The EU is a US globalists project to control and rule Europe through Brussels, which is why the EU is Americanized and act as a US vassal serving the US interest
Reading time: 59 minutes (or 66 minutes with footnotes)
Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness[+] and spirit to the modes[+] of neutrality[*], decency, respectfulness, wisdom[*], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we[*] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue “Peacemaking Mediation” segment in this peace initiative, moving on from the US Role and the UN Role to the EU Role.
Another inadequate arbitrator in the so-called Russo-Ukrainian war or NATO proxy war[*] against Russia is the EU. Now we will explain why it is impossible to rely on the EU to help with peacemaking in Ukraine.
Here's the list of reasons, followed by detailed explanations:
➡ sanctions andfreezing Russian assets– logically, Russia doesn’t trust anyone who harms it
➡ the EU is in NATO – almost all EU states are in NATO which is main Russia's adversary
➡ hostility– due to the EU’s hostile actions (military aid to Ukraine, anti-Russia buildup…)
➡ mistrust – EU dishonored the Minsk accords, thus no trust in it to honor any peace deals
➡ bias – the EU has taken Ukraine's sideand therefore can’t neutrally mediate
➡ subjectivity (lack of objectivity) – a peace mediator needs to be objective and neutral
➡ self-interest – an anti-Russian trade deal with Ukraine in 2014 started the whole conflict
➡ double standards – condemning Russia for what the EU and Ukraine also do
➡ assumingsuperiority – treating Russian officials as morally inferior is a mediation-turnoff
➡ disrespectful towards Putin who is thus unwilling to negotiate with them and concede
➡ defamation – false accusations and malicious distortions of Putin’s and Russia's actions
➡ neo-Nazi permissiveness – Nazi Bandera is commemorated and celebrated in Ukraine
27 countries of the EU:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
In short, Russia sees[+] no point in negotiating with EU leaders because the EU has proven over and over again to be the US vassal, not acting in the interests of European people but for American geopolitical and economic interests. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said[+] that the US vassals in the West are willing to breach any agreements and violate international law upon receiving orders from Washington. Under the leadership of WEF1 trustee[+] Ursula von der Leyen[+], the EU has no say in ending the war in Ukraine but it has say in continuing its support for the war effort rather than peace negotiation. How “smart”, incompetent[+], and fraudulent[+] this EU leader is, it is evident in many of her estimations and predictions, which all turned out to be very, very wrong[»][»][»].
While the EU's and world’s attention has turned to the war in Gaza, the EU support for Kyiv is dwindling due to Ukrainian failures on the battlefield, European energy crisis and recession but also because Europeans are waking up to the reality of Ukrainian, American, and NATO's faults. Also, Ukraine is running out of manpower[+] willing to fight the Russians, so there’s no use of giving much military aid if there are not enough competent forces to use it. The EU is looking for ways to abandon Ukraine without losing its face and admitting losing the war and Russia winning it. Some evidence:
In early November 2023, Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus released the recording[»], dated from late September, where they spoke with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni while posing as an unnamed African politician. During the conversation, the Italian prime minister admitted that there was “a lot of fatigue” with the Ukrainian conflict, adding it was near “the moment in which everybody understands that we need a way out.” In other words, the EU is abandoning Ukraine.
Another European head of state, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, has said it overtly on many occasions[+][+][+][+] that Ukraine cannot win on the battlefield or defeat Russia, and that the EU should come up with a plan B for ending the conflict.
This is also evident in the change in the EU rhetoric and in significant decrease in aid – they can't stop the aid for the sake of their reputation because they promised “unwavering and unconditional support for Ukraine as long as it takes”[+»] and “until you are victorious.”[+]
The European Union planned to provide Ukraine with 50 billion euros ($54.58 billion) in aid for 2024-27[+] but Hungary was blocking it until February 2024 when the EU officials blackmailed Hungary to give in, which proves fake democracy in the EU. According to the figures from Brussels[+], in 2022-2023, the EU provided Kyiv with €86 billion ($92 billion) in economic, military, humanitarian, and refugees aid. Out of that, the EU has authorized at least €27 billion in direct military assistance to Ukraine in 2022-2023, according to EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell[+]. On top of that, individual states provided aid from their own budgets. Germany was top provider of additional military aid – 2 billion Euros in 2022, 5,4 billion Euros in 2023 and allocated €8 billion for 2024[+] – an increase despite recession and Israeli war, as well as despite that just days before that decision there came the American report[+][+] that Ukraine blew up German critical infrastructure Nord Stream pipeline!
To no avail, as it turned out because it didn't aid Ukraine in achieving anything. It would have been better not to have given it and accept the March 2022 peace deal, as it would have prevented escalation, killings, and destruction, and so the need for humanitarian and humongous financial aid. All this military aid is also making the EU an accomplice in Ukrainian war crimes. Just like we already explained in the article on the US role[*] (see there for more details), Ukraine committed many crimes against humanity and war crimes[»] for which the EU provided weapons and intelligence, which makes them accomplices in all those crimes and terrorist attacks on Russia's soil.
In late August 2023, when it was already evident that the Ukrainian counteroffensive was failing horrifically, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called all peace advocates (who criticized the West’s effort to pump Kyiv with weapons) “fallen angels from hell”[+]! When the leader of the top EU country demonizes peace advocates, then it is all we need to know about the non-existent prospect of any EU leaders to bring peace.
Also, now former head of European diplomacy, EU foreign policy chief (and Bilderberg Group[+]member) Josep Borrell said on numerous occasions[+][»][+] that the conflict in Ukraine must be resolved by military means, on the battlefield (rather than by diplomacy). And in February 2023 in the European Parliament[+], he said: “To achieve peace, we must continue to provide military support to Ukraine and step up that support.” To achieve peace with military rather than diplomatic means? And he is the head of European diplomacy? The person in charge of the EU's foreign policy is not in favor of a politico-diplomatic settlement of the conflict but of Ukraine's military victory over Russia. Is that the EU’s idea of democracy? And Russia is supposed to be intimidated by it or withdraw in fear?
Another supposedly “beacon” of diplomacy, notorious warmonger dilettante German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, rather than opting for the traditionally discreet role associated with the diplomatic profession, has been urging[+] all countries to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons, condemning anyone being neutral[+][+].
If EU “diplomats” are favoring war over diplomacy, then we cannot rely on those bloodthirsty warmongers to end this war through peace negotiations.
Illusion of Democracy in the EU
Before we dig into why any of us should not expect the EU authorities to solve this crisis and therefore, we should take matters into our own hands, let us point to one incredibly important fact that might put things in perspective.
We are talking about the illusion of democracy in the EU for which the EU supposedly supports the war instead of diplomacy in Ukraine and this illusion is most evident the fact that the EU president is never elected by the public but chosen by the elites. So, the plagiarist[+] gynecologist-turned-president Ursula von der Leyen[+] (on the board of trustees[+] of WEF) is NOT democratically elected EU President – people of the EU are never given a chance to vote to choose a President who has been making most decisions about the war in Ukraine on behalf of the EU people!!!
Who gave her the right to spend our taxpayers' money to buy weapons to get both Russians and Ukrainians as well as many other European fighters killed??? WEF2. Von der Leyen is a German gynecologist-turned-politician who has been serving as the 13th president of the European Commission since 2019 (for a five-year term) but we, the people, never gave her any rights to represent or lead us, especially not in matters of life and death.
In the US, people have at least the right to elect a President but people in the EU do not have that right! Is this democracy?! NO. Believe it or not, most people in Europe didn't even know her name before 2022 when von der Leyen started to appear in the mass media speaking in the name of the EU people who never knew her let alone elected her. Due to her many lies3, fraud such as plagiarism[+], and speaking in the name of Europeans who never gave her that right, she got a nickname: von der Lying[+][+].
We’d like to know on what merit did she deserve to become President – what has this previously anonymous gynecologist ever done of value to be appointed to the highest office in the EU not once but for the second term?! Germans disapprove of her and were against her becoming the President for many reasons[+], which came down to her corruption and incompetence in her previous positions such as the Defense Minister.
She was a total failure in her prior post as a German Defense Minister (was the worst or the weakest minister[+] and left the Bundeswehr in a catastrophic condition), therefore a part of the German government coalition opposed her nomination, which is why the German Chancellor Angela Merkel abstained during the council's vote on the proposal[+] – it was very embarrassing for von der Leyen but she got selected anyway. Wonder how. Hint: she was on board of WEF.
There is no other explanation why von der Leyen became the EU President but, like Jose Manuel Barroso[+] before her, through WEF[+] endorsement. WEF with its numerous affiliates is a major sponsor of the EU institutions, which is why it controls the EU to a great extent.
