Soon after Poland’s ultra-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party came to power in October 2015, the Polish parliament passed a law allowing the government to appoint the judges of its choosing to the highest court and not recognize those chosen by its predecessor, the liberal Civic Platform party.

The crisis began in 2015 when Civic Platform, the party then in power, improperly nominated two judges to the constitutional court. When the PiS won October’s elections, it refused to recognize them and also blocked three other judges who had been properly selected by parliament. PiS also wants the court to hear cases in chronological order, rather than setting its own priorities for tackling its caseload. The Polish government believes it is unfair that a constitutional court with a majority of judges appointed under the previous parliament should be able to scupper flagship policies for which PiS secured a mandate in democratic elections in 2015.

Legal experts advising the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights watchdog, have concluded that the changes breach the rule of law, democracy and human rights. The Council and the European Parliament have expressed their concerns and urged the government to backtrack on its reform.The constitutional crisis has already given rise to a string of large demonstrations by a new Polish popular movement, the Committee for the Defence of Democracy.

Last December, President Andrzej Duda appointed a candidate backed by PiS as the new head of the constitutional court, which had been locked in a struggle with the government. In response, the European Commission said it considered the procedure which led to the appointment of Judge Julia Przyłębska to the post as “fundamentally flawed as regards the rule of law.” The Commission has set the Polish government a late February deadline to implement measures to protect the powers of the constitutional court.

On February 20, Poland dismissed demands that it implement judiciary reforms deemed essential by the European Commission to uphold the rule of law. Warsaw risks being stripped of its voting rights in the 28-member bloc, but such a move requires unanimity, while Hungary said it would not support sanctions. Hungary has also been harshly criticized by European structures for alleged violations of EU rules and standards.

In 2015, Poland and Hungary joined together to stop an EU ministerial agreement that would have forced all EU countries to honor same-sex “marriages” wherever they were contracted in the European Union. The botched agreement proposed by Luxemburg to the EU justice ministers addressed property rights, pensions and insurance. Poland and Hungary opposedit on the grounds that this would violate their sovereign prerogative to legislate on marriage and family matters.

The fact that two countries in the heart of Europe would oppose even an indirect recognition of same-sex “marriage,” and undoubtedly in the face of strong pressures from other EU states, speaks volumes about the direction Poland and Hungary have chosen. It is not the trajectory in which EU diplomacy, reliant on EU consensus, has taken so far.

The Hungary’s stance on Poland makes EU divisions come in the open to put an end to all the talkingabout the much-praised European unity. And it’s not Brexit only.

Actually, the EI is already divided. The «Alliance of Europe’s South» is being formed to include Greece, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta. Several EU members mull the possibility of a mini- Schengen bloc to comprise the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria – the nations sharing deep cultural and historic links and opposing the idea of wealthy countries in the north subsidizing poorer EU members in the south.

The Visegrad group (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) openly opposes the EU migration policy and offers its own vision of what the EU should become in the future. An extraordinary conference of the groups prime ministers in February, 2016, led to a statement reasserting the members’ insistence on “more effective protection” of the EU’s external borders to “stem the migratory flow.” It also repeated the countries’ opposition to a quota system for resettling refugees through the EU.

The group possesses enough significant growth and influence to move beyond the Continent. In particular, the combined GDP of the group makes it the world’s 15th largest economy, and the number of its representatives in the European Parliament is twice as large as the number of representatives of France, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Europe is facing a prolonged period of political upheaval, with elections also slated for 2017 in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy – all countries where economic anxiety, opposition to the EU and a surge in migration have fed growing support for populist parties.

The EU is also deeply divided over the sanctions imposed against Russia. Many countries oppose the «trade war» and the discontent is growing. Imposed three years ago, the restrictive measures have failed to achieve any results. The policy has little impact on Moscow. President Vladimir Putin has said manty times that Russia’s economy can rebound stronger from Western sanctions. It has been estimated that the cost to European farmers of the sanctions against Moscow is equal to 5.5 billion euros a year.

According to the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), the macroeconomic effects of the trade loss, amounting to €34 billion in value added in the short run and €92 billion in the longer. Keeping farmers in business, on a drip of multi-million euro rescue packages is not a sustainable solution.

Poland and Hungary are getting closer as their criticism of European institutions grows stronger. Both nations defend measures to freeze the process of European integration and take back national prerogatives transferred to Brussels. They will work together to resist the EU’s attempts to enforce a scheme to relocate refugees across the bloc.

One thing leads to another. Poland is working to extend its influence beyond the Visegrad Group by giving a boost to the relations with Romania and Slovakia – EU member states also opposing the bloc’s asylum seekers’ relocation plans imposed by Germany.

The disenchantment with European integration is already pervasive in the region. Eurosceptics not only challenge Brussels, they demonstrate their willingness to unite. A new alliance appears to be emerging inside the EU to undermine it, or even destroy it, from within. Other nations inspired by this example are likely to join, spurring the process that can hardly be stopped.

That office also offered a rough estimate of the financial toll on the countries of the EU – as much as 50 billion euros per year. That is equal to approximately 0.4% of the EU’s total gross domestic product.

That is a significant figure, considering that in 2015, according to Eurostat, total economic growth in the EU amounted to 2% of GDP, but only 1.7% in the eurozone nations. Even more revealing are the comparative figures for the last decade, which are able to include in their calculations not only the period of the financial and economic crisis, but also the EU’s “fatter” years.

According to Eurostat’s data, the economy of the entire European Union has grown by an average of 1% per year since 2004. But in the eurozone that growth was only 0.8%. The war of sanctions against Russia is eating up about half of the EU’s average annual economic growth.

