EU’s Opposition to Trump’s Policies Not for Moral Reasons: Russian Analyst
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A political commentator based in Moscow highlighted the reasons behind recent disputes between the European Union and the US administration and said the EU leaders are not opposed to President Donald Trump for moral reasons but because he has not been certified by them.
“So, the EU is demonizing Trump and blames him for all the conflict that we see inside the Western world,” Dmitry Babich said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.
“The EU’s politicians and the pro-Obama liberals in the US are not doing this for moral reasons,” he said, adding, “They do it simply because Trump was not ‘certified’ by them, he was not handpicked and approved by the ultra-liberal establishment, as Hillary (Clinton) had been.”
“If Hillary had won in 2016 and decided to start a war against Iran, 99 percent of the American media would support that war, and the EU (via NATO) would send reinforcements for the American attack,” the analyst added.
Dmitry Babich, born in Moscow, has been an active journalist for over 25 years, focusing on Russian politics. Graduating from Moscow State University, Babich has had a successful career in Russian journalism. He has previously been a senior correspondent at the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily, RIA Novosti, and Russia Profile magazine. Between 1999 and 2003, Babich was a foreign editor at The Moscow News before returning to Russia Profile in 2009 as acting editor-in-chief. His core areas of focus include Russia’s modern political history and international relations. Babich is currently working as a political analyst at Sputnik International and is a frequent guest on BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN commenting on international affairs and history.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: Some analysts and media reports suggest that the recent G-7 summit in Biarritz, France, ended in failure as deep divisions between the US under Donald Trump and its closest allies became more evident. For example, the US-Europe dispute over Trump’s trade war with China was not bridged even a bit in the summit. Do you not think these disputes indicate that the US allies are distancing themselves from Trump and his shifting policies?
Babich: I think that the real reason why both the US and the EU are so aggressive towards some Middle Eastern countries, China and Russia is not a national interest of the US or of any European country. The reason for this aggressiveness is the new ultra-liberal ideology, which took hold of the Western world (both the US and the EU) in the postwar period, especially during the last 30 years. The European Union is following this ideology with even greater zeal than the US. And the EU can’t get over the fact that not the ultimate ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton won the election in 2016, but the brutal and stupid American nationalist Donald Trump (did). So, the EU is demonizing Trump and blames him for all the conflict that we see inside the Western world. The EU’s politicians and the pro-Obama liberals in the US are not doing this for moral reasons. They do it simply because Trump was not “certified” by them, he was not handpicked and approved by the ultra-liberal establishment, as Hillary had been. So, ultimately, the American election of 2016 had some positive consequences. Not because Trump is good, he is a brutal bastard and a moving caricature. But because there was a SPLIT in the American elite. As a result, some of the American media objected to Trump’s provocations against Iran – again, not because these American media outlets were objective or kind, they just did not want Trump to get the political profit from what they thought could be a winning war against Iran. It is the same reason that is pushing the EU to object to Trump’s war-mongering against Iran. If Hillary had won in 2016 and decided to start a war against Iran, 99 percent of the American media would support that war, and the EU (via NATO) would send reinforcements for the American attack.
Tasnim: It seems that even Asian allies of the US have also distanced themselves from the Trump administration. In the latest instance, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared in early August that his country would never allow the United States to deploy missile systems on its soil. Although there exists the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States, Duterte said that he would bar the entry of foreign weapons, including nuclear arsenal in the country since this is considered a violation of the Philippine Constitution. What is your take on that? How do you assess the future of US relations with its Asian allies?
Babich: In Asia, Trump continues the disastrous Obama policy of alienating China and Russia. Obama did not include the two “elephants” of the Pacific region, Russia and China, into his Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was a globalist ultraliberal project. Trump went even further. He dismantled TPP and started a trade war with China, replacing Obama’s “soft” ultraliberal globalist approach with brutal economic aggression.
However, people in Asia are becoming fed up both with the globalist dictate of Obama-EU-Clinton ultraliberals and Trump’s brutal plunder. The president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, is just one manifestation of this trend. Let me remind you how South Korea had a “joint” team with North Korea during the Olympic Games in Pyeongchang - despite American objection. Even Japan is showing some signs of softening towards Russia – obviously against the globalist line of the EU and Trump’s brutal America-above-all Russophobia.
Tasnim: The Trump administration has walked away from various international agreements, ranging from the Iran nuclear deal to the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. In early August, the US formally withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia which was signed by the former Soviet Union and the United States back in 1987. What is your assessment of Trump’s policy on international agreements? Are the US moves to renege on its international promises aimed at boosting its global hegemony, which has recently been declining very fast?
Babich: The policy line of the US and its European allies towards exiting the existing arms control agreements started long before Trump. Under Bill Clinton, the US Congress never ratified the START II agreement, George Bush the Junior exited the anti-ballistic missile agreement of 1972, signed between the then Soviet Union and the US. The true reason for these exits was the modern ideology of the modern West (which includes the US, the EU, all NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand). This ideology divides the world into “democracies” and “non-democracies” – and openly roots for the victory of “democracies,” even by military means. This ideology wants to replace the traditional family and traditional market economy by some new “experimental forms” of family (same-sex marriages, polyamorous communities, etc.) and by the monopolized global economy in the interest of huge global corporations. This ideology is utopian and revolutionary, and it won’t stop at using war for its final victory.
So, the West is dismantling arms agreements, because they limit its huge military superiority. But Clinton and Obama were hypocritical about exiting arms agreements, and Trump is not. When exiting INF because of Russia’s “breaches” Trump knew he was not fair. The INF was signed in 1987, when Poland, Rumania and the Baltic countries – now open enemies of Russia – were formal allies of the Soviet Union or even its parts (the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia). So no wonder that Russia is building new missiles to compensate for the new American advantage (American missiles from Estonia can hit St. Petersburg after a 1-minute flight). So, Trump just wants full superiority, in order to have absolute dictate. As for “democracy,” the West lost it when it became so aggressive. Democracies do not invade countries that don’t attack them (Iran, Libya, Syria) and democracies do not get all paranoid about their citizens’ contacts with other countries (Russiagate).