Norman Indulgence

It seems that Western leaders wrote their speeches for celebrations on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the allied landing in Normandy a few months ago, even before the Russian annexation of Crimea and the current Ukrainian crisis. Both Barack Obama and Francois Hollande, speaking at the American military cemetery, called the main tasks of modernity the fight against poverty and environmental protection. Not a word was said about Ukraine and Crimea in official speeches. Although before a trip to Normandy, and “on the fields” of the Norman celebrations, the leaders of the seven only discussed the Ukrainian problem. And they considered their great diplomatic victory that they convinced Vladimir Putin to talk with the new Ukrainian President Peter Poroshenko for 15 minutes. Western politicians are trying to convince themselves that " noticeable changes " occurred in the behavior of Moscow in the Ukrainian crisis. They pretend that they still did not understand that the words and promises of Putin are absolutely nothing. And all because Europeans really do not want to introduce the third package of sanctions against Russia, which will hurt the economy of the European Union. And the American president is in no hurry to set an example for them.

And Olland, and Obama, and Cameron, and Merkel talked a lot about the fact that the American and British troops, who landed in Normandy, brought the peoples of Europe to liberate from Nazi domination and democracy. But at the same time, they preferred not to notice that this is precisely today democracy in Ukraine and in general in eastern Europe is under the threat emanating from Putin's Russia. And they did not deviate from meetings with Putin, although earlier it was said a lot about the need to boycott it. Putin himself performed little in Normandy, but weighty. In response to a pre -prepared question of the Russian veteran, is it time to rename Volgograd back to Stalingrad, Vladimir Vladimirovich graciously said : conduct, say, a local referendum, as the people will decide and do so. And he recalled that in Paris there is also the Square of Stalingrad.

Putin's words are a kind of signal to Western leaders. Here you are all about democracy, and I am also a democrat. I will hold a referendum in which the inhabitants will return the name given to the city in honor of the one that you yourself know how to get with democracy and democrats.

Moreover, Hollande made a gift to Putin, saying in one of his speeches about the decisive role of the Soviet Union in World War II. Putin was delighted as a child : "He said -" a decisive role ", clearly, absolutely clearly formulated. It seems to me that it is very important that they say about it: in Europe they say, our French friends say what is called the lips of the first person of the state, the head of state, the president."

Meanwhile, it is hardly possible to unequivocally determine which of the allies made a decisive contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany. According to the number of their dead soldiers and civilians, the champion was certainly Stalin. But this circumstance reflected not only the indisputably decisive contribution of the Red Army to the defeat of the German Ground Army, but also the Stalinist strategy for the enemy’s collapse, as well as the ruthless attitude of the leader to his own people. But if you take the struggle at sea and in the air, then here the decisive contribution of the Western allies, which destroyed two -thirds of the Luftwaffe aircraft and almost the entire German surface and underwater fleet, is just as indisputable. Yes, and the most high-profile Soviet victories, such as an offensive in Belarus in the summer of 1944 or Yasko-Chisinau operation, happened after landing in Normandy, when the Germans stopped enough strength to hold all the fronts. But if the Soviet Union had to fight Hitler one on one, without any help from England and the USA, it is possible that the victory would be on the side of Germany. Indeed, in this case, the Germans would throw three more aircraft against us. And since it would not have to be distracted by the production of submarines for the battle for the Atlantic, the German plants would be able to produce significantly more tanks and other land weapons. Yes, and the Wehrmacht’s ground forces on the Eastern Front would be a third more then. But the USSR and tanks and planes would have had much less. And not only at the expense of those that would not have acted on Lend-Lease. There would also be no American and Canadian aluminum and alloying additives for the production of aircraft and tank armor; There would be no trucks, gasoline, explosives and much more. And we must also take into account the more significant in comparison with the Soviet industrial potential of Germany and the much higher combat effectiveness of the Wehrmacht in comparison with the Red Army. I think that the outcome of the confrontation is not one doubt. Hitler would drive the Red Army beyond the Urals, and Stalin would be in the same position as Generalissimo Chan Kayshi, the only defeated among the winners in the 45th year. But the Western allies, if the Red Army were completely defeated, say. By the end of 1942, they would have won the war anyway. It would only have to be finished in the fall of 1945 by an atomic bombing of Germany.