However, this is averaged data from across the entire EU. An even clearer picture is obtained if this is extrapolated to individual countries, taking into account not only their direct but also their indirect losses. Thus, according to the analysts at the General Invest holding company, in 2014 alone – the first year of the sanctions – the toll suffered just by companies in Italy amounted to approximately 20-22 billion euros. This includes the losses incurred not only by companies that trade directly with Russia, but also by those that maintain an indirect presence on the Russian market through other European Union member states.

The Italian newspaper La Stampa has sounded the alarm: the sanctions war with Russia has touched off a “perfect storm” that has wrought havoc on Italy’s manufacturing sector. Italian exports to Russia effectively imploded last year, plunging 34% – from 10.7 billion euros in 2013 to 7.1 billion in 2015. La Stampa writes, “Machine-building, which accounted for 34% of all our exports to Russia, lost 648 million euros in 2015, while the apparel industry lost 539 million (a drop of 31%), motor vehicles – 399 (down 60%), footwear – 369, and furniture – 230”.

Long ago, Italian experts were among the first to warn of the dire effects of the sanctions war with Russia. In the next few months Italy could prove to be the “bomb” that will blow up the fragile financial (and hence political) stability in the European Union.

Federico Santi, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, claims that as we enter the second half of the year, the situation in Italy and its consequences for the rest of Europe may prove to be the biggest macro-political risk. The Italian banking system is weighed down under the massive ballast of non-performing loans and the aggressive policies of Germany and Deutsche Bank, which are using the crisis in the eurozone to strengthen their own positions. Government officials in Italy have reported 200 billion euros worth of “bad” loans (about 10% of their total), and independent experts would bump that up by another 160 billion euros (which is an unprecedented figure for the national banking system and comparable only to the numbers found in Greece).

In 2015 Italy’s third-largest bank – Monte dei Paschi di Siena – held 46.9 billion euros of overdue loans. Matteo Renzi’s cabinet has already launched into a fierce polemic against Berlin and Brussels, accusing them of the inability and unwillingness to effectively address the eurozone’s financial problems and demanding that national governments be given the right to take their own measures to combat the crisis, with an eye toward their particular socioeconomic situations, which would include recapitalizing debt.

But Nicholas Spiro, a consultant with Lauressa Advisory, believes that the stakes are too high in Italy for politicians not to adopt a plan to recapitalize Italian banks. At the same time, Brussels and Berlin are hesitant to take their own emergency measures to rescue the Italian banking system at European taxpayers’ expense, given the upcoming elections in Germany and France.

The results of the stress tests on EU banking institutions that were conducted by the European Central Bank and released in late July show that the Siamese triplets known as Italy, France, and Germany could soon bring down the entire financial system of the European Union. Just in the last few months Deutsche Bank shares have dropped 25%, those of the French bank Société Générale – 23%, and the Italian bank UniCredit – almost 30%. And the 47 billion euros of “bad” loans found on the balance sheet of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena account for more than 40% of the bank’s total credit portfolio.

Financial problems, coupled with the decline in manufacturing, make for a truly explosive mix, not only for Italy but throughout the European Union. However, Brussels is apparently still focused not on that, but on continuing the sanctions war against Russia.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey responded by saying that the move by the German parliament has seriously damaged relations between the two countries. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was on a state visit to Kenya, said the decision would have a serious impact on the bilateral ties.

Erdogan said that recalling the ambassador for consultations was the“first step” and that the Turkish government would consider further steps to be taken in response to the vote.

Turkey's Foreign Ministry also summoned the German chargé d'affaires in Ankara to protest the vote as the ambassador was out of town. The Turkish government has already recalled its ambassador to Germany.

Ankara has long rejected the term genocide, saying that thousands of people, many of them Turks, died in the civil war that destroyed the Ottoman Empire. It also says that the estimates of the number of deaths have been exaggerated.

Armenian Genociderecognitionrefers to the formal acceptance that the systematic massacres and forced deportation of Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire, and subsequently the Turkish Republic from 1915 to 1923, constituted genocide. Most of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenians were displaced, deported or placed in concentration camps, ostensibly for rebelling against the Ottomans and siding with Russia during the First World War. This affected up to 1.5 million Armenians. The overwhelming majority of historians as well as academic institutions on Holocaust and Genocide Studies recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Twenty-nine countries, including Russia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy and Canada, as well as 44 states of the United States of America, have recognized the tragic events as genocide. The list includes 11 of the European Union’s 28 members. The governments of Turkey and Azerbaijan аre the only ones that directly deny the historical factuality of the tragic events.

In 1985, the United NationsSub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities received a report from Special Rapporteur and Sub-Commission member Benjamin Whitaker (United Kingdom) titled “Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (the Whitaker Report), in which the Ottoman massacre of Armenians during the World War I was cited as meeting the criteria for the UN definition of genocide.

In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars(IAGS) passed a resolution unanimously recognizing Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide.

Last April, the European Parliament backed a motion that calls the massacre a century ago of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces genocide, days after Pope Francis’ message using the same term triggered an angry reaction in Turkey.

US President Obama has stopped short of using the word – most recently in a statement marking Armenian Remembrance Day on April 24, 2016.

Germany is the EU leader, so the big question is what this all means for the EU-Turkey migrants deal struck in March. Will the parliament’s decision scupper it? Under the agreement, Turkey arranged to take back migrants arriving on Greek islands, in return for EU aid and a pledge to give Turks visa-free travel to most of Europe. Germany accepted 1.1 million migrants last year – by far the highest influx in the EU.

