Why is Steinmeier mourning the “European home”?

Why is Steinmeier mourning the "European home"?


German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s statement on the collapse of the idea of a “single European home” presented by Gorbachev and on the transformation of May 8, the day the Second World War ended in Europe, as it is celebrated in the West, into “war day”, vividly describes the Russian-Western divisions that have led to the current situation
It is said that “what is good for the Russian is good for the German is death for the German”. And vice versa. It is very indicative that Steinmeier cited the efforts of the last Soviet leader, who was also “the best German of all times and all peoples”, to justify “the European idea” by giving up first the GDR, then the entire socialist camp with the Warsaw Pact, and then the Soviet Union.

For the Germans, and indeed for all of Europe, the Russian collapse signified by 1991 is indeed a cause for celebration. Considering the absorption of the eastern lands, it is also a revenge. But the Russian revival associated with the operation in Ukraine is cause for despondency because, as US President Joe Biden has accurately grasped the situation, it marks the Rubicon separating the old world from the new, and not at all what the West expected.

Where did the idea of a “common European home” come from, which “Gorby” used to undermine his own home? General Charles de Gaulle, founder and first president of the French Fifth Republic, was the first to speak of this in post-war Europe, putting forward the phrase “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals”. Then, already in the 1970s, “Europe from the Atlantic (or from Lisbon) to Vladivostok” came into circulation. It is simply amazing how boundlessly naïve many Soviet foreign policy functionaries were, including Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, who brought up Vladivostok when he met with newly minted US President Gerald Ford in 1974; It was after that meeting that the Pacific Ocean frontier of Russia, which is our gateway to the Asia-Pacific Region, was relegated to distant Europe in the geopolitical equivalent of the artful formula of “convergence”, whose author was the Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski.

What is, as they say now, the “gimmick”? That neither the ideological apparatus of the CPSU, nor its followers, who have never moved from Starya Ploshchad, repeating the formula of Europe “from and to” like a mantra, have not bothered to go into the essence of neither one nor the second option, on the basis of which they then copied the concept of a “pan-European home”. They did not even try to ask simple, elementary questions:

– If it is proposed to include everything up to the Urals in Europe, what will the other three quarters of the country that stretches from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean turn out to be?

– Europe to Vladivostok – what kind of a mishap is this, since the distance from Lisbon to Brest – the western frontier of Russian/Soviet civilization – is almost four times shorter than from Brest to the Pacific coast of the USSR?

The lack of answers to these questions is also an answer. In this case, both projects of “Europe from and to” are the invention of globalism, they are two variants of the same project. But first things first. The famous poet, diplomat, political thinker Fyodor Tyutchev has a series of works united by the general title “Russia and…” – “and the West”, “and Germany”, “and the Revolution”. In them he convincingly argues that Russia cannot be correlated with any European country, but only with Europe as a whole.

What does it mean? That neither Europe is a part of Russia, but an independent (in Tyutchev’s time) unit. Neither Russia can in any way be part of Europe, neither in its size, nor in its interests, nor in its cultural code, nor in any other parameters. Paradoxically, this truth was better proven by the hapless “conquerors” of Russia, especially Napoleon and Hitler. In both cases, it turned out that only Europe as a whole could oppose Russia, and unsuccessfully as a result.

And if we strictly follow the canons of Western geopolitics, Europe is not even Russia’s equal. For Russia is Heartland, the centre of the world, whose master is in charge of the planet, while Europe is Rimland, the limitrophe between Russia and the Anglo-Saxon West, for which they are fighting with us.

After the second epochal defeat at the hands of Russia, when control of the “old” Europe, which was not part of the Russian defensive precinct (the socialist camp), passed to the non-European, overseas US, it was decided: if you can’t win, you have to lead. To unite Europe with Russia artificially, on the basis of a fictitious agenda that has nothing to do with reality. In the second half of the twentieth century, Russia and the West had only one problem in common: avoiding a general nuclear war.

