The decision already approved by ambassadors to prolong the sanctions against Russia will be announced formally on September 14. But who exactly continues this policy? Certainly, it’s impossible to say that the sanctions policy is implemented by a «United Europe» speaking with one voice, because no such thing as the unity of Europe exists. And there is no «one voice». Not anymore. The members of the EU challenge the bloc openly today, refusing to abide by the very same rules it is based on.

On September 6, the governments of Poland and Hungary refused to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's top court that upheld the legality of quotas for states to take migrants relocated from the Mediterranean. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto rejected the ruling as «outrageous and irresponsible» and «a political ruling which rapes European law and European values». «This ruling places the European Commission above nations. That is unacceptable,» Szijjarto told a press conference, promising that «the real battle is just beginning».

Polish Prime Minster Beata Szydlo said she had expected the judgement, and that her government would continue to refuse to take refugees for «security reasons». In the Slovakian capital Bratislava, the Social Democratic Prime Minister Robert Fico acknowledged the verdict, though still insisting that the relocation scheme is «unjust».

The scheme aims to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers around the bloc. So far, 27,695 refugees have been relocated under it, roughly two-thirds from Greece and a third from Italy. Slovakia is expected to take 902, and has accepted 16. Hungary and Poland have not relocated a single person and the Czech Republic has not made any offers for more than a year.

Europe's mandatory refugee quota system was approved in September 2015 by a majority of EU member states. Back then, it was rejected by Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary. Poland joined the opposition later when the right-wing PiS government came to power. The ECJ has the power to levy financial penalties on governments which fail to comply with EU law. The European Commission is currently pursuing legal action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to meet their legal obligations on relocation.

The court decision came as the EU executive curtly dismissed Orbán’s request for EU funds to help build a border fence. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker refused, pointing out that Hungary’s refusal to accept its quota of migrants relocated from Greece and Italy was illegal. The EU pays billions of euros to Turkey and Libya to keep migrants away but it refuses to provide a much smaller sum (€ 400) to an EU member for the very same purpose! The EU did provide money for building fences at the Bulgaria-Turkey and Greece-Turkey borders.

There are tensions between the EU and Hungary over other issues, like restrictions on the operation of universities and NGOs that receive foreign funding. The European Commission will be asking member states at the next general-affairs council this month to back its legal action against Poland over its judicial «reform» program.

According to Carnegie Europe, «Defiance of core EU principles by the governments in Warsaw and Budapest is turning into a political crisis». Poland and Hungary have joined together in opposition to the EU bureaucracy on many issues, adding to the process of alliances forming inside the EU to undermine its unity and cohesion. With Poland and Hungary staying together, no EU sanctions can be applied against these states. EU’s Article 7 says two members can deadlock the mechanism by protecting each other.

The emergence of alliances within the EU is a trend. The Visegrád group, the Nordic countries, the states of Benelux and Mediterranean agricultural producers – there are many groups within the EU structure pursuing their own interests and shaking the Union’s cohesion. For instance, Poland is threatening to block part of the trade deal between the EU and Canada (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – CETA). It is concerned over a planned mechanism for resolving disputes between governments and multinational companies. The European Union and Canada have agreed to start a free trade agreement on Sept. 21, paving the way for over 90 percent of the treaty to come into effect. There is little time left to smooth over the differences.

There will be more soon. After Brexit becomes reality, Scotland will most likely vote for secession and apply for EU membership. Will it agree to share the burden of refugees? Will it be a condition for membership? Catalonia’s parliament has just voted for Oct. 1 referendum on split from Spain. The EU says it will lose EU membership if the province declares independence. Then the EU will lose an economically prosperous part of it. A rich Catalonia located in the heart of Europe outside of the alliance will be a problem.

If Scotland applies, Spain said it would block its entry. Other members would support Scotland’s accession. There will be more divisions. Europe is gradually moving to become independent in terms of defense capability. The implementation of this policy envisages more expenditure. The opposition will be strong because East Europeans and the Baltic States do not approve the idea.

The EU appears to be in deep trouble, with internal divisions tearing it apart. The United Europe’s much vaunted unity is vanishing right in front of our eyes. Groups of states are emerging on the European political landscape to differ on the issues the EU had been unanimous on until recently. With so many problems unresolved and gaps unbridged, the European Union is no longer as strong and unanimous as it used to be. Its heyday is over.

In his interview with Euronews, the EU Commission President said that he «would like to have an agreement with Russia that goes beyond the ordinary framework, bearing in mind that without Russia, there is no security architecture in Europe». Mr. Juncker noted that «Russia must be treated as one big entity, as a proud nation». The president emphasized that he «would like to have discussions on a level footing with Russia». He thinks that President Obama was wrong saying that Russia was only «a regional power».

There are reasons to make Mr. Juncker make such a statement at this particular moment.

With Donald Trump in office, the US European policy on is expected to go through drastic changes and a period of uncertainty will last in Washington at least until January 20.

This is also the time the so-called «pro-Russian» politicians gaining more clout in the Old Continent. Actually, they are not exactly pro-Moscow but rather pro-national, putting national interests at the top spots of their priority lists. For them, the interests of their countries are more important than the priorities of the US or the EU. They believe that normalizing the relations with Moscow is what meets the national interests to make it part of foreign policy plans.