German founder of WEF Jesuit-educated[+][+], Klaus Schwab has helped to instate many of his puppets (graduates of the WEF “Young Global Leaders” program) as heads of state and other institutions, including Trudeau[+] and Freeland[+] in Canada, Sarkozy[+] and Macron[+] in France, BoJo[+], Truss and Sunak[+] in the UK, Rutte[+][+] in the Netherlands, Sanna Marin[+][+] in Finland, Ardern[»] in New Zealand, Lula da Silva[+] in Brazil, Queen Rania of Jordan[+], former Chancellor Angela Merkel[+] and Annalena Baerbock[+][+]in Germany, Laurence D. Fink[+] - BlackRock Chairman and CEO, Kristalina Georgieva – IMF Director, Christine Lagarde[+] – President of European Central Bank, Sadhguru[+], etc.[+][+]. Schwab's organization has infiltrated in many governments and the UN[+]4 to execute “The Great Reset”[+][+] as part of its globalist, liberal or NWO5 agenda, but the merger of corporate and government power is known as fascism. With all the sophisticated tools to manipulate the public opinion and rig elections, as well as the value of campaign funding or sponsors, there are no elections; only selections.
So, this formerly unknown-to-the-EU-people WEF stooge has been calling most or all the shots regarding a crisis that might end in a nuclear cataclysm due to the policies she has been pushing and all “in the name of democracy” that she herself, as undemocratically appointed chief, never exercised to come to power! Whatever policies von der Leyen has been enacting is not the will of the EU people! How is then the EU a democracy?! EU is a pseudo-democracy, that is what it is.
With more than 68.000 people freezing to death[+] due to sanctions in winter 2022/2023, massive homelessness rise[+], and enormous decline in living standards, it is clear that Brussels does not have the best interest of the peoples of Europe at heart. EU people constantly protest on the streets and on social media against supplying Ukraine with weapons and sanctions[+][+][+][»][»][»], and in general against Ukraine[ꚛ], with the growing Rebellion for Peace and German Manifesto for Peace[+] being one of the most signed petitions[+] on Change.org calling on the German Chancellor to stop the arms deliveries, a ceasefire, and for peace negotiations. People should have a say in spending billions of taxpayers' money on weapons for Ukraine that kill people and get quickly destroyed by Russia but no one asks them and ignore and suppress their protests – is this democracy?
Ursula von der Leyen had the nerve to declare[»] that “the war in Ukraine is about autocracy against democracy” although she herself was never democratically elected to become a President! Moreover, Ukraine's democracy is a travesty – the mere fact that (under the US and EU patronage) for many years even before the war, Ukraine has been the most corrupt[+]and the poorest country in Europe[+][+] that issued laws against ethnic minorities, it could indicate to intelligent people that there is something wrong with that country and its government that has no democracy.
Not an irrelevant fact is that ever since the first EU President took office in 1958, there was never a Slav or Eastern European President of the EU[+] (Slavs or Eastern Europeans started to join the EU since 2004, save for Greece that joined in 1981), which says a lot, too. The only Slavs and Eastern Europeans who get a say in EU policies are corrupt politicians, bribed to serve the interests of the Anglo-Saxons6.
According to leading Western analysts of global democracy[+][+], only 8% of the world’s population lives in a full, functioning democracy. More than half of the EU[ꚛ] doesn't have a functioning democracy. So, the EU's alleged fight for democracy is the same smoke mirror that the US uses for decades to fight wars and kill people around the world all under the banner of the so-called “fight for democracy” – what democracy? There is no democracy in the EU when we cannot even choose a President!
Diplomatic Solution For Peacemaking
When it comes to providing a diplomatic solution for peacemaking between Ukraine and Russia, there are still some uninformed people among the general public who naively expect EU officials to mediate a peace deal. In other circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect that because the whole conflict is in Europe, after all. There is animosity between the Kremlin and the European Union, which is why EU officials are not welcome in Russia for peace talks.
Therefore, unless a new EU leader emerges who would be able to pull off a paradigm shift in the EU's politics and foreign affairs, there is no way that the EU could ever help solve this diplomatically, just militarily, if at all. Here we explain why for anyone who is not familiar with the state of affairs and all that has led to this war.
Now we will explain in more detail why the EU cannot mediate peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, as well as how it provoked the conflict between those two nations that escalated into this war. Many of the points listed above are self-explanatory, so we don't need to expound on them. Several points need not only justification but also further clarification on the role of the EU in the whole conflict.
We will distinguish all these points by an icon – ⛔ – at the start of each point.
⛔ Let's start with a point that is not the most important but relevant to point out the EU's antagonistic and biased stance towards Russia as well as its spreading disinformation about Russia and this war, which is inappropriate for a peace talks mediator. Therefore, the EU is not welcome by Russia to mediate peace negotiations.
As highlighted on the EU’s official webpage[+], “in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the EU and its member states stand united in their unwavering support for Ukraine and firmly condemn Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression.”
As documented evidence shows, all the points we italicized are untrue, then it is easy to assume that, when they are lying here, then they are lying everywhere. The EU is clearly not unitedas pro-Russian support is huge[+] and support is not unwavering as many countries and MEPs7 are against and some go along with the NATO US puppets leaders only because they are coerced and blackmailed with economic sanctions.
For instance, until June 2024 European Parliamentary elections, some leftist Members of the European Parliament such as Clare Daly[+], Mick Wallace[+], and Manu Pineda[+]have stood for neutrality[»], thus strongly opposed the EU support for Ukraine. European Parliament member from France, Herve Juvin, said in a video interview[+][»]: “Europe will in no way benefit from prolonging the Ukrainian conflict.”
Like Switzerland (not in the EU), Austriahas pledged neutrality and has not been supporting any EU policies on Ukraine; many lawmakers even walked out of parliament during Zelensky's speech broadcast[»].
Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, and Romaniahave all played ambivalent roles in responding to Russia's invasion of Ukraine[+], as well as NATO member Turkey. Hungary opposes all EU measures (sanctions and military aid)[+][+][+] partly due to Ukraine's bad policy on minorities, including the Hungarian ethnic minority, and Hungary's close ties to Russia[+][+].
Croatian President Zoran Milanović stated that Ukraine had no place in NATO and has resisted support for Ukraine[+], like Serbia. Bulgarian President Rumen Radev did not join other European leaders in signing a declaration in support of Ukraine[+] and refused to send fighter jets and tanks to Ukraine[+]; he blamed Ukraine for the suffering of the whole of Europe, accusing Ukraine of insisting on continuing its conflict with Russia and Europe paying the bill[+][+]. Slovakian Prime Minister Fico[+] called for an immediate halt to all aid to Ukraine.
In Germany, a member of the Die Linke, Left socialist Party, who later formed her own party, Sahra Wagenknecht, created a petition[+] that has almost a million signatures demanding that the German government stop sending weapons to Ukraine and instead push for peace negotiations to end this war. Even the German political party AfD, which always built on Russophobia and resistance against the “Establishment”, raised in popularity as it strongly opposes giving aid to Ukraine.
And the list of evidence of the EU being NOT united on this goes on and on.
However, one of the falsehoods stands out as a clear hindrance to any diplomatic resolution – alleging unprovoked aggression – because entering any peace talks with such a false and insincere assessment is doomed to fail.
The EU Provocations
The EU top officials are either ignorant, in denial, or plain lying because to anyone else in the EU, it is more than clear that Russia’s military intervention was far from being unprovoked[*]. It was totally provoked and not just by Ukraine but also by the EU and NATO as a whole.
Just a mere fact that NATO leaders and states-sponsored media are relentlessly stressing the word “unprovoked”, anyone among the expert, nonpartisan psychologists would tell us that this can only mean that this is a lie because such a frequent and oppressive repetition of a word is a known manipulative persuasion technique usually used in propaganda to convince the public of something that might otherwise be taken conversely, thus making sure that this information will be held. In no other war-reporting had this word ever been used and the fact that NATO states representatives feel a need to use this word now, it can only mean one thing – it is used as a manipulative persuasion technique. When someone uses a persuasion technique in such a context, it can only mean it is used to sell a lie or cover up the truth. To avoid any possibility of the public considering that NATO or Ukraine provoked this war, most likely the crisis management staff ordered all the representatives to repeat as many times as possible the word “unprovoked” in the context of Russia's alleged invasion so that it imprints in the minds of the public to such extent that they don't doubt it. This didactic tactic is called “inculcation”. Propaganda and inculcation are semantically related – inculcation is propaganda (technique). For more insight refer to a Cambridge University theoretical study[+] of the power of inculcation and propaganda in shaping human behavior and beliefs. The efficiency of inculcation is very high but when intercepted with other counter-techniques such as the one we are doing right now with shedding light on what this really is, then it has a counter-effect and it may turn against the perpetrators like a boomerang effect. Obviously, the EU is not willing to take its part of responsibility in provoking the conflict between Ukraine and Russia that led to this war, which is a non-starter in any peace talks mediation. And as such, because they are in denial and blaming only Russia for the conflict with Ukraine, the EU is in no position to gain trust from Russia and arbitrate justly or agreeably, let alone help bring peace.
