NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced his readiness for both cooperation and confrontation with Russia.
Well, Europeans are, as always, in their repertoire.
An extremely advantageous position: I love and hate at the same time.
Regardless of where the wind blows: the straw is in any case placed, you can lean in any direction.
But we perfectly understand that they usually say this when they cannot decide on a position.
Now, they say, the ball is on your side, and we wash our hands.
Do something and we'll figure out how to react.
Or we will not decide, but wait for some more signal or sign.
The position was chosen doubly successful and promising: after all, it is known a priori that Russia is still the embodiment of evil.
Now he is also judging a photogenic revolutionary.
Don't go to a fortune-teller - another batch of sanctions is not far off.
Europeans, in any case, it turns out, are handsome, but Russia again “could not”.
Having a good face while playing badly has been a favorite technique of our European partners for centuries.
Only this time there is one significant but.
It is not difficult to gather the whole gang and attack from around the corner with a sharpening on a citizen who is peacefully passing by.
But it turns out that it is much more difficult and almost impossible to resist an older comrade who keeps the quarter and the entire surrounding area in fear, regularly collecting tribute from those who are under his roof.
This is me about the United States, if someone is suddenly unclear.
The picture turns out to be classic.
On the one hand, the puffing up of the cheeks, on the other, the tucking of the tail and a plaintive howl in a posture of submission.
After all, what is NATO?
Vassal dependence on the overseas signor, taken as the only possible option for the existence and development of events.
In the awareness of the situation, of course, some reasonable subjects.
But let's see how Emmanuel Macron's attempt to talk about the European army ended.
The idea sounded - and even conversations began around, and what happened next?
The same Macron once said about NATO's brain death.
There was a scandal that they preferred to simply forget, without any decisions.
In order for the matter to really get off the ground, some kind of cataclysm, shock is needed.
And the Europeans had a great chance - this is Trump's presidency with all his antics, after one of which, for example, Angela Merkel could have made a formidable fi and, on full moral grounds, lower the level of relations, but this did not happen.
What is this if not Stockholm syndrome and complete muscle atrophy?
At the same time, the Europeans in a humiliated position, of course, really want to make up for this complex on other fronts, one of which for them is Russia.
But only here the Europeans, in their usual manner, as always, got confused: they decided to communicate with us from the position of the burden of a white man, forgetting about who defeated both Napoleon and Hitler in their time.
Their rhetoric is not only inappropriate, but also in no way corresponds to the real state of affairs.
What is this phrase actually about: "NATO is ready for both cooperation and confrontation with Russia"?
The fact that Europeans have come to terms with the fact that much in their life, if not everything, does not depend on them.
This is a good signal for us: there are reasonable grounds to believe that Sergei Lavrov's statement that we are ready to break off relations, that you want peace, they say, prepare for war, have reached their addressee.
The rhetoric, although it remained ambiguous, nevertheless changed.
Now the Europeans are already ready for cooperation, and until recently they only shook their fists and threatened to increase sanctions, there was no other way of communicating with them.
The main conclusion is simple: the less you are almond-shaped and the more rigid and decisive you take, the more respected.
The right of the strong was, is and remains the only instrument of international relations that has not lost its relevance for millennia.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.