European Union ‘Over a Borrell’. Who Is Humiliating Who? by Finian Cunningham

The money sentence: “European puppet politicians make a song and dance over the Western stooge Navalny and his regime-change mission while their silence is deafening in the case of Julian Assange who is being tortured in a British dungeon without him even being convicted of anything.” From Finian Cunningham at

Borrell’s arrogance in presuming to come to Moscow to lecture on human rights is the real offense. Sergei Lavrov was eminently correct to give this attempt at humiliation short shrift.

As the old saying goes, a week is a long time in politics. Meaning a lot can change in a short span. Last week, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was in Moscow on what seemed to be a cordial and business-like meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

A week later there are howls in the European Parliament for Borrell to resign and threats of more economic sanctions against Russia. For its part, Moscow is warning that it may break off ties with the European Union if the bloc goes ahead with threats to put the Russian economy at risk.

So what the hell happened? The Kremlin maintains that the meeting between Lavrov and Borrell in Moscow went well; not over-friendly, but nonetheless a useful, frank exchange of views on a range of subjects. From what the cameras showed at a joint press conference, that seemed to be the case.

Yes, at one point Lavrov said in the presser that the EU was acting like an “unreliable partner” which often behaved as if it were the United States in conducting its relations towards Russia instead of being a putative independent bloc. And yes, while Borrell was in Moscow, it was announced by the Kremlin that three diplomats from Germany, Sweden and Poland were being expelled on the grounds that these officials had attended unauthorized protests in support of jailed embezzler Alexei Navalny. That is Russia’s prerogative.

Continue reading→

2 responses to “European Union ‘Over a Borrell’. Who Is Humiliating Who? by Finian Cunningham

  1. ” not over-friendly, but nonetheless a useful, frank exchange of views on a range of subjects.”

    …in which we see that in order to negotiate with opposing military powers, one must have military or economic power with which to negotiate. If one wishes to be able to have a “frank exchange of views” with an opponent, one must be taken credibly.

    Now we understand why the left treats us as they do: because they believe we have no power amd are this not worthy of a seat at the table, and so the information flow is one-directional and is merely a string of instructions, orders and demands. It is why they so desperately need to destroy Trump; they believe by doing so they destroy us. But their confidence is belied as fear by building walls in the Capitol and keeping troops indefinitely.


    • sorry, a reply-to-self, an afterthought…

      One point of confusion on tbe left: all of their support and supporters rely on government and don’t make real things in the real world. Their support is exactly as deep as the government’s ability to keep paying them (contracts, make work “jobs”, etc.) They view us in the same way but we live in a different world, and our economic power is substantial, if it could be organized.

      If the government regulatory, tax, and office drone employees went on strike who would notice?

      If the oil workers, truck drivers, and power station employees went on strike?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.