They decided, exploiting this theme, to start the negotiation process, which was launched by the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought humanity to the brink of destruction, and then quietly substitute this theme with some “common problem” of the West and the East, disguising it as “global problems”. To make a “pass” to that part of the Soviet elite which very much wanted to get closer to Europe and was weighed down by the traditional Russian autarchy from it. It was against the backdrop of extreme aggravation in bilateral relations that David Rockefeller came to Moscow, whose visit launched the later Dartmouth meetings of Soviet and American intellectuals in the context of the Club of Rome. That`s how the process of “convergence” was launched, which by 1973 led to Rockefeller`s opening an office in Moscow and making direct contact with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, under whose cover his son-in-law Germain Guishiani was sent to deal with the “Romans”.

A small digression. Members of the Politburo at that meeting Rockefeller “did it”. He suggested that they think about working with “business people” in the West to prevent a nuclear disaster, and in response to Soviet leaders’ indignation at the Cold War and the demonization of the USSR in the media, he issued a tirade that rightfully claims a place in the annals of world political thought classics. “Gentlemen, I am a very busy man. I have no time to talk and argue on silly topics. I know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, why don’t you know what the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is? You disappoint me, gentlemen. As for the newspapermen, they are dogs. They bark as long as they’re allowed to. I wonder how you can run such a great country when you are so politically ignorant. And on his return to America, he gave his verdict: “Push, and they will buckle. Stalin’s boots don’t fit them, they drown in them.”

It was then that de Gaulle’s aphorism “as far as the Urals” was coined. Due to a number of factors, including the elite’s fascination with the West and the General’s halo as leader of the French Resistance, it immediately gained a host of supporters in the USSR. Who did not consider what it really meant. One further digression that throws the bridge into modernity. Just the other day Pope Francis, representing the Jesuit lobby that has seized power in the Vatican, made some remarks about NATO “barking at the gates” of Russia, which may have caused the current crisis. A soft bed, but a hard sleep! The dog “barking” from the pontiff refers us not to biblical themes, as some have decided (and written), but to the very revelations of Rockefeller about the media.

It was that Rockefeller’s visit that started the creation of the Club of Rome. It was headed by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian businessman closely associated with Allen Dulles, at the time the most influential ex-director of the CIA, who during the war was head of the American secret service’s Swiss residence, with which Peccei also collaborated. One more touch, for full understanding. In 1962, when Rockefeller was treading the path to the USSR, John F. Kennedy was president of the United States, so the revelations of the American visitor to Soviet party leaders that “you do not want this president, there will be another one” proved prophetic. And it made an impression. It was Kennedy who threw out Dulles, who was, along with his brother John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Dwight Eisenhower, a cousin of the Rockefeller brothers, after the scandal of the failed anti-Cuban armed provocation in the Bay of Pigs.

So in Moscow the youngest of the Rockefeller brothers did not miss the point: the US president is put and removed by “business people” or, as they say now, “the deep state”. Back then, the circle of these people was formalized in the form of the National Association of Industrialists (NIA). With the fall of the USSR, in 1993, the “shadowy” conventions were discarded, and in its place was given an official, public body – the National Economic Council (NEC), headed, according to an established tradition, by a big banker.

Important nuances. First: it is not only in the US that leaders are being “betrayed”. For example, Italy’s current prime minister, Mario Draghi, is an influential banker, ex-head of the ECB and member of the privileged and extremely closed Group of Thirty (bankers). And in France, Georges Pompidou, prime minister under de Gaulle from the Rothschild Bank of Paris, became the Fifth Republic’s second president. History is silent as to where the first president took the initiative “to the Urals”. The second nuance: Ford, who arrived in Vladivostok in 1974 to meet with Brezhnev, is the only non-elected US president who succeeded Spiro Agnew, who resigned as vice-president in 1973, and who then, a year later, moved into the seat of President Richard Nixon, who also resigned under the threat of impeachment.
The vice-presidency portfolio is given to Nelson Rockefeller, Rockefeller’s brother. This semi-legitimate scheme used in the combination reveals both the limitless possibilities of its authors, who change presidents like gloves, and the specific clans that become its beneficiaries. We have seen it happen ourselves very recently. Changing electoral laws to allow for postal voting creates the basis for massive fraud, which incumbent President Donald Trump, realising everything, has been fighting for a year, but is powerless to do anything about.

