By Dr. Alexander Kamkin
During my first visit to Belgrade in August 2005 one of my goal was to see the ruins of governmental building destroyed by NATO aggression in 1999. Ministry of defense, ministry of information, Headquarters of Yugoslavian army, etc. Had shelters of US and British rockets and bombs. In some streets I saw monuments dedicated to local citizens who died under “bomb of democracy” or protecting Serbian land in Bosnia, Slavonia, Krajna, Kosovo. A special feeling I had visiting the ruins of the Chinese embassy. The invaders sent three rockets to destroy diplomatic mission of a third country, which had nuclear weapons.
At that time I had a strong feeling that such destiny my come to Moscow and other Russian cities, if Russia would go soft on its Western “partners” and give up its positions, especially in terms of its political sovereignty. In the first years of the 21st century it was unclear, which way Russia will take – continue being a resource colony of the West or try to find its own way, which was called a “sovereign democracy”. The prospects of giving up its sovereignty seemed to be quite realistic. The famous speech of Vladimir Putin in the Munich security conference had not taken place yet, Russia was trying to become an integral part of globalist world, just a bearing in the new world order. NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was just six years ago. The real case against Yugoslavia was attempt of Belgrade to protect its national sovereignty and defeat Albanian separatists and terrorists in Kosovo, made a political system based on criminality and extremism. The collective West put bombs on hospitals, schools, civil factories, bridges, electricity facilities only because Yugoslavia remained the last independent political player in Europe, as Noam Chomsky, US dissident and philosopher, described that country. Russia was too weak and occupied by pro-Western agents of influence to provide help to its brothers on the Balkans. Fortunatelly, my fears about Russian future were not real.
Events of August 2008 in South Ossetia, Crimean spring of 2014, heroic struggle of Russian world in Donbass showed will of Russia for survival as independent country despite all problems in domestic policy, disorder in internal affairs, etc. The victory in the total war of West against Russian world is only possible, if we understand – what is Russian soldier fighting for, what is the reason why do we loose our nearest persons, who protect our Fatherland. Sovereignty is not only a nice word, it is a fundamental basis of the philosophy of a national country. It contains in a very short form an existential understanding – who will decide whethher we will exist or not. We as peoples of Russia will decide this or a small group or world-wide gangsters who proclaimed themselves as “blooming garden” and the rest of the world – “jungles”? Neo-colonialism is not a poetic allegory at all. Actually the Western colonialism has not left the arena of world history, it just went behind the curtain for a while to have some rest. In 18th – 19th centuries European countries like Great Brittain, France, Spain were actors of colonialism, after 1945, after the colonial system dismounting, the emerging transnational companies overtook this initiative. A new stage of capitalism development started – transnational capitalism with transnational companies, which exploited third world countries, where based on corruption, “soft power” of the USA and their allies the same plundering policy took place, which was conducted by Britain starting from the East-Indian company (established in 1600).
Therefore, peoples of Asia and Africa lead a national liberation war against suppressing colonial countries, in modern times the main vector of independence struggle is against globalist structures, where rudiments of national countries of Europe and partially the USA have only a restricted set of functions. We even may presume that the current logic of world policy development is movement back to pre-Westphalian system. Please, note, that the British East-Indean company, which existed from 1600 to 1874, had own armed forces and navy, during the Thirty Years’ War the war lords made recruiting of their regiments and supplied them with armors and weapons independently. Their troops were subordinated to the European monarchs only nominally and changed the side in the war from time to time. Actually their were a complete analog to modetn private war companies. American private soldiers serve the interests of transnational companies worldwide, train terrorists, separatists in the countries, which will become victims of the hybrid aggression by the “rogue-superpower”, as Noam Chomsky called his own country – the USA.
And what about Russia? Policy of every sovereign country is build based on essential documents, which are doctrines of this country’s development. Russia finally got such a document – the Concept of external policy of Russian Federation (dated by March, 31st, 2023). This document is important, because it accumulated the experience of more than one year of confrontation of Russia against the collective West, which tries to lead war against Russian Federation using the proxy-regime of Vladimir Zelensky, as well as over eight years of sanctions pressure. It is remarkable, that the term sovereignty is the most frequently used term in this document (is used 15 times). This is a complete difference from previous versions of the Concept, which declared integration of Russia to international bodies, partnership and collaboration with collective West, etc. By the way, term “democracy” is used in the Concept only one time, in context of “democratization of international relations”. It is also an interesting fact, which shows change of paradigm of thinking of Russian rulers. This edition (the 6th) of the Concept of foreign policy is actually a “reaction on key trends of world development” , and not just a declaration or vision of general goals. The first edition of the Concept of foreign policy of Russian Federation, which was issued in 1993, proclaimed refusal of confrontation with West, establishing of partnership ties to the USA and leading European countries (as a fact a backdown from the foreign policy positions, which Soviet Union had achieved with great difficulty during decades). On the other hand, the new, 6th edition of the Concept gives the political realities their real names. The West can be a profitable partner of Russia, if it is the interest of the West. Currently it has only one interest – political and economic defeat of Russia and establishing of complete global hegemony, and in this term only Western countries will keep their sovereignty. The world becomes extremely particular, and international relations – more and more rigid and straight line. The age of “political correctness” is substituted by the age of “political particularity”. The most important issue of the entire Concept is the fact that its authors accepted the idea of the local civilizations theory and refused the linear approach to the development of humankind.
