THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA: A DELIBERATE PLAN BY THERESA MAY, JEAN CLAUDE JUNCKER AND THE EU ESTABLISHMENT TO DERAIL BREXIT. - An alternative view

THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA: A DELIBERATE PLAN BY THERESA MAY, JEAN CLAUDE JUNCKER AND THE EU ESTABLISHMENT TO DERAIL BREXIT. - An alternative view

[Editor's note:
SMPBI is a Party in which differing views are not stifled - unless of course they are put forward by pro-Capitalist pro-Globalist infilTRAITORS!  In this reply to Pietro's post, Peter offers an alternative analysis. The media circus, (controlled official and controlled opposition) have painted varied accounts which both muddy the facts.  To get as close to the truth as we are likely to, it is important to be open-minded. The lengthy response is published in full with the intention of creating a debate.

Theresa May is the enemy of the UK. She is backed by all manner of scum in the USA, UN, EU, NATO, IMF and other Globalist entities.  The confrontation between the West and Russia is a contrived piece of propaganda with no basis in reality - the UK, not Russia, is responsible for any nerve gas attack (if there even was one) - but what is the purpose?

Responses by comment, or by email are welcome. The situation is serious, and it requires serious thought.]



“The confrontation between the West and Russia: a deliberate plan by Theresa May, Jean Claude Juncker and the EU Establishment to Derail Brexit”.

Really? Deliberate plan by May and JUNCKER of all people?

Point 1: Juncker is the man who has always just insisted to May that “Brexit means Brexit”.

Point 2: If May and Juncker are in collusion then why has Juncker been vilified for NOT supporting “the confrontation between the West and Russia”?

“European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker has been criticised after his "nauseating" letter of congratulations to Russia's Vladimir Putin failed to mention the Salisbury nerve agent attack. The European Commission President wrote to Mr Putin on Tuesday to congratulate the Russian leader on his recent re-election. However, the top Brussels official immediately was attacked for NEGLECTING TO INCLUDE a reference to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using the chemical weapon Novichok.

In his letter, Mr Juncker sent Mr Putin his "congratulations on your re-election as President of the Russian Federation". "I have always argued that positive relations between the European Union and the Russian Federation are crucial to the security of our continent," he wrote.  "Our common objective should be to re-establish a cooperative pan-European security order. I hope that you will use your fourth term in office to pursue this goal. I will always be a partner in this endeavour. I wish you every success in carrying out your high responsibilities."

However, the leader of Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, Ashley Fox, branded the letter "disgraceful" as he accused Mr Juncker of "appeasing" the Russian President. "To congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election victory without referring to the clear ballot rigging that took place is bad enough," he said.

"But his failure to mention Russia's responsibility for a military nerve agent attack on innocent people in my constituency is nauseating.”

"The European Commission President is appeasing a man who poses a clear threat to Western security.” Tory MP Sarah Wollaston

“Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed Mr Juncker had not referred to the Salisbury attack in his letter to Mr Putin, Theresa May's official spokesman said: "What I would point to is the strong response which you have seen from across the EU, from leaders in condemning what happened in Salisbury and standing with the UK." Wishful thinking from Theresa May. Whilst many in the EU are nodding politely to May, much more is going on behind the scenes in the EU. Just a few ‘minor’ points:

Millions of Euros are being spent by the EU to prevent Libya being used as a principal migrant route to Europe via Italy.

There are those in the EU who see a united European Defence Force as a way of disentangle Europe from NATO and the U.S.

The EU is also working behind the scenes to block predatory ‘inward investment’ from the USA - which Britain will be WIDE OPEN TO after Brexit.

Europe has no interest in paying for high-priced gas from the US - and Germany has just approved the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia.

KEYPOINT: the EU is NOT the monolith it is made out to be. There are even those in the EU ‘Establishment’ as well as the EU Member States who are against anti-Russian sanctions - or even wish Europe to have the united military and economic power to stand up to the US Atlanticist Empire and its Anglo-Zionist and Polish lapdogs. There is much more that could be written on this subject. We must just learn to research thoroughly,  ‘read between the lines’ - and see those current and future trajectories of geopolitical development in Europe and Eurasia which defy simplistic readings.
For a stronger Europe - a union of autonomous European nations free of U.S. hegemony!