Before we proceed with evidence of provocations, let us remind you that even the Pope said that it was provoked, despite being lashed by Western powers. In an interview published in June 2022[+][+][+], Pope Francis said Russia’s war in Ukraine was “perhaps somehow either provoked or not prevented (questa guerra, che è stata forse in qualche modo o provocata o non impedita)”. In another interview[+][+] with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, pope said that NATO may have “perhaps facilitated” the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine by “barking” at Russia’s door. When accused of being pro-Putin, he said “I am simply against reducing complexity to the distinction between good guys and bad guys, without reasoning about roots and interests, which are very complex.” The Pope also recalled a conversation he had before the war with an unnamed head of a NATO state (probably Hungarian President Viktor Orban) – a “wise man” – who told the Pope he was concerned about NATO and Russia starting a war soon. Obviously, everyone was expecting a Russian attack because of NATO's and Ukraine's provocations that were actually more than just that – human rights violations as well as Russian ethnic minorities’ killings and terrorizing by neo-Nazis within Ukrainian National Guard funded and trained by NATO.
We list some of the provocations of the EU states as NATO members in the article[*] on meeting the Russian demand concerning NATO, so in this context, we only focus on the provocations of the EU alone considering the fact that the war in Ukraine started in 2014 (rather than February 2022).
The EU has made many reckless mistakes that provoked a conflict that led to war:
1. in April 2008, at the NATO summit in Bucharest, some EU countries (not Germany and France) as members of NATO accepted the Ukrainian application[+] to join NATO and gave assurances of future integration into NATO – a whole list of NATO's provocations[*] is in the segment on NATO – a couple of months earlier in 2008, in anticipation of that, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov warned the CIA head that this would trigger a civil war in Ukraine and that Russia would have to intervene militarily ("take appropriate measures.") so NATO knew it and did it anyway as a clear provocation (thanks to Wikileaks, we have now cables proving that[+]). Ukraine is a de facto member of NATO since 2014 when NATO started to provide them with funds, weapons, and military training.
2. from 2011-2014, the EU was meddling in Ukrainian domestic legal affairs by blackmailing and coercing the Ukrainian government to release a convicted criminal (Tymoshenko) for whom the EU had no evidence of not being guilty of charges
3. in February 2013, the EU coerced the Ukrainian President and government to choose between the EU and Russia, instead of accepting the proposal for a trilateral trade agreement
4. in 2013, the EU leaders orchestrated the regime change in Ukraine – a prankster posing as former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko got French ex-President Francois Hollande (2012-2017) to admit that together they “managed to overthrow Yanukovych and managed to hand over Ukraine to the EU”. Hollande was caught on camera nodding to that and claiming that if Poroshenko and Klitschko hadn't come to Elysée Palace (the official residence of the President of France) at the very beginning of the regime change operation, there would have been no revolution that changed the regime: “If you weren’t there, there wouldn’t be Maidan, and there would have been no victory that you achieved by removing Yanukovych.”[»][»][+][»]
5. in December 2013, the EU didn’t condemn and hold the violent Euromaidan protesters and revolutionaries accountable for their attacks on the riot police (e.g., on 30 November 2013), the illegal storming of the Presidential Administration building and the Cabinet building (1 December 2013), the illegal occupation of the Kyiv City Hall (1 December 2013 - 16 February 2014), and the parliament building, the president's administration quarters, the Cabinet building, and the Interior Ministry (since 21 February 2014) Instead, the EU supported them and gave them recognition.
6. in February 2014, rather than condemn it, the EU commended the violent Maidan Revolution that forcefully ousted Prime Minister, President, and other government officials
7. in February 2014, the EU supported and recognized rather than condemned the new illegitimate interim government that came to power by force and was not elected democratically
8. in March 2014, the EU didn’t recognize the Crimean referendum and the Crimean residents’ will to exercise their right to self-determination and remedial secession after they were threatened by the new neo-Nazi-influenced government (Bandera8[+] followers) and attacked by extremists
9. in May 2014, after 116[+] (officially 48) anti-coup protestors in Odesa were burned to death[+][+][+][»], the EU further supported the regime instead of holding it accountable for not prosecuting the well-known perpetrators from far-right nationalists Right Sector. The Ukrainian police were filmed[»] just standing by the trade union building where Ukrainian Russians were trapped and being burned and shot at. Svoboda Party MP Iryna Farion[+] posted on Facebook the next day[+]“Bravo Odesa...Let the devils burn in hell9and Fatherland Party MP Lesya Orobets celebrated the "liquidation" of the kolorady (a derogatory term for pro-Russians); the Right Sector paramilitary confederation celebrated the deaths, describing the massacre as “yet another bright page in our fatherland’s history” and its leader Dimitro Yarosh became a candidate for the Ukrainian presidency and later an MP; Oleksiy Goncharenko10, who took part[ꚛ][+] in the Odesa massacre was later elected to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – nonetheless, EU authorities stood by them not drawing any attention to the massacre, or admit who was responsible – to do so would blow a major hole in the EU narrative that there are no fascists or neo-Nazis in Ukraine, whom they hail as a beacon of freedom and democracy. The Council of Europe’s International Advisory Panel described the Odesa event on 2 May 2014 as mere “clashes,” despite the evidence[»] to the contrary (peaceful victims were attacked in their camp). The British-based so-called Ukraine Solidarity Campaign – has shamefully gone as far as to push claims that describing the Odesa attack as a massacre is Russian propaganda, blaming the victims for their own deaths. Western powers orchestrated a concerted effort to cover up the truth and tried to outrageously shift the blame onto Russia.
10. in May 2014, rather than invalidate it, the EU recognized the 2014 Ukrainian snap presidential election despite countless irregularities pointing to a clear electoral fraud11
11. from 2014-2022, the EU didn’t condemn the Ukrainian government for introducing repressive laws and regulations against the ethnic minorities, which violated the UN Charter on Human Rights and international laws – instead, it supported such a repressive government
12. from 2014-2022, some EU states gave false promises to oblige Ukraine to implement the provisions of the 2014 Minsk Agreements[+][+][+] that were designed to prevent the war. Instead, it fooled Russia into these agreements, only to buy time for NATO to militarize Ukraine to fight Russia - as former German Chancellor (2005-2021) Angela Merkel[+]and former French President (2012-2017) Francois Hollande[»][»][+][»] admitted it
13. since 2014, the EU has been providing weapons and training to the neo-Nazi brigades that was tyrannizing and killing thousands of Russian ethnic minorities in Ukraine[+][+]
14. anti-Russian propaganda pushed onto European people and beyond through mainstream media – press and movies (with Russians as villains)
These are all clear provocations from the EU and an ever-increasing number of the public is aware of the EU's role in this war, so propagating “unprovoked Russian invasion” only provides evidence to the public about how the EU's ruling elite has been lying to them, which may escalate in mass civil disobedience.
We can't get out of this unless we all share some of the responsibility. No one is innocent, not even the members of the general public around the globe that are spreading or falling for either Western or Russian propaganda fueling bad energy into the whole dispute rather than working towards making peace – everyone should ask themselves whether they are adding fuel to the fire, contributing to peace or hostility. Vilifying Russia only fuels hostility. Russia is not innocent but Ukraine is neither and the EU, the US, and the UK started it all, which is why the EU cannot end the war because it is too invested in it.
As all the facts point out, the main responsibility for this war lies with the NATO powers, which wanted and deliberately provoked the war, risking the start of World War III and the nuclear annihilation of mankind. They have been flooding Ukraine with weaponry, providing logistical support, determining attack targets, directing the fighting, and operating secretly in Ukraine with their own elite troops while stifling any attempt at a negotiated solution. The US and the NATO powers provoked the Russian offensive through the massive military armament of Ukraine, which has been transformed into a virtual protectorate of the US, a member of NATO in all but name. This is part of a decades-long expansion of the NATO military alliance into Eastern Europe[ꚛ], up to the very borders of Russia, provoking Russia to defend itself. They seem to share a belief of many other people that the offense is the best defense. Russia has a long history of countering threats and foreign ‘divide and conquer’ tactics by the strategy of ‘attacking to defend’ itself.
If the EU officials lie about this war being unprovoked and the EU being united, imagine how many more other serious and dangerous lies those liars spread about Russia, Ukraine, and the state of war! Who can trust them with anything then?!
⛔ Another evidence of the EU's inadequacy to act as a peacemaker is its double standards. As such, it is not trusted by Russia to mediate peace talks fairly.
Apart from it tolerating American war crimes but not Russian ones, its aforementioned official EU webpage[+] states that “the European Council condemned Russia’s indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure” but it didn’t condemn Ukrainians doing it first and worse[*] since 2014. Logically, such double-dealing is not appreciated by the Russians.
⛔ Another evidence of the EU's inadequacy to act as a peacemaker is its lack of integrity. Therefore, it is not trusted by Russia to mediate peace talks fairly.
