The Kiev meeting of the Crimean Platform, proudly named for the summit, made a lot of noise. First - when politicians of the first magnitude seemed to be going to it, then - when they decided to come to it. What is understandable: participation at the highest level in the propaganda sabbath after the odious, even by the standards of modern European Russophobia, statements by the president-comedian began to smell quite bad. And even later, when it turned out that the platform would gather amid the disaster in Afghanistan and the potential overlap of the humanitarian and migration crisis to Europe (recalling the events of 2015 and 2016), the event began to look completely doubtful. But nevertheless, it took place, and it did not take place without purpose.
The easiest way would be to state that the only thing that interests the organizers of the platform (and the political ears of the Americans and the British in this case cannot be overlooked) is the information and propaganda effect.
And this will be largely true, especially since Ukraine of the Zelensky era is, in principle, a state of information noise.
The country's geo-economic potential is scanty, and for obvious reasons it will become even less - and this is far from just Nord Stream 2.
The geopolitical significance as a springboard for the use of force on Russia remains, but after the "spring aggravation", it seems that even the Americans became scared.
But as a source of information noise - sometimes frightening, sometimes funny, but almost always useful for the collective West - Ukraine's importance is absolutely undeniable.
But this is not the whole truth.
The problem with European policy towards Russia is that our wonderful European partners have almost no room left to put pressure on Russia. And the visit of the outgoing Angela Merkel to Moscow proved this perfectly. Against the background of the development of the situation in the world, what claims could Frau Chancellor bring to Russia? Where could you show iron notes in your voice? Only on the issue of the "Berlin patient", which is considered a dead topic even in the liberal environment in Russia. It is significant that after the departure of Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, who is now claiming European leadership, tried to pick up the same topic. Nothing more. Inevitably, one has to speak in a constructive manner. But a constructive conversation also implies the recognition of one's own wrong, mistakes and injustice. And to this the European elites,even their most sane representatives are clearly not ready yet. Let us recall how inelegantly Merkel avoided answering at a joint press conference with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, justifying the administrative and political arbitrariness in relation to RT.
And this is where the "Crimean Platform" appears.
Of course, the smell of it comes from a completely concrete and understandable - the smell of radical nationalism, but you can say anything about Russia without hesitation.
And, in principle, no one is interested in the real state of affairs in Crimea.
I'm only interested in the possibility of unlimited criticism of Russia and the tool for imitating political pressure on it.
It is imitation.
We understand very well that neither the Western delegates, nor Kiev politicians, nor even the majority of Ukrainian activists believe in the possibility of forcing Russia to abandon the fateful results of the spring of 2014.
Therefore, Vladimir Zelensky pays taxes for his Crimean apartment to the Russian budget.
Therefore, the most cunning Igor Kolomoisky is playing complex behind-the-scenes games around his property on the southern coast of Crimea.
The Crimean Platform is a mechanism for the formation of localized virtual reality. Comfortable for our western partners. Some kind of political and psychological aid designed to bring them back in 2015, maximum - in 2016, when the chances of politically and economically crushing Russia were significantly higher than in the post-Kabul era. And it is necessary to assess the results, risks and possible positive aspects from this point of view: as an interesting technological tool for the formation of a localized thematic virtual political reality. And its potential is very high: it is enough to recall the selfless to almost convincing story of the President of independent Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid about a three-year-old boy running away from his parents through a minefield. I suspect that she herself believes in him, and even if not,it creates that unique atmosphere that attracts many Western politicians to the platform. And absolutely do not care what kind of crap is written in the final statement.
So, it is fair to call the "Crimean Platform" both a rudiment and an atavism.
A vestige of the era of unconditional political domination of the West and an atavism of the times when it was possible to exert virtual pressure on Russia and at the same time achieve real results.
Now only the West remained inside this space, and even then not the whole of it.
From the above, conclusions follow - positive and not very.
The bad news is that our Western partners are not ripe for accepting new geopolitical realities. No, it's not just Crimea. They cannot accept, let alone acknowledge that Russia cannot be treated as a state fighting for survival. They cannot yet recognize Russia as a center of power, even in Eurasia. It seems that only Vladimir Zelensky has matured to the bitter admission that world leaders are "afraid of Russia" - they themselves have not yet reflected on this simple idea. The good news is that the leaders of the largest Western countries are already beginning to feel a certain discomfort and dissonance from the fact that the desired reality (Russia, torn to shreds and begging for mercy, in the formation of which - you cannot throw a word out of the song - the Russian sislibs played a big role) everything is less consistent with what is visible outside the window.While Europeans' ability to “pull down the curtains” is unique, even Americans can envy it. But sooner or later the sad reality will destroy the joyful world of the builders of the world of new values. You just have to wait.
The bad news is that Russophobia, moreover in its politically radical forms, remains acceptable to Europe and the West as a whole. The leaders of Western countries, of course, did not come to the "Crimean Platform", and, for example, Angela Merkel - quite demonstratively. This is understandable: no one wants to sit next to a person who considers ethnic cleansing and linguistic segregation to be normal. But the second echelon of European politics is quite ready to shine in such a context. In a certain sense, good news is that this is already frankly recognized and justified precisely as Russophobia, and not as part of the struggle for "the beautiful Russia of the future", striving at any cost to become a part of the "civilized world."
This is good already because it deprives the remnants of illusions about the essence of Western policy even those in Russia who, despite everything, have remained with them.
Although the scale of Russophobia is somewhat discouraging.
The bad news is that geopolitical limitrophes and hooligans like the former Soviet Baltic republics, Poland and the Czech Republic, which for some reason joined them, continue to wield influence in the collective West.
Despite the fact that their real geoeconomic significance (critical in the post-global world) is minimal.
Alas, industrial Europe (not only Germany, but also Austria, Italy, and even France), for which economic relations with Moscow are critical, is forced to adapt to the marginalized and certainly not contradict them. The good news is that the American administration has minimized its participation in the Sabbath, and in a demonstrative manner, which speaks of serious signs of common sense in Washington. That gives hope for a minimally constructive dialogue.
In fact, the combination of good and bad news reflects the structure of today's increasingly complex world. In some ways, Anatoly Chubais, who said that a group of countries - leaders for the 21st century is being formed right now - was right. It is only necessary to supplement his wise thought with the statement that the basis for the formation of this group of leaders will be the ability to perceive the geopolitical and geoeconomic reality, and not to produce meaninglessness passed off as meanings. And from this point of view, the platform turned out to be a good filter.
So Russia needs not to integrate into this virtual reality, not to try to add some new colors to it. It's still not interesting to anyone - it has its own atmosphere, and we are superfluous at this celebration of life. And we should not abuse such mechanisms either, although the “Kharkov”, “Pridnestrovian” and “Odessa” platforms are simply asking for themselves. Moreover, there will be something to talk about and with whom. On the whole, the further immersion of post-Soviet Ukraine in virtual political reality did not happen yesterday, and it is pointless to try to return it to the practical world. In the meantime, we must surround both her and our wonderful partners in the Baltics, the Caucasus, and Central Asia with a “belt of reality” constructed on the basis of tools that embody real politics and economics.
For example, treatment facilities and water supply systems in Crimea, new cities in Transbaikalia and Siberia, or new irrigation systems in the area south of Orenburg.
Much more effective entry ticket to the new world than propaganda attempts to outplay the collective West.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.