Russia-EU relationship

Yes, Russia should actually play same game against the west. Indeed constantly harping on fears for citizens who are in prison for sketchy reasons and for countries poorly judged by EU.

Russia sent the EU far and long, by Elena Karaeva for RiaNovosti. 12.30.2023.

If anyone in 2023 was waiting for news from the European Union regarding a change in the vector of degradation, then in the past year there was no such news, and there could not have been: once it got into the rut of Russophobia and envy of us, Brussels was unable to get out of it . And who would allow all-Europeans at least relative independence in foreign policy, in that part that concerns both us and our country? The river did not flow back.

The domestic results for Europe are absolutely devastating.

In Germany , this industrial locomotive of the EU economy (well, as was previously thought), the decline in production was approximately four percent, based on the figures for 2022. These are billions and billions of lost euros, both in the form of tax revenues and in the form of foreign trade balance figures.

Industry with high energy needs is being saved from the federal republic, either carcass or scarecrow, moving capacity to where gas and electricity are cheaper, and tax benefits are also not discounted. The German main pearl, the automobile industry, has already submitted to fate: experienced people realized that competing with three hundred huge factories in the Middle Kingdom is more expensive for themselves. Therefore, almost all investments are directed... to the USA . Everything was just as the globalists wanted, who dreamed of not only depriving the Germans of know-how, but also squeezing their economy dry.

In Germany's neighbor and friend, France , the situation is even worse. If Berlin can somehow shrug its shoulders, since its public debt looks relatively decent, then Paris is in these public debts (113 percent of annual GDP) like silk. He stopped being an eligible bachelor a long time ago, and this year he is not listed at all. Who will be carried away by them in a geopolitical sense, if Paris has become, in addition to all the problems, also a big bedbug and rat infestation at the same time? Within the framework of the “new ethics”, of course, it is customary to love living beings, but not when they bite and spread infections.

If the major economies have firmly established themselves in hell over the past twelve months, then what can we say, for example, about a country like Spain ? Everything related to tourism hurts there. Or about Belgium , which blocked the access of Russian diamonds to Antwerp “in order to deprive Russia of sources of financing,” but as a result lost colossal contributions to the kingdom’s budget.

It is unnecessary to mention about Italy , which always lives in conditions of two crises at once - uncontrolled but constant illegal migration and no less constant changes of governments.

It wouldn’t be out of place to say this. All ruling elites, both national and supranational, sitting in the capitals of the EU member states, in Brussels and Washington , have been put to death.

An interesting publication recently appeared in the globalists’ combat leaflet, Politico . This is an anti-rating of the ruling elite of the EU, and of those who imagine themselves to be “rulers of the world.”

The external results were no less disastrous than the internal ones, as Politico makes clear.

Von der Leyen, who took first place in the anti-rating, is directly called “wretched,” adding that she has been “banging her head against the wall all year, trying to prove that she rules over the entire European Union.”

Its leader, Borrell, who leads the diplomacy of the pan-Europeans, also got it (he thinks so). “Never missed an opportunity to say something stupid,” Politico noted.

Charles Michel , who chairs the European Council , this meeting of European temporary officials, was mentioned as “Le Belgian,” noting that he sleeps and dreams of how to “lead Europe,” that is, simply saying that Michel is baiting von der Leyen. High, high relations!

The list also included Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni , who was called “a hobbit playing a fascist.”

Well, Macron (in third place, just like in the old joke), who received the nickname Manyu the Liberated. Unable to come to an agreement with the opposition in parliament, the owner of the Elysee Palace, through the efforts of the head of the country's Cabinet of Ministers, regularly and regularly uses the norm of the constitution, which allows the president to pass any laws without discussion by the deputy corps.

The reason why all these people ended up on the list of political losers, of course, is not stated.

But what should we call it, if Ukraine and assistance to it are the main toxic assets of the EU, and whether you mention it or not, the result will be the same? Just as Washington wanted to destroy the EU, depriving it of both economic and political sovereignty, so it will continue to do this with particular cynicism next year, no one should have any illusions.

