© 2019 AFP / Ben Stansall
If one of the main Newspapers of the country openly calls for foreign intervention, then the case in the country is bad.Such a conclusion can be drawn after reading the cry for help issued in the form of column and has been published in the respectable London edition of the Financial Times, which is the flagship of British and European business press. The column was titled “How foreign intervention can save American democracy”, but its author — a famous British-Dutch journalist Simon Kuper — requires that foreign intervention has saved not only American democracy, but also the UK.Of course, the thesis of the necessity of foreign intervention can be attributed to corporate and subtle British humor, but there are two pitfalls. First, the Financial Times is not a humorous publication, and secondly (and most important), all the problems about which Cooper writes, was real. They just usually do not recognize. And not to mention them out loud — quite embarrassing. But the rules of decency are violated, the mask dropped, democracy is considered to be in danger, and foreign intervention announced (albeit perhaps ironically) a means of saving the United States from the civil war, and the UK — from the corrupting Russian influence.The author of the Financial Times opens the text bold thesis: “How to stop the civil war,” (title. — Approx. ed.) on the cover of the latest issue of the magazine the Atlantic. I can offer way: the international community must make an intervention in the United States. Of course, Americans have the right to self-determination, but the priority now is the preservation of democracy.”A fine game that “intervention” in English can be translated as simply the intervention, and as a real military occupation.All have long been accustomed to the fact that in London ostentatiously wipe his feet on the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination. But few people expected to read such a formula against the United States. The UK also got “Much more “manual” Britain also needs observation. Like the Americans, the British maltreated (political. — Approx. ed.) opponents as traitors. Both countries now intend to resolve the conflict through elections in the format of “winner takes all”.These scenarios rarely end well, warns former Minister of the government of Yemen, Rafat al-Akhali, researcher at the Oxford school of public administration name of Blavatnik. He says: “a Lot of people in the regions in which we operate, I thought that it would be necessary to disseminate their experience to the national dialogue in the UK and other countries. So should look like the intervention in USA and maybe in the UK?”If you comment on this passage in the same style in which is written the text of the Financial Times, it is impossible not to notice how a specific way our British partners interpretiruya curse in his address. It is easy to imagine an Afghan, Libyan, Iraqi or resident of Donbass, which mentally or aloud wishes of Washington and London to burn in the fire of independence and the civil war, but the British gentleman and intellectual, and concludes in the style of “Yes, this is the successful experience of national reconciliation should be moved to the Western world.”It would be funny if the British Pro-European politicians, and especially us Democrats tried to use a typical Maidan technology to achieve political victories: allegations of election fraud, attempts to organize a “third tour”, as Ukraine, in the form of a “second referendum on Broksita”, the dehumanization of political opponents who call racists, fools and agents of Russia, i.e. the entire set, in addition to direct armed rebellion, already developed without any foreign intervention.
It is noteworthy that the author seriously proposes to use to write a new US Constitution and the first Constitution for the UK experience in Afghanistan in the name of saving democracy.Trump, he proposes to send into exile to Russia, like Yanukovych, representing the rejection of the impeachment (and likely in prison) as a concession in the name of democracy and civil peace.For the final salvation of the US and the UK proposes to insert in the Constitution a protection against external influence on the election, and the reason stated “Russia’s success in the UK and America in 2016”, which is now, it appears, is preparing to repeat India intervening in British parliamentary elections. And for final protection, it is proposed to introduce external foreign supervisors for the “democratic authority” elections in the United States.However, even the author himself does not believe that these measures will help. And the text ends with a sad statement and a rhetorical question: “But let’s not be too optimistic. In the best case (outside. — Approx. ed.) the intervention will freeze the overlapping on each other ethnic, economic and regional conflicts. Then the question arises for the international community: how much blood and money it is going to spend on a country that may not be ready for democracy?”Really sorry that does not answer the obvious counter-question: who, in fact, in this case, will perform the role of the international community, which will be “blood and money” to pay for forcing the US and possibly the UK to democracy?For obvious reasons, the Financial Times can’t imagine in this role Russia is unlikely to agree to China. From the list of potential “appeasers”, probably should also be deleted (according to the logic of the author of the Financial Times) India, which allegedly interferes in British elections. And who’s left then? Does Simon Cooper in the pages of the leading British publication suggests that British democracy has to save French soldiers in London or that a peace Treaty between Donald trump and the “Clinton clan” can be signed under the muzzles of the rifles of the soldiers of the Bundeswehr?This is obvious nonsense, and it means that those who are hoping to save the USA and the UK from slipping closer and closer to a civil war or turning into a “banana Republic,” not hope in anyone.It should be emphasized that the process of “Ukrainization” or turning into a typical South American “banana Republic” with coups, civil wars and perpetual independence is what we have been writing and not just us, although the reason for the “Ukrainization” of America and England have different sources vary.We wrote: “the Most astonishing consequence of the color revolution in Ukraine — that its success (and it was, from the point of view of American organizers and instigators of the Kiev coup, a triumph) was the cause of radical, rapid and extremely destructive Ukrainization of American domestic policy. This process which is possible with a touch of irony to describe as “the transformation of Washington in Kiev-on-the Potomac” is plausible and quite predictable ending: the disintegration and civil war.”
A few days ago a major American newspaper the New York Times published an article “the US is starting to resemble Ukraine” and Bret Stephens (economic journalist who watched the Ukraine in 1999, the Wall Street Journal) carried out some terrifying Parallels between modern Washington and Kyiv: the persecution of political opponents; politician, lost the election, losing not only power, but also is in prison; the demonization of political opponents; the influence of the “shadow figures” (oligarchs) on public policy; the use of political power to conceal the crime and, of course, the influence of Russia.The author of The New York Times believes that the blame trump and his impeachment can save America. It’s exactly the same logic that guided the authors of the Maidan: they thought that in the case of murder or fleeing of Yanukovych all over. But it turned out that, in fact, it has just begun. It’s not a trump and not in Yanukovych. If the dehumanization of political opponents of the Maidan and the use of technology has become a Central feature of political life, then the consequences are inevitable: at least this degradation of politics and Economics, as a maximum — the civil war and the disintegration of the state. Foreign intervention and impeachment will not help, but to write off all problems on Russia, of course, possible. But, as Ukrainian experience shows, the benefits of this very questionable.Ivan Danilov