Let me quote from the Appeal of the League of Free Nations to the organizers of the ICD: “We learned from media reports that the Munich Security Conference (Conference) will give the floor to a group of Russian politicians and public figures claiming power in the Russian Federation. Their past statements, as well as the current political agenda, show deep contempt for the interests of colonized peoples, denial of their subjectivity and principled unwillingness to build constructive dialogue.
Unfortunately, both Old Europe and the US have a pragmatic, sometimes cynical, policy of supporting a strong ally, and try not to get bogged down in history by supporting an ally that is weak or too radical in its claims to freedom and sovereignty. Thirty years (1974-2004) of peaceful and full life without wars on its territory, Western civilization lived, praying for success, well-being and comfort. Some representatives of the European political establishment during this time had the impression that this course of events was invariable, and deviations from it were already perceived as something extraordinary, requiring coping and removal by a non-invasive method. The status quo was preserved by any means of modern political bureaucracy: negotiations, persuasion, polite intimidation, financial restrictions, etc. Mostly by Americans. Over the past 30 years, dozens of Western European and North American politicians have gone before the eyes of the world, competing to implement “real politics” wearing white gloves.
However, such a policy could not fail to cause a certain crisis in international relations, as it caused other actors in the political theater to take advantage of the demonstrative liberalism and tolerance of the old lady of Europe in the company of Uncle Sam. Faced with serious crises, politicians of the Western European school still show a desire to shove back the wrong toothpaste back into the tube at the wrong time. Naive? Yes, but how they would like to be able to go back to when things were going so well, when there was “peace, friendship, gum.” For example, adopting a plan similar to that proposed by French President N. Sarkozy for the exit from the Russian-Georgian war in 2008. After all, the plan was a good one, allowed us to easily and quickly forget about the war itself and continue to “friend” with the aggressor – Russia. And Stanmeyer’s plan to settle the conflict in the Donbass? It was also a very good plan, only a pity that the Ukrainians could not smell it, maybe, then everything would suck…
However, the problem is that the situation sometimes develops in the undesirable scenario for such politicians. The cursed war in Ukraine has confused the cards for many. For example, the good grandmother of Angela Merkel, who breast-fed aggressive Russian President Vladimir Putin, still refuses to acknowledge her tolerant-liberal gas-marketing miscalculations in the conduct of real-politicians. What Federal Chancellor Scholtz is now working on in the gas-fueled German-Russian “friendship” backwards, and supplying arms to Ukraine fighting for its independence, may be a forced move on his part.
There are many politicians like Scholtz in Europe today. The logic of events forces them to make difficult but correct choices. Otherwise, at a really difficult moment, one may find oneself alone, disarmed and demoralized in the face of insidious and unprincipled Russian imperialism. The Munich Security Conference is one of the necessary and correct instruments for addressing such acute issues of international policy. It makes it possible, on the one hand, to assess the attitude of the international public to the problems of preserving world peace, and, on the other hand, to propose its recipes for the solution of urgent conflicts.
But just as some political forces want to solve such problems with small sacrifices, how tempting is the idea of minimizing risks. Maybe in a fight you shouldn’t hit too hard, so as not to make your opponent mad? Maybe to prevent too determined and radical fighters from participating in the fight? Should we choose from the aggressor’s opponents those who are more comfortable for consensus? How to determine the measure of immersion in the river of war, how to postpone the final resolution of acute confrontation “for later”? Who can be allies in such a struggle?
With the allies, the question is unresolved and intricate… it would seem logical to rely on your enemy’s most reliable enemies. Well, what if these allies are too zealous, if they demand too much, if they oppose plans to quickly settle the conflict and strive for its final resolution? How then?
Unfortunately, the organizers of the Munich Security Conference have decided not to invite representatives of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, united in the League of Free Nations. Such a decision could be made – in any case, these are new, little-known faces in the wider European and global political establishment, with an unformed reputation, but, sorry, there are no others. No alternative group representing the interests of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples of the Russian Empire has been declared or admitted to the Conference. The invited Russian oppositionists do not in any way voice the opinions of these peoples, because they do not perceive their subjectivity and treat them with almost contempt.
Strange situation is coming up! Europeans are accustomed to taking into account the views of any minority, from national and religious to physiological (disability, overweight, chronic diseases) and sexual. But today, they have turned a blind eye to activists trying to get Europeans to sympathize with the agonizing problems of millions of Russia’s indigenous peoples oppressed at home.
Somehow these things don’t come together! It violates not only the rules of formal logic, but also basic legal principles, such as the famous Nihil de nobis, sine nobis (“Nothing about us without us”).
The only thing I want to say in such a case: “Well, gentlemen of Europe! Sky-wet color in nature does not exist! If you have chosen pure sky azure, then let’s stick to your choice to the end and for everyone. Otherwise, there will be no faith in each other!” And you can add: “How much can you trample on the old rakes, trying to build a democratic Russia, where everyone will be well, and it will be good with everyone. No one has ever been able to do such a thing!”