The European Parliament adopted two unprecedentedly harsh resolutions on Russia and Belarus, the content of which is in flagrant contradiction with diplomatic etiquette and international relations practice.

The documents contain recommendations for aggressive (to say the least) interference in the affairs of the two states.

Moreover, the EP, in fact, in its appeals went against the interests of a number of European states. 

The resolution on Russia recommends the introduction of new sanctions in connection with the case of the "poisoning" of Alexei Navalny.

In addition to the usual restrictive measures that are proposed to be imposed on officials and civil servants, European deputies consider it necessary to immediately stop the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and revise the EU policy towards Russia as a whole.

It is also necessary to strengthen the isolation regime of Russia at various international platforms, for example, to exclude its participation in the G7 forum.

This is a kind of expected and quite traditional part of wishes.

As for gross interference in internal Russian affairs, the EP decided not to limit itself to any existing international norms.

The EU countries should in every way contribute to the development of democracy in Russia, support non-governmental organizations, independent media and journalists.

An analogue of the Magnitsky Act should be adopted as soon as possible as another lever of sanctions pressure.

As for Belarus, there is about the same picture.

The election results were not recognized, it was recommended to provide support to the coordinating council, which is presented in the form of a kind of transitional structure, almost a technical provisional government.

The impudent trick of the European parliamentarians will not provoke another political crisis for one simple reason.

The fact is that the European Parliament is a structure with reduced social responsibility.

Not quite, however, in the sense that Russian President Vladimir Putin put into the characterization he invented.

The EP has absolutely no powers and opportunities to influence European politics.

It is parliament only in name, but in fact it is just a big talking house, in which an exchange of views and approval of non-binding documents take place.

Serious European politicians ignore this organization, because participation in its work does not contribute to the advancement of the career ladder.

If you are unable to demonstrate to your voters the results of your work, then you did not work, but did not know what.

Another thing is young European democracies such as the Baltic limitrophes or Poland.

There they treat the elections to the EP with terrifying seriousness, since they perceive it as a high rostrum from which one can publicly declare one's own claims or ambitions.

As a result, radicals from large European states are included in the parliamentary corps, and representatives of various political forces, including pro-Russian ones, come from the new EU members.

This is due to the fact that the elections to the EP are rather a random, sporadic event that has little to do with political life and the interests of the countries where they are held.

By the way, the resolution on Belarus contains a fantastic proposal to add to the sanctioned list of Russian citizens "directly involved in supporting the Lukashenka regime."

This is also unprecedented.

An arbitrary number of people can be included in the circle of “involved” persons, since even doing the most innocuous business in Belarus can easily be qualified as “supporting the regime”.

It is clear that the unbelted company must somehow be called to account.

532 deputies voted for the resolution on Russia.

It is difficult to predict what Moscow's response will be.

Perhaps she will ignore the opinion of the European marginalized, who got into the European Parliament due to the fact that no one takes this organization seriously.

But I would say that the aforementioned platform still serves to disperse anti-Russian initiatives, which, being at first simply formulated, then gradually begin to take significant political forms within the walls of much more influential structures.

And such throws should be caught, as they say, on the approach.

532 parliamentarians who approved the document calling for direct interference in internal Russian affairs may well become banned from entering Russia.

Perhaps, specifically for these individuals, such a ban will mean nothing.

Actually, they don't really interest anyone.

The problem is that the unparalleled arrogance of those who have lost all sense of proportion should not remain unanswered.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.