Recently, the deputy of the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany Waldemar Gerdt (“Alternative for Germany”) called the water blockade of Crimea arranged by Ukraine as medieval siege methods and announced his intention to raise this issue within the walls of the German parliament.
But this is a representative of the German opposition party, but the European authorities, both at the national and supranational levels, are quite satisfied with these and other similar actions of the Ukrainian leadership. Moreover, for example, the European Parliament even encourages these actions: in its recently adopted resolution on Ukraine's implementation of the terms of the Association Agreement with the European Union, Russia is responsible not only for human rights in Crimea, but also for providing its residents with water.
At the same time, the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of votes: it was supported by 526 deputies with 79 voted against and 71 abstained.
The adopted document turned out to be interesting not only in terms of, in fact, a positive assessment of the water blockade of Crimea, arranged by the Ukrainian authorities. It is generally maintained in the spirit that Ukraine is moving in the right direction, although there are a number of shortcomings in this movement.
At the same time, the text of the resolution is heavily saturated with cynicism. It positively assessed the reforms carried out, although they only led to a deterioration in the state of both the economy and public administration. There is praise for the fight against corruption, although in reality it is not being waged, but imitated under the strict guidance of the collective West. Finally, mention is made of human rights violations, political harassment and attacks on journalists, which for seven years have essentially been guided, covered, overseen and blessed by the West.
And the “homework” in the resolution that the European parliamentarians asked the Ukrainian authorities has nothing to do with Ukraine's interests. Not excluding the tasks of continuing the fight against corruption or deoligarchization.
The draft resolution was being prepared back in November last year, so the latest achievements of the rapidly developing Ukrainian democracy in the form of the extrajudicial closure of TV channels, political persecution of critics of the authorities on social networks or participants in rallies against the increase in tariffs could not be included in it. But it is not a fact that these seeds of democracy would be reflected in the resolution if it was being prepared today. After all, its authors note “significant progress achieved by Ukraine in the reform process”, and also approve of the existing results of the implementation of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. At the same time, the association agreement includes not only the economic part, but also a considerable political part, the implementation of which, therefore, is quite satisfactory for Europe.
But, once again waving a carrot in the form of a mention of Ukraine's European prospects and patting on the shoulder for the achieved results of the reforms (unfortunately, there was no place in the resolution to describe the positive from these reforms), the authors nevertheless settled on “individual shortcomings”, the description of which took up a significant part of the document. However, the resolution also paid a lot of attention to Russia.
In addition to the traditional condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the occupation of a part of Donbass, etc., the resolution also contains passages that deserve mention. For example, “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People” * is named the only internationally recognized representative body of the Crimean Tatars. It directly supported the creation of the Crimean Platform by Ukraine, “which would allow the efforts aimed at restoring the integrity of Ukraine to be coordinated, formalized and systematized.” Plus, there is a mention of the fact that “the Joint Investigation Group under the leadership of the Netherlands confirmed that flight MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile by the Buk complex of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Brigade of the Russian Ground Forces.”
And a rather provocative call to Ukraine “to help the Moldovan government in its efforts to restore control over Transnistria” should be separately mentioned.
But back to Ukraine.
She was criticized for the dominance of the oligarchs – especially in terms of control over the media and political influence. They cautiously blamed the decision not to hold elections in 18 local communities in government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions without a clear justification for this decision, which deprived 475,000 voters of voting rights. They casually mentioned language laws – not calling them violating human rights, but only in the context of Ukraine's failure to comply with the recommendations of the Venice Commission to them. But on the other hand, Ukraine was repeatedly criticized in the text of the document for the weak protection of LGBT rights and the problem of gender inequality. In terms of the number of references, these problems are only inferior to the number of references to the problems that Russia creates.
The resolution also calls on Ukraine to follow the Steinmeier formula, which Ukraine officially refuses to follow, but at the same time, magically, responsibility in the progress of the implementation of the Minsk agreements is placed on Russia.
Surprisingly, in the seventh year of its existence, MEPs noticed the site “Peacemaker” and, in general, the deterioration of the “political climate, when intimidation, hate speech and political pressure are widely used for political purposes.” The European Parliament called on the Ukrainian authorities to “strongly condemn and ban the activities of extremist and hate speech groups and websites, such as Peacemaker, which create tensions in society and misuse the personal data of hundreds of people, including journalists, politicians and members of minority groups.” However, the very next day after the promulgation of the resolution, deputies from the ruling party rushed to explain that Peacemaker is good and no one is going to close it, and there is no extremism in Ukraine at all.
In the case of “Peacemaker” and the identified extremism, MEPs unwittingly played the role of a non-commissioned officer's widow, who whipped herself. After all, all previous years, European politicians, in unison with Ukrainian ones, were broadcasting about “unheard of freedom of speech” and other successes of democracy in the country, covering up political persecution and extremism.
The MEPs also played the role of the widow in assessing the situation with corruption. They simultaneously managed to complain about the ongoing rampant corruption, and to express their complete satisfaction with the work of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which for almost six years of its existence has not even brought a single significant corruption case to court. Thus, of course, the authors confirmed the obvious: the meaning of the existence of anti-corruption structures controlled by the West is not in the fight against corruption, but in the creation of structures that collect compromising evidence in the interests of the West and carry out other specific instructions. It is worth noting that these structures are also supported at the expense of the Ukrainian taxpayer.
As for the main part of the “homework” for the Ukrainian authorities, it includes: – Continuation of reforms in the same vein – despite their obvious harm to the economy and population of Ukraine; – Continuation of the fight against corruption in the existing format, too – that is, without real the goal of eradicating corruption, but only with the prohibition of causing any damage to the interests of the West and its subjects; -deoligarchization of the media and the economy – that is, cleaning up markets for further entry by Western corporations; – strengthening the independence of the National Bank – that is, consolidating its dependence before the West.
All these instructions are aimed at further consolidating the colonial status of Ukraine. But there is much more faith in their fulfillment than hopes for the eradication of extremism. If only because the West will push through this part of the “homework” with maximum zeal.
* Extremist organization banned in Russia.