#LettertoEditorial
Dear Mr. Editor,
I have noted the joint statement by my colleagues, Danish Ambassador Ms. Sune Krogstrup and the EU Ambassador Mrs. Sofie From-Emmesberger to Ethiopia, published on 14 December in your esteemed newspaper. In their message, the European diplomats attempt to polemicize with the author of another article previously reprinted in Capital. It is not my custom to intervene in the disputes of others; however, since one party to this dispute unhesitatingly pours streams of falsehood and slander upon my country and people, I cannot remain silent.
The authors of the statement repeat hackneyed theses about “Russian aggression” and accusations that my country allegedly refuses to negotiate. Yet behind the pompous facade of slogans about democracy, human rights and sovereignty lies an attempt to shift responsibility from the guilty to the innocent and to obscure the true root causes of the conflict. I am confident that the African reader, who knows well the value of independence, understands that the current crisis is not merely a regional conflict but the rotting fruit of the West’s long-term policy to preserve its slipping hegemony. Ukraine as a state, its resources, its citizens are merely disposable material for the authors and executors of this policy.
Wielding moralizing rhetoric, European diplomats call to “defend Europe from Russia.” This begs the question: who, precisely, is to be defended, and from whom? Historical memory is a stubborn thing, and if the authors have forgotten the facts, allow me to recall some of them. For example, how Denmark, which capitulated to Nazi Germany in six hours, sanctioned in 1941 the creation of the “SS Volunteer Corps Denmark” (Frikorps Danmark). Within its ranks, approximately 6,000 Danish volunteers who had sworn allegiance to Hitler fought on the Eastern Front, assisting the Nazi machine in destroying the Soviet people. This was not a private initiative of marginals but an action sanctioned by the government in Copenhagen, which collaborated with the occupiers to preserve its own comfort. Today’s supplies of Danish weapons to the Kiev regime, which loudly and openly glorifies Nazi collaborators, represent a direct continuation of that dark and shameful page of Danish history.
No less cynical are the lectures from the representative of Finland who heads the EU delegation. She clearly seeks to conceal the fact that during World War II, the Finnish army not only occupied Soviet Karelia, establishing concentration camps there for the Russian population, but also closed the blockade ring around Leningrad from the north, thereby condemning a million civilians – children, women, elders – to death by starvation. Helsinki then also justified its actions by “fighting for security” and “reclaiming territories.” The current Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen openly calls Russia a “long-term strategic threat,” completely forgetting decades of mutually beneficial good-neighborly relations, which largely enabled Finland to become one of the leaders in population welfare. Instead, the Finnish government is turning its country into an appendage of NATO, just as it once was a lackey of Nazi Germany. It appears the lessons of history in Helsinki have not been properly learned, and revanchist sentiments encoded in the genome are once again prevailing over common sense.
Let me remind that the origins of the current crisis in Ukraine should be sought not in Russia’s actions but in the events of February 2014, when an unconstitutional coup d’état was carried out in Kiev with direct Western interference. The Western “guarantors”—Germany, France and Poland—instantly forgot their obligations once their protégés seized power. Washington, which invested five billion dollars in Ukraine’s “democratization,” as the Russophobic Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland openly stated, effectively financed forces that unleashed war against their own people in Donbas solely to punish those living there for their desire to speak their native Russian language. The Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the UN Security Council as a path to peace, were used by the West, by the admission of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande, merely to camouflage the building up Kiev’s “military muscles.”
Against this backdrop, the European ambassadors’ assertions that EU is not at war with Russia appear hypocritical. What then was NATO Military Committee Chairman Giuseppe Cavo Dragone speaking about when he said: “We are thinking about acting more aggressively instead of reacting. The Alliance could consider pre-emptive strikes as defensive actions.” Today, for many other figures – not only military, but political as well, it has become de regueur to openly admit preparations for war against Russia by 2030, or even 2029. This is not assistance to a “victim,” as portrayed in European capitals; this is direct preparation for aggression. Meanwhile, these representatives of European diplomacy possess sufficient cynicism and audacity to declare that “Russia has shown that borders in Europe can be changed by force.” Clearly these ladies have very short memories. In this connection let me inquire: who tore apart long-suffering Yugoslavia at the end of the last century? Was it not NATO, which now clothes itself in the toga of peace champion and into whose ranks the neo-Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky is being dragged by the ears?