On the aforementioned official EU webpage[+], it is explained how the war in Ukraine started by saying it all began in 2021, which is a falsehood. As it says even in Wikipedia and Britannica[+][+][+], as well as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said[+][+][»], the war began in 2014[*]. Why are the EU officials misleading the public is quite clear – to cover up their faults and mistakes, as well as to push for a common front to ruin Russia. However, this is counter-productive because it creates mistrust among the informed Europeans, Asians, Africans, and especially Russians who are then reluctant to believe anything the EU officials say.
The trust of Russians[+] was already strongly damaged by the EU's violations of the 2014 peace deal known as the “Minsk Agreements”[+][+][+], which was also a breach of international law. This was confirmed in December 2022 after former German Chancellor Angela Merkel shed light on the duplicitous game played by her or Germany and France of the EU, as well as Ukraine and the US. As Russians found out from a Merkel interview[+] (which was also confirmed by the Minsk Agreements signatories – former Ukrainian President Poroshenko[+][+] and former French President Hollande[»][»][+][»]) that the EU had actually no intention to enforce Ukraine to implement the provisions of that peace deal, logically, this dishonesty and deceit hampered all chances for the EU to mediate any future peace deals. With the Minsk agreements, mediated by the EU in 2014, the Ukrainian government pledged to amend the constitution to allow special status for Donetsk and Luhansk and grant them greater autonomy but as Merkel revealed[+] in 2022, that and all other pledges were feigned only to buy time until NATO could build a Ukrainian military capable of capturing the Donbas12[+] in its entirety, as well as evicting Russians from Crimea.
None of the EU's, the US, and Ukrainian diplomats have demonstrated any integrity when it comes to demonstrating a genuine commitment to a peaceful resolution to the ethnic violence that emanated from the bloody events of the Maidan Revolution[+] in February 2014, which overthrew an OSCE-certified, democratically-elected Ukrainian president. The new EU-backed regime in Kyiv—whether under Poroshenko or his successor Zelensky—and its backers in the EU and US, were never interested in a peaceful solution. All these years, since 2014, they were only interested in buying time to train and equip Ukrainian soldiers to escalate the war against Russians. Russia’s decision to take military action against Ukraine was the predictable – and intended –desperate reaction to this NATO offensive.
⛔ Not only did the EU earn mistrust from Russians to act as an intermediary in peace talks but it also engaged in an undeclared trade war and sanctions against Russia, which is why as a biased and hostile rival that only looks for self-interest, the EU is not welcome by Russia to act as a mediator in peace talks with it.
As anyone remotely informed about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia knows, the whole conflict did not start in 2022 but in 2013/2014 with pro-EU anti-government Euromaidan protests after the Ukrainian Parliament rejected[+] (and Ukrainian President and Prime Minister postponed) signing the anti-Russian European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement[+] because the terms were not optimal and because the EU refused then to either modify the terms or agree with the Ukrainian President Yanukovych and Russian President Putin for a tripartite arrangement.
The Ukrainian government's reluctance to sign the deal triggered the anti-government, pro-EU Euromaidan protests, which escalated into a violent anti-Russian revolution promoting EU interests, during which the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister (both of Russian ethnicity) were forced to flee the country fearing for their lives and the opposition took the control of the government in an unconstitutional and undemocratic manner, backed by the EU and the US (because those opposition leaders served their interests).
Prior to that, President Yanukovych stated[+] that he or Ukraine wanted to sign the Association Agreement[+] but that they needed better terms – substantial financial aid to compensate for the losses from cutting off trade with Russia and punitive increase in prices of Russian imports (oil, gas, etc.), and he proposed starting three-way talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the EU, which the EU leaders (José Manuel Barroso, Herman Van Rompuy, Štefan Füle, etc.) recklessly refused – some argue that this was the main cause of the conflict which led to this war. Probably a case of an error in judgment rather than malice.
The fact that Ukraine applied to join Russian adversary NATO in 2008, which violated the treaty between Ukraine and Russia, may have started the conflict but pressuring Ukraine to turn its back on Russia and inflict Russia huge economic losses was a tipping point for sure.
The EU (then-President José Manuel Barroso) rejected trilateral talks and coerced Ukrainian President Yanukovych to sign the Association Agreement that would block Russo-Ukrainian trade to a great extent, which he perceived as blackmail and pressured by Russia refused to comply for the time being until trade issues with Russia were resolved. Not just President Yanukovych but also the Ukrainian Parliament rejected it.[+] Blackmail is one of the worst possible ways of advertising economic cooperation.
Then-President of the European Commission (and member of the Bilderberg Group[+]) José Manuel Barroso stated that the EU will not tolerate "a veto of a third country" in their negotiations on closer integration with Ukraine, however, this was rather hypocritical because the EU itself was the first who vetoed Ukrainian negotiations with Russia by making an ultimatum prohibiting Ukraine to trade with Russia (its Customs Union). A huge error, as it turns out.
This way, the EU not only intruded into the Russo-Ukrainian trade relationship wanting to take the Russian earnings away but also wanted to block it. Also, by coercing Ukraine to block trade with Russia, the EU has violated Ukraine's right to self-determination, which included the right to freely pursue its economic development.
Just to highlight the hypocrisy of the EU leaders regarding the claim that the EU will not tolerate Russia's interference in their negotiations on closer integration with Ukraine, the EU does that all the time, such as in July 2023, when the EU prevented Argentina from joining the BRICS[+][+]. In other words, it is a common practice, so Russia had every right to prevent a deal that was disadvantageous both to Russia and Ukraine.
Evidence of EU Backing the 2013/2014 Coup in Kyiv
Also, now, we give some pieces of evidence that (because Yanukovych was reluctant to sign the Association Agreement[+] that was favorable to the EU and damaging to Ukraine), in 2013, not just the US but also the EU leaders orchestrated the regime change in Ukraine to oust Yanukovych by force, undemocratically:
➡ a prankster posing as former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko got French ex-President Francois Hollande (2012-2017) to admit that together they “managed to overthrow Yanukovych and managed to hand over Ukraine to the EU”. Hollande was caught on camera confirming that and claiming that if Poroshenko and Klitschko didn't come to Elysée Palace (the official residence of the President of France) at the very beginning of the regime change operation, there would be no revolution that changed the regime: “If you weren’t there, there wouldn’t be Maidan, and there would have been no victory that you achieved by removing Yanukovych.”[»][»][+][»]
➡ a leaked phone call[+][»] between US Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt13 on 27 January 2014 discussing who they will instate as "their man" as head of the Ukrainian government, when Nuland notoriously said, “Fuck the EU” in that context. This reveals that the EU was on it too, as the US representative expressed frustration at the EU's insufficient support during that time. Washington and Brussels were together on it to forcefully, undemocratically change the regime in Ukraine but were not in step, as the US was pulling more weight for it to happen, determined to take a much more activist role. The EU was divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow, nevertheless, they did their share of trouble-making as then French President Hollande revealed[»][»][+][»] – not just about forcefully, undemocratically ousting democratically elected Ukrainian President but also about playing tricks on Putin with the fake Minsk agreements[+], which was also admitted by then-Ukrainian President Poroshenko[+][+] and then-German Chancellor Merkel[+] (deception to buy time for NATO to militarize Ukraine to fight Russia to recapture Crimea). Let us be clear that the Minsk agreements were supposed to prevent the war, but the NATO leaders admitted that they used them to fool Putin to prepare Ukraine to fight Russia. So, whose fault is for this war? Clearly, NATO and Ukraine.
➡ The direct involvement of EU representatives such as French Jewish public figure Bernard-Henri Lévy in the coup d'etat in Ukraine is quite obvious[+]. Levy came to Euromaidan in person[+], where on 9 February 2014, he delivered his pathos speech[»] in support of protesters rather than the government. In 2013, he published the article "Long Live a Free Ukraine"[+], which clearly shows his stand and involvement in the anti-Russian agenda for Ukraine. Levy made no secret of the fact that the Western coordinators of Euromaidan already had ready candidates for the post of the new president of Ukraine[+]: “I recall my message that day to French President François Hollande: ‘Mr. President, I’ve just met the man who will be the president of the new Ukraine.’” In March 2014, he took presidential candidates Vitaly Klitschko and Petro Poroshenko to a screening in France. After a personal conversation with French President Hollande, Klitschko got the role of mayor of Kyiv and Poroshenko was helped to become the new president of Ukraine.
Fatal Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine
By signing the Association Agreement[+] in March 2014, Ukraine violated Article 6 of The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation[+][+] (signed in 1997) which prescribed both parties “shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party.” The Association Agreement with the EU was explicitly directed against Russia, prohibiting Ukraine to trade with Russia, turning Ukraine against Russia. It is understandable that Russians, both 8 million of them in Ukraine and Kremlin, protested and resisted.
Then-President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso blackmailed Ukraine to choose[+] between the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia[+] and a trade agreement with the EU[+]. Basically, the EU set off the ‘divide and conquer’ scheme and an undeclared trade war with Russia. Logically, Russia fought back, as any other superpower would do in its place.
That ultimatum might be the main cause of the conflict which led to this horrific war.
