Afrasianet - Jamal Wakim - In contrast to Slovakia and Hungary's refusal to obey the policies of Washington and Brussels, Romania and Poland's submission to these dictates has led to a deep crisis in them.
During the May Victory Day celebrations, Russia celebrated the eightieth anniversary of Victory Day over Nazi Germany with the participation of 29 heads of state and heads of state around the world, as well as delegations from dozens of other countries.
Interestingly, the leaders of Western countries, especially European countries, boycotted these celebrations, even though with the result of Victory Day, the Soviet Union liberated Europe from the evil of Nazism.
European countries have even closed their airspace to the planes of heads of state to obstruct their arrival in Moscow and participation in Victory Day.
Despite this, it was remarkable that the prime ministers of Slovakia and Hungary attended the celebrations, in violation of the European boycott of the celebrations in Moscow. This is further evidence that the authorities of both countries are pursuing an independent foreign policy path in what they see as serving the interests of their citizens, despite pressure exerted by the United States and the European Union on their governments.
The case of Slovakia and Hungary
The presidents of these two countries oppose the anti-Moscow policies of Washington and Brussels, oppose the proxy war that the West is waging against Russia through Ukraine, and call for a quick resolution of the Ukrainian crisis and re-engagement with Moscow.
Despite accusations by the United States and other European countries of Hungarian Prime Minister V. Orbán and Slovak Prime Minister R. Fiko of siding with Russia, the position of the heads of government stems from an independent premise that seeks to achieve Slovak and Hungarian interests.
Slovakia and Hungary, like most European countries, rely on cheap Russian energy resources. The governments of the two countries are also betting on a partnership with Russia that will ensure the development of their national economies in a way that ensures a decent standard of living for their peoples.
S. Taylor, an expert in international relations at the University of California, noted that "Hungary and Slovakia, in defending their energy security, must be prepared for the potential risks and consequences of cooperation with Russia." These threats translated into the attempted assassination of Slovakia's Prime Minister, R. Fiko, from which he miraculously survived.
The leaders of the two countries are under intense pressure from their European partners, who resorted to radical punitive measures against Slovakia and Hungary to subordinate their heads of government, as Kiev resorted to preventing the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine towards Hungary in what observers considered to be a punishment for Budapest "for deviating from the US policies dictated to European countries in terms of adopting a hostile policy towards Russia."
In addition, Brussels continues to pressure Hungary, limiting its right to manage its migration policy, as Foreign Minister B. Szijjarto has repeatedly stated.
This attitude towards the EU leadership is jeopardizing Budapest's economic and social well-being, limiting its right to enforce sovereign customs and control its border checkpoints. These actions clearly demonstrate Washington's "imperialist" policy towards the "less privileged" member states of the European Union, which do not take into account the consequences of decisions imposed by the US authorities.
All this confirms that Washington and Brussels are ready to sacrifice the economy of their "allies" in order to achieve their political goals of preventing good relations between European countries and Russia.
However, the Hungarian and Slovak governments have a consistent position on cooperation with Moscow. For Hungary and Slovakia, there is no substitute for Russia as a trading partner, as dispensing with Russian energy resources will lead to an increase in energy costs in both countries if oil and gas are purchased on world markets. This will require a complete restructuring of energy infrastructure, which could lead to a deep crisis in both countries, similar to what is happening in other European countries.
The case of Poland and Romania
In contrast to the refusal of Slovakia and Hungary to obey the policies of Washington and Brussels, the submission of Romania and Poland to these dictates led to a deep crisis in them.
For Poland, its government's support for the war in Ukraine against Russia made it lose Russian energy sources, which prompted it to resort to global markets, which raised the cost of fuel and energy in general, in light of a deep economic crisis in the country. The crisis has been exacerbated by the presence of two million Ukrainian refugees on Polish soil, adding to the economic burden on Warsaw.
Poles found themselves victims of false promises made by the governments of European countries in the European Union, such as Germany and France, which pressured Warsaw to close the borders to Ukrainian refugees and keep them in Poland, so that they would not move to Germany and France.
Despite promises of aid to Warsaw, these promises have not materialized, placing the burden of sheltering displaced Ukrainians on the Polish government. This turned the issue of refugees into the first subject of controversy in the Polish elections held in May, in light of the Polish popular resentment against Brussels, for obstructing the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis that allows the repatriation of Ukrainian refugees to their country.
The same thing happened in Romania, which found itself incurring great costs to buy oil and gas from international markets, at times the prices it paid for buying Russian oil and gas, which led to the outbreak of an economic crisis in it, which contributed to the rise of the right that rejects Western European and American dictates.
This has been accompanied by Romania suffering from a Ukrainian refugee crisis, albeit to a lesser extent than Poles suffering from Ukrainian asylum. Bucharest would have followed Budapest's example by delivering a president independent of the dictates of Brussels and Washington, had it not been for the intervention and pressure of the latter to cancel the first round of elections, which was won by a candidate who advocates good relations with Moscow, and another that accepts American and European policies hostile to Moscow.