The Train Has Left The Station.

In any business (I underscore it--business) dealings between people two major factors (and requirements) come into play, same, as a matter of fact, is true for dealings between nations, trust and fair trade. When conducting any business interaction I have to be completely sure that my counterpart is both an honest man, who doesn't plan to cheat me, and has something of equal (or near equal) value in exchange to the value I offer him (or her). The third factor which stands alone is doing due diligence when deciding who to deal with. It is simple, really, and doesn't require any special abilities. Well, evidently France's President Emmanuel Macron never heard of such basic requirements. While visiting Warsaw two days ago, Macron arrived to this conclusion:

While Moscow's misrepresenting of facts needs to be kept in mind, Macron stressed that Russia is part of Europe geographically and should not be isolated as the EU looks toward the future following Britain's departure last week. “I am convinced that we can build an architecture of stability, of peace, of trust in Europe only if we talk with Russia” but “not yield things to Russia, not forget what it did or what it does, but demand a deescalation,” Macron said. “I think it a major error to distance ourselves from a part of Europe that we don't feel comfortable about,” Macron said.

What Macron fails to understand here is that Russians, initially, viewed Europe as an entity which satisfied those two major requirements for fair business. Boy, were Russians wrong! Only when Russians returned to necessary practice of doing due diligence did they recognize how wrong they were. I think EU taking a very active part in unleashing the bloody mess in Ukraine, while prior to it sponsoring destruction of Libya and helping to unleash hell in Syria, had something to do with that. Plus who can forget Europeans exhibiting levels of hatered towards Serbs or even Russian Troops fighting Jihad Internationale in Caucasus not seen since, well, Goebbels. Russians remember all that. Since then, in reality much earlier, Russians precisely want to, paraphrasing Macron, "distance themselves from a part of Europe Russians don't feel comfortable about." In fact, Russians are truly grateful for Europe deciding to distance itself from Russia and that is where the whole "business dealings" paradigm shifts. Europe is not a reliable partner, period. It will betray Russia because it cannot fail to do so because Russian and European cultural genetic codes differ dramatically, even when on the surface they seem to be the same. 

For starters, Russians know extremely well what are the facts behind WW II, who and how started it. Russians know it extremely well because they finished that war as victors in it and had a good insight into causes and driving forces of that war. This insight comes with the territory for Victorious nations. That is why Russians most likely will not invite Poland to the celebration of the 75th Anniversary of Victory this year. France, however, is invited and Macron already confirmed his presence in Moscow on May 9. But France, as represented by her President, is not trying to be nice to Russia. Absolutely not, France, Germany or, for that matter, Spain know that Russians are not Europeans per definition of Europeanessness as it is accepted in Europe proper. Russians are rowdy, their men love women and their women love men, Russians still exhibit signs of utter cultural backwardness by being patriotic, loving math and physics over gender studies, they laugh (or feel sorry) at Greta Thunberg and when in Europe, for some reason, can beat the shit out of third world immigrants instead of trying to culturally enrich themselves by allowing those immigrants to rape Russian women or rob themselves. In general, those backward, KGB-loving Russians have no place in Europe and, that is the funny part, Russians are perfectly fine with that. Russians also love guns, they love to own them, shoot them and most of those Russkies are drafted into the Army which turns their toxic masculinity to 11.

But for Macron, expressing what amounts to a trivial geopolitical common sense, is all about France:

1. Not willing to become American lunch;

2. France's always acute fear of Germans combined with phantom pains of European superpowerdom and desire to speak on behalf of all Europe.

Of course, France's nuclear arsenal counts heavily towards resolving France's fears of German resurgence, at least for now, but it counts for absolutely nothing when France will face what the United States has in store for EU. United States needs EU dissolved and will eat each European nation after that separately. Macron figured that out and so did some Europeans. So, now they try to woo Russia as some kind of counter-balance to Europe's defender and upholder of European democracy across the Atlantic. The problem with this arrangement is that Russia doesn't want to deal with this anymore. Make no mistake, Russia can:

But she shouldn't. Moreover, there is this teeny-weeny factor of Trump and his "deep state" advisors still willing to "talk to Putin". That smells of conflict of interests. This is really a funny situation few could have predicted in 2014, but it is what it is--in the end, even if one is a scumbag in business relations, this scumbag still could be of interest if he has something of value. The ONLY value of Europe for Russia is as market, period. Russia needs to sell her hydrocarbons, and increasingly high value added finished goods to Europe. This trend will continue. While oil and other minerals constitute a bulk of Russia exports, take a look at some really interesting items which Russia exported in 2018. 