At the time President Yanukovych was also in negotiations with Russia to "find the right model" for cooperation with the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia[+]. But in February 2013, President of the European Commission (and member of the Bilderberg Group[+]) José Manuel Barroso insisted that Ukraine "cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union". This was, of course, not true because an arrangement could be made since Ukraine was not joining the EU with this deal, but the EU wanted to have all the benefits from Ukrainian foreign trade – it wanted to take most of the Russian earnings from trade with Ukraine, which Russia, logically opposed and offered a tripartite arrangement and other benefits ($15 billion bailout and a significant reduction of Russian gas price worth billions) to Ukraine.
Russia's Customs Union envisages closer economic integration, like the European Union, with the free movement of goods. Barroso made a point that a free-trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine would make in effect a free-trade agreement with those other countries as well but this argument was false because the EU has similar deals[+] with other countries who have free-trade agreements also with other countries outside the EU, therefore it could do the same with Ukraine.
Also, any country should be free to trade with whomever they choose to. The EU had no right to impose such restrictions and make an ultimatum that hurts both Russia and Ukraine while it serves only the EU. While some provisions of the general European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement[+] were beneficial for Ukraine, the proposed EU trade deal was disadvantageous for both Ukraine and Russia while the EU was to benefit from it the most.
To their defense, the EU top brass and its then-President Barroso were just protecting the EU's economic interests pushing Ukraine to import goods mainly from the EU rather than Russia. However, following capitalistic values over ethical ones has its many disadvantages from a broader perspective, which was narrow-mindedly disregarded.
Putin and Ukrainian President Yanukovych, on the other hand, were willing to negotiate a tripartite arrangement. German Chancellor at that time (2005-2021), Angela Merkel, was also saying "We should overcome the 'either us or them' mentality. The Cold War is over"[+] but she directed those words to President Putin rather than the then-EU President Barroso who was making the 'either us or them' ultimatum.
The EU's self-centered unwillingness to consider Russia's huge losses (as the EU pressured Ukraine to import most goods from it rather than Russia and its Customs Union) has led to a conflict that escalated with the war in Ukraine.
What the EU leaders were asking of Ukraine was to give up on trade with Russia (and Kazakhstan and Belarus), which would Russia[+] losing around $12 billion a year (plus a loss of over $2,3 billion a year from export decrease to Kazakhstan[+] and Belarus[+]) but they didn’t propose any viable compensation for those huge losses!
As current statistics show, the trade balance[+] with the EU after the new trade deal hasn’t been as near as good as with Russia and its Union – Ukraine gained less than $5 billion a year in trade balance with the EU when comparing the year 2013 with 2021. So, economically speaking, with the trade deal with the EU, Ukraine gained around $5 billion a year but lost around $14,3 billion/year (from exports to Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus), which would mean that Ukraine is losing almost $10 billion in exports earnings a year because they signed the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement (or because they chose EU over Russia).
And what's more, the prices for Ukrainian imports from Russia, especially gas, have increased significantly, which means that the loss is then much higher than $10 billion a year, furthermore drowning the Ukrainian economy.
Since 2015, Ukraine buys Russian gas not from Russia but indirectly from traders in Western Europe, which is then much more expensive due to fees paid to traders and because Russia increased prices for the EU (as a penalty for sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014). If Ukraine continued to trade with Russia, they would have gotten a gas price of $268 per 1,000 cubic meters but after they became hostile to Russia they had to pay twice as much or more[+] and nowadays even as much as 10 times more, which means that they must pay now around $2 billion more for every bcm they import. According to Statista[+], Ukraine has imported more than 10bcm gas per year, which would mean that Ukraine would have lost around $20 billion in 2022 alone (if it had imported 10bcm but it couldn’t afford) and since 2015 it lost altogether several billion just from gas imports.
Besides that, due to increased gas prices, Ukraine had to lower its gas transit fees(Russian gas goes to the EU through pipes in Ukraine) and so it has been losing enormous earnings. Ukrainian Naftogaz[+] calculated that by keeping gas prices artificially low, Ukraine lost $22 billion in 2022.
In other words, the EU helped Ukraine gain around $5 billion a year in trade balance with the EU but unintentionally made them lose more than $50 billion a year in fewer export earnings, extra import costs, and lower gas transit fees.
Even if those numbers are not accurate (they may be less or more), one thing is sure, Ukraine is much worse off after signing that Association Agreement[+] with the EU.
According to Wikipedia (as recorded in the CIA World Factbook)[+], the 2015 GDP growth rate of Ukraine was the worst of all 48 European states, proving that under the new regime with EU and US patronage, Ukraine had no economic growth but decline, which continued until the war and to this day. The poverty rate almost doubled from 2013 to 2016[+]. Yanukovych administration brought the inflation from 15.88% in 2009 to zero in 2012-2013 but under the new regime (under the EU and US patronage), inflation spiked[+] to 48% in 2015; before the war in 2021, it was 9.36% – all in all, Association Agreement[+] with the EU turned out to bring decline, high inflation, poverty, corruption, and people had it much worse than when trading with Russia.
But the worst of all is the loss of lives and territories, suffering, and destruction that ensued from forcing Ukraine to choose the EU and turn back on Russia (thereby harassing the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine). When patronizingly forcing Ukraine to choose them over Russia, the EU head honchos (then-Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, Štefan Füle – the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, etc.) could have anticipated the huge conflict within Ukraine with its huge Russian ethnic group and their supporter – Russia, even if they didn’t take Putin seriously when he warned[+] them all in 2013. about the high political and social cost of EU integration because of the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine (who prefer integration with Russia rather than the EU). What the EU didn’t anticipate and miscalculated was the disastrous effect this conflict would have on the EU and the whole world. Surely, they didn’t mean this to happen but they could have been much wiser about it. Let that be a lessonto all profit-seeking, capitalistpolicymakers: inconsiderate, narrow-minded, profit-driven dealings are money-losing in the long run and may cost precious lives.
One of the main benefits that protesters hoped for from the deal with the EU[+], which was worth taking to the streets, was an alleged visa-free travel but this was never part of the deal (just “steps towards visa-free movement of people”). However, with or without the Association Agreement, Ukrainians would easily get work visas if they wanted to work in the EU anyway (Labour Market Shortages In The European Union[+] – June 2013 report) especially in Germany, as Germany struggled at the time[+] and still struggles with the shortage of cheap labor and skilled workers (especially in sectors such as technology, catering, logistics, construction, education, and nursing), which is why immigrants are more than welcome to come and work. Even now with over a million[+] Ukrainian refugees (as well as over half a million[+]Syrian refugees plus half a million[+]other refugees) living and allowed to work in Germany, as of June 2023[+][+], Germany still lacks workers and needs about 400.000 skilled immigrants each year as its aging workforce shrinks. As developed nations became more economically dependent on immigrant workers, there was more political pressure for the EU to enter reciprocal relationships with other nations, particularly the poverty-stricken ones, like Ukraine. So, protesters were fighting for it in vain.
⛔ Another major point why the EU is not welcome to mediate a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia is the fact that most EU states belong to Russia's rival NATO (army of 21 EU states, the US, etc.) which is inconsiderately expanding its military to Russian borders and threatening its interests.
NATO’s expansion to Russian borders has always (since the end of the Cold War) been viewed by all Russian officials (not just President Putin) as a major threat and provocation, and particularly expanding to Ukraine would be crossing a red line for the Russian government for many reasons (including the fact that Russian fleet in Crimea would be then ousted). The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO (after Ukraine applied for it in 2008 and NATO somewhat promised to accept it sometime in the future) inflamed and empowered militant, nationalist parts of the Russian political spectrum, which ultimately led to war.
In 2008, Ukraine had no reason whatsoever to apply to join NATO (there was no threat from Russia or any other country) but it did because the then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko was their puppet – NATO states helped him get elected by orchestrating the Orange Revolution[*][+][+] during the 2004 presidential elections through spreading rumors and propaganda (rather than proof or facts) that the then-elected pro-Russian candidate Yanukovych won due to the electoral fraud[*]. This sparked the protests that escalated into a revolution serving Yushchenko to win the presidency through a second runoff election (third round of voting).
Why would NATO states’ heads bother to help Yushchenko to win the election by going to great lengths in engineering and funding (at least $34 million[+]) the Orange Revolution[*][+][+] for him? In politics, it's always quid pro quo. How did Yushchenko reciprocate – what did he give in return? Surely, they wanted that he then applies for Ukraine to join NATO, what else?! That's what he did. This way, Ukraine would eventually permit the NATO navy to station in Crimea and other strategic places on Russia's borders, thereby kicking out the Russian fleet from Crimea and so weaken their rival Russia’s power in the region. Also, NATO needs Ukrainians to fight their wars across the world[+] and to be consumers of their merchandise. As well, NATO wants to pull more and more states out of Russia’s sphere of influence into their own and so weaken their rival and gain new followers. This includes compelling them to trade with the US and EU rather than Russia, whereby exploiting them by engineering the trade balance (export/import) to their own favor. Since then, Ukraine has trade deficit[+].
