Go to ...

The Newspapers

Gathering and spreading news from various Russian Newspapers

The Newspapers on Google+The Newspapers on LinkedInRSS Feed

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

The revision of results of war concerns not Russia and not borders


Vladimir Putin compared the revision results of the Second world war with the opening of Pandora’s box – which although not original, but exactly. What is the theme of changing borders emerged on the eve of the 71st anniversary of the end of the Second world war, is also symbolic of the Anglo – Saxons who consider themselves winners in this, and in the cold war, want to cancel the Russian acquisition. But what in fact would mean a revision of the great war?

The theme of revision of results of war emerged during Putin’s interview to the Agency “Bloomberg”. First, the President was asked about whether he could cut a deal and “give” to Japan of the Kuril Islands. After he once again said we don’t sell territories, the journalist tried to “pin” Putin, saying that he gave China Tarabarov island, maybe Kaliningrad is ready to return.

“The revision of the borders is always a consequence of two reasons – wars, or the collapse of States”

Putin in the answer has reminded that with China it was a disputed territory, not acquired by the end of the war and confirmed the desire to find a compromise with Tokyo in that case, if relations with Japan will acquire the same character “high confidence,” as with the current Beijing (that is, when the Japanese will regain full sovereignty). And what about Kaliningrad, the mention of which the journalist tried to wrap as a joke, Putin said this:

“And I’ll tell you without any jokes. If someone wants to begin to revise the results of world war II, let’s try to discuss this topic. But then you have to debate on Kaliningrad, and in the whole of Eastern lands of Germany in Lviv, which was part of Poland, and so on and so forth. There is Hungary, there is Romania. If someone wants to open this Pandora’s box and begin to work with him, please, flag in hand, start”.

It is clear that no Kaliningrad Russia will never give up – but Putin has not casually reminded of the consequences of revision of results of war. The war of all against all – because at the end of the war in Europe has changed borders eight countries: Germany, Poland, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and the USSR. Now it is certainly not for eight, and 12 countries – instead of the Soviet Union were Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Moldova, and instead of Yugoslavia – Slovenia.

Germany, Italy and Hungary lost territory, Poland and Romania have gained more than lost, Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and Slovenia have purchased.

The change of borders has affected hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, tens of millions of people – some number of German settlers from Poland is estimated at 10 million. Germany lost its East, about a quarter of the whole territory 1937, Poland acquired the land, having lost at the same time, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine, Vilnius, and of other lands.

Former Polish lands (or rather, what Poland was owned on 1 September 1939) is now composed of four countries – Ukraine, Belarus, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. Poland will fight with them for the return of Lviv and Vilnius? And Berlin will once again put an ultimatum to Warsaw, this time about Silesia and Prussia? Italy will take Slovenia all her Primorye?

Romania any territorial problems with the four States of its former lands were Ukraine, Bulgaria and Moldova, and she herself is a former Hungarian Transylvania. The Czech Republic was forced to return the Sudeten Germans, and poles těšín?

Of course not, tell us Atlanticists – what it was about, almost all of these countries already in the European Union and NATO (except Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, but Chisinau and Kiev on the “right track”). What war – a common European house, where there is neither pole, nor Italian. It is only you, Russians, always some borders and curtains, and we “shared space”.

First, this EU a week, and the history of conflicts and wars between the European peoples date back centuries. Borders have changed dozens of times, peoples were expelled and returned, the state was going broke. The current European integration is not the first attempt to unite Europe, and that until she goes peacefully and does not guarantee its irreversibility. As there is no guarantee that it will remain peaceful in the future – especially if the situation gets out of control external control.

For example, instead of “Atlantic Europe” in Berlin is suddenly not threaten the construction of a new Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (that is, independent of the European project). And certainly any “unity of Europe” should not come at the expense of the Russian world – either geographically or economically.

The revision of the borders is always a consequence of two reasons – wars, or the collapse of States. After 1945, borders in Europe were revised only once, in the early 90s when the USSR broke up, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. Kosovo in the zero and the Crimea in the tenth was already a consequence of the collapse of the early 90s, a continuation of which was Ukrainian and the rift.

In Europe, there is one clear border between the Russian world and the rest of Europe. Within Europe itself there is a fuzzy border between Slavs and Germans, between the French and the Germans, between the Hungarians and Romanians. They will always swim and change, now in the position of victims were Serbs (lost after 1991, a large part of the state), I remember very well about their huge territorial losses following the Second world war and the Hungarians, who are not ready to forget about Transylvania.

Greedy eyes, which draw on Ukraine in Warsaw, Bucharest or Budapest, understandable – but holding them back is not so much the existence of American governance in Kiev as a clear understanding of what Moscow considers the whole of Ukraine is a zone of its vital interests. When the United States finally realize that they can’t tear Ukraine away from Russia, they could dramatically change the strategy and try to play in accelerating the collapse of the square, ordered to attack Warsaw and Bucharest – just for the sake of Russia has returned as “less Ukrainian”. So we have more than enough potential conflict points on the Western edge of the Russian world.

And it is clear who benefits from constantly to support the theme of revision of results of war. That Russia needs to return something, they say it is those who considers itself as the winner in the Second world war and the cold war. Atlanticists, i.e. the United States and the United Kingdom. Thus they are the only ones who use it the end of 1945, the occupying US troops are still in Germany, Washington full control of the defense and partially the foreign policy of Europe. The same applies to Japan – which the United States held in check even after they have warmed up “the problem of the Northern territories (i.e. territorial claims of Tokyo to Moscow).

Naturally, in order to better control defeated in world war II rivals, they need to constantly keep in shape. That is, to create for them the image of the enemy, the oppressor, the one who needs them. So it is understandable why Russia “should” all – Germany, Japan…

Because without that it will be impossible to answer the question, which in any case will be increasingly louder sound from the lips of Germans and Japanese: “why are American troops, and 70 years after the war are on our territory?”. And an honest answer gives Russia now the only question is, when Berlin and Tokyo will find the courage to repeat it yourself. So this is the real end of the Second world war – not a revision occurred at its end borders, and the return of the sovereignty of the two powers, it is a loser.

source

Related posts:
Media: Russian HQs in Syria twice fired at Israeli warplanes
Turkey has offered Russia joint fight against Islamic state
Putin and Obama shook hands and talked for an hour and a half
The parliamentarians considered the defeat of Russia in the UNHRC as unbridled defamation

Recommended

More Stories From Politics