The EU-Turley relationship had already been at a low ebb before the German parliament’s vote as a result of the European Parliament’s decision to delay its discussion of the visa liberalization process for Turkish citizens for as long as Turkey fails to fulfil its benchmarks. The vote took place on May 12. Back then, President Erdogan made clear that there would be no changes related to the anti-terror law provisions while the army is battling Kurdish militants in the southeast. Turkey threatened to suspend all of its agreements with the European Union.

Then the Turkish President said the Turkish parliament would block the deal with the EU on migrants if Ankara did not gain visa-free access to the bloc – a key demand by Turkey in the March agreement.

The West-Turkey relationship is greatly complicated by Turkey’s poor human rights record. For instance, the 2015 EU progress report said there had been “serious backsliding” on freedom of expression and the judiciary had been undermined.

* * *

The German parliament’s decision has put into jeopardy the bilateral ties and EU-Turkey relationship which had already been threatened by other factors. It also came at the time the US-Turkey relationship has greatly deteriorated.  

Turkey has also spoiled its relations with Russia.

Just a few years ago, Turkey was heralded as one of the region’s rising powers. Sticking to the principle of “zero problems with the neighbors”, Turkey aimed to both improve relations with its neighborhood and slowly emerge as the dominant regional power. This policy lies in doldrums today. Turkey’s relations with almost all of its neighbors have soured. Tensions with the United States, the European Union, and Russia have all dramatically increased. The ripple effects from Syria have put Turkey at odds with Iran.

The crux of the matter is this: Turkish foreign policy is no longer about Turkey but about Erdogan. His authoritarian rule makes Turkey’s foreign policy the product of his whims. The country is clearly moving in the wrong direction. The deterioration of Germany-Turkey relationship is just another example to confirm the fact. 

Few people understand that the fate of Western liberty, what remains of it, is at stake in the conflict, and, indeed, the fate of life on earth. Certainly the German government does not understand. Sigmar Gabriel, a German vice-chancellor, has declared the Greek government to be a threat to the European order. What he means by the “European order” is the right of the stronger countries to loot the weaker ones.

The “Greek crisis” is not about debt. Debt is the propaganda that the Empire is using to subdue sovereignty throughout the Western world.

The Greek government asked the collection of nations that comprise the “democratic” European Union for one week’s extension on the debt in order for the Greek people to give their approval or disapproval of the harsh terms being imposed on Greece by the EU commission, the EU Central Bank, and the IMF with Washington’s insistence.

The answer from Europe and the IMF and Washington was “NO.”

The Greek government was told that democracy doesn’t apply when creditors are determined to make Greek citizens pay for the creditors’ mistakes with reduced pensions, reduced health care, reduced education, reduced employment, and reduced social services. The position of the Empire is that the Greek people are responsible for the mistakes of their foreign creditors, and the Greek people must pay for their creditors’ mistakes, especially those mistakes enabled by Goldman Sachs.

As has been proven conclusively, the Empire’s claim is false. The austerity measures that have been imposed on Greece have driven down the economy by 27%, thus increasing the ratio of debt to GDP and worsening the financial situation of Greece. All austerity has accomplished is to drive the Greek people further into the ground, thus making debt repayment impossible.

The Empire rejected Greece’s democratic referendum next Sunday, because the Empire doesn’t believe in democracy. The Empire, like all empires, believes in subservience. Greece is not being subservient. Therefore, Greece must be punished. The Persians Darius and Xerxes had the same view as Washington and the EU. The Greek government is supposed to do what previous Greek governments have done, accept a pay-off and allow Greece to be looted.

Looting is the only way left for the Western financial system to make money. In pursuit of short-term profits, western corporations, encouraged and coerced by the financial sector, have moved offshore western industry, manufacturing, and professional skills such as information technology and software engineering. All that remains for the West are highly leveraged derivative bets and looting. Apple is an American corporation, but not a single Apple computer is made in the US.

The German, French, and Dutch governments together with Washington and the western financial system have come down in favor of looting. For a country to be looted, its people’s voice must be silenced. This is why the Germans and the EU object to the Greek government handing the ability to decide the future of Greece to the Greek people.

In other words, in the West today, the sovereignty of peoples and accountability of governments are inconsistent with the financial interests of the One Percent.
To conclude: If democracy can be destroyed in Greece, it can be destroyed throughout Europe.

The Greek people not only hold in their hands the fate of democracy in the West, but also the fate of life on earth. Washington’s mechanism for creating conflict with Russia is the EU and NATO. By violating agreements made by previous US governments, Washington has brought NATO to Russia’s borders and is currently deploying more troops, armaments, and missiles on Russia’s borders, all the while speaking aggressively toward Russia.

Russia has no alternative but to target these insensible military deployments. As military deployments rise and the irresponsible and totally inaccurate Western propaganda against Russia and Russia’s government escalate, war can launch itself.

Clearly Washington and its vassal states have eschewed diplomacy and instead use demonization and attempted coercion to force Russia to accede to the Empire’s will.

This reckless policy continues despite the many warnings from the Russian government to the West not to deliver ultimatums to Russia. As empires are characterized by arrogance and hubris, the Empire doesn’t hear the warnings.

Recently we have had from Washington’s stooge prime minister in London British threats against Russia, despite the fact that the UK can deliver no force against Russia and can be destroyed in a few minutes by Russia. This kind of insanity is what leads to war. The crazed British prime minister thinks he can call out Russia.

Washington is brewing armageddon. But Greece can save us. All the Greek people need to do is to support their government and insist that their government, the first in awhile to represent the interests of the Greek people, give the finger to the corrupt EU, default on the debt, and turn to Russia.

This would begin the unravelling of the EU and NATO and save the world from armageddon.

