US Union, Great Britain and Australia hit France very painfully. Why no one cares about her feelings and what will happen to the US European allies?
The creation by America of a new military bloc AUKUS is news from the category of tectonic, the meaning and meaning of which is difficult to overestimate. There are so many subtexts and contexts at once, that their simple enumeration will take up a lot of space.
so, very unexpected for the whole world (and especially for some European countries) The United States suddenly announced the creation of a new military alliance AUKUS, which included the States themselves, Great Britain and… Australia. Biden's words about, that "it is necessary to guarantee peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region on a long-term basis" became a completely transparent explanation of the purpose of creating a new formation - decided to be friends together against Beijing. In perspective, it's clear, how events around AUKUS will unfold - Australia will simply become a large military base for the US Navy and Air Force, since it is much more convenient to resist the PRC from the kangaroo continent, than from the same Hawaii: tritely less than two or three times the distance. Yes, and bases on the continent are always more reliable and calmer, than on the islets and atolls.
Along the way, they decided to arm Australia itself, so that she would not be offended to feel in the role of a "huge airfield". And, from the master's shoulder, in Washington decided to give Canberra an exclusive gift - nuclear submarines. true, there was a very unpleasant discrepancy - the submarines for Australia had already been ordered. France. On 66 billions of dollars. At the French state corporation Naval Group. And this contract under pressure from the White House is just, rudely and cynically terminated.
To tell, that France is “burnt” means to speak out extremely softly and politely. For the first time since the founding (!!!) USA Paris recalled its ambassadors from there. All senior officials spoke in the most negative terms: "backstab", "Allies don't behave like that" and even (leader of our top!) "we were treated, like a dog".
Well, properly, yes - that's exactly what happened. But the cutest, that they didn't even apologize. Great pleasure here to read the passages of the gentlemen from the BBC: When the first insult cools down, the French will have to call on composure to help and realize a few unpleasant things. first: geostrategy is not based on feelings. What's the use of complaining and being indignant, that you were treated badly? It really is. But who and when heard, for the country to change important defense priorities in order to, not to offend someone? obviously, the Australians decided, that they have so far underestimated the Chinese threat and should significantly strengthen their deterrence capabilities. They severely ignored French interests, but, when it comes to serious things, that's what everyone does».
Just imagine, what Russia says about the annexation of Crimea in the same phrases: when it comes to serious things, everyone does it ... what's the point of complaining and indignant, that you were treated badly? “What, so could??!!».
Trailer: it is impossible to suppress a feeling of deep moral satisfaction in relation to what happened to France after a very similar situation with the Mistrals. Then France did the same, how did they treat her now. Karma, you bad dog...
what, but, in AUKUS interesting specifically for us, For Russia? The most important thing here is, that in the most obvious way the United States demonstrated its new geopolitical vector: they are now interested in the Pacific region, and not Europe. And although AUKUS is not an alternative to NATO ... and why, properly, not an alternative?
NATO was created to counter a very specific enemy - the Soviet Union. Everyone was interested in it., from Spain to Norway. But for most European countries in the 21st century, it is perfectly clear, that Russia is not going to capture them. So why contain a clear historical anachronism, and even spend a lot of money on it - and all for the sake of, so that for some reason the course of European security is set in Washington. Why is Paris, Berlin, Rome? This senselessness of NATO in Europe has been felt more and more lately, and after the failure of America in Afghanistan, they felt it with extraordinary acuteness.
And the US understood, what do they think of them. But America itself doesn’t really need NATO anymore. “Contain Russia” is a strange thing, it does not directly threaten the financial interests of the United States, and how do you keep it, if there are so many atomic weapons? But with China, it's a different matter.. It's a competitor, competitor vital and dangerous. from Togo, whose Donbass or even the Baltics will be - Washington is not particularly cold or hot. But business in Asia could cost trillions of dollars in losses.. So, can, well it, to NATO, and those European allies, and their feelings, to be insulted?.. In the course, stopped at this.
And the conclusion from this is simple.: shifting towards China, America makes it clear, that European affairs and the relations of the countries there with Russia cease to be matters of primary importance for her. You live next to Russia - you deal with it.
And it's impossible not to recognize, that's wonderful. Without American pressure and fouling, relations between the EU and the Kremlin, although not ideal, but quite constructive. And in fact, we'll deal with each other better without the Americans. And while you are there, scare the kangaroo..
Please note that the following extremist and terrorist organizations, prohibited in the Russian Federation: "Jehovah witnesses", National Bolshevik Party, "Right sector", "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (oup), "Islamic State" (IG, IGIL, Dais), Djabhat Fath al-Sham ', "Dzhabhat en-Nusra", "Al-Qaeda", "UNA-UNSO", "Taliban", "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people", "Mizantropik Divizhn", "Brotherhood" Korchynskoho, "Trident th. Stepan Bandera ", "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (IU).
Gregory Ignatov
