Helmut Kohl wrote that the European policy towards Russia had made us lose 20 years of work. Probably man has never sought to demolish much of Europe this year as destroying the links between the east and west of our continent is a fatal blow to the whole policy conducted for 20 years by all those who worked to European construction. This policy has also been condemned by every major living actors of this construction.

The suicidal policy of "sanctions"

One could hardly imagine a more damaging politic for Europe that this affair of "sanctions"; the European community pays much more than Russia, and in the long term it will show frankly negative consequences for the west of the continent.

A - Hypocrisy of this policy

It is defended with a monumental lie: the displayed strategy is to say that the sanctions would be aimed at pushing Russia not to intervene in eastern Ukraine, because it would be his fault if the conflict would last; the reality is exactly the opposite: as it is said that peace would lead to the end of sanctions, Ukrainian nationalists, sworn enemies of Russia, who want that the sanctions will be the most possible hard and last as long as possible, do everything they can to prolong the war, since it is the war that prolongs sanctions.

In reality, the sanctions policy has only one purpose: to prevent peace. Seen from the side of the US government, the deep usefulness of the war is in turn to justify the sanctions to destroy the Russian economy.

Why prevent peace? Essentially to break the European construction and prevent the emergence of a continental superpower, which will marginalize the Anglo-Saxon world; see: The destruction of Europe.

B - the cost of this policy

Most of this cost is actually supported by European states; experts estimate the annual losses for the Russian economy about $ 40 billion per year. The aftermath of these measures for the European community is much higher:

- The losses for farmers due to the Russian boycott would amount to 10 billion Euros.

- Expenses of Russian tourists would drop by half, a loss of about 16 billion.

- The fall in exports and financial losses related to the discontinuance of the investments have already cost 40 billion to Germany.

- Abrupt discontinuation of the South Stream gas pipeline causes losses of billions, and put in the red several European oil companies.

- The refusal by France to deliver the Mistrals may weigh heavily in the decision of India not to buy the Rafale, and the loss of this contract would amount to 18 billion.

I quote an article by Jacques Sapir, economist specialist of Russia, on the issue of sanctions:

Today we know that the different economic and financial sanctions imposed by the EU, partly on US orders will cost around 180-250 billion to Russia in the next three years. These effects of sanctions over the next three years can be summarized as:

- Business refinancing Absence: 150-200 billion USD

- Absence of Foreign Direct Investments: 30-50 billion USD

- Reduction of industrial cooperation: USD 20-30 billion

- Reduction of access to advanced technologies: USD 5-7 billion

We note however that the financial part of the sanctions amounts to 180-250 billion while the industrial part of the sanctions amounts to only USD 25-37 billion. But here we must emphasize that these calculations are potential, and do not include the ability to find other channels and other vendors. (Note: the first line on the lack of refinancing can be reduced to almost zero, China has opened an unlimited credit to Russia).

However, such financial penalties also have consequences for the West. We can estimate the loss on interest paid to Western investors to 10 billion years. In trade, the loss for European producers amounted to 30 billion USD per year. Another phenomenon that must be considered is the development of import substitution, or by internal production (may represent 7 to US $ 13 billion), or by finding other suppliers (in Asia) which should represent 20 -22 billion per year. The total cost for Western countries should be 37-45 billion per year. To this must be added a restriction of demand that will not be compensated. Here we arrive at a total of 50-70 billion per year. This does not take into account the multiplier effect (called effect "second round" on the suppliers of the companies exporting to Russia) resulting from the interruption of trade with the West. For EU countries, the effects resulting from the indirect impact would be of the order of $ 180 billion. Here we must distinguish the financial effects (interest) and industrial effects. The financial effects will be mainly sensitive to the United States; industrial effects will be significant mainly in the EU. In fact, sanctions, and counter-sanctions imposed by the Russian government could cost the EU between 0.5% and 0.75% growth, and have a particularly heavy impact on countries which trade with Russia is highly developed, ie Germany, Italy and France. In this situation, do not increase sanctions was a priority. But the goal should be to eventually dismantle them.

