The lines of geopolitical contradictions in Europe


At the moment in the Euro-Atlantic region there are three lines of serious geopolitical contradictions: between Europe and the United States, Old Europe and New, and also between Europe and Russia.

Controversy # 1: Europe and the US

The NATO summit, which took place on July 11-12 in Brussels, fully confirmed the thesis of an overdue conflict between the transatlantic hegemon and Europe. The USA, acting within the framework of the neo-imperial model of development, systematically and consistently pursued a policy of "crypto-colonization" of Europe. In response, there was a response from both official representatives of the EU giants and the public. The growth of right-populist rhetoric, which proclaims the desire to get out of the US wing, obviously indicates a recognition of discrepancies.

By the way, the leader of the French party "National Front" Marín Le Pen after the April strike of the coalition in Syria made the following statement: "These attacks on Syria lead us to unpredictable and potentially dramatic consequences. France once again loses the opportunity to appear on the international scene as an independent and balanced power. " It is worth saying that not only the right do such statements.

One can not ignore the value split as well, like the avalanche. Europe, mired in the left-liberal "darkness", strongly contrasts with the position of the current American elites. Suffice it to say that the chief ideologue of the current administration and the architect of Trump's victory, Steve Bannon, was the author of the extremely conservative edition of Breitbart, and is now building the "right-wing international" within Europe, whose goal is to counterbalance the "open society" of Soros.

Vice President of the United States, Mike Penza, too, can not be called an advocate of ideas dominant in European discourse. Even as governor of Indiana, Pence signed the "Act on the Restoration of Religious Freedom," which allowed the use of arguments about insulting religious feelings as an excuse. This position is far from being similar to the ideas of an increasingly secular Europe.

In the EU there are also some concerns about the hawkish policy of the States. Often, the US neglects the institutions of international law, for which all EU member states are so strongly advocating for the fulfillment of their foreign policy tasks. For example, after the US withdrew from a nuclear deal with Iran, the European Commission prepared a document prohibiting European companies from obeying American sanctions against Iran.

Extremely interesting is the preamble of the law, which, in fact, accuses the US of violating international law. According to the authors of the document, such violation is the extraterritorial nature of sanctions, which entails losses in countries not directly related to the state against which sanctions are imposed. All this speaks in favor of the fact that mutual trust between the EU and the US is falling.

Controversy # 2: Old Europe and New Europe

This contradiction is relatively new for the Euro-Atlantic region. Yes, of course, we can talk about some softening of this contradiction after the "conservative revolution 2.0", which was marked by the coming of the right to power in countries such as Italy and Austria. Anyway, the contradiction is still preserved, and it is connected, first of all, with the issue of immigration. The history of the countries of Eastern Europe is almost completely reduced to an endless struggle for national and religious liberation.

National liberation in the case of Eastern Europe is characterized by an attempt to build a monoethnic national state. In one way or another, most states managed to achieve the implementation of their project. Therefore, for these countries, the EU policy on refugees is a new civilizational challenge. On November 11, at a rally in honor of the Independence Day of Poland, which became one of the most mass speeches of nationalists, one could hear slogans such as "The Gospel, not the Koran".

Thus, the following logical chain is built: all life "we" fought for a national state against invaders - immigrants as a new version of the invaders - they would not be if the "brusselslekratiya" did not pursue a policy based on the reception of migrants. Consequently, "the mistress of old Europe" is our opponent on such an important issue. This is how the fault line passes between Europe.

Controversy # 3: Europe and Russia

It stems from a difference in the value system. The difference in the interpretation of Christianity in many ways generates a contradiction in views on the issues of social order. Of course, this civilizational discrepancy can hardly be called decisive in the sense in which it influences world politics, but still it contributes to this geopolitical split. More important is the divergence in the interpretation of the system of international relations. In Russia, since the time of Primakov, one can note the tendency to the gradual domination of the realistic paradigm. At the same time, the EU continues to be in the position of liberalism.

It is obvious that when one side speaks from the position of "great power" and the other from the position of the supremacy of supranational bodies, it becomes much more difficult to reach a consensus, if only because the parties speak different languages. Sometimes such a dialogue is comparable to an attempt to explain the German school of philosophy in the original language to a person who does not know anything about philosophy and does not speak German.

From this contradiction in the understanding of the system of international relations, contradictions in the interpretation of specific political problems also arise. For example, Russia's position on the Crimea fully corresponds to the logic of political realism, while Europeans try to interpret this issue through the prism of an idealistic perception of politics.

These are the lines of the main contradictions in Europe. However, here we face one of the eternal questions.

What to do?

The US administration is likely to try to rectify the situation between Old and New Europe towards a balance between these centers of power. On the one hand, the US will conclude bilateral agreements and make official statements on strategic issues with the authorities of European countries. By the way, this is already happening. For example, at one of the official meetings of Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leaders spoke in unison on the issue of sanctions against Russia.

On the other hand, the US strategy will include interaction with the growing right-wing forces in Europe. Yes, in Italy and Austria, the right is already at the helm, but at this stage it is rather an exception to the general globalist trend. The US is also working in this direction. The previously mentioned Bannon travels throughout Europe, where he communicates with representatives of the right-wing parties and, moreover, gives them development advice.

Such a policy of a new soft ideological-official colonization, which consists in the reorientation of Europe's right to discourse on the pro-American agenda, together with the strengthening of contacts with official Europe, is fraught with the limitation of Moscow's capabilities. However, if Trump, with some of his antics, provokes the EU drift from the US, it can not be ruled out that, ultimately, Washington will have to compromise with Europe.

In this case, it would be expedient for Russia to use the American-European rapprochement to obtain additional channels of influence on the United States. Such channels can be artificially created by improving mutual understanding and cooperation with the EU at the current moment with a long-term vision. Russia can take advantage of the cooling in relations between the EU and the US and try to use this loophole to improve relations with Brussels at the highest level. Although in no case can we idealize pro-Western policies in the same way as convinced Westerners do, but should be used to extract their own benefits.

Of course, our interests in the region will be in direct conflict with the interests of the United States. But, despite this, there is still room for political and strategic maneuver. "How can you do it?" - an inquisitive reader will ask. Well, let's try to answer this question.

In the medium term, the maximum use or intentional construction of a portal for interaction between Russia and Europe is seen as expedient. Joint economic projects can theoretically lay the foundation of this "portal". This will help create conditions for building closer economic ties and political dialogue. Thanks to this, we will be able to aggravate the contradiction between Europe and the US, guided by the old, but true, postulate, and thereby try to introduce Europe into the orbit of our interests.

Here it is worth saying that, in the opinion of the Western press, we do not even need to put pressure on the points of pain in relations between the US and Europe in any way. Trump will do everything for us. As the Chinese philosophy says, you can sit quietly on the bank of the river and wait for the corpse of the enemy to sail past.

It is also important to pursue a policy of informational impact on youth in the EU in order to use soft power to distract them from the cultural influence of the United States. To implement this recommendation, you can use the shadow channels of communication with the right, whose audience continues to grow. The emphasis should be on strengthening the cultural presence of Russia in Europe. "Manuscripts do not burn," but the mass culture produced by cultural Marxists is quite burning.

So, we have the following picture. Europe is divided into three lines of geopolitical contradictions, two of which, namely the split between Old and New Europe and disagreements with the United States, can definitely play into Russia's hands. At the same time, the geopolitical contradiction between Russia and Europe can hardly be called beneficial for us. Thus, Russia needs to pursue a policy of pressure on two pain points in order to aggravate these discrepancies, and at the same time try to minimize the split between Europe and Russia.