In the 1970s, amid the détente, which “touchingly” coincided with the Club of Rome’s first steps in public policy, a lot more interesting things are happening. From the default on the dollar’s gold backing and the appearance of a series of policy reports to the Club of Rome (“The Limits to Growth”, “Humanity at the Crossroads”, “Rethinking the International Order”, “Goals for Humanity”, etc.) to the creation of the Trilateral Commission, an association of elites from North America, Western Europe and Japan. The first president of this elite club is the same D. Rockefeller, who takes as his executive director an old protégé of Brzezinski, who under James Carter was moved to the chair of presidential national security adviser.

Now pay attention! What is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the US? An association of the elites of North America – the United States and Canada, closely associated with its alma mater – Chatham House in London, the Royal Institution which descended from the British Round Table with its “global empire” project. What is the Bilderberg Club (group), without the conspiracism in which it has long been drowned? The association of the same North American elites with the elites of Western Europe (now the whole of Europe), that is an instrument of control of the British-American elites over the continental-European ones.

And the Trilateral Commission? The association of the elites of North America, Europe and Japan (now the entire Asia-Pacific Region). That is the instrument (!) of direct control (!!) of the Anglo-Saxon elites over all the rest (!!!). It is the steel structure of the global elite super-organization. “The G7, the informal mouthpiece of Trilateralism, begins to meet a year after its first program report in 1975, “The Crisis of Democracy”, which predicted a “new fascism” for Europe.

Returning to “Europe from… to…”, de Gaulle and his successor, the Rothschild nominee Pompidou (de Gaulle left prematurely after not winning the referendum on Algerian secession convincingly enough) are linked to one plot of these “Euros” and the Rockefeller nominee Ford (for whose arrival Nixon “left”) is linked to another plot. Let someone prove that it was an accident, which, as another President Franklin Roosevelt taught us, never happens in big politics.

What did the Club of Rome “concoct”? The Mesarovich-Pestel report (“Humanity at the Crossroads”, 1974) divides the world into ten regions, each with its own specialization. In fact, the formula is slightly different – 9+1, as the ideologist of the “struggle of civilizations” Samuel Huntington wrote, The West against the Rest. The Trilateral Commission is the format of uniting this “ten”, taken from the model of “ten kingdoms” of mythological Atlantis, of which Plato spoke in his Dialogues, into three “world blocks” – western (both Americas), central (Europe and Africa) and eastern (APAC).

As we remember, Trilaterali has a British-American core; hence, the “ten-regional model”, differentiated by blocks, is an Anglo-Saxon “mule”, an instrument of global control to implement the developments of the Club of Rome, which were put into practice immediately after the collapse of the USSR, already in 1992 (Conference in Rio de Janeiro). To repeat: the 1974 report, the Trilateral Commission was created in 1972-1973 and in 1975, the aforementioned conceptual report called “The Crisis of Democracy” was published. And in 1974, Ford goes to Brezhnev in Vladivostok. Everything matches up with literal precision! So, both “Europe from… and to…” are trying to overcome Tyutchev’s case to either divide Russia in two, as “too big”, between the central and eastern blocks (“to the Urals”), or to make it a part of Europe (“to Vladivostok”), and to squeeze it into the central block.

Russia has no place in the scheme of the global organization, represented by the Club of Rome and the triad of CFR – Bilderberg – Tralateral! The current projects of reforming the UN along regional lines, as well as the regional model of organizing the UN governing bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and its Regional Economic Commissions (RECs), are of the same “series”.

