinada com o respeito mútuo pela importância cultural de outras comunidades e a sobrevivência de subculturas distintas dentro de uma nação, depende de variáveis estruturais e sociais. As comunidades que controlam o seu próprio património experimentam frequentemente níveis mais elevados de coesão social e sobrevivência cultural. Muitas vezes, líderes comunitários individualistas sentem que são os donos do comboio que transporta uma comunidade para o seu ponto de encontro final.

O poder cultural unificado constrói comunidades fortes, resultando numa melhor influência a todos os níveis de inclusão política e geográfica; mas, pelo contrário, se não reconhecermos direitos unificados de existência cultural, resultará em “roubo cultural” e assimilação forçada. Parece haver uma perceção dentro da comunidade portuguesa de que existe um número de líderes que controlam a governação da diversidade social e cultural e que apenas eles sabem o que é melhor para o valor da diversidade. Isto, claro, é espalhado por narcisistas egoístas autonomeados que frequentemente se auto engrandecem pela perceção de um poder falso. A influência não vem de quem molda o poder à sua conveniência, mas sim das pessoas que acreditam num conjunto de princípios baseados no equilíbrio e na justiça do respeito pelo desenvolvimento. Alargar as nossas mentes para glorificar uma comunidade não significa enriquecimento pessoal, mas sim cooperação por uma causa justa.

Junho é o mês da Herança Portuguesa no Canadá, o que proporciona uma oportunidade para nos elevarmos acima de envolvimentos de interesse próprio, inspirando todos aqueles que ainda não sentiram a cultura portuguesa. No dia 13 de junho, o desfile do Dia de Portugal faz parte da humanização de quem somos enquanto comunidade. Alguns clubes decidiram boicotar este evento tão importante, não compreendendo que a cultura portuguesa associada a clubes e associações é muito maior do que qualquer indivíduo que boicote e/ou assuma a propriedade daquilo que o desfile e o mês de Junho representam. A separação por parte de alguns na comunidade açoriana como forma de protesto rouba a muitos a oportunidade de mostrar os corações e as mentes dos açorianos. É um pensamento de curto alcance que se refere a outros aspetos onde a separação cultural ignora propositadamente contributos que outros membros da comunidade poderiam valorizar se participassem. Aqueles que silenciosamente se dedicam ao roubo da cultura deveriam reavaliar a sua própria hierarquia individualista, porque o resultado será o conflito interno. A cultura dentro das comunidades promove a sobrevivência das suas diferenças e dá prioridade à resiliência cultural e à autodeterminação.

Ajude a construir, não a destruir, aquilo que leva tanto tempo a tornar-se quem somos.

Manuel DaCosta/MS

---

Portuguese Heritage Month

The question of cultural co-existence within national borders has challenged societies since their formation.  Ruptures in the cultural balance for egotistical purposes are self-serving and injurious to the fabric of what makes a country.  Is culture that is fracturing along the lines of physical separation worth saving?  In my view yes, and thus the reason for a discussion about Portugal’s mainland and the islands of Azores and Madeira. The three components, which make up the whole of Portugal and co-existed for hundreds of years and while there have been past challenges, such as talk of separation, cooler heads have prevailed and the country has remained whole.  However, currently in the age of media plus intellectual thought provocation and saturation, a different type of separatism is rearing its ugly head.

A microcosm of what Portugal is, exists in Canada, a country that accepted Portuguese immigrants 73 years ago and provided conditions for prosperity  which for political reasons, Portugal didn’t want to provide.  Azoreans, mainlanders, and Madeirans have lived in an harmonious system for the past 73 years in Canada, even if internal differences based on “bairrismo” created instances of racism and misogynistic tendencies, particularly between mainlanders and Azoreans.  Said logical differences in community development have often challenged our cultural diversity and thought process, which has been based on ignorance of so-called leaders from the mainland.  The perpetuation of rhetoric promotion of a version of intellectual inferiority complex has provided barriers in the positive development of our communities, dismissing signs that self-determination combined with mutual respect for the cultural importance of other communities and the survival of distinct sub-cultures within a nation and its dependence and structural and social variables.  Communities who control their own heritage often experience improved higher levels of social cohesion and cultural survival.  Often, individualistic community leaders feel that they own the train that carries a community to its ultimate meeting point.

Unified cultural power builds strong communities, resulting in improved influence at all levels of political and geographical inclusion, but in the opposite, if we don’t acknowledge unified rights of cultural existence, “cultural theft” and forced assimilation will result.  There appears to be a perception being perpetuated within the Portuguese community that there are a number of leaders, which control the governance of social and cultural diversity and only they know what is best for the value of diversity.  This, of course, is spread by self-appointed egotistic narcissists who often are self-aggrandized by the perception of fake power.  Influence comes not from who configures power to suit but from the people who believe in a set of principles based on balance and fairness of developmental respect.  Broadening our minds to glorify a community does not mean self-enrichment but co-operation for a just cause.

June is Portuguese Heritage month in Canada which provides an opportunity to rise above self serving engagement, inspiring all that still have not felt Portuguese culture.  On June 13^th, the Portugal Day parade is part of the humanization of who we are as a community.  Some clubs have decided to boycott this most important event, not understanding that Portuguese culture associated with clubs and associations is much bigger than any individual who boycotts and/or assumes ownership of what the parade and June are all about.  The separation by some in the Azorean community as a means of protest robs many of the opportunity to showcase the hearts and minds of Azoreans.  It’s short thinking but it extends to other aspects where culture separation purposely ignores contributions that other members of the community may enhance if they participated.  Those who quietly go about the theft of culture should reassess their own individualistic hierarchy because the result will be internal conflict.  Culture within the communities promotes survival of differences and prioritizes cultural resilience and self-determination.

Help build, not destroy what took so long to become who we are.

Era suposto vivermos num planeta que se rege pelos princípios humanistas constantes da Carta das Nações Unidas e da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. Editorial deDavid Pontes

Era suposto vivermos num planeta que se rege pelos princípios humanistas constantes da Carta das Nações Unidas e da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. Editorial deDavid Pontes