Boycott of the Russia World Cup comes to an end

In an interview with the national media, Swedish Foreign minister Margot Wallström said that Stockholm had refused to boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup due to the success of the Swedish national team. Members of the government plan to attend the game of the 1/8 finals between Switzerland and Sweden, which will be held in St. Petersburg on July 3. Previously, Stockholm supported the initiative of Great Britain to boycott the World Cup in Russia by officials with regard to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Representatives of Australia, Iceland, Poland and Lithuania supported the Swedish decision.
However, solidarity did not last long. In her defense, Margot Wallström says that the boycott extended only to the opening match. And now, the Swedish leadership considers it important to support the Swedish team, and this decision was made after consulting with colleagues from Denmark. By the way, the Danish Minister of Culture has already visited the game of the national team with Croatia in Nizhny Novgorod on Sunday. And the President of the Republic of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, kept her company.
The Swedish don’t have to long drive. The game with the participation of the national team will take place in the native town of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who destroys European integrity and safety by his actions. But Europe forgets it. It is possible that the residence of the Swedish delegation will be paid by the host country.
And if the Swedish participation in the 1/8 finals is already a success, then up to what stage the British should come that their leadership will come to Russia? Let’s imagine… Theoretically, England and Russia can meet in the semifinal.
Let’s say that it happened, and the Russian president gives the command to his team to lose this match. This is quite real, taking into account the degree of authoritarianism in Russia. And the Englishmen, who consider themselves the ancestors of football, and who became world champions only once in 1966, are on the verge of triumph! But where?! On the territory of the state, whose leadership has repeatedly been criticized by the highest-ranking officials from London. Moreover, during the world football forum, the British media are full of articles about racism and Russian football hooligans. But they likely have to go. And it can be assumed that Boris Johnson himself or even Teresa May will go to Moscow, forgetting about the boycott. By the way, in 1966 the national team of England obtained the championship with the help of the Russians. Line judge Tofiq Bahramov, who counted a very controversial goal, represented the USSR.
All this reminds once again the gradual collapse of European stability, unity and the existence of double standards, to ordinary Europeans. When politicians need something, they will be able to turn any statements and actions in their favor.
P.S. If Denmark beat Croatia and passes to play a game with Russia, the issue with Nord Stream-2 would be resolved …

Europe prepares for war

Last week in Brussels the European Commission and the High Representative presented an Action Plan to improve military mobility within and beyond the European Union. This would enable military personnel and equipment to be moved more quickly across Europe. It is noted that nowadays many types of military equipment can not be transported to the EU because of its heavy weight and large dimensions.
Therefore, the leadership of the European Union believes that European countries should seriously concern themselves with their military mobility and combat readiness in order to respond in time to possible crises. Thus, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President Federica Mogherini said: “… by facilitating military mobility within the EU, we can be more effective in preventing crises, more efficient in deploying our missions, and quicker in reacting when challenges arise…”.
This large-scale programme let’s us believe that the European Union prepares for possible military operations with the use of conventional weapons on the territory of European states. And although the European officials haven’t said yet in which direction the troops transfer is planned, it is clear that we are likely talking about the eastern direction. And despite talks about the creation of transport corridors towards Britain, I think the eastern European direction will remain a priority.
Let me remind you that Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, U.S. Army Europe commander, proposed for the first time the creation of a so-called military Schengen zone in May 2017 at a conference in Tallin. The idea was to ensure the free movement of troops and military equipment, including NATO material, in the territory of EU countries.
It should be noted that the EU has recently tended to build its own military potential and extend military cooperation of European countries. This is due to the fact that NATO, in which the United States and Britain play the key role, causes more and more criticism in the countries of continental Europe. The European Union seeks to create joint forces that would be independent from the US and could be used exclusively in the interests of European states. But whatever opinion the EU leadership holds, European countries aren’t able to influence the situation, as well as deviate from the line set by the USA and Washington …

Instead of #GreatBritain will be the #Balkans

Lately Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov declared that the Balkans could replace Great Britain, leaving the EU. He said it giving a lecture in the University of National and World Economy (Bulgaria). He thinks this is real and this theme has already been accepted to discuss.
Such a statement is another proof that the forces controlling a range of processes can gradually change. Brexit was the reason for the division of influence within the EU. Perhaps this is not a hot news, but it is an actual topic for reasoning. Especially in the shadow of the fact that Sofia will hold the presidency of the Union in the first half of 2018.
Boyko Borisov says that the Balkans will be able to replace Britain and probably he sees his country in the main role in that. This is a commendable statement before his own electorate. But how countries with the weakest economies of Europe, even if they are united by one idea and goal, will be able to replace the leading country, whose economy is ranked sixth globally. I think this is not realistic. Great Britain can not be replaced. Great Britain occupied an important place in the European Union.
However, such statements create conditions for disruption of situation in the EU. You can remember that Bulgaria supports the abolishment of open – door policy. On November 21, the Bulgarian President Ramen Rudev said it in a meeting with the President of European Parliament Antonio Tajani. On October 5, the Bulgarian President, while on a visit to Poland, supported Warsaw’s policy regarding the refusal to admit refugees in accordance with quotas. The Bulgarian leadership believes that it is necessary to support the development of efforts to improve the living conditions in the countries of Africa and the Middle East. Thus, on the eve of the European presidency, Bulgaria ranks one with states that refused to implement the decisions of the EU leadership on the distribution of refugees (like as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, etc.).
We can assume that this situation is beneficial to Poland. Warsaw has tried to become leader for a long time and needs allies in promoting its ideas. And the aggressive behavior of Poland towards the EU partners is not surprising . And the recent Bulgarian-Polish meetings show that there is an agreement on many topical issues between countries. It’s possible that Hungary will join these countries. The Hungarian leadership position also runs counter to the Brussels view on many issues. Let’s not forget about the Balkans. Countries in this region often feel resentful because they are not heard. All these states have their ambitions and desires, the achievement of which can lead to negative consequences for the European Union.