As you can see, finished goods and food are by no means unnoticeable in Russia's exports and their share will only continue to grow. I omit here internal Russian market which changes the economic outlook dramatically, when included into considerations, because Russia produces a bulk of finished goods for internal use. That means, of course, that EU is a competitor, not really a partner. Especially now, when Russia rolled out half-a-trillion dollars for National Projects which are Russia's projects, not EU's. Certainly, EU could have had a share, should it have been sovereign and friendlier to Russia political organization, but not anymore. You think Macron doesn't know it? Oh, yes, he does. He also knows (after all, Airbus HQs are in Toulouse), that not only Russians are moving away from Safran SAM-146 jet engines, but continue to manufacture SSJ-100s now planned with fully Russian-made engines. And, of course, guess what MC-21 and perspective CR-929 are for Airbus business? Right, direct and stiff competition. So much to take in for Europe. Plus, if someone failed to notice, some piece of really interesting news:

Power plant engineers have loaded 18 mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies in Unit 4 at the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant in Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Distinct from traditional nuclear fuel with enriched uranium, MOX fuel pellets are based on the mix of nuclear fuel cycle derivatives, such as plutonium oxide bred in commercial reactors and uranium oxide derived by defluorination of depleted uranium hexafluoride—the so-called secondary tailings of uranium enrichment facilities.Beloyarsk Unit 4 (Figure 1) is a BN-800 design, the world’s most powerful fast neutron reactor. It was a POWER Top Plant in 2016. Rosenergoatom and TVEL (the power generation and nuclear fuel divisions of Rosatom State Corp., respectively) plan to load another batch of 180 MOX fuel assemblies later this year. The group has committed to replacing all remaining uranium-based fuel assemblies with MOX fuel by the end of 2021. If completed as planned, it will be the first time a Russian fast neutron reactor operates with a full load of MOX fuel.

I guess this is not a good news for French nuclear power industry, which, inevitably, also will be sabotaged by "climate activists", while Rosatom already has almost 70% of international market to itself. So, when one begins to review one after another European purely economic perspectives--they do not look that bright. And then, of course, there is an issue of EU's military-industrial complex which was pretty much driven into the ground by US "defense" arrangements with Europe through NATO. And here is the catch for EU, Russia and the United States are bound to some sort of settlement inevitably, because Russia is a major external geopolitical factor in American departure from unipolarity. Not to mention the fact that both are the only military powers capable to annihilate human civilization (forget each-other) completely out of own resources. That is what matters here. EU in all that is NOT a factor and will continue to be such no matter how Vladimir Putin's calls for New Yalta Conference will be responded too.

In the end, what can Europe offer Russia but her market? Technologies? Ahh, tired myth of those Russkies capable to only produce crude weapons--many in Europe still believe in that. Some cannot still conceive that Russia produces world-class own diagnostic medical equipment, electronics, processors etc. They will have to learn to live with that. And while at it, some breaking news from free United Kingdom--UK decided to lift some sanctions from Russia since UK needs Russian pipes, aluminum and you name it. And the main question which arises in the midst of this rat race is: what about Skripals, what about LGBT, what about "democracy", and what about those "principles" which guided suicidal EU (and American) policies domestically and especially against Russia? I'll open a secret--there never were any principles and the only thing Europe loves is power--this power today is in Russia's corner. Because of that many will gravitate to this power, which is not only in massive military capability but, and you may have guessed it already, I will quote incomparable Correli Barnett, yet again: 

EU was too late to the accelerating train of history, which left the station, leaving Europeans and their Brussels bureaucracy and "elites", those who can still think, to contemplate Old Europe's fate as an object good only for being used as a relatively senior card in a huge geopolitical game and no amount of appeals to those who hold all the trump (pun is intended) cards will change the outcome. Damn, Russia again will have to deal with Anglos as was the case in 1945(/sarc). 

Does United States Have Enough Currency?

