Why the West demands Putin’s resignation


source: Getty Images

On the eve of the meeting of the leaders of G7, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a very interesting statement. His words were a direct signal to the world and, especially, to the Russian elite. For us it is an excellent occasion to recall some historical facts and think about the concept of sovereignty.

Harper said:
“Russia can not return to the G8, as long as Vladimir Putin is president … I don’t think Russia under Vladimir Putin belongs in the G7. Period. Canada would very, very strongly oppose Putin ever sitting around that table again. It would require consensus to bring Russia back and that consensus will just not happen “, – said the head of the Canadian government.”

The world of politics is always full of hints and half-tones. The words of the Canadian prime minister, said in a uncompromising tone, are not just his opinion. This is a direct signal. It follows closely after the signal sent by the Queen of Great Britain (who, by the way, is the real head of Canada, along with the UK, Australia and a number of other “independent” states, and it is she who appoints the formal “heads” – prime ministers – depending on her desires, rather than as a result of elections. Appointment of the winner of an election as the head of government is just a tribute to tradition).
In her throne speech she also spoke about Russia in a very tough language, saying that the United Kingdom will continue to put pressure on Russia. http://news.rin.ru/eng/news/111545/

A little over a week after the speech of the Queen, the Prime Minister of Canada was even more specific. His words are a signal to the elites: the West will not allow any normalization of relations to the “before-Crimea” format, as long as Putin is in power in Russia.

Before us we have an ultimatum together with a hint. The ultimatum “not to have good relations with Russia under Putin,” is addressed to the world elite, and is supported by the public flogging of FIFA and its leader, Joseph Blatter. And the hint, which the West has been sending for a long time, is for the Russian elite, but now, for the first time it became crystal clear:

“We, the West, do not like Putin, and we will never like him, and it means that if you want to normalize relations with us and restore them to their previous level, you need this to do something about him.”

It’s an actual call for a coup d’etat in one form or another. No matter what, it is crucial for them that Russia is led by anyone else, but the current president.

This is nothing new. Back in 2011, at the Bolotnaya Square (riots organized by the liberals during the presidential elections – transl.) we’ve heard the same words from the leaders with white ribbons on their clothes: “Putin must go.” Why is was necessary and what would be the result, we now see on the example of Ukraine. In Russia, the situation would have been incomparably worse. You can like or dislike Vladimir Putin, but there are facts which can not be denied. The example of Ukraine has shown how quickly and easily it is to turn “a peaceful country with contradictions and problems” into a country at war, with enormous challenges which, in fact, is collapsing into the abyss.

Amazingly, within a few months tens of thousands of people have learned to hate and kill each other and, without remorse, to use heavy weapons against their own citizens, which inevitably led not only to heavy damages, but also to the terrible losses and injuries among women, the elderly and children.

Russia has many problems. It’s not a secret. But we have already learned the experience of fast sliding into a civil war. Not only in 1917-1918, but also in 2014 in Ukraine. After all, we and the citizens of Ukraine are one people. Those, who live there are the same people as in Russia. And the terrible experience of Donbass is the experience of our nation. One nation.

Again, the attitude towards president Putin may differ (although the latest polls show a very high level of support, about 85%, which no other politician in the world can boast) but his role in forming social cohesion, unity and smoothing contradictions is undeniable.

Today, Vladimir Putin is a real national leader of Russia. And that’s why it does not suit the West.

To give just one example: Putin stopped the war in Chechnya relatively quickly with the support of the Chechens themselves, and the current elite in the Caucasus is largely oriented on the Russian president personally.

The West urges to remove Putin from power by any means, ostensibly in order to normalize the relations. Who can guarantee peace and tranquility in the Caucasus and other regions of the country in the event of an attempted unconstitutional action against the current head of Russia? Those who put forward the slogan “Stop feeding the Caucasus” and “we are the power”? Are they trying to say that the Caucasus will recognize their coming to power as legitimate? That the country will not fall apart?

We need to understand that, historically, coups always led to division, war and bloodshed. No matter how beautiful were the supposed purposes of the authors. There are no exceptions, and there can’t be, especially in a situation where a coup was instigated by foreign powers.