That is the concept of a “pan-European home”, whether it is like that or not. Going back to where we started, the first thing to understand is why Gorbachev is so sweet to Steinmeier weeping for it. We remember that on the eve of coming to power the future gravedigger of the USSR went to see Margaret Thatcher in London.

Everyone knows about it, for the visit was widely covered by the Soviet media, even disproportionately so, given Gorbachev’s humble status as Secretary of the Central Committee, one “of”. But after London there was another visit, almost secretly, to Vienna, to the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Otto von Habsburg, godfather, incidentally, of the current version of Banderist Ukrainian nationalism. Visiting “his highness”, “humpy” burst into song, saying the following:

“Before 1917 the division of the world into East and West did not exist. If Kerensky’s revolution, financed by the Rothschilds, had succeeded, the countries of Western Europe and Russia would have entered the twentieth century shoulder to shoulder. After the destruction of national states in the Western and Eastern blocs, the next logical step would have been the unification of Europe and Russia into one huge state. And it is this process that is behind many of the events of the last twenty years.”

Is it necessary to specify that you will not find this quote in Soviet and Russian sources? He speaks about “the western and eastern blocs”. So he was aware of the overall “European” project for Russia, having sworn him in in Vienna on his way home from the lair of the curators of that project? Do we understand where the collapse of the USSR grew from?

And the Club of Rome, on its platform, did they not create the Vienna Institute for Systemic Studies? Have they not invited the “scientific comrades” recommended by Kosygin and Guishiani to join them? Did they not agree to participate in the “global problems” under the guise of ecology, or rather, “environmentalism” – an aggressive ideology of “green fascism”, which now also has a covidian head? Has this institute not had branches, including in the USSR? Didn’t a closed Commission of the CPSU Central Committee on Economic Reform emerge on this basis under Yuri Andropov, which was not publicly reported?

Didn’t Gaidar come up in this commission? Wasn’t his perestroika laboratory teamed up with Chubais’ “Leningrad Circle” in 1986, at a special event in a boarding house near Leningrad with the catchy name of “Snake Hill”? When a fairly well-known liberal political scientist on the sidelines of a round table, listening to the author of these lines, pestered him, proving that Gaidar was “accidentally chosen by Yeltsin in the bathhouse”, he blushed in response to a counter question whether he knew about the “Snake Hill”, and blurted out: “I’ve been there…”. Remember what Roosevelt said? There are no accidents in politics!

What’s the bottom line? Steinmeier’s “Weeping of Yaroslavna” is a truly momentous event. With far-reaching consequences. German President, strictly according to subordination, is not “first fiddle”; the first one should be Biden who a month and a half ago made a similar though more vague confession that Russia and China had already “conceptually” broken off from the West.

That is they have their own project alternative to the Western one. It was confirmed by Steinmeier on the eve of our Victory Day and on his own day when he stated the irrevocable collapse of the “European project”. Insulting our Victory and throwing a stone at our country as the “instigator of the war”. Well, let us not forget that. But for the “confession” of the nominee of Gerhard Schroeder – big, if I may say so, “human” thanks. Now without any illusions. Europe and the West on the whole have understood that they will not be able to lure Russia into a European trap any more, the haze of the haze of 1991 has dissipated. What then? Let us not forget that Schroeder is an ex-chancellor and a big gas specialist, also an ideologist of German social-democracy, with whom the era of its final “globalization” is associated.

In terms of domestic German affairs, Nazism politically is liberalism without democracy, but ideologically it is a synthesis of national and social ideas, into which the party spectrum of West Germany has been divided by its Western allies. There are many indications that when the “shell-shocked” version of Ukrainian fascism has collapsed under the blows of the Russian army, a native, “old” Europe will be ripe for a new version of it, and very likely not even the “green” one anymore. It’s all just beginning, and we’ve just been told that in plain language.

But that is to come. But for now, Happy Great Victory Day over Hitler and European Nazism and Fascism, dear compatriots! And remember, when we are together, not apart, we make history.

Vladimir Pavlenko, REGNUM news agency.