On the other hand, the same Politico also mentions Vladimir Putin , and, no less surprisingly, in a positive way.

"A man who plays Europe the way he wants." In principle, there are doubts only about the verb “want”. And the appropriateness of its use.

We, as a nation and a country, are completely tired of the EU, and we have completely forgotten about it. It is the European Union that is constantly hovering under our doors like a long-sent admirer (to the forest).

I would like it, this collective Brussels, to remain there next year too, no longer getting in the way of our
 feet.

https://ria.ru/20231230/rossiya_evrosoyuz-1919046202.html

In Europe, the killing of Russian children was called an “act of self-defense”, by Elena Karaeva for RiaNovosti. 01.04.2023.

The European bloc took four days to formulate its position on the terrorist attack on civilians in the Russian city of Belgorod.

The French Foreign Ministry noted that “Ukraine is acting in self-defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter .” Brussels went further than Paris and emphasized that “it does not intend to trust information coming from Russia .” Thus, the pan-Europeans, firstly, demonstrated that it is possible to kill Russians without any hesitation (in self-defense), and secondly, it is still unknown whether the children actually died.

The statement of the French Foreign Ministry in this sense gave the upper “A of the first octave”, thus setting up the entire PR orchestra to play the ordered score. It is also important to understand this: everything related to international relations and reactions to what is happening, according to the French Constitution, is the exclusive prerogative of the president, so the words of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs actually bear the signature of President Macron.

So, after admitting the failure of the counter-offensive and the subsequent realization of the futility of attempts, more or less secret, to persuade us to one or another format of negotiations (separate ones, that’s what it is), as well as the obvious freezing of the conflict that would follow, the Western elites decided go all out.
The problem is that today their situation, no matter how much they puff out their cheeks, protecting their “democracy and individual rights,” is very different from the situation that arose on the eve of the start of the SVO.

The economy, at least the one that belongs to the European bloc, is teetering on the brink of recession (and in Germany the decline in production is officially recognized), the industry cannot cope with rising prices, just as the population no longer wants to support Ukraine in its illusions by sponsoring " European dream" from his own pocket. If the press does not talk about this and if all-Europeans do not go out to demonstrate on this issue, this absolutely does not mean that they agree with this state of affairs. They have a reason to show dissatisfaction; elections to the European Parliament threaten to result in a total rollback of the current EU foreign policy doctrine.

Internally, the European Union is not the monolith it seemed to be in February 2022. Those who understand the damage the sanctions have caused, first of all, to the EU itself, consider it their duty to distance themselves from the center of decision-making the further, and the more openly, by any means necessary.

There is a third factor. And it is no less important than the first two.
Just as stress exposes the insides of any person, so the current crisis has torn off the last fig leaves that covered the sore spots of so many European leaders.

For example, it became known that the ex-chancellor of Germany and the ex-president of France blatantly lied to everyone. They entered into a conspiracy with their then Kyiv counterparties and, instead of supporting the implementation of the Minsk agreements, they pumped Ukraine with weapons and money, thus creating out of it their own and the European “Anti-Russia” project. The EU is also responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in the Donbass . And for the death of children. Brussels is now explaining that information of this kind, if it “comes from Russia,” cannot be trusted. This is a comfortable position. Convenient for scoundrels.

Over the past months, it has become clear that it was impossible to rely even a little on not only the former power elites, but also on those who are currently at the helm. No considerations of decency that do not allow disclosing the content of confidential conversations, even at the highest level, apply in our case. We were surprised to learn from the press that all the discussions that President Vladimir Putin had with Macron turned out to be the subject of a documentary about how he, Macron, tried, in his words, “to defuse tensions on the continent.”

In the war against our country - and we also understood this - out of powerlessness and anger, the West is ready to use almost its entire arsenal, calling its actions “support for the democratic choice of the people of Ukraine.” Although in fact - and this has also ceased to be a secret - in this situation the interests of the military-industrial complex are supported, almost exclusively by the American one, since the European military-industrial complex, and this is also absolutely obvious, is an oxymoron.

