23.5 C
Ljubljana
Monday, May 27, 2024

Slovene Left-Wing MEPs Have Repeatedly Made Fools Of Themselves Before The Democratic Public – The Slovene Intelligence And Security Agency Had To Be Activated

By: Andrej Žitnik / Nova24tv

Slovene Members of the European Parliament that belong to socialist and liberal circles are a European anomaly. While the whole of the West (with the exception of those really extreme leftists gathered in Die Linke, Podemos, and other similar radical products of neo-Marxism) is completely on the side of Ukraine and recognises Russia as a modern fascism on the level of Nazi Germany, our let-wing MEPs are perfidiously flirting with the Kremlin. So much so that this has even caused some raised eyebrows among the left-wing members of the European Parliament. It is also increasingly clear to Europe that the Slovenian left-wing MEPs are part of a continuity that began with the Friends of the Soviet Union in Vidmar’s villa on the 27th of April 1941. Was the recent arrest of the Russian agents in Ljubljana merely a diversion to convince the West for a while that we are on the side of “core Europe and the USA,” and not on the side of Russia, Iran, North Korea, Eritrea, Nicaragua and Venezuela?

Last November, a NATO parliamentary committee labelled Russia a “terrorist state” and adopted a resolution recognising Russia as a “terrorist state”, which was supported by all 30 NATO members. The resolution identifies Russia as the most imminent threat to Euro-Atlantic security and calls for the creation of a special international court in connection with Russian aggression in Ukraine. Then, on the 23rd of November 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution to declare the Russian Federation a state sponsor of terrorism.

MEPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the resolution declaring Russia a state sponsor of terrorism and a state using terrorist means. The resolution was adopted by 494 votes in favour and 58 against, with 44 abstentions. Among the abstentions were two Slovenian S&D MEPs (Milan Brglez and Matjaž Nemec) and two Renew MEPs (Irena Joveva and Klemen Grošelj), who did not vote.

A month later, the European Parliament plenary recognised the Holodomor, the Soviet-engineered famine of 1932-1933, as a genocide of the Ukrainian people. “[The European Parliament] recognises the Holodomor, the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine caused by the deliberate policy of the Soviet regime, as genocide against the Ukrainian people, since it was committed with the intent to destroy a group of people by deliberately inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction,” reads the text of the resolution. To the astonishment of many, the vote was again avoided by MEPs from the Slovenian political left. Brglez did not vote, Nemec fled under the pretext that he had to return to Slovenia, and Grošelj had a death in the family.

Last month, the European Parliament held a vote on the implementation of the common security and defence policy. The report contained an amendment explicitly calling on the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, to allow the delivery of German Leopard 2 tanks to the Ukrainian army, which desperately needs them, without further delay. As expected, two Social Democrats MEPs voted against the amendment.

Brglez’s shameful explanation for abstention

Milan Brglez made it clear that his votes were no mistake, with his unlikely Russophile explanation of abstention on the resolution on Russia being declared a terrorist state. In fact, the explanation of the vote achieved exactly the opposite of what was desired. Instead of validating the vote, it exposed the moral wretchedness of the Social Democrats MEP. Firstly, because he lies in his writings about the consequences of the resolution, and secondly, because such writings must be judged not only by their content, but also by their consequences. The Member of European Parliament in question is very well aware of this.

What exactly did Brglez write? Let’s review it step by step. In the first paragraph of his explanatory statement, the MEP states that “the resolution represents a damaging departure from the united position of the European Parliament, which has consistently condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in previous resolutions, has insisted symbolically and in reality on supporting Ukraine’s defence, and has insisted on the necessity of putting an end to the armed conflict and resolving the conflict peacefully.” This is a lie. The resolution does not represent a departure from a united position. The resolution recognises the new, more or less united position of the European Parliament, which recognises the new situation in the war in Ukraine. It is not ‘moving away’ from the old resolutions, but merely upgrading them in line with what is happening on the ground. Milan Brglez clearly does not agree with this upgrading, because the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure is not, for him, an act of terror, or it is, but it is unworthy of mention, perhaps even a second-class issue.

In the second paragraph, Milan Brglez writes: “The text of this resolution has no basis in international law, but mainly in particular political interests for a populist portrayal of the situation and a reckoning with one of the countries involved at a time when the armed conflict is still ongoing.” This is also a lie. Russia has carried out, and is carrying out at this very moment, an identical set of activities to those carried out by its business partners (read: Iran) or by countries that the USA has placed on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Milan Brglez, as an expert in international relations, is well aware of this. It is also a lie that the resolution is based on partisan political interests. The latter statement is factually wrong and illogical. The resolution does not represent particular political interests, but the value centre of the West. If anything, and on that basis, it is Brglez’s abstention that is indicative of a particular political interest.

Their votes also echoed abroad

The scandal of the Slovenian left-wing MEPs, who apparently voted exactly as the Kremlin wanted, was only swept under the carpet by our own media, but abroad, they did start to wonder what was going on in Slovenia.

The well-known news portal Visegrad24 tweeted: “Slovenia’s previous government, led by Janez Janša, was one of Ukraine’s strongest allies in the EU. The new government of Robert Golob has not strengthened this relationship. All its MEPs abstained from yesterday’s vote in the EU Parliament declaring Russia a terrorist state.”

Even the leader of the European People’s Party, the European Parliament’s largest group, Manfred Weber, tore into Robert Golob in the EU Parliament after his speech, saying: “Those in the European Parliament who support your government did not support the resolution of this House which identified Russia as a terrorist regime. How can we understand this unwillingness to support Ukraine in every possible way?”

Things have obviously become too heated.

Was the arrest merely a show that was put on for the West?

In light of all of the above, the recent arrest of two Russian spies by the Slovene Intelligence and Security Agency that happened a few days ago becomes much more suspicious. Several interesting questions arise. Why is the intelligence and security service sharing such information with selected media outlets almost two months after the event had transpired? After all, a public announcement could endanger the lives of the intelligence officers who were in contact with the spies. Why did Andrej Benedejčič, an operative of the die-hard Russophile Danilo Türk, make a statement after the arrest? Why did the Foreign Minister pretend for several days that she knew nothing about this or that it was not her business? Why has she not yet invited the Russian ambassador to a talk? Was the pressure from the Western allies over the suspicious votes by Slovenian MEPs – which was even highlighted by the leader of the largest European parliamentary group – too much, and did the country have to do something at a declaratory level to clear itself of the (very justified) suspicions that it is a Russian tool in the global war against the West?

Share

Latest news

Related news