But to Putin, of course, not historical truth is important, but recognition of at least one of the Western leaders of the official Russian interpretation of the history of World War II, which can now be planted and which plays such an important propaganda role, including the substantiation of current aggression against Ukraine.

And the Western leaders, it seems, do not want to realize that Putin’s person is dealing with a leader, very similar to the one against whom the Operation Overlord was carried out. They try not to notice the fact that the situation that has developed today in Europe is very reminiscent of the one that was on the eve of World War II. And the sanctions against Russia in Normandy were not even remembered. Although on the eve, it seems that the seven leading powers of the world made it clear that in a month the third package of sanctions could be introduced if Russia does not recognize Petro Poroshenko by the legal president of Ukraine and did not take real steps to de-escalate the conflict in the southeast of Ukraine. But here the whole question is what exactly to consider the criterion for imposing sanctions.

Earlier, sanctions were promised to introduce if Russia continues to destabilize the situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Since then, many examples of such destabilization have been noted, primarily the receipt of weapons, instructors and mercenaries from Russia. But the West immediately changes the rules of the game, only so as not to introduce real, and not symbolic sanctions.

And what can be considered as Poroshenko’s legitimacy recognition of Putin? A 15-minute meeting "on the fields" of the Norman celebrations? But when the Russian president talked about this meeting to reporters in France, he called the Ukrainian president only "Mr. Poroshenko." And he did not send congratulations to him on the occasion of the election and take office. The requirements that Putin presented to the Ukrainian government remained the same : when resolving the Ukrainian conflict by the parties to negotiations, "there should not be Russia and Ukraine - Russia is not a participant in the conflict - but the Kiev authorities and representatives and supporters of federalization in the east." That is, Moscow demands that Kyiv de facto recognize the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, Moscow itself and created. And so that Ukraine thus turn into a semblance of Moldova with a Transnistria actually separated from it. Putin also threatened to introduce economic sanctions against Ukraine again if she signed on June 27, as expected, the economic part of the Association Agreement with the EU. And this is a real threat. But Putin’s order to block the Russian-Ukrainian border is most likely the same game, as well as the call to the separatists to postpone the holding of referenda about independence. Trucks with weapons and volunteers will continue to go to Ukraine, and the Russian president will always be able to say that it is physically impossible to block the entire more than 1000-kilometer border with the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in a short time due to the lack of a sufficient number of border guards and engineering barriers. And it will continue to deny that Russia supports separatists by people and weapons. And if anyone, they say, travels across the border with weapons, then they bought weapons and Kamaza in Voentorg.

Some observers believe that just the introduction of Russian economic sanctions against Ukraine in the event of an agreement on the Association with the EU may become the “red line”, beyond which the West will introduce the third package of sanctions. But this is far from obvious. Indeed, immediately after the meetings in Normandy and the inauguration, Poroshenko, the German Foreign Minister said that “direct and thorough negotiations between Moscow and Kiev” were needed, that is, between the aggressor and the victim of aggression. In fact, this is just an occasion to delay the introduction of a new stage of anti -Russian sanctions. The Ukrainian side would prefer negotiations with Russia not directly, but with the participation of the European Union and the USA, which could exert real pressure on the Russian side. Direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations can end either with anything or the surrender of Ukraine before Russian pressure. Negotiations will not stop Putin to still destabilize Ukraine - and they can continue for a long time. In the meantime, they go, imposing sanctions against Russia seems to be inconvenient. Therefore, in my opinion, real sanctions from the West can be expected no earlier than two and a half years later - when the US president changes.