Most likely, Italy and Spain would follow Greece out of the EU and NATO, as these countries also are targeted for merciless looting. The EU and NATO, Washington’s mechanism for creating conflict with Russia, would unravel. The world would be saved and would owe its salvation to the ability of the Greeks to realize what really is at stake. Just as they did at Marathon, Thermopylae, Plateau and Mycale

It is difficult to imagine another scenario that would save us from World War III. Pray that the Greeks understand the responsibility that is in their hands not merely for liberty but also for life on earth.

The election is over. The Centre Party won as expected and its leader Juha Sipilä is to form a government. The party’s leadership is to hold talks on coalitions and cabinet positions. Well-informed sources say the appointment of Olli Rehn as Minister of Foreign Affairs is a slam dunk decision. He is a Brussels bureaucrat, a European MP and a soccer player who likes to thoughtfully stare into the distance and say many words that sound great but often have rather blur meanings. Still some of them could be made out.

On March 23, as the pre-election campaign was running in full swing, Rehn published an article in Finnish newspaper Maaseudun Tulevaisuus under a mysterious and alarming caption – Is Finland Unprepared for Hybrid War? What is it about? It goes without saying that the hybrid warfare threat is posed by Russia – the annexation of Crimea and the war in the eastern part of Ukraine are the best examples. No doubt, Finland is unprepared to meet the challenge. It means that with the election over, Finland should create appropriate structures to repel the hybrid aggressor. Naturally, the issue of NATO membership comes into spotlight.

Some people may find it rather amusing. Wait a moment, don’t jump to conclusions! There is something for future Prime Minister to ponder. It all goes to show that Olli Rehn got too big for his britches. He needs a structure to match his capabilities as a political heavyweight, like, for instance, the Ministry of Hybrid Affairs. The main direction is the East, so he’ll need a partner in Russia. Perhaps, some old friends from the Committee of the Soviet Youth Organizations (it was part of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) will pop up. Though most likely it will be a kind of mental institution.

The choice for publication is really intriguing. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus ("The Rural Future") covers news on agriculture and forestry as well as related businesses. The time is right for planting spring crops. All of a sudden hybrid warfare threats fill the agenda. Yikes!..

Now, there are some thoughts to share. Olli Rehn is the 20th in the list of newly elected centrist candidates. He ran in Helsinki (couldn’t be any other place, he even speaks English!) and got…1, 9% of votes. As one can see he’s a «really popular» high-profile politician to define the national foreign policy during the next four years. The only thing Russia can do is observe the principle of political correctness. It should go on saying there are no problems to effect the bilateral relations and keep harping on about the trade turnover statistics (is it up or down?).

Now a few additional words about popularity and justice.

For many years the position of defence minister has been held by the Swedish People's Party. It normally receives only a few percent of votes (due to only one constituency located in the west of the country) and then tries to independently define the military and political issues that influence everyday lives of over five million people. The trouble is that recently the Finnish Ministry of Defence has started to look at the security problems through the prism of Swedish defeat in the Battle of Poltava. The signature of Minister Carl Haglund on a joint declaration on the expansion of Nordic military cooperation made public by Norwegian Aftenposten on April 9 is the best testimony to the fact. The document made top Finnish officials wonder. The rhetoric of Haglund and some other officials about the need to boost the Nordic cooperation (naturally, in view of Russian threat) sounds too childish today. Generally speaking, it made sense in the mid-1930s against the background of talks about the policy of neutrality. Today Denmark, Iceland and Norway are NATO members. Should Finland follow the path of Baltic States forsaken by God? It’s hard to say…

This time the Swedish People's Party got only 5% of votes. No great shakes! In some countries it would not even cross electoral threshold. Besides, it never rains, but it pours. The majority of Finnish MPs want to cancel mandatory Swedish in Finnish schools. Nevertheless the tradition is stronger than arithmetic and common sense.

Historia opettaa i.e. History teaches. Post-war generations of Finnish politicians have been guided by this maxim. All the talk about Finlandization is destined for those who don’t know the real state of things. The truth is that Finland has always benefitted from the relationship with our country, let it be politics, trade or economy. It strengthened its international standing and made its economic potential grow. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were the right partners to make deals with if one acted wisely and adopted balanced approaches. The great Finnish leaders – Juho Kusti Paasikivi and Urho Kaleva Kekkonen did just that.

“We, the Finns, have drawn lessons to make a conclusion that the attempts to make float political speculations about the Soviet Union are nothing but complete misinterpretation of things. It was a lip service paid to Finland. We built the relationship without outside intermediaries. We had no examples to follow. The process was based on bilateral talks in the spirit of confidence and mutual understanding. That’s what it’s going to be like in the future.” Tamminiemi is a small book written by late president Kekkonen1. Actually, it’s his political legacy. He thought hard before arriving at these conclusions after his country had gone through great hardships. The legacy has become forgotten, including by Olli Rehn, a hybrid politician, who represents the Finnish Centre Party – the party of Kekkonen.

1 Urho Kekkonen, Tamminiemi, Weilin+Göös, 1980.

But European taxpayers are already disgruntled.“I get the feeling that Ukraine is waiting for solutions to its problems from everyone but itself,” declared Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico during talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “I would like to see what measures Ukraine itself is undertaking to solve its own problems,” he added. Fico recalled that when Slovakia gained independence 21 years ago, everyone in the republic had to start afresh, the population lived through extremely difficult reforms, and nobody from abroad paid off a single one of Bratislava’s debts free of charge.

Everyone understands that, one way or another, the European Union will have to take on the cost of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s insolvency, coupled with its government’s habit of tapping into transit gas flows, are a dangerous mix that will primarily affect Europeans counting on stable Russian gas supplies.