No, I am not talking about good ole' greenback, which could be printed by US FRS and Mint (coins) thus flooding the world with papers and inflation. Hey, beats dealing with it domestically and why, when inflation could be exported to some other locality. I am talking about real hard currency which exists beyond the virtual world of Wall Street indices and blown out of proportions, grossly exaggerated US GDP figures. I am talking about the hard currency of the real military and economic weight--a geopolitical hard currency. It is this currency, which rules the world, always did, always will. Donald Trump's victory changed geopolitical calculus dramatically and underscored a titanic scale of changes world is coming through now. For starters, it became (as was anticipated with Trump) OK to ally with Russia to fight this ISIS filth. These are great news but let's slow down a bit and look at even larger picture. Even before President Trump's Inauguration a bunch of the US foreign policy "experts" started to float the idea that now, that Trump is a winner, United States might do a "trick" on Russia, or, go full Nixon-Kissinger in order to regain Russia as an ally in US struggle with China. There are three problems with this plan, though, especially as seen from Russia and by that I do not mean the only source of US "knowledge" about Russia--a collection of US sycophants from Moscow's uber-liberal Parnassus--but from people who deal with facts:

1. It is simply inconceivable for any foreign policy realist to consider Nixon-Kissinger "opening of China" (understandably, as a counterweight to the Soviet Union at that time) any sort of a success. Speaking frankly, it was this very policy through which United States initiated and then accelerated the growth of her own economic and, to a degree, geopolitical competitor. Now, with China's nominal GDP being larger than that of the US, not to mention the actual GDP which is in manufacturing--here, the gap is huge and continues to grow--how can one in his own mind consider this any kind of success or a viable geopolitical concept? We all know the results of this "success", which, in large part, is responsible for deindustrialization of the United States--the very factor which, among very few others, defines nation's geopolitical weight. Russia's professional analysts know the real situation in the US economy. And that is why Russia's leadership, at least at this point, is not convinced at all that this game should be played. Let's face it, China as an economic entity is worth for Russia not simply more, but on the order of magnitude more than the United States.

2. For some reason, many people in the US who offer this bizarre triangulation with using Russia as an ally for the US in her struggle against China, still reside in late 1980s-ealry 1990s thinking that Russia is simply still enamored with the US, her standard of living and culture. This simply has no bases in reality anymore. Russians, unlike it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, are simply not interested in US anymore. Other than Russian traditional fear (justified completely) that some nut-job in US will start a war with Russia, the appeals of US "democracy" and liberalism faded dramatically and overwhelming majority of Russians merely go about their daily business and live their lives. The US in Russia today are viewed mostly from the point of view of a threat--a dramatic departure from 25 years ago when United States were viewed as an ally and a friend, those sentiments disappeared pretty fast. Russians' "going about their daily business" involves a lot of bread and butter issues and here United States are not even in the first ten of Russia's main trading partners but, as you may have guessed it already, China, sure as hell, is. Thus the irresistible and highly warranted question arises: what's in it for Russia? What can possibly United States offer Russia economically, when economic dynamics in Eurasia offers Russia a host of incredible economic opportunities?  

3. The reason this blog was started. It is a huge one, a defining one--Obama's Administration and its cabal of neocon war criminals is responsible for what even during Cold War seemed inconceivable. United States, her paid for, encouraged and supported proxies, Ukrainian neo-nazi junta, spilled the blood of Russian and Russo-phone civilians in Ukraine. I stress it, not military--military is expected to face death, but civilians. Russians do not forget easily these things and it was here where a huge obstacle exists culturally--US political class as a whole simply has no grasp of what a spilled blood means in international relations. This factor is tectonic and can not simply be dismissed. That is what behind statements by many high ranking Russian officials when they admit that repairing Russian-American relations will be a long and arduous process. Truth is, today Russians simply do not trust the United States, period.

Both Russia and the United States need to repair their relations and a lot of good will come out of it, but considering Russia as a possible Nixonesque "counterweight" to China? I don't think that the United States has enough geopolitical (and financial) currency to "buy" Russia. Yes, the discussion on new geopolitical structure involving US, China, Russia and, eventually, strong regional players must start today and this is possible with new Administration, but Russia is not for sale in any, even the most sophisticated,  geopolitical game as a "counterweight" or as a mercenary. The game has changed and so did Russia, China, United States and so did the world at large. We either start to negotiate with each-other or we will perish all under the ruins of the old world.  

UPDATE on a long way to normalization of relations.