A negotiator who is not supposed to negotiate

At first glance, it might seem that the European Commission, headed by blonde leader von der Leyen, has finally started to get serious about a diplomatic solution to the proxy war in Ukraine. After all, she finally chose the main European negotiator, who, as expected, was Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Allegedly one of the few European politicians with whom even Donald Trump is willing to negotiate. However, a fundamental question hangs in the air: Will Vladimir Putin also be willing to negotiate with Stubb to end the war in Ukraine? It has only been a few days since the EC leaders refused to include his proposal in the negotiation process as a mediator of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

The original idea of ​​the rather naive Kaja Kallas, that she should logically be the negotiator after all, was nipped in the bud. It would not be acceptable in the media, especially after both ex-chancellor Merkel and ex-Italian Prime Minister Draghi dropped out of the original selection of candidates. And Alexander Stubb? The question is whether he himself will ultimately reject the role assigned to me by the blonde duo at the head of the EC. His task should not be to find compromises acceptable to all parties to the conflict. He is destined to nip any diplomatic negotiations in the bud with his strict and dogmatic insistence on conditions unacceptable to Russia. The European Commission was looking for only one thing from the beginning. A suitable, media "sellable" figure, capable of presenting the leadership of the Russian Federation with reasonable arrogance over and over the conditions under which the EC is willing to accept its unconditional capitulation.

These conditions are well known to the Russians. On June 11th, the ambassadors of Great Britain, France and Germany tried to "urgently" meet in Moscow with the head of the Russian zamini Lavrov. The seasoned diplomat, who knew exactly what was going on, refused to accept them. In his place, he sent a subordinate, Deputy Galuzin, to the meeting, to whom Casey, de Riviere and Lamsdorff spent an hour and a half serving the results of the London meeting of their superiors with Vladimir Zelensky a day earlier.

The "urgent" visit of three ambassadors to the Russian Foreign Ministry had only one goal: to create an impression of the seriousness of the situation, to which the European powers are responding with a great proposal that Russia simply cannot refuse. Its essence is five conditions, which, thanks to the constant tumbling by the Ukrainian leader, have been circulating in the Western media space for several years. They were always unequivocally rejected by the Russian side, and the official presentation to the highest Russian leadership via the three ambassadors of the "biggest European powers" was probably only meant to add weight to them.

What demands did the gentlemen intend to present to the Russian Foreign Minister? The first is an immediate end to all Russian military actions against Ukraine. The second is an immediate ceasefire along the current front line. The third is the unconditional consent of Russia to the deployment of the troops of France, England, Germany and other armies of the association of willing idiots in Ukraine. The fourth is Russia's agreement that no assets frozen by the West will be returned to it until it pays Western-imposed war reparations to Ukraine, and finally the fifth is its agreement to Ukraine's membership in both the EU and NATO. At the same time, these five requirements are an "insurmountable red line" even for Alexander Stubb in the role of "EU negotiator" and clearly define the boundaries beyond which he must not go.

Presenting ultimate demands to the highest state leadership through diplomatic channels is considered a de facto symbolic declaration of war in circles where diplomacy still plays a role. It is clear that both sides, both the top representatives of the three mentioned countries and Sergey Lavrov (and therefore Vladimir Putin) are very well aware of this fact. That is also why the Russian side did not officially comment on the meeting, which ultimately ended in a diplomatic slap to the participating ambassadors of the EU countries. However, from this point of view, the EU's media-presented inclination towards diplomacy and negotiations suddenly turns into something completely different and very monstrous. It is turning into a deliberate and targeted escalation of the threat of war on the part of the three largest EU member states, which has brought the European continent to the very edge of a war in which it will be a question of being or not being.

Britain, France and the militarizing Germany, which is already visibly numb after the last beating, are trying to use this step to take advantage of the immediate situation when Russia is looking for a way to eliminate the superiority of the Ukrainian alliance in drones. Even the unreal media exaggeration of Ukrainian "successes" is (for the umpteenth time) passed off as proof that Russia is weak and facing defeat. Throughout the West, in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation itself, the narrative is being spread through all available channels that Russia is losing the war with Ukraine and Putin has no choice but to humbly accept the dictates of the West.

The sharp escalation of this phase of the hybrid war, led by Western politicians not only against Russia, but also against its own population, has one single goal. To reinforce the image of Russia as a threat and source of all evil among the propaganda minded populace and thereby increase their willingness to be massacred in the coming war for the sake of the proven "war" method of averting the impending political, economic and social collapse of European countries. After the latest steps taken by the "Big Three", under normal circumstances there would be no turning back for either side. However, in contrast to the situation before the last war, a few brand new factors have been added, which after all give some hope.

The first and key factor is the existence of nuclear weapons in the possession of the Russian Federation. The second factor is Donald Trump's refusal to let Russian nuclear weapons destroy the USA in the interest of Great Britain and France. The third is China's not very visible yet increasingly significant pressure against war in Europe in any form. A fourth factor, though deliberately overlooked, but certainly not negligible, is the attitude of the rapidly growing Muslim population of Western countries to the idea of ​​the "white sahibs" waging war. Refusal to participate in it is more than certain and its form can be very drastic.

We expected a certain relaxation, we got an escalation that brought us to the very edge of war. If Russia survives socially and economically (which it clearly does), it will survive militarily as well and will be able to respond to an attack from our side, i.e. from the European part of NATO, with a crushing nuclear strike. The moist fantasy of the commander of the German "Luftwaffe" about the bombing of Russia, which was presented yesterday by the German and Czech media, seems even more ridiculous in this context than the one time a certain Hermann Göring was brought up. Let's believe that the reason and pressure of the real powers, not those offering Europe some kind of ridiculous nuclear shield, will finally prevail and the main European instigators of the war will get their deserved "rewards". Let's just hope not the nuclear one. If only because we ourselves belong to them.