Two weeks ago, such leaders came to power in Bulgaria and Moldova. The EU’s image has been damaged in both countries, where the public perceives economic progress as too slow and sees a failure to tackle corruption by nominally pro-EU leaders.

François Fillon – a politician advocating rapprochement between Russia and the EU – won the center-right nomination for French presidency on November 27. His victory means that two «pro-Russia» candidates – François Fillon and Marine Le Pen – will probably face each other off at the presidential election in April 2017.

A presidential election will take place in Austria on December 4. Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party has a good chance to win. According to what he has said during the election campaign, Mr. Hofer will consider pulling out of the EU and visit Moscow, if elected president. He promised «to show my strong commitment to the withdrawal of sanctions against Russia because I am firmly convinced that sanctions hinder communication».

If the Italian referendum on December 4 says «no» to the major government overhaul plans, then a snap election will become a possibility to benefit the Italy's Northern League party, which advocates the improvement of relations with Russia. Its leader, Matteo Salvini, has visited Moscow and Crimea a number of times and called for lifting the EU-imposed sanctions.

Some signs to confirm the trend of changing EU’s policy on Russia are largely kept out headlines. In late October, the EU lifted a cap on Gazprom's use of the Opal pipeline in Germany, opening the way for Russia to expand Nord Stream's capacity and bypass Ukraine as a gas transit route. The Nord Stream-2 has been recently supported by London. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is an outspoken advocate of the project.

It has been reported recently that large Western companies, like IKEA, Leroy Merlin, Mars, Pfizer, have started to reinvest in Russia. They are pumping billions of dollars into Russian economy expecting the consumer demand in the country to grow.

There are calls to address European security concerns. A large group of European leaders has recently called for launching a dialogue with Moscow on a new arms control treaty within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). There is also a group of EU members who have started to openly challenge the anti-Russia sanctions policy.

There are NATO members who express their will to develop military cooperation with Russia. Turkey – a NATO member – has stated it mulls turning towards the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by Russia and China, instead of trying to join the EU «at all costs».

All these events testify to the fact that NATO and the EU have started a turn towards Moscow. The cooling period of Russia-West relations is becoming a thing of the past giving way to more pragmatic approaches. Mr. Juncker stated the obvious fact – the rapprochement between Russia and Europe is one of the trends shaping the contemporary political landscape in Europe.

Meanwhile, the idea to recognize Russia as a global power and make it part of the global US-Russia-China equation is floated among US foreign policy pundits. In his recent MSNBC’s «Morning Joe» comments, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well-known foreign policy guru, said, «America is needed to pull together some larger coalition that can deal with global problems. And in that larger coalition America, China and changing Russia could be preeminent». Actually, what Mr. Brzezinski suggests makes remember the Yalta Conference held in February, 1945.

Indeed, the «big three» format talks is the right place to address global issues: trade, finances and global security architecture. Will Mr. Trump listen to what foreign policy pundits say? Anyway, the pivot to Russia is becoming a global trend.

The article reporting this, at europeonline-magazine, also observed that, «The commission, the EU’s executive, plays a leading role in accession negotiations between the bloc and aspiring members».

The main reason why US President Barack Obama had perpetrated his coup in Ukraine in February 2014, and why his CIA hired racist anti-Russian paramilitaries to carry it out as they did behind the cover of the popular anti-corruption «Maidan» demonstrations in Kiev, was in order to get Ukraine into NATO, so that US missiles will be able to be placed near-enough to Moscow for a blitz-attack so as to conquer Russia. That would be America’s ultimate «regime-change» operation (toward which the regime-change in Ukraine is merely one of the most important steps); but the European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker has here said, it’s not going to happen.

This isn’t only a reversal of what the EU had been promising to Ukraine’s government (especially promising to the post-coup government), but it’s also a drastic separation of Europe from America’s empire: a severe limitation of the control by the US aristocracy, which has, ever since the time of US President George Herbert Walker Bush, been executing his plan to strangulate Russia by surrounding it with NATO member-nations on Russia’s western borders, and so cutting off Russia’s major trading-partner (Europe), thus squeezing Russia’s economy until a regime-change can be carried out there like was done in Ukraine, ‘democratically’ instead of by an outright invasion of Russia. This way, the threat of a NATO blitz-attack won’t even need to be acted upon, and the world’s most resource-rich nation, Russia, can thus be added to the US international-corporate fold without NATO needing first to attack Russia by any such super «Prompt Global Strike» – a PGS that can destroy Russia’s command-and-control within just a few minutes, instead of within an hour or even more.

Juncker is thus challenging the US aristocracy here; he’s saying that GHW Bush’s plan isn’t going to go all the way. The US aristocracy can benefit by surging US arms-sales that are generated from NATO’s expansions, but not into Ukraine.

As the representative of Europe’s aristocracies, Juncker is finally saying, to the US aristocracy: You’re not going to control us entirely. We want to work with you on things such as TTIP, which will benefit the aristocracies of every participating nation; but, we’re not going to follow your lead regarding the conquest of Russia; we European aristocrats (the billionaires whom these government-officials represent) will instead pursue our own independent policies regarding Russia. We’re not going all the way with you on that.