It is not surprising that the provision of aid to Ukraine became a key issue during recent intense consultations.

There is no doubt that the €790 million Barroso has promised a collapsing Ukraine is not much. It is true that Barroso is Portuguese and is perhaps intending to use the European Commission’s money to help Portuguese banks led by Banco Espírito Santo that are currently experiencing hard times. The Bank of Portugal has already been given a rescue package of €4.4 billion and is going to be given more still.

Brusselsalso has a much more ambitious financial instrument at its disposal by way of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which, when it was set up, had a capital of €500 billion and has already given €100 billion to bail out Spanish banks and €9 billion to stabilise Cyprus’ financial system. In addition, the ESM is actively issuing bonds. A new issue of these securities totalling €4 billion was recently placed on the market with a maturity of two years. When it comes to Ukraine, however, the ESM is not promising to help.

So who exactly is going to end up paying for the geopolitical experiments of Washington and Brussels in the former Soviet Union? According to The Wall Street Journal, it is going to be the governments of EU member states. The newspaper is hoping that the current situation might create pressure on EU member states to intervene and close the gap.

Translating the diplomatic language, this means that the EU’s governing bodies will expect European capitals to shoulder half of the aid to Kiev, if not more.

You will recall that just one of Ukraine’s gas debts to Gazprom is $5.3 billion, and Kiev still needs to prepay for future supplies. Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak sees “guarantees from first-class European banks, bridge loans (short-term loans to cover the current payments of a troubled borrower – P.I.), funds from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Commission” as possible sources of funding for Ukraine…

Brusselsis looking at it differently, however; it prefers to shift Ukraine’s gas debts onto the shoulders of ordinary Europeans.

The financial situation in the EU at present is not the best. The European Commission still does not have a long-term anti-crisis strategy and is lurching from one anti-crisis programme to another – from the establishment of stabilisation funds to the direct purchase of debt obligations. Under the circumstances, it would be fitting for Europeans to ask their own governments as much as the European Commission why they are kindling the flames of the Ukrainian conflict, why they are closing their eyes to Kiev’s militant tendencies, why they unleashed a sanctions war against Russia and why, after all that, they are complaining about the financial problems? The answer lies in geopolitics. As does, by the way, the creation of the very same eurozone that is currently being forced to save Kiev with money.

The Ukrainian crisis that has been going on for nearly a year and the thousands of people who have paid for it with their lives are evidence of what happens when politics is deprived of common sense. Perhaps the approaching winter will force Europeans to better understand the simple truth.

“Europe needs to take responsibility. Unfortunately, the European Union may not have enough political will to cope with the historical challenge that has arisen before it,” writes the French newspaper Le Monde. The European Union is hurrying to strengthen its shaky economic position, and now all it needs to do is convince the EU taxpayers to put up with just a little bit more for the sake of Ukraine. 

And it is not just within Britain that the essence of this argument is resonating. The Scots’ push for independence, or at the very least for acquiring more democratic powers, is serving to fuel separatist sentiments across Europe, in Spain’s Catalonia region, Belgium, Italy and elsewhere.

Indeed, it could be said, the issues raised by the Scots of democratic accountability, more equitable economic policies, and more independence in international relations as opposed to subservience for example to NATO group think, all such issues resonate not just with “separatists” but to many ordinary citizens right across the EU.

The Spanish government in Madrid even threatened to veto an application to the European Union from an independent Scotland. That’s a measure of how concerned Madrid was taking the Scottish “contagion” spreading to its own borders.

So, for now, the Spanish central government, like the London government, may be feeling relieved over the Scottish referendum and its apparent vote for the status quo. But they would be foolish to rest on their laurels. They should know that at a deeper level the popular ground is shifting beneath them.

The issue of Scottish independence, and the underlying debate about democracy functioning for people instead of elite power, is not going to go away merely with this week’s referendum result. Once an idea catches on, it becomes irreversible.

Far from celebrating its apparent victory, the British status quo is on the retreat after the result. The constitutional flaws and democratic deficit of the existing United Kingdom have been demonstrably exposed; and a clamour for radical change is now in the air even among those voters who apparently supported the Union.

Across the UK, regional media greeted the Scottish vote not with crowing over a pro-Union victory but rather with further questions on how greater devolution is needed and must be delivered throughout Britain. That call for devolution will undermine the traditional London seat of British government, which is seen as one of the most centralised and undemocratic in Europe. Brussels better take note.

The high turnout of the Scottish electorate this week is less about a positive endorsement of the existing UK, and more about a groundswell for substantive political change.

The largely English establishment that has resided cozily up to now in London is seen as dead wood that needs to be torn up and jettisoned. This is because the Scottish referendum has set off a dynamic for greater decentralisation of powers from London, not just to Scotland, but to all the other regions that make up the United Kingdom.

The centuries-old UK may have been spared for now from imminent dissolution – at least on paper – but sweeping changes are nevertheless on the way, thanks to Scotland’s pro-independence movement.

In its vibrant campaigning – and despite a hostile London-based media bias – the Scots separatists have blown open long-overdue public debate about Britain’s highly centralised and undemocratic power structure. This debate resonates not just with Scots, but also with the peripheral English regions, the Welsh and Northern Irish. The Westminster establishment – whether Conservative, Labor or Liberal Democrat – is seen as discredited, redundant and incapable of addressing the needs of the wider public on fundamental issues of representation, economy, public services and foreign policies.

When final votes came through early Friday morning, there was palpable relief in the pro-unionist British media. The BBC was almost ecstatic in its breaking news alerts: “Scotlandhas voted to stay in the United Kingdom after voters decisively rejected independence,” it reported with fanfare.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the No campaign against secession, could hardly contain himself: “Like million of others, I am delighted,” he gulped.