So, after the failures of both political and economic containment of Russia (the proxy war was started precisely for this purpose), Brussels, Paris, Berlin , and Washington , realizing that on the line of combat in the Northern Military District zone, their affairs were soft speaking, not brilliant, they decided to start fighting with civilians. For now, verbally - saying that the death of children is a legal “act of self-defense.” Well, adding that information about executions with cluster munitions, if it comes from Russia, cannot be trusted at all.

They shot at themselves, they killed themselves. Or they burned themselves. Like in Odessa in 2014.

We should remember and clearly understand that such rhetoric will be dominant for some period of time, and it’s time to stop thinking that we will be allowed to live in peace.

No. They won't give it. Until we defeat them. All of them. We will not win completely, completely and unconditionally.

https://ria.ru/20240104/evropa-1919697606.html

Macron decided to make the war with Russia profitable, by Dmitry Bavyrin for RiaNovosti. 01.21.2024.

The locomotives of the European Union - Germany and France - are out of sync. Previously, they lived in perfect harmony: together they opposed Moscow, together they helped Kyiv, together they invented sanctions, together they trained the Armed Forces of Ukraine, together they handed over national sovereignty to the Washington regional committee, and now they have the powder of war apart.

In the Bundestag, only 178 people voted for the transfer of Taurus long-range missiles to Kiev, three abstained, and the remaining 485 parliamentarians opposed it. After this, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said that the Bundeswehr “cannot go all in” with regard to the supply of weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine: its resource has been exhausted, so it’s up to other NATO countries.

Different moods in Paris . President Emmanuel Macron promised to transfer 40 long-range SCALP missiles and “hundreds of bombs” to Ukraine , and Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu reported on the success of the transition to a “war economy”: the production of 155-mm shells and fighters has tripled (from one to three aircraft per month), and CAESAR artillery systems - doubled.

And all in order to “prevent Russia from winning,” in the words of the same Macron.

It may seem as if the Germans are slowly crawling away from military participation in the conflict around Ukraine, paying off their role as the second most important (after the Americans) financial donor, while the French are determined to fight to the last Ukrainian.

At the same time, France’s personal interest in “victory over Russia” seems to be lower. Western countries are taught to live by the dogma that after defeating the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Russian troops will switch to one of the NATO countries. This axiom is for the authorities in Kiev, Washington , London , Warsaw , Prague and Berlin (Pistorius, for example, stated the likelihood of war between Russia and NATO in five to eight years), but not in Paris. Macron justifies his “we won’t let Russia win” with reasoning in the spirit of “a bad example is contagious,” and not with a paranoid expectation of a military conflict with a nuclear power.

Whatever the actual explanation for all these Franco-German contradictions, the Germans should not be credited with sanity, peacefulness, or the ability to make decisions without regard to the United States . The incident in the Bundestag is explained by the fact that the resolution on the transfer of missiles was introduced by the opposition faction of the CDU -CSU, and therefore those politicians from the ruling coalition who were campaigning for such a transfer also voted against it. This is not a matter of pacifism, but of a boring internal political struggle over an agenda.

When the Americans are pinned down, the Bundestag will vote again correctly. Chancellor Olaf Scholz directly states that he focuses on partners in arms supplies to Ukraine.

Germany is a member of the Western coalition condemned to submission, from which one should not expect Frond. At least, all previous opportunities for it were missed by the Germans, although it was for them that the adventure of confronting Moscow was especially costly (more expensive only for Ukraine).

In the coming year, this coalition will act according to the plan approved in Washington. It implies that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will go on the defensive in order to gain time for rearmament and mass mobilization, and in 2025 they will make another attempt at a “counter-offensive.” Their logistical support, having strained, must again be taken over by the West, and the scare about the inevitability of a Russian attack on one of the NATO countries is needed as an argument against internal and external skeptics.

For Ukraine, this risks becoming a game of destruction, while for the West the principle “if I don’t get there, I’ll keep warm” applies. Reasonable people there hardly believe in the military defeat of the Russian Federation and the “restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” but they still expect to drain part of Russia’s military power from the Armed Forces of Ukraine (in the future, this will probably explain why the “attack on NATO” never happened).

