Kubilius is a traditional champion of the anti-Russian line of Western countries
A photo: EAST NEWS
In European living rooms, whose inhabitants seem despondent at the lack of cheerful news from the Ukrainian front, 2023 began with a discussion of the article by former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius “Our ‘Russian’ political complexes.” The veteran of the Baltic politics suddenly found himself in the role of almost a dissident, trying to resist the aggressive obedient majority of Russophobes who got to power. At the same time, one must understand (and this is clearly reflected in his text) that Kubilius is a traditional champion of the anti-Russian line of the Western countries, and in his current capacity as “Special Rapporteur of the European Parliament on Russia” (whatever that means), he is steadily and complaisantly pursuing the “party line “.
What upset and outraged like-minded people who had previously not particularly distinguished Lithuanian? In his publication, provoked by the scandal surrounding the Dozhd TV channel, he only urged not to treat Russians as “Untermensch” who are not capable of democracy and normal coexistence with neighboring peoples, and hinted at the need to reduce the degree of Russophobia in Western discourse. His impulse was dictated, again, by “noble” aspirations by the standards of today’s European political class – Kubilius, not without pathos, asks his comrades not to write off the so-called non-systemic Russian opposition, and humbly wait until the “revolutionary situation” matures in Russia, which must return to the map of the world the only acceptable version of our country for the West – with Kozyrev’s diplomacy, Gaidar’s economy and other attributes of the “golden era” of the nineties.
There is no point in discussing this seriously. Something else is important. Dreamers-“cubilius” of various stripes, it seems, finally ended up in the minority, losing in an unequal battle with adherents of a different, much less scrupulous approach. The desire to destroy Russian statehood by all means, destroying the country and provoking a myriad of internecine conflicts on its territory, has finally turned into an attribute of progressive Western rhetoric.
The Ukrainian crisis is seen as an existential battle, in which defeat is like death for Moscow’s opponents – therefore, Kyiv continues to be pumped up with weapons, forbidding the Zelensky regime not only to negotiate with Russia, but even to cease fire for a day or two. And that is why the proposal of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill for a truce for Orthodox Christmas was cynically and immorally ignored. This noble impulse, the only one possible for a believer (and, in principle, a sane) person, was rejected with sarcasm and malice by both the curators of Ukraine and their pupils. Justifying the continuation of the murder, the head of the so-called “OCU”, the schismatic Epiphanius-Dumenko, along the way, spoke out with arguments that Russia would soon crumble “into many small pieces”, absorbing with it the canonical thousand-year-old Church – it remains only to push a little. There is no time for sentiment.
Intoxicated with vivid fantasies about the bloody scenarios of the Russian future, both European politicians and their Ukrainian wards, apparently, are no longer able to conduct a normal dialogue, the purpose of which would be to end the suffering of the civilian population caught in the conflict zone. Having been given the opportunity to speak openly about their true desires, and, as Kubilius said, complexes, these figures no longer hide the fact that the crisis around Ukraine was provoked to implement a much larger goal that had been nurtured for centuries. Do they understand that by challenging the largest nuclear power they are putting their own peoples on the brink of catastrophe? Or, driven by the instinct of self-destruction, purposefully seek to end their moral suffering caused by centuries of existence in the shadow of a gigantic empire?
Perhaps we will find out the answer only in the final act of the unfolding drama. But even today it can be said with certainty that the narrow-minded, but soft-hearted old-regime politicians like Kubilius have ceased to determine the vector of development of European politics. They were replaced by radical fanatics, full of hopes to radically solve the “Russian question” that haunts them. And, of course, if not today, then tomorrow, they will receive an answer and a result that each time led to belated repentance of all those who underestimated the power and will of the Russian state.