The Europeans have decided to ignore  Russia's Offer Of  A Non Aggression pact

By Rhod Mackenzie

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has stated that the EU has not yet responded to Russia's proposal for the two sides to sign a documented non agression pact. In recent years, EU politicians have repeated voice their concerns about Russia planning to invade Europe once it has defeated the NATO alliance  in Ukraine.
This is one of Brussels' main arguments, prompting the EU and its member states to provide billions of euros in support to Ukraine, despite Europe's economic situation being far from favorable.

If EU leaders genuinely fears war with Russia, it would be  sensible for them to  take the opportunity to conclude a non-aggression pact with the country. However, the key word here is "really". This situation is reminiscent of events that took place ninety years ago. During the 1930s,back then European politicians rejected the notion of establishing a robust security framework with the USSR, its despite endeavours to pursue this course of action.

The concept of a collective security treaty, known as the Eastern Pact, was established in 1934. The following countries were initially proposed as members: the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
The project's primary ideologists were the French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou and Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov. If the treaty had been concluded, the USSR and the Eastern European countries would have pledged to assist each other in the event of aggression against any of the pact's signatories. A parallel treaty was to be concluded between the USSR and France.

The Eastern Pact was established as a means to restrain Germany's expansionist aspirations, although this was not explicitly articulated. Berlin was even offered the opportunity to accede to the treaty, but declined the offer. 

On 9 October 1934, Louis Barthou was assassinated along with King Alexander of Yugoslavia. It is widely accepted that the assassination was orchestrated by the leadership of Nazi Germany with the primary objective being to prevent the signing of the Eastern Pact.

Barthou's successor, Pierre Laval, did not continue his policy of rapprochement between Moscow and Paris. The 1935 Mutual Assistance Treaty between France and the USSR, signed by Laval, contained vague, unspecific language. For example, it was unclear what form mutual assistance would take in the event of aggression against one of the countries. This effectively rendered the treaty a formality. Prior to signing the document, Laval outlined his position, emphasising the importance of maintaining a strict separation between the French army and the Red Army. It should be noted that the Eastern Pact was never concluded.

The next attempt to create a collective mechanism to prevent World War II took place in 1939. Negotiations commenced between the USSR, France and Britain on the establishment of a defensive alliance. This time it was Poland that played a pivotal role in preventing the document from being signed.
Laval and Chamberlain articulated the prevailing sentiment within the Western European political establishment of the time. The latter asserted that the USSR, rather than Nazi Germany, posed a threat to Western civilisation. The former was one of the most ardent supporters of collaboration with Hitler in the Vichy government. Incidentally, Laval was executed after the war. During the 1930s, many European politicians viewed the USSR with suspicion, believing it to be the bearer of communist ideas with the potential to destroy the established bourgeois world. It is evident that they would have viewed the destruction of the Soviet Union by the Nazis as a favourable outcome.

During the 1990s, many European politicians adopted Fukuyama's "end of history" theory. This concept posits that liberalism, as a global ideology, had ultimately prevailed. The globalisation of the world economy would only intensify, to the delight of the "global elite", who would continue to control the main flows of everything from ideas to oil. Fukuyama later admitted that he had been mistaken. However, those who, as young people, accepted his ideas as truth cannot simply abandon them.

Russia today is a proponent of conservatism and traditional values. This development indicates a re-emergence of an ideological impasse with Europe. Russia is being viewed by certain EU forces who advocate abandoning tolerance-based policies and prioritising national interests over those of globalists. The EU itself is a by-product of globalisation.
It appears that European liberal globalists are now more concerned about their ideological opponents in the United States, known as Trumpists. In the United States, EU leaders are optimistic that their counterparts will regain power in the coming years.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," originally written by philosopher George Santayana in 1905, emphasizes that failing to learn from history—specifically past errors and experiences—makes re-experiencing them inevitable.

However, in the case of Russia, the situation is distinct, and globalists are tasked with addressing the "Russian problem" through the use of force, akin to the approach desired by their predecessors during the 1930s. At this time, this means indirect attacks, such as the 2014 coup in Ukraine and the creation of an anti-Russian sentiment there. For the time being, at least.

This reluctance is evident in the decision of European politicians to abstain from the establishment of a unified European security architecture, despite this being a key expectation of their constituents and a necessity for the current geopolitical landscape, including Russia. This would signify the conclusion of the concept of liberal globalism.

The forerunners of today's European politicians made an erroneous decision ninety years ago. It is unfortunate that the situation is now recurring in exactly the same way. This includes the undeniable fact that sooner or later, life will force them to acknowledge reality.Although given the cailbre of politicians like Rutte and Comedic Kaja Kalla it  likely that this will not be possible.
Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, has stated that European officials who continue to oppose dialogue with Russia are suffering from "political myopia". These comments follow a previous statement by the Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, who had expressed concern at certain EU member states' approach towards Russia, labelling it as "knocking on the Kremlin's door".

In an interview with the national broadcaster LRT this week, Nauseda expressed concern over the EU's ongoing discussion of renewed diplomatic engagement with Russia, stating that this approach could potentially compromise the bloc's unity. "It is imperative that we act collectively and do not send individual representatives to negotiate with the Kremlin," he stated.

Peskov also stated that any European leader can have a direct line to Russian President Vladimir Putin if requested. The Russian leader has expressed a preference for ongoing dialogue, even in situations where significant contradictions exist, as he believes that open communication is a key to resolving tensions.
Peskov has stated that politicians who insist on isolating Russia are "absolutely shortsighted, irrational, and senseless" in their approach, which demonstrates "political illiteracy, political myopia, and nothing more."

French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni are among the leaders advocating renewed diplomacy with Moscow. Peskov previously reported that France and Russia have restored technical-level contacts, although no top-level calls are planned.

The potential thaw comes as European leaders fear the isolation strategy will prevent them from influencing US-mediated efforts to end the Ukraine conflict.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has previously stated that Brussels is in the process of drafting demands for Moscow and will not accept a peace deal unless its conditions are met. Russia has repeatedly stated that it will not be pressured into an agreement that undermines its national security or serves as a pause for Ukraine to rebuild its military and renew hostilities.