EU Member States in favor of lifting Russian sanctions:
Bulgaria: Bulgaria considers the sanctions regime against Russia an obstacle to its own economy. 72% of Bulgarians have a positive view of Russia.
Cyprus: The Cyprian government has opposed sanctions against Russia, especially on the basis of the two countries’ economic ties, although the actual economic impact of the sanctions has been limited.
Czech Republic: The stance of the Czech Republic towards Russia changed significantly following the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea. Despite the ambivalent positions of some individual politicians, as well as a high dependence on imports from Russia. President Miloš Zeman has repeatedly criticized the EU sanctions against Russia. Zeman also retains strong ties to Russian business.
Greece: Greece has historically been one of Russia’s advocate within the EU, advocating for the Kremlin’s interests in Brussels.  The current Greek government maintains exceptionally close ties with the Kremlin and other prominent Russian figures. Greece has typically expressed opposition to any EU measures that could alienate Russia. Greece is best described as one of the EU’s three ‘Kremlin friendlies’, together with Italy and Cyprus. 66% of Greeks have a positive view of Russia.
Italy: Though traditionally a country with deep economic ties to Russia, Italy has shown strong support for a common EU and NATO stance on Russia. At the same time, Italy does not wish to completely alienate Russia, and continues to believe that a dialogue is possible. Italian politics is full of pro Russian elements and many politicians believe that the EU sanctions are harmful to Italy and should therefore be lifted.
Slovenia: After the annexation of Crimea, Slovenia fully supported Ukrainian integrity and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements, but it has also maintained pragmatic energy-focussed economic ties with Russia. For this reason, Slovenia supports lifting the sanctions against the Russian Federation
Hungary: The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban uses good relations with Russia as leverage in Hungary’s relations with Brussels, and in order to support his own domestic . After the annexation of Crimea, the Prime Minister sought to weaken European sanctions against Russia.
EU Member States in favor of Dialogue and Compromise
Austria: Austria’s bilateral relationship with Russia is between ‘friendly pragmatist’ and ‘strategic partner’  Austria’s most successful far-right political party, the FPÖ, has exceptionally close ties to Russia . Austrian relations with Russia have not suffered significantly due to the conflict in Ukraine. In particular, energy interests continue to shape the two countries’ relationship and remain a cornerstone of Austrian diplomacy with Russia. For this reason, Austria is skeptical about the EU sanctions regime against Russia .
Finland: Finland is the one Nordic country that has always sought to find compromise with Russia due to its dependence on Russian fossil fuels and deep economic ties with Russia. Finland still sees hope in rebuilding EU-Russian relations.
Luxembourg: Luxembourg has close economic and financial ties to Russia, and is therefore reluctant to alienate Russia with punitive measures. Due to high levels of investment from Russia (and vice versa), Luxembourg is reluctant to implement EU measures aimed at restricting financials from Russia.
Netherlands: The major dimension of Russo-Dutch relations is economic.  The Netherlands did raise concerns that Russia’s behavior threatens international order and the integrity of the EU.  Furthermore, the Netherlands are hesitant but generally supportive of the common EU stance on Russia.
Spain: Being located far away from Russia and not affected by the same fears as the easternmost EU member states, Spain remains focused on engaging in dialogue with Russia. Spain remains skeptical about possible European expansion, and Russia’s status as a strategic partner in the fight against terrorism has marked Spain’s attitude of hesitance in making strong moves to counter perceived Russian threats. Economy wise, Russia does not play a significant role in Spanish energy imports, but Russian tourism plays a big role in the Spanish economy. Thus, Spain was one of the several countries to voice criticism against anti-Russian sanctions.
Other types of analysis: http://press.ecpr.eu/documents/sampleChapters/9781785522796.pdf