Cameron was facing the sack from his own Conservative Party benches if Scotland had voted for independence. And over the past weeks, the British media have shown shameless bias in promoting the No campaign while doing everything to undermine the Yes vote. The Scots independence movement was accused of leading Scotland into economic disaster, and of using bullyboy intimidation tactics towards would-be voters. Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond was labelled “a liar” and described as “unscrupulous”. One article in the staunchly Conservative Daily Telegraph even referred to Salmond as being “less popular than Ebola”.

Ironically, it was the pro-unionist establishment that was deploying the dirty politics of smear and intimidation in order to rig the referendum result. Moreover, into the poison was mixed a blatant attempt to bribe the electorate. Cameron and his Westminster cohorts clinched the vote by a last-gasp offer days before the referendum of “more powers and public funds” to Scotland if it stayed within the UK.

But that ploy turns out to be a double-edged sword. By promising more democracy, the Westminster establishment is self-indicting its own traditional abuse of power, which came at the expense of Scotland and the other regions. Promises of more powers to Scotland, unleashes a genie from the bottle for other parts of the UK, which will also push for likewise increased governance at the regional level.

In the end, 55 per cent of Scotland’s electorate voted No to the question of separation from the UK. The pro-independence movement won 45 per cent. The turnout was a remarkably high 84.5 per cent of nearly 4.2 million voters.

The margin of victory for the pro-unionists came as a surprise after polls leading up to the referendum were showing a neck-and-neck race, with a late surge in the Yes vote for independence. The Yes vote was campaigning to sever the 307-year-old political union between England and Scotland. That axis serves as the bedrock for the United Kingdom, comprising Wales and Northern Ireland.

Nevertheless, the pro-independence Scots have shaken the constitutional foundation of Great Britain to its foundation. “There will be no business-as-usual,” declared Salmond as the result came through. The nationalist leader accepted defeat with magnanimity, but he called on the London government to deliver on its belated promises of devolving more political powers to Scotland.

Salmond defiantly told supporters: “The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these [vows] to be honoured in rapid course. Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed.”

The final-hour offer, or should we say bribe, of greater devolved powers to Scotland from the Westminster establishment effectively changed the central question of the referendum. Instead of a choice between independence and the British union as it exists, the voters were now being asked to choose between independence and a Britain with ramped up devolution – or “devo max” as it was described in hyped rhetoric.

Given the British media and No campaign’s relentless exaggeration of risks and dangers from Scotland going independent, the belated devolution promises obviously appealed to a crucial number of uncertain voters as a safer option.

That’s why Salmond has fair reasoning on his side when he says “all Scots who participated in the referendum” are demanding major political change in the existing status quo of the United Kingdom. He added that the political debate has now shifted inexorably to a whole new terrain.

The London government knows this too. Celebrations of victory have been tempered by a nervous recognition that deep-going changes are needed if the United Kingdom is to survive into the future. It will be a tricky balancing act. Speaking from Downing Street, Cameron said: “Just as Scotland will have more power over their affairs, it follows England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs. We will ensure that those commitments are honoured in full,”the prime minister added.

Those powers refer to regional governments being able to determine economic policies on taxation and public spending. In Scotland’s case it may even result in the removal of British nuclear-armed submarines from its sea territory, as the pro-independence people have long demanded. That will have major repercussions for Britain’s role within NATO.

This dynamic of devolution across Britain signals a radical break-out from the straitjacket of austerity and neoliberal largesse for the rich that has been the doctrine of successive London governments, whether Conservative, Labor or the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

It’s not that the Westminster establishment is offering up these concessions out of beneficent volition. The establishment knows that the Scottish referendum has exposed its London-centric autocracy in the eyes of all the electorate across Britain. It is being forced to make long-overdue concessions towards greater democratic representation – or face a real separatist threat. No doubt the autocrats in Brussels and other EU states are also reading the memo.

The United Kingdom may still be intact for a few years to come. But it’s shaping up to be a very different place thanks to the Scots. Less kingdom and more a federation of regions, with an imperious London cut down to size.

Western interference in Ukraine led to catastrophic consequences for the country, Putin said, suggesting measures to prevent the repetition of a similar scenario in other countries on the continent. 

“The task is to fit the traditional principle of non-interference into modern European realities, initiating a serious international discussion of the issue. We all need some kind of a safety net in Europe, so that the Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian and Ukrainian precedents won’t turn into a contagious disease.”

‘Blackmail wrong tool in international relations’

President Putin criticized Washington, which already imposed sanctions on Moscow after the accession of the Republic of Crimea into Russia, for making efforts to scuttle Russia’s 1.12 billion euro deal on Mistral warships with France. 

“We know about the pressure that our American partners put on France to prevent the supply of Mistral [warships] to Russia. And we know that they hinted that if the French won’t supply Mistral [warships] then sanctions against their banks will be removed or, at least, minimized. What is this, if not blackmail?” 

However, he once against stressed the importance of close cooperation between Moscow and Washington. 

“We have absolutely no plans to shut down our relations with the US. It’s true that our bilateral relations aren’t in the best of shape now. But it’s not our fault, not Russia's fault.”

West should stop turning world into ‘global barracks’

Putin said it was high time for the US and Western Europe to give up their political ambitions and start building mutually beneficial relations with the rest of the world.

‘Ukrainian president fully responsible for violence’

A significant part of Putin’s speech was dedicated to the events in crisis-hit Ukraine, where President Petro Poroshenko decided to not prolong the ceasefire with the rebellious Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. 

“So far, Petro Poroshenko had no direct relation to the orders to take military action. Now he has taken on this responsibility in full. Not only military, but also political, which is more important.” 