Ukraine Trade Balance 1999-2024 shows deficit (in minus, below 0) since 2005
One day, when Yushchenko realizes who poisoned him[+] and what damage his financiers among the US and NATO leaders have done to Ukraine, he might be able to admit to being pressed or even blackmailed to repay his debt to them. The big kahunas have him probably in their pocket or by the balls, in some sort of blackmail situation, whereby he has to keep his mouth shut or else they would cut him off, reveal some sin of his, kill his family, or anything like that. These things happen all the time, not just in movies, so no point in dismissing the possibility. Just imagine, what a domino effect such a revelation by Yushchenko would have! Exposing NATO scheming would not just discredit them and disapprove of their future interventions but would also turn many people to their rival Russia. CIA operatives have killed for lesser threats, so…
But whistleblowers are gaining recognition, power, rewards, and protection these days[+] with Whistleblower protection laws[+] (there is even World Whistleblowers Day now – 23. June[+]), so Yushchenko should gain the courage to come clean and come forward. Not just Yushchenko but anyone else in Ukraine and Russia who has any valid proof about bribing, unlawful funding, or any other wrongdoing by any foreign or domestic organization may now report it and gain not just protection but collect a monetary reward for it (10-30% from the fine collected from the wrongdoers by law enforcement)[+].
Ukraine[+] and Russia may not be whistleblower strongholds just yet but anyone may report internationally. 100% anonymous reporting protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose any information that could reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
For instance, the US Congress[+] provides monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which the wrongdoers are ordered to pay huge fines, part of which is paid to the whistleblower. The Securities and Exchange Commission has awarded more than $1 billion[+] to whistleblowers since the inception of the agency’s whistleblower program in 2011. Regardless of where you live, you qualify for monetary rewards[+]. Phillips & Cohen14 has earned their international clients more than $1.1 billion in whistleblower rewards.
Also, the European Parliament and the Council of EU Member States attend to whistleblower protection[+]. In 2019, the EU Directive on the protection of whistleblowers entered into force[+]. From a legal perspective, the European Court of Human Rights interprets reporting of wrongdoing in the public interest as a form of Freedom of Expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Whistleblower protection has been recognized as part of international law since 2003, under Article 32 and Article 33 of the Convention Against Corruption adopted by the United Nations. However, the strength of whistleblower laws varies substantially from country to country. The Government Accountability Project[+] advocates for stronger whistleblowing protections at intergovernmental bodies, so even if the laws may not be put into practice[+] too often, it is improving and with the newest regulations, high-profile cases will surely win in the end.
Also, by implementing the Corruption Whistleblower Law[+], Ukraine would get rid of corruption[+].All people who report those who expect bribes from them may receive a portion of the fine those bribers must pay. This way, the corruptible people, especially politicians, would think twice before taking bribes and probably stop doing it altogether.
Also, by offering rewards to whistle-blowers of their rivals, both the Russian and Ukrainian governments would gain valuable, opportune intelligence to expose or thwart the misconduct of the adversary and get them to agree to a peace deal or help galvanize the public to turn on the wrongdoers and so stop the war.
In the segment on the US role[*], we explained how the US has been masterminding the regime changes[+] around the world by orchestrating and funding coups or revolutions to put their men as heads of many states.
At that time, in 2008, the pro-Western Russian President Boris Yeltsin told Bill Clinton he “saw nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed” with plans to renege on the verbal promises made years earlier not to enlarge NATO eastward, and warned it would be “sowing the seeds of mistrust”.
The Cold War between Russia and NATO countries ended partly based on that assurance, which George H.W. Bush gave[+] to Gorbachev. Even though this alleged promise is contested nowadays, there are virtues of respect,considerateness as well as tactfulness, which Russia expects from NATO. So far, this has been honored by NATO, therefore Ukraine has not been accepted to join NATO but there is a constant threat by some disrespectful NATO members’ leaders to disregard Russia's plea.
The EU provoked Russia with the “security policy” provisions included in the EU’s (Association Agreement[+]) proposal to Ukraine that would subordinate Ukraine to NATO. This is another reason why Ukrainian President Yanukovych was reluctant to sign the deal for ‘reasons of national security’.
A naïve Ukrainian pro-EU public, which only had eyes for the benefits of the proposal but none (adequately) for all the disadvantages, has then in 2013 risen in pro-EU protest that escalated into an anti-government anti-Russian revolution, unconstitutionally ousting the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister along with some other parliamentarians. The pro-government, pro-Russian, and Russian-speaking public in the east and south of Ukraine couldn’t possibly tolerate that and submit to the anti-Russian, self-appointed government so they understandably resisted the new undemocratically instituted regime, just as Putin warned it would happen, and just as any intelligent person could anticipate it. Logically, millions of Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity wouldn't just sit back and accept being discriminated against, their rights to self-determination being taken away, and being forced to dance to the EU’s tune in the future. And likewise, logically, after the new anti-Russian undemocratically established Ukrainian government started to classify the locals as “terrorists” and attack them with the military, the locals sought a protectorate from Russia.
To be clear, ethnic Russians in the east and south of Ukraine are not immigrants but natives in this region since the 17th century, if not before. This is their birthplace, homeland, motherland, or fatherland; a land of their ancestors.
Russia has always made it very clear that it would not tolerate NATO's military stationed on its borders as NATO has been very hostile to Russia and threatening its interests. For instance, if Ukraine would have joined NATO, then the Russian fleet would eventually be expelled from Crimea so that the NATO fleet could take control there – no way would Russia ever allow being thrown away from its rightful place (it was there since 1783) by NATO, especially because that would mean that Russia would lose political and economic power in the Black Sea region. NATO wants to win, which Russia will not allow, even if it takes a nuclear attack. This is also strong proof that the EU as a NATO member can't possibly mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia.
⛔ Another important point why the EU is not welcome to mediate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine is its unmerited lordliness, which is never a good trait by a peace talks mediator. The EU has often assumed superiorityby meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, imposing measures that it shouldn’t and so aggravating many nations. It is the false sense of superiority of the West15 (white supremacy fallacy[*]), combined with the never-ending bullying and patronizing of others that is making many Asians and Africans angry. You often hear Africans say[»][»] "When the Chinese and Russians come, they give us a hospital, but when Europeans and Americans come, they give us a lecture and threats."
One such instance of patronizing waswhenintroducing the provisions of the Association Agreement[+], the EU lectured Ukrainian officials making an ultimatum demanding Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release his arch-enemy and main political opponent Yulia Tymoshenko from prison (the blonde US-puppet with a braid around her head that was all over the news promoted as a victim of a politically motivated persecution disregarding all the evidence of her being guilty of charges[+]), who was sentenced to seven years in prison for a series of criminal cases[+], mostly for corruption, misuse of state funds, and abuse of power. She is the leader of Fatherland (Batkivshchyna) party in parliament, was co-leader of US-backed protests known as the ‘Orange Revolution’ (2004-2005), former Prime Minister (2007-2010),and by now, 3-time presidential candidate, but to know what kind of person she is, it is enough just to hear her talking like a fascist in a leaked telephone conversation[»][»][+] on 8 March 2014 (she was in Berlin hospital at the time), where, apart from swearing like a fishwife and making outrageous threats to Russians rather than acting as a decent presidential candidate, she showed her murderous side (“I am ready to grab a machine gun and shoot that mother f***er in the head” – is this how a decent politician, diplomat, or wannabe president should talk?) and hatred for Russian ethnic minorities (“It's about time we grab our guns and go kill those damned Russians together with their leader... I would’ve found a way to kill all those a*****es”). And to the question “What should we do now with 8 million Russians living in Ukraine? They are outcasts!”, she answered: “They must be killed with nuclear weapons.” Imagine if she won a presidential election (she tried 3 times[+])! This is a convicted felon that the EU insisted should be released from prison! Imagine if she won a presidential election[+]!
Logically, this EU's blackmail and intrusion into domestic affairs and the judiciary made President Yanukovych reluctant to sign the Association Agreement[+]. He had no authority to release any prisoner anyway, and even though pressured by the EU, the Ukrainian parliament voted against her release[+].
In all fairness, what right did the EU have to interfere in the Ukrainian internal affairs (judicial system or prisoners)?? What does the European Union have to do with one single convicted corrupt politician? Is the European Union a court? Besides, weren’t they who insisted on tightening the laws on corruption in the first place?!
Ukrainian public was upset with Russia interfering in their affairs but why were they not upset with the EU doing the same or more?! Russia never blackmailed Ukraine like that, which says a lot about the EU.