It can be assumed that the role of expensive and scarce missiles such as SCALP and Storm Shadow in this game is to hunt for the Russian fleet.

This logic does not fit well with Macron’s decisive attitude with his “war economy” and declared readiness to fight with the Russian Federation until victory, which is not visible in the example of Germany. The point is probably that the French saw a “window of opportunity” in a situation that only promised losses for the Germans. They need the “war economy” not for Ukraine, but for their own sake.

Expanding military production immediately by several times is a truly significant achievement. We are talking about a knowledge-intensive industry and the production of extremely popular goods with high added value.

The French have long dreamed of taking second place in the list of world arms exporters and back in 2022 they brought the amount of transactions to almost 30 billion euros. The current restructuring of the global market and the special circumstances for Russia (second place has traditionally been ours) give them a chance.

Germany is also a significant exporter, but it will not be able to take advantage of the opportunity: the French have settled in more comfortably. They did not depend on Russian energy resources like the Germans. Unlike the Germans, they did not abandon nuclear energy. Their central government has significantly more powers, and therefore freedom of maneuver in shifting resources from one pocket to another.

The French economy has many problems, but the industrial decline is a German problem. For Paris, increasing the production of modern weapons is both a profitable enterprise and a realistic plan. Regardless of the fate of Ukraine, the Rafales and Caesars will not remain unclaimed.

In other words, what is death for the Ukrainian, and loss for the German, is economic reform for the French. Minister Lecornu happily emphasizes that the initial expansion of military production has given the country at least ten thousand jobs.

Whether this business, as if doomed to success, will work out, time will tell. So far it has shown that under the ambitious President Macron, who often shines in theory, the French have complete failures in practice: the Anglo-Saxons do not respect, the Turks and Arabs despise, the Africans are driven out. There is nothing to say about the Russians.

With such "luck" there are usually no victories.
However, being French never meant winning. Being French has always meant trying.

https://ria.ru/20240121/voyna-1922539030.html

From Moon of Alabama:

Shortly after his interview with Tucker Carlson Putin had another one with the Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.

The next part I'd like to share is about the fake Greens of Germany:

Zarubin: Speaking of nationalism, Nazism and fascism, you know, I will tell you something that may sound strange. First, Ms, what is her name?
Annalena Baerbock.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, Baerbock (I do not want to mispronounce her surname) represents the Greens party. Many representatives of this part of the European political spectrum speculate on people’s fears and engage in fearmongering about what might happen in the world due to climate change. Later, they speculate on these fears, fanned by themselves, and follow their political line that differs greatly from their earlier programme, with which they assumed power. This is what is now happening in Germany. For example, the share of coal has increased in the national energy mix. The share of coal was already higher than in Russia, and it has now increased even more. I mean, what happened to the “green” agenda? This is the first thing.
Second, the German Foreign Minister and people like her, are, of course, hostile towards Russia. In my opinion, she is also hostile towards her own country because it is hard to imagine such a high-ranking politician treating the economic interests of her country and people with such disdain. Right now, I will not go into details, but this is exactly what is happening in reality, and we can see this.
The next part of my statement will probably sound out of tune with what I have just said. I do not think that the current generations of Germans should assume complete political responsibility for everything perpetrated by Nazi Germany. It is impossible to blame the current generation of people for what Hitler and his cronies perpetrated in Germany and other parts of the world, in Europe and so on. I believe that this would be unfair. To be frank, sticking this label on the entire German nation is an unfair position; this misuses what people experienced, what the people of the Soviet Union experienced. To my mind, this is unfair and inappropriate. We should proceed from present-day realities and see who is doing what, and what policy they are conducting.

This is a typical case of Heine's Maskenfreiheit, that is, the "freedom" conferred by the use of masks:

Borrell made an unexpected statement about the conflict in Ukraine, 02.25.2024.

Borrell said that the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine will be decided in the coming months.

MOSCOW, February 25 – RIA Novosti. The outcome of the conflict in Ukraine may be decided in the near future, EU diplomacy chief Josep Borrell said in an interview with El Pais .