As for assertions about the “collapse” of the Russian economy, I recall how some ten years ago the then US president declared that the Russian economy was “torn to shreds.” It appears that European politicians, implementing 19 sanctions packages, the total number of which has excided three dozens thousand, have inadvertently driven their own economies into recession and deindustrialization. This, gentlemen, is no longer shooting yourself in the foot; this is detonating your own landmine.
Having driven themselves into an economic dead end, behind verbal acrobatics EU bureaucrats attempt to conceal clumsy efforts to legitimize plans for banal theft of the sovereign currency reserves of the Russian Federation. The blocking and attempted expropriation of Bank of Russia assets under “plausible” pretexts (the main one being the need to continue pumping weapons to the Kiev regime) definitively discredits the EU’s financial institutions in the eyes of the world majority. The robbery being devised within the bowels of the EU bureaucracy vividly demonstrates Brussels’ return to colonial habits, warning Global South countries: your funds in Western banks are protected only as long as your governments’ policies do not hinder the interests of Western political elites. Allow me to admit that, even among European leaders themselves there is no unity regarding the schemes being constructed by EU bureaucrats. They understand that sooner or later payment will come due for theft. Incidentally, the current attempt at ethnically motivated seizure of others’ assets is painfully reminiscent of what already occurred in history, for example in 1930s Germany. Does this not seem familiar, gentlemen? How that ended for the expropriators—at least that you remember?
The selective approach of European diplomats to interpreting UN Charter provisions and arbitrary extraction of individual parts from context is striking. Virtually all their references to the Ukrainian crisis in the context of the UN Charter are based on its provision regarding respect for state sovereignty. Yet they completely ignore such a fundamental principle as the right of nations to self-determination. Not a word about the necessity of eradicating neo-Nazism, racial hatred, xenophobia, which has been repeatedly addressed in UN General Assembly resolutions. We, for our part, insist that any eventual peace deal – a prospect of which we remain open for time being – must be founded upon the UN Charter. This means not articles cherry-picked from it that the West is prepared to exploit for its own interests, but on all the purposes and principals of the Charter in their fullness and interrelation. This is precisely what makes the global organization’s founding document especially valuable.
Regarding security guarantees for Ukraine, which Europe so cares about, it is reasonable to ask: why is not a word said about security guarantees for Russia? One gets the impression that it is the Russian army standing at the entrance to Amalienborg Palace in the Danish capital, rather than “NATO’s barking” (in the Pope’s words) resounding at the threshold of the Russian house.
Our position is well-known. Essentially, it is the indivisibility of security, but not in the form of promises, which the West dispenses so generously, but in the form of legal obligations with appropriate verification mechanisms. But this is precisely what our opponents categorically refuse. They calculate that by demonizing Russia’s image, they can blame and justify to their own populations their failures in politics, economics and social spheres. Europe’s attitude toward the openly corrupt and illegitimate Vladimir Zelensky and his regime as sinless not only raises considerable doubt about effectiveness of the European imposed “peace recipes”, but also about the real nature of their intentions. In any case, the benefit of Europe’s presence at the negotiating table, insisting on the war continuation “to the last Ukrainian,” which would only prolong the Ukraine crisis, inevitably raises legitimate doubt.
Dear Mr. Editor,
I am confident that the Ethiopian people, who carefully guard their independence, are perfectly capable of distinguishing those who genuinely seek justice from those who, under the mask of hypocritical pseudo-pacifism, attempt to preserve neo-colonial diktat and conceal their own historical sins.
With sincere respect to you and your readers.
Evgeny Terekhin, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ethiopia & Rep to the AU