This is a reflection of theories by Nikolay Danilevsky (theory of cultural-historical types) and Oswald Spengler (theory of high cultures). The humankind is not an unified globalist world, but “blooming complexity”, inflorescence of local civilizations. The world is split not to “blooming garden” and “jungles”, but into unique civilizations of equal weight and importance, they have own scale of values, own cultural code, own understanding of their place in the world. A multipolar world with Russia as one pole, is the basis of stable international relations. Russia is a country – civilization, both Eurasian and Europacific. A stable economic, political, informational sovereignty means one of the most important attributes of every pole of our complex world. It is logical, that the issue of national sovereignty (or its absence) is actual for many European thinkers and politicians, who represent mostly patriotic movements. We can presume, that the present political class in many European countries drifts from classic dividing into left – right, conservative – liberal to distinguishing between globalists and sovereigntists. The ruling elites and mass-media communities are represented in most European countries by globalist groups, which delegated the most part of national sovereignty to supernational bodies like the EU, WTO, etc., or directly to senior NATO partner – the USA. Germany has a special role and place in terms of sovereignty debates. It is the most unsovereign country of Europe.
It is not an coincidence, that Russian president V. Putin said in his speech dedicated to the anniversary of the Stalingrad battle in January 2023, that Germany remains an occupied country , which has over 40,000 US soldiers, American nuclear weapons, centers of drones control, etc. Germany is a country, where American secret services don’t hesitate to control phone calls of German Chancellor and even to destroy gas pipelines to annihilate the possibility of strategic partnership between Berlin and Moscow. Sovereign Germany and Russia, which would develop partnership based on mutual respect and keeping norms of international law, are a nightmare for Anglo-American political elite. Remember the words said allegedly by the first NATO secretary general Hastings Ismay: “Keep Americans in, keep Germans down, keep Russians out”. There are no documentary proves that Hastings Ismay really told these words, but here we have the situation similar to the notorious Dalles plan – officially it does not exist, but it works. In the last years the issue of German sovereignty has been raised by many German politicians from various political parties. 2011 Wolfgang Scheuble proclaimed, that “the sovereignty had been brought to absurdum in Europe” , and Germany has never been a sovereign country since May 1945. A representative of the “Left” party Ulrich Maurer expressed also in 2011 a very similar idea, that “Germany is not a sovereign country” , because it is still under post-war occupational conditions. A founding father of the “Left” party Oscar Lafontaine said even more radical in September 2023, after explosion of North Stream pipeline, that “Germany is just a vassal of the USA” . It is remarkable, that the fact of missing sovereignty of Germany is confirmed even by the Constitutional law, which substitutes the Constitution. It is called the Constitutional law for Federative Republic of Germany (accepted in 1949). A representative of Social-democratic party Carlo Schmid said once: “The Constitutional law has never been accepted as a Constitution”.
Another living legend of left flank of German policy Gregor Gisy said in 2013: “I have to say quite seriously, that the occupational status is still active. Now we have not 1945, but 2013. Can’t we abolish it and stop occupation of Germany? I presume. It is high time to do it” . Please, note, that the above mentioned expressions were made by left politicians, sovereignism positions are much more wide spread among right-wing parties, many of which openly demand that Germany should leave NATO and the EU to get full sovereignty. Such parties as Alternative for Germany, Heimat (former National-Democratic Party of Germany) represent explicit sovereignist ideology. Similar ideas are expressed by patriotic movements in other European countries – Austrian Freedom Party, National Movement, VOX, etc. It is not a coincidence, that representatives of these parties are pro-Russian. They understand Russia as a kind of benchmark, as a country with real and full internal and external sovereignty. Thus, in many cases left and right parties have similar positions on sovereignty, some political scientists say, that there is a convergence of left and right ideas in European political thinking. That is why we prefer not to divide political spectrum into left – right, but into globalists – sovereigntists. It reflects the contemporary realities in Europe much better. More and more citizens of European countries demand their governments to leave the EU, which initially was planned as an international cooperation based on economic profitability and common European values.
The EU is not a driver of European integration anymore, it becomes a tool of suppression of national sovereignty and diversity, a “melting pot”, where traditional European culture and traditional values burn like sinners in hell. When Notre-Dame-de-Paris was in fire – and you can’t imagine a more clear sign of heavens given to insane Europeans, – many watchers represented by “new Europeans” expressed their triumph. And native French people stood silent without understanding of the importance of this accident. The body of Europe is dead without spiritual ties, without ideological support point. This European cemetery, which was discussed by brothers Karamazoff in the novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, is a cruel warning to Russia and other civilizations. Having lost themselves, having refused own traditions, European nations die mentally and spiritually as well as physically. Sovereignty is a kind of atmosphere for every national state. Being alone in face of aggressive attack of globalists who use thousands of NGOs, engaged mass-media, Brussel bureaucracy, which become degraded up to the level of political eunuch dictatorship, citizens of European countries have no air to breed in the “marvelous new world” of Orwell. European nations need sovereignty, and for Russia the protection of national sovereignty is the most important task for survival of our civilization under conditions of the hardest confrontation with Anglo-Saxon world we ever had.