“ We must do more, and quickly: in the coming months the outcome of the conflict may be decided. To resist is to win,” he says.

Borrell added that EU countries need to increase their defense capabilities in order to be prepared for any possible events.

Last week at a security conference in Munich, Borrell said that the situation on the battlefield would be resolved in three months.

In early February, Rada deputy Yegor Chernev admitted that the situation on the battlefield was critical due to the lack of
ammunition among Ukrainian troops.

In addition, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov wrote a letter to his EU colleagues , in which he described the acute shortage of ammunition among the Ukrainian Armed Forces , and also complained that Russian troops use three times more ammunition daily.

https://ria.ru/20240225/ukraina-1929367646.html

So the 500 Russian physicists working at CERN are being kicked out. Time for Russia to stop sharing its intellectual resources with haters. Focus on domestic
projects of which there are plenty. No more funding for "prestige" international projects.

Despicable.

Perhaps the BRICS countries should make their own alternative projects to CERN, ITER, and the likes.

Russia should expand its new generation reactor projects. This includes the mixed fusion-fission design.

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrussia-develops-a-fission-fusion-hybrid-reactor-6168535

I bet NATzO will not try to kick out Russian participation in ITER since it will be dead in the water without them. Yes, really. Russia
produced critical components and is not just some also-ran. An ITER replacement with BRICS and non-NATzO participation is a good
idea. But I am skeptical on the viability of magnetic confinement super high temperature fusion. Fusion in the stars is not a gas
plasma process at 100 million degrees. It is a solid state lattice effect at much lower temperatures.

GarryB wrote:Regarding the loss of jobs at CERN, Russia is in the process of building its own ring and while it will be smaller than the one at CERN it should be able to be used to investigate things the bigger system can't. It might end up actually being more useful.

All the larger nations (US, Russia, China) have smaller facilities which do similar research to that made in the larger international facilities. It is just that without a certain sized facility some experiments cannot be done.

I think the center for particle research in Russia is located in Dubna.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Institute_for_Nuclear_Research

The collider energy is reflected in the ring diameter. So the next stage above the LHC is a much larger, more expensive to build and operate construction being pushed as
the next cornucopia of particle physics discovery (NOT).

Eventually they will need to build rings bigger than planets in space. Or maybe more sophisticated physics research could be done to figure out what is going on at a
more fundamental level instead of trivial smash-em-up experiments.

The focus should be on reactor design. Breeder reactors, in particular the ones being developed in Russia such as the BN-1200, effectively address the "waste" "problem".
The BN-1200 takes the processing of residual short-lived actinide waste to a level higher than the BN-800 which is already operating. But there is always value in
researching new reactor concepts. I wonder if fusion reactors can be based on the hydrogen bomb concept. That is, the fusion is triggered by fission but in a controlled
fashion instead of a nuclear blast. The hybrid reactor I mentioned above is operating in reverse of this. I think the magnetic plasma confinement fusion approach is not
going to be practical even if they get net energy out. For example, the laser confinement fusion facility in the US succeeded in getting nearly twice as much energy out of
the target pellet but spent 100 times more energy operating the lasers. The next big hype is going to be fusion created from solid projectile impacts driven by massive
electrical discharge devices. Again, there is a massive sink of energy required to produce boutique amounts of fusion.

I have not seen anything that would preclude fission-driven fusion as a basis for a reactor. Seems to me like feeding small amounts of tritium and/or deuterium would limit the
"explosion" to any degree desired. The challenge is getting the right amount of neutron flux from the fission initiator. This flux is likely much higher than in any current fission
reactor, but a critical mass fission explosion is not the only possible solution. Magnetic or electrical field confinement appears to be required to control the fission initiator.
Maybe all the tokamak research will have some value in other applications.

Russia has two such fast reactor projects. They have the sodium based BN-1200 (still being designed) and the lead based BREST-300 (under construction).