Putin repeated that Russia won’t interfere into Ukraine, but stressed Moscow’s readiness to help those fleeing the battlefield. 

“Everything that happens in Ukraine is, of course, the internal affair of the Ukrainian state, but we feel painfully sorry that the people, the civilians, are dying. You know that there are a growing number of refugees arriving in the Russian Federation and we’ll certainly assist all those in need.” 

‘We mustn’t sacrifice our vital interests just to be allowed to sit next to someone’ 

Russia has no interest in participating in formats for international relations where it’s only allowed “to play the role of an observer, with no final say on key issues,” Putin said.

With Gazprom cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine, Putin warned Kiev that Moscow is aware of its illegal attempts to obtain Russian gas. 

“Well, [the Ukrainians] have been scheming with some of their partners. They, actually, get our gas, but pay to some European partner, which doesn’t receive its gas supply in full. We see everything. But, for now, we aren’t taking any actions in order to avoid aggravating the situation.”

‘Russia-China relations an example to others’

Putin also praised Russia’s ties with China, which have improved as a result of the West’s restrictive policies toward Moscow. 

“It’s crucial that the Russian-Chinese friendship isn’t directed against anybody whatsoever. We don’t create any military alliances. On the contrary, it’s an example of equal, respectful and productive cooperation between the two states in the 21st century.”

RT

The election of Juncker was presented, in the British media at least, as a kind of “showdown principle” over independence and freedom within Europe; but perhaps of much greater pertinence to European independence is how the continent appears to be toeing an aggressive American foreign policy towards Russia. This latter aspect is scarcely touched upon, yet it is arguably more urgent and relevant to the so-called democratic deficit that mars the European project. This democratic deficit is all too often associated with European politics in the popular mind and it lies behind the rise in anti-EU sentiment that shook the Brussels establishment in the parliamentary elections last month.

First though, on the EC presidency: British Prime Minister David Cameron incurred a humiliating rejection from other European leaders at the end of the week when they voted overwhelmingly for Jean-Claude Juncker to become the next president of the European Commission.

Apart from solitary support from Hungary, Cameron was the odd man out when the leaders of the other 26 EU members gave their approval for Juncker to take the top post. Previously the prime minister of Luxembourg, Juncker is to replace the outgoing José Manuel Barosso for the high-profile Brussels job, provided that his nomination now gets the backing of the European Parliament.

Britain’s premier David Cameron had been gunning for Juncker in recent weeks, complaining bitterly that the Luxembourg politician was too much of a “Brussels insider”. Ahead of the vote by EU leaders at the summit on Friday, Cameron told reporters: “This is the wrong person, the wrong approach… My message to my fellow heads of government and heads of state is that this approach that they are contemplating taking is the wrong approach for Europe. That is a mistake.”

Following the crushing blow to Cameron’s opposition to Juncker, the British premier remained defiant, saying: “For a Europe crying out for reform, we have gone for a career insider.”

So the narrative being contrived here is that Cameron was trying to take the moral high

ground and put himself forward as “the champion of the people” by standing up to the grey, faceless bureaucracy that has become an epithet of European politics. The British leader is endeavouring to make himself out to be a defender of free, independent European states, as opposed to the Brussels monolith, where the selection of top bureaucrats often seems to be an arcane process removed from any public input.

There is little doubting that Juncker is a consummate Brussels figure. He is one of the longest-serving European leaders, having been prime minister of Luxembourg between 1995-2013. He is a doyen of the Christian democrat centre-right European People’s Party – the largest bloc in the European Parliament – and he is an avowed integrationist and federalist. The 59-year-old Juncker is credited with being one of the main planners of the Euro single currency during the early 1990s. And he has a reputation for relishing late-night political marathons, helped along by chain-smoking and generous consumption of wine.

The British Conservative Party leader is thus positioning himself as a champion of European reform and decentralization, by stridently opposing the selection of Juncker as the next European Commission president. Cameron points to the dramatic rise in votes across Europe in the parliamentary elections last month, which saw a host of fringe, anti-EU parties gaining a total of 25 per cent of total seats. These anti-EU parties, many of them espousing anti-immigrant politics and neo-fascist tendencies, are viewed as a growing popular discontent with European enlargement. In Britain, the ultranationalist UK Independence Party led by Nigel Farange has made particular electoral inroads against Cameron’s Conservatives, the traditional dominant party of the centre right.

In the weeks up to this week’s summit in Brussels, Cameron had been threatening that if Jean-Claude Juncker were to be made EC president then he would bring forward a British referendum on EU membership from 2017 to a sooner date, and that he may even campaign for a No vote, leading to Britain’s exit from the bloc altogether. That remains to be seen in the wake of Cameron’s debacle with other European leaders this week.

However, let’s look at the principle of European freedom and independence from another perspective. This week also saw the signing of the EU trade association between Brussels and Ukraine. The controversially elected president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who won the poll with less than a 45 per cent voter turnout last May and amid widespread violence in that country, has pushed ahead with the EU trade pact. Poroshenko’s governing regime in Kiev came to power in an illegal Western-backed coup last February. Both the signing of the EU trade agreement and the ongoing violence in Ukraine at the hands of the Kiev regime have led to a parlous deterioration in relations between Moscow and European governments, as well as primarily between Russia and the US.

But the eastward expansion of the EU, as with NATO, to incorporate former Soviet states and now the grooming of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova for eventual incorporation is best understood as a geopolitical agenda defined first and foremost by Washington. As Sergei Glazyev argued recently in his article on the ‘Rise of Eurofascism’, the EU has

unfortunately become a vital part of the architecture upholding US global hegemony.

