George Soros is one of the rare high-ranking Russophiles who are able to admit their mistakes. The American oligarch, who at one time “broke” the Bank of England, predicted the bankruptcy of the Russian Federation for 2017, but this did not happen.
Among media experts and politicians, for whom negative forecasts about Russia are an official duty, it is customary in such cases to simply post the collapse date for a slightly later period. Soros, and then you must pay tribute to our principal opponent, realizes in practice the old exchange rule: when the facts change, you need to change your mind.
The problem is that the legendary financier and master of political intrigues apparently derived new facts about Russia from the new and already scandalous US national security concept, in which Moscow and Beijing are declared the main rivals of the United States.
In an interview with the British business publication Financial Times, the financier unexpectedly changed his position with regard to Russia, with her example used to emphasize how bad the affairs of the European Union are. Soros in his traditionally aggressive manner stated that “this is the European Union – the organization that is on the verge of collapse” and “Russia is a resurgent power based on nationalism.”
It’s funny, but in this interview there is not a word that everything is bad in Russia, and soon it will be even worse. Soros tries on the mask of the “offended fighter for freedom,” allegedly confronted personally by Putin. Strangely enough, he thereby works to strengthen the positive image of the Russian president, as many Western readers are quite capable of building a simple logical chain: George Soros, the most influential political player who can afford to read the notations to Angela Merkel himself, complains about the effectiveness of Putin’s international attack on the organization of Soros. The conclusion is obvious: the Russian president is much stronger, freer and more influential than even the most senior European politicians.
The frustrations of the American oligarch are very much in tune with frustrations, which are reflected in the new US national security strategy. In the basic document of the US military department, Russia and China appear as “revisionist powers” who defied American interests and established world order based on the hegemony of the States. Soros, in principle, complains about the same thing, only his accent is shifted to the threat that the “resurgent power” Russia represents for the European Union.
It is significant that both Soros and the White House, in fact, accuse Russia of the same thing – in violation of the world order, the main characteristic of which was the generally recognized “death of Russia” and the denial of its former statehood. In this sense, the very fact of the Russian “revival” (according to Soros) becomes ”
According to Soros himself, he sincerely believes that the cause of the revival of Russia is “nationalism”, but it would be incorrect to interpret this position literally. Practice shows that, from the point of view of the American financier and political activist, every politician who does not agree to play the role of a puppet in his hands is already automatically a nationalist and a dangerous radical, which in no way should be allowed into a “decent society”.
If you translate his statement from “Soros” to Russian, you can say: Soros complains that Russia is reborn through patriotism, and this frankly frightens him. If you take into account his previous forecasts about the country, it’s easy to see the reason for the panic: instead of going bankrupt and falling apart, it is quite stable and the very fact of its existence serves as an example.
It turns out that Putin for European politicians is such a “bad company” and that he shows everyone how a confrontation with the American establishment, including in the person of Soros, can be a winning tactic that provides, in addition to geopolitical benefits, a significant liking for voters. The Russian president was not in vain called the first European populist, who inspires with his example such politicians as Victor Orban or Marin Le Pen.
Although European, and American political technologists after the victory of Macron in the elections in France hastened to declare the “death of European populism” and even “the defeat of pro-Russian Euroscepticism,” Soros claims that it is the European Union that is on the verge of collapse, and there is a suspicion that the American oligarch is closer to the truth.
Firstly, because he has direct access to the highest floors of the Western establishment, and secondly because he is inclined to look at future risks rather than past victories due to the characteristics of the profession. In order to understand his concern, it is enough to look at the Berlin-Warsaw conflict, the confident movement of the German authorities towards the creation of a “Europe of two speeds”, how the German Central Bank injects the yuan into gold and foreign exchange reserves to the detriment of the dollar, and even to a rather high one a rating of Euro-skeptic populists from the Italian “Five-Star Movement”, capable of presenting a surprise at the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
The time for a final solution of the Russian issue has already been missed, and if earlier Soros could have hoped for a collapse of the Russian economy, he does not now put such a scenario on the table. Moreover: the most influential American bank Goldman Sachs made an unexpectedly optimistic forecast of the country’s economic growth, the parameters of which exceed even the brightest estimates of the Russian government.
If the American establishment acted rationally, then after the failure of the “economic blitzkrieg” against Russia, it would be worth it to try to negotiate with Moscow, but for now it is not necessary to count on it, because too much effort and money was spent on restarting the media amf about the “terrible Russian threat”.
However, sooner or later even the most persistent Russophiles will be forced to follow the path that George Soros has already passed: first denying Russia’s right to exist, then life with the hope that Russia “is about to go bankrupt,” then the depression from the fact that Russia did not fall apart, and in the end bitter admission that Russia is forever.