In 2013, Europe's human rights court (serving NATO interests) has ruled[+]partly against Ukraine on the jailing of Yulia Tymoshenko. It ruled that her detention was "arbitrary and unlawful", but rejected claims that she was ill-treated. It objected only to an unfair trial but it found no evidence supporting her innocence. If the issue was with the court, why didn't the EU then condemn the judge and prosecutor for their alleged negligence or misconduct instead of asking to free a convicted corrupt felon? Or, if the issue was with the case being a politically motivated persecution and political vindictiveness by President Viktor Yanukovych (allegedly he was afraid of Mrs. Tymoshenko because she was the only politician capable of defeating him in the next election and therefore he put her in prison, which is ridiculous on both counts – there were surely other candidates and how on Earth he could put her in prison when there is a whole armada of court officials who make rulings, the president has no power to sentence anyone), then why didn’t the EU persecute him at the time? Think about it.
It would make sense if the EU offered to give Tymoshenko a fair trial but all they wanted was for a convicted corrupt politician to be free without a trial whatsoever – how does that make any sense?
The EU justified the “Tymoshenko issue” by stating that the ratification of the treaty depended on Ukraine's "respect for common values and the rule of law with an independent judiciary". In other words, they were suggesting that Ukraine had no respect for common values and there was no rule of law there. But how would the rule of law be respected by singling out one prisoner?!As if her release would solve or end the problem of the alleged "selective justice" in Ukraine! It is paradoxical since the EU itself was then pursuing "selective justice" by focusing solely on Tymoshenko – what about all other sentenced corrupt politicians who also claimed their sentences were politically motivated?!
And what so-called "European common values" were they referring to? Is letting corrupt politicians go out of prison just because the rival president or court is corrupt a common value? Using her case as precedent, then any other sentenced corrupt politician could claim that their sentence is “politically motivated” and be cleared of all charges. There is always some fault to be found in any court, which could be then labeled as "arbitrary and unlawful" as well.
The EU overlooked the fact that even long before Yanukovych was President, Tymoshenko was already charged with forgery, smuggling, tax evasion, corruption, hiding hard-currency profits, large-scale theft of state property, paying bribes, and embezzling funds on several occasions and jailed in February 2001. In other words, most likely she was not innocent, even if her trial was politically motivated.
While pressing for a "full amnesty" so Tymoshenko could be cleared of her jail sentence and free to return to politics, the EU officials failed to offer how to solve the "Tymoshenko's issue" judicially – it would be necessary either to adopt a special law on medical treatment abroad (even if there is a prison hospital and even though Strasburg court actually rejected claims that she was ill-treated) or law on amnesty or somehow make the court to suddenly wake up and reduce Tymoshenko's term so that she could be eligible for the conditional early release.
No prisoner can anywhere be legally released just because the EU officials want it! Everyone has the right to a fair trial but it is curious why the EU never pressed for that but rather for her release regardless of tons of evidence against her.
The European People's Party demanded the immediate release of Yulia Tymoshenko and other political prisoners and insisted that the Association Agreement[+] between Ukraine and the European Union should not be signed and ratified until these demands were met but they never provided any evidence of her not being guilty of the charges. It is unclear why the European Council obeyed the request of the European People's Party without requesting evidence of her alleged innocence but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the President of the European Council at that time, Herman Van Rompuy, was a member of that very party.
Another important question is, why was Mrs. Tymoshenko so important to the EU that they would not sign the deal without this demand being met? In a message from her prison cell in Kharkiv, Tymoshenko herself called[+] on EU leaders not to let her continued imprisonment block the association agreement, then why did they insist on it? For some reason, Germany insisted she be allowed to leave the country for supposed medical treatment (although she didn't need any foreign clinic), while others such as France and Poland argued that the prospects for such a significant geo-strategic shift in Russia's backyard should not be tied to the fate of a single individual. Nevertheless, the EU negotiators kept insisting on it. Why did they care if she was in prison or not? Could it be that Tymoshenko was the main EU's puppet and therefore wanted her to win the next presidential elections rather than any other less compliant politician they already had in their pocket? Did they actually believe that Mrs. Tymoshenko was the only politician capable of defeating current President Yanukovych in the coming election? No need to speculate to assume that upon her release, she would be then very grateful to her EU liberators, and thus would from then on comply in serving the EU interests without any bribes necessary.
As it turns out, the EU officials were wrong about her, as the majority of people didn't believe her innocence, and upon her release, she stood no chance to win the next snap presidential election (May 2014) even without Yanukovych as a rival candidate – she won only 12.81 % of the vote in the presidential election that year. A few months later in the parliamentary election, her party secured only 5.7 % of the popular vote, barely over the threshold. In the 2019 presidential election, she got only 13.4 % of the vote.
In other words, the EU was betting on the wrong horse and getting on its high horse.
⛔ One of the worst reasons why the EU is not welcome to mediate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine is its support for a regime that could be classified as a neo-Nazi regimebecause the government and many Ukrainians honor and celebrate Bandera, who was an anti-Semite Nazi collaborator, as a Ukrainian hero as well as because theyincorporated the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion (that then grew into a regiment and then into a brigade) into the Ukrainian military – which means that the EU and the US have been weaponizing a neo-Nazi brigade.
Aerial view of NATO headquarters in Brussels in the form of the Lightning Bolts symbol used by the Schutzstaffel (SS) — the Nazi paramilitary force
Ukrainians are counting on the EU and the rest of the world to dismiss this as Russian propaganda but the facts and evidence are so strong that no one that looks at them cannot deny it. Obviously, for some revolting reason, the EU, US, UK, and UN officials are turning a blind eye to Ukraine's neo-Nazis. What we are witnessing in Ukraine is not a bunch of neo-fascist rogue elements that we find in many countries but a state-sanctioned ugly phenomenon.
All this is explained properly with many pieces of evidence in a separate segment on de-Nazification[*], therefore, in this context of implying the EU's incompetence to be a peace talks mediator, we just mention a few facts indicating that neo-Nazis seized power in Kyiv and beyond since the Euromaidan protests and revolution in 2014:
From encyclopedias[+][+] and C.I.A. reports[+] to the Jews, Poles[+], and the European Parliament[+], everyone is united in accepting the historical evidence that Stepan Bandera[+][+] was a criminal, convicted murderer, and anti-Semite Nazi collaborator who ordered the genocide of Jews, Poles, and other minorities. Yet, Ukrainians idolize and hail Bandera as a role model hero, commemorating him by naming many streets, bridges, and museums after him, erecting many monuments and busts of him, awarding him and his followers[+]with the title of “Hero of Ukraine”, issuing postage stamps with his portrait, naming him an honorary citizen of many Ukrainian cities, and glorifying him by a torchlight procession[»] every year. If anything like this would occur in Germany the world would be in an uproar. Also, as the European Parliament reports[+], many Ukrainian police officers have recently openly stated that they are ‘Banderites’16.
Zelensky really said that in an interview during presidential campaign - video
What's more, the Neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov Battalion[+][+] was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, thus legalizing them is another clear sign that neo-Nazis seized power in Ukraine. Ukraine is the only nation in the whole world to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. A 2016 report[+] by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHA) has accused[+] the Azov regiment of violating international humanitarian law.[+]In 2015-2017[+], 2018[+][+][+], and 2019[+], with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act[+], the US Congress banned funding and providing arms to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion (that grew into a brigade by 2022).
Furthermore, the Ukrainian Prime Minister and other Ministers attended[+] and promoted neo-Nazi concerts. Also, without any consequences, Ukrainians post pictures of a wedding in Nazi uniforms[+], and some politicians and many soldiers with their arms raised in a Nazi salute[ꚛ][+][»][»][»] and holding Nazi flags[+][+][+] are influencing Ukrainian politics and taking justice in their own hands.
Moving on. When it comes to the EU authorities providing a diplomatic solution for peacemaking between Ukraine and Russia, although it is highly unlikely anything like that coming from the top officials, it might come from a grassroots movement, from public pressure due to deteriorating living standards in the EU (recession). Just like among the American public, the European public is not just getting weary of the conflict but the support for Ukraine is on a steep decline with more and more people protesting against sending both weapons and financial aid to Ukraine.
European Parliament members are aware of it such as Herve Juvin from France, who said in a video interview[+][»] that the energy and food crises, along with the impact of sanctions, will lead to a decline in the popularity of the current authorities who prolong the war in Ukraine.
Also, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said[»] in this prank phone conversation that she is pushing for the EU to divert its aid from Ukraine to Africa, as Italy is suffering huge problems with illegal immigrants from Africa.
So, just like the focus of the US aid is shifting towards other fronts, the EU is also less interested in Ukraine and needs its funds for its domestic needs, including immigration crisis and energy crisis.
In other words, Ukrainians should count on a major decline in support and act accordingly. If they could not defeat Russians with the full support and while the professional and elite AFU troops were still alive, then it is impossible to do it with depleted stocks[+][+][+][+][+][+] and demoralized, unskilled troops. Press for negotiation NOW before it is too late! Ukraine is in danger of being wiped out of the map not because of Russian superiority but because of the unwillingness of Kyiv regime17 to negotiate peace and be friends with its neighbors.