Glazyev notes: “The United States supports the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO in every way possible, viewing these organizations as important components of its global empire. The US exercises control over the EU through supranational institutions, which have crushed the nation-states that joined the EU. Deprived of economic, financial, foreign policy and military sovereignty, they submit to the directives of the European Commission, which are adopted under intense pressure from the US. 

In essence, the EU is a bureaucratic empire that arranges things within its economic space in the interests of European and American capital, under US control.”

This intended subordinate role of the EU to US geopolitics was aptly highlighted this week when Washington tried to lobby European leaders to launch a third round of sanctions against Russia, allegedly for not “de-escalating” tensions over Ukraine. Western media reports disclosed that US President Barack Obama and his senior aides were engaged in intense phone calls with various European leaders, pushing for European sanctions.

As the Financial Times reported: “Washington is pressing the EU to threaten Moscow with sanctions against entire sectors of the Russian economy, including energy, finance and defense. Dan Fried, the US envoy for sanctions, visited Brussels on Wednesday to signal that the US was ready to proceed with these ‘level three’ measures but would seek to do so in lockstep with the EU, diplomats said.”

The key European political figure to advance American foreign policy is the British Prime Minister David Cameron. The week of intense Washington pressure on Europe to adopt a tough line towards Russia began with Obama and Cameron working out the common ground. American government-sponsored Radio Free Europe reported that the White House said Obama and Cameron “agreed that should Russia fail to take immediate steps to de-escalate the situation in eastern Ukraine, the US and European Union would work to implement additional coordinated measures to impose costs on Russia.”

As it turns out, the EU decided to not press ahead with Washington’s objective this week of slapping more provocative embargoes on the Russian economy. The opposition came from Germany’s Angela Merkel and several other member states that have a high dependence on Russian gas supply, including Austria, Italy, Spain, Finland, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia.

The rejection of American-led sanctions against Moscow paves the way for diplomacy and talks, and a real possibility of de-escalation of what has become a very dangerous precipice towards a catastrophic war in Europe. On that score, notable European countries have this shown a welcome measure of independence from Washington and the latter’s aggressive policy towards Russia – at least for now. The same cannot be said for Britain. Britain’s Cameron is the archetypal messenger boy for US policy. If he had his way, the EU would be nothing more than an American satrapy, carrying out orders without question.

The EU’s democratic deficit is a real concern and needs to be addressed with reforms that reign in faceless bureaucracy and oppressive economic policies of austerity. All of that is related to Europe’s subservience to American Big Capital, instead of addressing real social needs. But none is more subservient to American interests than successive British governments, which ironically have deepened the democratic deficit of Europe by their slavish kowtowing to Washington’s economic and foreign policy objectives. The latest example of that is Cameron serving as Obama’s flunkey in Europe to promulgate sanctions against Russia.

The real threat to European freedom and independence comes from politicians like Cameron, not Jean-Claude Juncker.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), (commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty) was actually signed on 29 October 2004 by 53 senior political figures from the 25 member states of the European Union. It was an unratified international treaty in-tended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union. It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting

into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states. It took three years to prepare (as in the case of the 1950 constitution of India) the most voluminous document in the world. It included 450 items and clauses while the document was published in 20 EU languages. The document refused the principle of consensus and the right of separate members to veto decisions, the number of European Commission members was reduced and the half-year rotation for position of the Commission’s Chairman was re-scinded. The EU president and minister of Foreign Affairs were to receive special powers enabling them to conduct inde-pendent policy which was not based on consensus. (1)

Such fundamental changes required the support of people living in the member-states. That’s what made the consti-tution doomed. The rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end. The treaty was opposed by 55% of French and 62% of Dutch voters. (2) Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on December 13,

2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on December 1, 2009. Remembering those days Gunter Verheugen, former European Commissioner for Enlargement in 1999-2004, believes that the European Union failed because it tried to implement two large-scale projects at once – the deepened integration and the expansion of the organization itself. According to him, those days the French were right saying the process of integration evolvement was to precede enlargement. (3)

Back in 2008 the European Union was hit by financial crisis – it all boiled down to inefficiency of decision making process dooming the political and economic endeavors aimed at tackling hot issues. The lax consensus norms adopted in Lisbon hindered the efforts aimed at mobilization.

The weak points surfaced by the end of 2011 as the organization got split over tax harmonization issue. Back then the British government was fighting the new EU regulations to control taxes that would have a direct impact on the City. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the meddling into insurance, banking and stock exchange was unacceptable. He referred to the Lisbon Treaty pointing out that it gave the member-states a right to tackle those issues on their own and Britain needed no discrimination amendments.

The British are not the only ones to dissent. Germany is complaining too. It has to shoulder the major burden of fighting the eurozone crisis. No wonder London believes that independence meets its interests. At the same time Berlin blocks the launching of radical financial recovery mechanisms till the EU central agencies establish genuine control over national budgets, banks and taxation systems. Hans Kundnani is the re-search director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, where he specializes in German foreign policy. In his book More Money, More Problems he writes that the more vigorously Germany defends its economic interests, the more problems it faces with its European partners. (4)

Ineffectiveness and excessive politicization of Brussels bureaucracy also create a destabilizing factor. They understand each other too well in the European Union, so they don’t need to vote and if they do they rarely count the results. According to Václav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic, the author of When Tomorrow Starts (Kde začíná zítřek), it actually means that the majority votes automatically, conscientiously and politically correctly supporting almost each and every of the projects offered by the leadership of European Parliament ( the European Commission, the European Council). (5)

Ten years have passed since the time the constitution was prepared to be disapproved. Today it’s still hard to say the European Union is an effectively functioning institution.