Our “geopolitical partners” are not saying anything new. Many times in history, their policy could be compared to the game of “good and bad cop” the other way round. “Remove your “bad cop”, put the “good” one in his place, and we will immediately establish good relations with you and everything will be fine.”
Using this method they deceived the people of the USSR during the Perestroika.
At the time of the Great Patriotic War, they failed. At that time, the Nazi propaganda trumpeted that the only reason for the war between Germany and the USSR was Stalin and his regime. As soon as the Russian people throw off the yoke of the Bolsheviks, there will immediately be peace, and the good Germany will help us build a “new order.” At that time, our people were seeing this “order” in action, and therefore we were not deceived.
The “foremen of Perestroika” remembered this lesson. What did they told us about Perestroika and democracy? That all the evils came from the Communist Party, and its partocrats. That all the problems of the country were caused by the communist idea. Abandon the idea itself, as well as the leaders and heroes who embody it, and the whole world will immediately open their arms for us. The golden age of mankind will begin. Because all the problems in the world are caused only by the Russian Communists.
We gave up communism and betrayed our allies (Afghanistan, Cuba, East Germany, and so on), but none of the promises from the West were fulfilled. We were not equal to them and did not become friends. Not because we did not want to, but because they never dreamed of fulfilling their promises. Democrats and liberals have destroyed our army and a significant part of the fleet, the Soviet Union broke apart, civil wars were (and are) going on in a large part of the former Soviet Union.

The promised peace and progress did not arrive. The outside world is is constantly trying to restrict our freedom. It does not look like an equality in the world is anywhere near. No one is taking into account our interests in solving the world’s problems. Nobody cares for our history, our feelings and our ideals.

That’s the result of the scheme “change what does not suit us, and everything will be fine.” This is nothing else but a cynical and hypocritical deception.

Incidentally, such an approach to international politics tells us something about our “partners”.
They do not consider us equal because they don’t respect us. Can we imagine Russia saying to Germany: “remove Merkel and we will cancel the food embargo against Germany”? Or: “Russia will be ready to improve relations with London only when you have a the new king”?

The basis of international relations is respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Our “partners” have no respect for us at all. They consider any country outside of their circle as inferior, and therefore, without compunctions, dictate to other nations who should be their leaders and who shouldn’t. Simply because the West does or does not like this or that politician. Russia respects the sovereignty of other nations and the international law. But there is no reciprocity or understanding from the West. This is true now and this was always the case in history.

In fact – the irrepressible desire of the West to remove someone from power is a good measure of his usefulness for his own country. The West always loved puppets and weaklings, and hated strong and patriotic leaders. The idol of the West in our country is Gorbachev. They almost never blamed Yeltsin for anything. As they say, “no comment”.

As for sovereignty, there is no state in the world which has not paid with blood for its sovereignty. Russia has spilled so much blood of our ancestors, that it is impossible for us to take our sovereignty lightly. Any attempt on our sovereignty should meet a harsh rebuttal. No compromise is possible here. When someone from the outside is trying to give signals to the cowardly and corrupt Russian elite on the need of revolution and removal of Putin from power, the Russian people, its civil society, should send these would-be conspirators a much stronger signal: Don’t even dream …

As for “international isolation”, all is relatively clear: There is no isolation of Russia.

The West is only a part of the world, a minority in fact.

The rising powers like China, India and Latin America are not boycotting our country in any way.

Our history can teach us a lot. There were repeated attempts to boycott or exclude us, to introduce sanctions and restrictions against us, to put pressure on us in all possible ways. But we are still alive and our country is the largest country in the world.

In the 1930s, when the international situation was ominous, our country has had only one ally – Mongolia. In 1939 the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations, actually in violation of the rules of the organization (only 7 of the 15 members of the Council of the League of Nations voted for it). It was the “international isolation” of that time.

What was the result?

In 1945 the Soviet Union, along with the United States, became the founder of the United Nations – a new international organization.

They were trying to humiliate us and deny us our sovereignty. They tried to teach us and then destroy us.

As a result, we retained our sovereignty and extended the boundaries of our influence.

And the League of Nations was quietly dissolved on April 20, 1946, although it actually ceased to mean anything much earlier.

That is what our history is teaching us.

It also teaches us that between the two forms of international order which are represented by the League of Nations and the United Nations, there was the most terrible war in human history.

We won it. And we do not want a repetition.

First published on 09.06.2015 at Nikolai Starikov’s Blog


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s