One point in particular should draw our attention: the gas issue.

C - The question of gas

It was treated by the European authorities, and by the media, with a degree of absurdity that is breathtaking.

The big argument that was firmly told constantly was that Europe should be independent from Russian gas. Said so, it looks almost smart. In fact, it is an enormous stupidity, because the primary interest of Russian gas was precisely to allow Europe to diversify his supplies, and deliver her from the dependence of Algerian and African gas. Indeed, the European countries, which produce virtually no energy, can in no case escape from a total dependence on their suppliers. The question of energy independence does not arise, the only one that arises is the best possible management of this dependence. From this point of view, the delivery by pipeline is particularly advantageous because it creates a de facto interdependence between supplier and customer, since the last has the control of the terminal, and thus becomes the single customer possible. This is also why, despite the crisis, Russia has never wielded any threat to possibly cut gas deliveries.

What's going to happen now? Russia gave up the creation of a new pipeline that would have passed by Bulgaria, and chose instead to build a pipeline on the bottom of the Black Sea and leading in Turkey. Once in service, the pipeline through Ukraine will be closed. Consequences: Europe has lost all construction and maintenance -related jobs of the pipeline; she will not have control of the terminal; she must build the ships and all the infrastructure necessary to collect the gas in Turkey; Europe will remain dependent on Russian gas, and on Turkish benevolence too; the gas in question could eventually be delivered to other customers; it will finally be much more expensive because to the price of gas should be added the commission of the Turks and the cost of transport. When you think that the European Assembly welcomed the decision, it remains us only to cry.

D - The isolation of Russia

A fundamental element of this strategy would be to isolate Russia from the rest of the world, so as to break its economy, and to submit her to the US will. Official propaganda assures everyone that it works.

In reality, there is nothing more ridiculous than this claim, and the result is frankly contrary to what is advertised.

First, the idea of ​​isolating Russia is an incredible absurdity: with its 17 million square kilometers and its natural resources which provide her absolutely everything she needs, Russia is perfectly capable of living in complete autarky without any real serious trouble. If it exports raw materials absolutely necessary to its customers, it imports on the other side only products of consummation that people can easily do without. Isolate Russia from any commercial relationship would cause dramatic crises in Europeans countries, but only affect luxurious tastes of the upper class of the Russian population.

On the other hand, the only states that are beginning to cut their relations with Russia are Europeans. The rest of the world, particularly the superpowers which are developing now, India and China, in fact strengthen their links with the Eurasian giant, because they especially appreciate her ability to face the American hegemony. Before the financial threats against Russia, and in particular the reduction of credit, China is offering Russia the opportunity to use its unlimited credit capabilities, and they are up to 4000 billion. If you think that today there are only two major exporters of "rare earth" in the world, which are Russia and China specifically, we see what power the Russians would offer to their partner if they allowed him to take majority stakes in these fields!

The American attitude has greatly strengthened the solidarity of the BRICS, firstly because in daring to attack a European country, an ally of addition, and the size of Russia, the US government has shown that he cans assault any power, what is enough to seriously worry a country like China; on the other hand, Russia is the only state with an army capable of overawe American military power, therefore its alliance is particularly sought by the powers that do not have this possibility. Putin appears suddenly in these countries as a providential man. Chinese newspapers don’t stop to praise him, and his biographies sell for millions.

So where leads this policy of so-called "isolation" of Russia? to cut the world in two parts, on one side the USA and their European and Pacific allies, on the other the major emerging powers which will make the law tomorrow on the planet, and consider us already not as reliable partners, but as potential enemies, against whom it is best to arm.

Leave a comment

See also :

The destruction of Europe

The US intervention

The rise of American fascism

The constitution of Crimea

The Ukrainian far right

The crash of the boeing MH-17

The civil war

A disaster for Ukraine

The manipulation of the masses strategy

Toward a war against Russia

What thing the experts