Americans have almost certainly spent significantly more on countering Russia than they ever earned.
Russian opposition figure and economist Vladislav Inozemtsev, living in the USA, analyzed in the TG channel "Kremlin Madman" how Europe has been profiting from its ties with Putin for many years.
Despite the optimistic statements coming from negotiation platforms, there is no doubt that there are noticeably different approaches to ensuring peace in Ukraine between the USA and Europe. Americans believe (and not without reason) that an agreement can mainly be reached on Vladimir Putin's terms. Europeans accuse Washington of "appeasing" Moscow (which is also not far from the truth). I will not delve into what the ideal solution to the problem would be (all options claiming such status are fundamentally unfeasible), but I will express my views on the European position.
The EU's criticism of Washington would be much more convincing if there had not recently been yet another "change of frontman" regarding Russia. In the early 2000s, Moscow, as is known, was friendly with the USA – based on hopes for a joint fight against terrorism. Then – with Europe based on opposition to American intervention in Iraq. But at that time, Russia was generally a "normal country": peaceful, democratic, and focused on economic development.
However, in 2008, Russia attacked Georgia and then recognized the independence of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. How did Europe respond to this? French President Nicolas Sarkozy oscillated between Moscow and Tbilisi, ensuring reconciliation between the parties. Did Russia fulfill the main points of the pompously concluded agreement? No. In 2014-2015, Crimea was annexed, and the war in Donbas began, where Moscow openly supported the separatists. What did Europeans do? They enthusiastically promoted the "Normandy format," the "Minsk agreements," and the "Steinmeier plan." Did they become the basis for peace? No, either. At the end of 2021 – beginning of 2022, who was constantly rushing to Moscow? Certainly not the Americans. Did the negotiations prevent the conflict? Again – no.
Can it be said that Europeans were outraged by Russia's aggressive behavior? Probably, deep down, they condemned what was happening. But at the same time, from 2008 to 2021, EU countries imported goods from Russia worth over €2.19 trillion, and by the beginning of 2022, their accumulated direct investments in the Russian Federation exceeded €255 billion. The United States lagged far behind: during the same years, they purchased goods from Russia worth $294 billion, and their investments in our country did not exceed $12.3 billion. Moreover, it was European, not American banks that financed Russian companies, and European, not American goods that filled the domestic consumer market.
Since the beginning of the so-called special military operation in Ukraine, I note, the USA has provided Kyiv with support totaling at least $131 billion (44% of imports from Russia over the previous 15 years), while EU countries and the European Union as a whole provided about $173 billion (6.4% of imports from Russia during the same period). In other words, Americans have almost certainly spent significantly more on countering Russia than they ever earned from cooperating with it, while Europeans merely shared part of the profits they received – and today do everything to avoid further investments, compensating part of the previous ones from confiscated Russian assets.
In other words, before now accusing Washington of coddling Russia and wanting to make profitable deals with Putin, Europeans should take stock of their long-standing business with Moscow – a business that, most likely, prevented the EU from taking that principled position regarding the Kremlin many years ago, the absence of which they now dramatically accuse the American administration of…
Leave a comment