So, now, here is my retake: Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which also begot OSCE and the agenda of human rights, which played a key role in the demise of the world socialist system and the USSR, was a result of the long negotiated "wish of the Soviet Union and USA to end the Cold War"--but, and this is absolutely important--fully on the terms and conditions of the US and the West. The Final Act, the detente and the Helsinki "process" meant to facilitate and secure a gradual soft (as much as possible) landing of the USSR and its Eastern bloc and its holdings in half of the world in the death of the system and in the lap of the West. The Helsinki Process was part of the negotiating death, inversion, and U-turn enacted by the Soviet leaders--carefully, cautiously (at first and for some time), but also deliberately and decisively.
In a word, Helsinki FINAL ACT was the start of the Final Act of the system's self-demise and self-dismantlement, which, indeed, ended just 14-16 years later. In this, the Helsinki Process worked precisely as intended. It is thus also of some "historical justice" that OSCE plays such a role in the West-attempted (and Russia-approved) Minsk process, which is meant to place in the end the heroically resisting people of Donbass and its Cossacks back into the lap of the revived Nazism and its current Ukrainian "Banderstaat." It is thus also very symbolic that it was also the very same Finland which now effectively excluded on the 40th anniversary Russia from the OSCE assembly.
Number 40 is symbolic. Among other things, it is believed that, after the person's death, he remains for 40 days in a transit of limbo. In the case of a state, 40 years do seem more suitable than 40 days in the case of a person ...
However painful and unjust it is, one cannot fail to see that the US, and by extension the West, not only exerted Titanic efforts to deny the USSR "all the fruits" of its WWII victory (i.e., a peace treaty), but, ever since 1945, tried to change the results of World War II (which made the USSR a superpower) in such a way that would put (several decades later) the USSR into a position of a defeated (and even nonexistent) state and bring back Nazism as the Empire's new force of choice. In this, both the Soviet and Russian leaderships played "dialectically" their part both in terms of resistance and collaboration.
The fact that this 70-year old story was composed as a drama made of several acts (and somewhat evoking Hamlet) indicates that its authors combined science (game theory, economics, etc.) and intelligence operations with old fashioned liberal arts, including "the art of writing."
Otherwise, this post was born rather spontaneously and very simply. I woke up and he first thing I saw was a post by Peter Iiskola which I fully reproduce here:
The détente in Europe was born in Helsinki Final Act 1975 and it became OSCE in 1992, but was efficiently liquidated in the very same place 40 years later. This was not clumsiness or a mistake, but deliberate ringing of the bells for conflict and war – the dead-ringer or bell-ringer was the Finnish neoconservative president Sauli Niinistö. This says Peter Iiskola, a former Finnish diplomat and judge, who has served in UN, Council of Europe and Iran-USA arbitration in The Hague.
Détente is now replaced by a New Cold War, which can slip to a real war. This diplomatic end for the détente is much thanks to the cowardice decision of the Finnish president Sauli Niinistö to refuse Russia from OSCE. He did obey the U.S. neoconservative war mongering politics to hunt Russia down by going to a crusade against Russia. He did it against the opinion of the vast majority of the Finnish people. This cowardice example of Niinistö can encourage other leaders, who are now uncertain, and it might lead to a negative chain reaction, or “domino-effect”, to promote conflict and war.
This is in sharp contrast to the Finnish president Urho Kekkonen in 1975. He managed successfully and after great diplomatic efforts to create an opposite chain reaction for peace. This did put an end to the Cold War between East and West by the creation of OSCE (until 1992 it was CSCE). Of course, Kekkonen’s efforts were successful only because the presidents Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford supported Kekkonen. They needed and found in Kekkonen a reliable “matchmaker”.
Ironically, Niinistö is the U.S. messenger and dead-ringer of the bells for conflict and war. He made a diplomatically very clumsy, but deliberate, decision on the OSCE 40th anniversary. After pressure from U.S. and European neoconservatives under Barack Obama, he refused the Russian participation. This diplomatic sign serves as a serious warning bell which is tolling for conflict and war. The Finnish people are certainly not supporting this. The people will force Niinistö out of office, if not earlier, then at the next elections in 2018.
1. Why to put the blame only on the Finnish president Sauli Niinistö?
- It is fully justified, because Niinistö made alone the cowardice decision, as much as Urho Kekkonen made alone the brave decision - against all odds – to be the engine behind détente and CSCE-OSCE.
2. Is the decision to freeze Russia from OSCE so crucial?
- Yes, because this is a reflection of the growing cowardice in Europe, where smaller countries are abandoning their own interests and obey the U.S. neoconservative war mongers or their supporters in EU.
3. Is this not to overdramatize the situation?
- No, because the détente was born mainly through the wish of Soviet Union and USA to end the Cold War, but all this is now liquidated. Just be now prepared for war, if you can read the diplomatic signs because "War is the continuation of diplomacy and politics by other means".
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization with members States. The OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. Its 57 participating states are located in the Northern Hemisphere. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control and the promotion of human rights, freedom of the press and fair elections.