The VVER (LWR) nuclear power plants have also had improvements. For example the Kursk-II nuclear reactors being built right now use low speed steam turbines from Power Machines which are both more efficient and require less maintenance. The reactor design lifetime has been increased to 60 years with possible 20 years extension. And this isn't the limit for LWR design. For example there is a proposal for a VVER with supercritical water. Because it operates at higher core temperature it is 45% efficient vs 33% for current reactors. But it requires new alloys which are still under development and proper testing to ensure it will be reliable.

War with Europe becomes inevitable, by Elena Karaeva for RiaNovosti. 04.13.2024.

The European bloc - in any century and under any social formation - has always been a cradle rocked by the hand of war. Interstine, interstate, interreligious. In this part of the globe, war - either preparation for it, or the fighting itself, or a retreat after the end of the battle - was an absolutely natural norm of government and social structure. Everyone has always fought with everyone. The central government pacified the rebellious provinces, believers slaughtered others - “wrong” believers, the pretext could be anything, literally everything, even the desire of some to speak in the local dialect, and not in the dialect imposed from above and compulsory for use.

Europe was the very continent where the clash of civilizations took place - right up to the extermination of those who for some reason did not like the stronger and more powerful enemy.

Russia , which whenever possible tried to avoid intra-European and very cruel showdowns, several times had to, as an arbiter, separate Europeans who had gone crazy from the smell of blood.

Yes, yes, those same ones (or their descendants) who so loved to talk about “never again” when laying wreaths at the monuments of the fallen.

The statement by the chief of all-European diplomacy and security, Señor Borrell, who said “war in Europe is no longer a fantasy,” made just the other day, could surprise only a very inexperienced and naive person. Europe was and remains synonymous with war, even when it vigilantly monitored the amount of coal and steel (at that moment the main resources of the military-industrial complex) in its neighbors.

Having barely had time to be formed in its current format, the European Union immediately provoked a war almost on its borders, which allowed it to destroy Yugoslavia . Ignoring “necessary” ethnic cleansings and calling “unnecessary” ones “the fight against dictatorship” is the European know-how of how to deal with those countries that interfere with the expansion of “European values”, striving to preserve their civilizational principles and norms.

Now Europe, having passed 30 years in the EU format, that is, in the format of an empire, wanted to flex its muscles once again and chose Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder, blood, flesh and battle formations . The former Yugoslavia was also promised, by the way, prosperity and well-being in the European style, but here they were seduced by a slightly modified “European dream,” even if in the end the dream of well-being took the form of just lace panties.

All those same naive and still inexperienced people who fervently trust that very “never again”, alas, do not know how the pan-European bloc is preparing to shed blood. First someone else's. The enemy - and now we are the main enemy, appointed by the EC, and therefore we need to be “insected.” That is, reduce it to a position where you see in front of you not a person, but an insect, a mosquito.

An insect is unworthy, for example, of trust. Decent gentlemen are no longer supposed to talk to insects. This was stated by the current President of France Macron, and the ex-President of the same France Hollande, and then by the head of the country’s Foreign Ministry Sejournet.

It wasn’t just lukewarm water coming out of the tap—real boiling water came out.

The same Macron, albeit with plucked hawk plumage, quite openly says that transferring the economy to a war footing will have a very good effect on the life of the country.

On the same day, it becomes known that the only French aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has been transferred under NATO command.

The Europeans are preparing for war with us gradually, slowly, pedantically, trying not to make sudden movements, but trying to avoid surprises.

They understand perfectly well that the Ukrainian resource for subcontracting military operations against us is practically exhausted. And in the war they started against us, Kiev’s loss is equal to their defeat. And above all, ideological defeat. They cannot question the principles of the expansion of globalism and return to the partnership that, by and large, once suited both us and them. This is not a loss of face, this is a loss of hundreds of percent of profits.

Therefore, yes - war, therefore yes - this word is being put into circulation.

And so yes, they will fight us for money. And they will lose.

And so yes, we will defeat them. Because we are obliged to preserve the country, protect the Motherland and preserve our traditions. For us, this is the highest stake we have all faced in the new millennium.

https://ria.ru/20240413/evropa-1939690168.html