It is quite easy to find more faults with the EU but we believe this suffices for anyone to be able to deduce that the EU is not innocent and that EU officials can’t possibly mediate peace talks as long as they side with the US.
Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we[*]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. This article is part of the “Peacemaking Mediation” segment. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this series: The Americanized EU – Ameropa
WEF[+] — World Economic Forum founded by Klaus Schwab is a billionaire club of far-left, globalist oligarchs with huge influence on world governments and UN; meets once a year in Swiss Davos. Agenda: the Great Reset, NWO, one world government, depopulation, CBDC..
WEF is just a proxy serving the interest of the globalist Jesuits (HQ Rome, near Vatican) via Jesuit-run CIA, as we explain in the upcoming article"Behind-The-Scenes Powerbrokers"
One of Von der Leyen lies[+]: "the Russian economy, the industry is in tatters" but it turned out to be a lie as the Russian economy keeps growing while the EU economy and industry are in tatters
WEF has infiltrated in many governments and the UN[+][+] — One of the UN projects to achieve WEF Great Reset Agenda is The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Obscured by noble-sounding verbiage, hides a hideous truth - they want to take away our goods, such as electrical appliances, cars and even property rights
Anglo-Saxons[+] are originally pagan Germanic people who migrated from northern Europe and settled first in England and then also in the US (British royal familiy the Windsors are Germans)
Stepan Bandera[+][+] was an anti-Semite, anti-Soviet Nazi collaborator, convicted murderer, responsible for the ethnic cleansing of minorities such as the genocide of more than 100.000 of Poles, Soviets, and Jews during World War II
No wonder she reaped what she sowed by being murdered[+] herself in July 2024 and surely burning in hell. When will malevolent people ever learn that we all reap what we sow eventually?!
Oleksiy Goncharenko[+] is Ukrainian MP from an opposition party, also member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; former chairman of the Odesa region Council; a son of former mayor of Odesa. He took part[ꚛ][+] in the Odesa massacre[+][+][+][»] of ethnic Russians (murdering 116[+] civilians, officially 48) in May 2014 as a bystander and cheerleader
the snap 2014 presidential election should have been invalidated by the UN for at least five main reasons:
1. Voter turnout was below the legal threshold, as according to Ukrainian law[+], a snap election must have a voter turnout higher than 50%, which was not the case – the total number of eligible voters was around 35.5 million but only around 18 million people cast a ballot, which was less than 50%. Mark Twain once famously said that there are three types of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The Ukrainian authorities falsely and unlawfully presented voter turnout as 60% because they excluded the regions that were “not under government control” (Donbas and Crimea) although they claimed those regions as Ukraine. In the 2014 parliamentary elections, the official voter turnout (excluded some regions) was even lower, 52.42% – unlawfully deducting the eligible voters in areas where voting was not made possible. Calculating the turnout in such a manner was unlawful because no electoral regulation ratifies the exclusion of any region or eligible constituency under any circumstances! Government has a duty to ensure everyone the possibility to vote but the interim government of the time failed (and didn’t care) to do so for over 5,5 million eligible voters, who were discounted (certainly for the reason that they were sure to vote for pro-Russian candidates), which invalidates the legitimacy of those elections that should have been postponed until the possibility to vote was granted equally to everyone. Even by discounting millions of voters, the alleged turnout of 60% was much lower than the average voter turnout of 72% in previous presidential elections, so such a low turnout suggests some foul play in which many people obviously didn't want to participate – many people questioned the validity of the election. What is more, there is a dispute about what constitutes “not under government control” anyway because, at that time, there was no legitimate government, as the opposition undemocratically and unconstitutionally forced itself into the government position. Therefore, it could be argued that Donbas was indeed under democraticallyelected government control and all other regions were not. Furthermore, Ukraine continues to claim Crimea as an integral part of its territory but it has denied its people the possibility to vote in all elections – how can that be lawful? In summary, to our knowledge, regarding voter turnout count, no law allows disenfranchising or discounting or excluding any region or eligible constituency under any circumstances, therefore any such act is unlawful and so, by law, the voter turnout was then lower than 50%, which was below the legal threshold and therefore snap 2014 presidential election should have been invalidated. The US and EU were pleased with the election results because it suited their agenda, thus they and their allies quickly praised the election endorsing the vote. Draw your own conclusions about it.
2. Morally unacceptable electorate manipulations took place, such as administrative tricks to get more votes for a particular party, disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, disinformation, corruption, banning assault, harassment, and libel, as the election was restricted – it was not held everywhere in Ukraine – most ballot stations in regions with Russian ethnic minorities were not open for polling, as they legally should have been. Russian ethnic minority voters, that is, pro-Russian voters were hindered to vote. For instance, in the pro-Russian Donbas region, only 426 ballot stations were open for polling instead of all 2.430, disabling 80% of the Russophone Donbas population to cast a vote – this alone should have questioned the legitimacy of the elections.
3. Pro-Russian candidates were hindered to run for office – as opposed to all previous elections, there were no well-known pro-Russian candidates in the elections as the established Russian ethnic minority leaders were forced into exile or arrested on charges of leading a separatist movement (and after the elections cleared of charges in the absence of proof, which is telling of the political motive behind the arrestment). Ukraine's Pro-Russian candidate quit the presidential race[+] because it was too "dangerous" for him to continue his presidential campaign, as he was beaten by pro-Ukrainian activists in Kyiv. What kind of laws and constitution allows an ethnicity with millions of people to be unrepresented in the elections?
4. No equal chances for all parties – the pro-Russian Party of Regions was hindered to run presidential campaigns in many regions – it was the biggest party in Ukraine between 2006 and 2014. providing several Ukrainian Presidents and Prime Ministers but ahead of the 2014 elections, the party's symbol and activities were banned in many regions governed by ultra-nationalists, thus they were illegally prevented to campaign in those regions.
5. Corrupt election observation with biased international observers[+] – Ukraine only sent election monitoring invitations to the pro-EU monitoring organizations and not to the pro-Russian CIS Election Monitoring Organization. This was not only unfair but also intentional in order to cover up all the irregularities surrounding the elections. See also Election fraud in the 2014 Parliamentary Elections[+]
Donbas[+] is a coal mining region that was part of eastern Ukraine from 1922-2022 (now part of Russia) consisting of two Republics - Donetsk and Luhansk - where most residents have been Russians for centuries. In 2022, after Bolsheviks defeated the Ukrainian nationalists, Lenin gave that part of former Russian Empire with mostly ethnic Russian residents to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under condition that it remains part of the Soviet Union and under Moscow governance (Kyiv administration) but in 1991, Ukraine violated that agreement by breaking off from the Soviet Union and from Moscow, and since 2014, Ukrainians had been demolishing all Lenin's monuments, therefore they have no rights to claim the territories he conditionally granted them. Since Ukrainians hate Lenin and Stalin so much that they demonize them, then in the Russian view[+], it is only fair to give back all the land[ꚛ] that Lenin and Stalin allocated to Soviet Ukraine, without even asking the locals’ permission (the majority were Russians in Donbas).
Russophobic Geoffrey Pyatt was the US ambassador in Ukraine from 2013-2016 and then in Greece till 2022, whose main appointment was to destroy the relationship of both countries with Russia
Phillips & Cohen[+] — service in Russian language available. This is no advertising, we received no payment or any other reward for mentioning this law firm.
neo-Nazi Banderites are Bandera followers or Bandera fans. Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera[+] was an anti-Semite leader with Nazi ideology collaborating with Nazi Germany in executing ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews and other perceived subhumans including Slavs, Gypsies, gays, etc. He founded and headed a political party OUN-B and its military wing UPA. His followers and troops were called Banderites. In modern Ukraine, there are millions of fans or followers of Bandera, who is considered a national hero since 2014 when Ukrainian nationalists came to power backed by the West.
With the help of Nazis, they stormed Lviv in 1941 and idiotically proclaimed a non-democratic, fascist, anti-Semitic, anti-Soviet government on the radio as they foolishly assumed that Germans (who occupied the territory, taking it from the Soviets) would go along with it like in Croatia. But Adolf Hitler would have none of it and in a matter of weeks, all the leaders were either killed or arrested, including Bandera. It seems that those Ukrainian peasants were very ignorant of Nazi Generalplan Ost[+] (Nazi Germany's blueprint for the genocide, extermination and large-scale ethnic cleansing of Slavs, Eastern European Jews and other indigenous peoples of Eastern Europe), which was quite clear about Ukrainians to be treated as a race of slaves.
we refer to Kyiv as a regime[+] due to its oppressive and repressive policies, corruption, and foul treatment of its ethnic minorities, such as the ethnic Russians, violating their human rights, tyrannizing, and killing them since 2014.
![[+]](https://www.virtuology.biz/images/consciousness-scale.png){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/state-of-democracy-in-europe-2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[+]](https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/farion.jpg){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://challenge-magazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/screenshot-2021-04-14-at-19.02.05-1024x507.png){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Cropped-Ukraine.png){kind=link}