It seems that the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell is trying to justify himself in front of the whole honest world for the fact that during his visit to Moscow he failed to nightmare Russia and force it to surrender.
That he did not beat the dishes here, did not stamp his feet and did not go into hysterics.
It has been justifying itself for almost two months.
After returning from Russia, he began to make one after another statements about how bad Russia is and what a fine fellow he was in Moscow, voicing all the necessary signals to the Russian leadership there.
The diplomat began to advocate for new sanctions, to call Russia a "dangerous neighbor" and to say that relations between the EU and Russia are "at a dead center."
Further - more: Borrell even uttered a sensational one - that he was attacked in Russia, that the Russian side imposed an aggressive format of negotiations.
"This is an attack, not an insult," Borrell said (only it is not clear: was it an attack or his personal fall?).
It seems that in Russia he actually received some kind of psychophysical trauma or decided to inscribe his name among the victims of Russian treachery.
Skripali, Navalny, Borrel ... a worthy company.
Have you found any traces of Novichok yet? ..
The European diplomat justifies the failure of his visit to Moscow by the fact that the Russian side used his visit to demonstrate its aggression and announce the expulsion of diplomats from three European countries who took part in uncoordinated protests.
Of course, he himself, like the very diplomats, had no intention of interfering in internal Russian affairs (they call this the support of civil society) and influencing justice.
Instead of moving the relationship from that blind spot, he simply crumpled up his visit and reduced it to an attempt to teach Russia a lesson on how to deal with Alexei Navalny, whether to act according to the law or give him carte blanche for everything.
In fact, these are all the same legendary "cookies" with which they persistently try to feed.
Refusal to use them is a reason for accusations of aggression, of unpreparedness for a constructive dialogue.
It's simple.
The diplomat planned to exclusively lecture and observe how, in response to his "science," they blink guiltily.
Through his current revelations and the image of the victim, he tries to justify his professional incompetence.
Yes Yes exactly.
It should be recalled what were the expectations from the visit of this high-ranking diplomat, and he himself, before his trip to Moscow, broadcast exclusively about goodwill.
But in reality, the visit, which took place in early February and could have become historic, turned into a zilch.
Another reason for anti-Russian scandals.
Now, of course, we can say that he was "attacked", to film and record psychological and other injuries, which he does.
Let us remind you that before his trip to our country Borrell said that Russia "remains a neighbor and partner of paramount importance."
He spoke about the need to continue the dialogue.
He also noted that, despite numerous contradictions, the EU and Russia can work together.
The nostalgic message to the 90s was also important, when there were supposedly dreams of a different Europe and "worked together to solve global problems."
By the way, we agree on this: in Russia they also dreamed and are dreaming of another Europe - sane, partner, and not bristling and hearing only itself.
Now it turns out that unfulfilled dreams of another Europe have come together at a dead center.
Now the head of EU diplomacy calls Russia a "dangerous neighbor".
Say what you like, but a fantastic transformation - from a "paramount" neighbor to a "dangerous" one.
So what happened to the diplomat in Moscow, what kind of attack?
Very intriguing.
Or is it not Moscow at all?
Or did the psychotrauma take place after his return, after numerous accusations of weakness: they say, he didn’t tame Russia, didn’t put it in its place?
In Brussels, after returning from Moscow, MEPs chastised poor Borrel for several hours, there were even calls to resign.
Therefore, it is trying to justify itself, painting from itself at the same time the image of the alpha male of European democracy and the victim of Russian aggression.
Even then, Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma's international affairs committee, commenting on Borrell's speech in the European Parliament, noted that it was "openly discordant with his statements during his visit to Russia" and that he had adjusted to the "general Russophobic mood of the audience."
Having adjusted, it continues to follow this stream, and it is clear to which format of dialogue with Russia it leads: Kemsk volost;
cock, eggs, milk;
Crimea, Navalny ...
Now the diplomat is already declaring that relations with Russia should be built on the principle of "throw back and restrain", and on occasion, one can even threaten.
But isn't this the formula of that very "blind spot" in relations, is it not a confirmation of the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the EU has been consistently destroying relations with Russia?
Or is “throwing and holding back” a gymnastic exercise?
We should start chanting and also drop, but where?
If we don't want to throw anyone away, if our worries are enough, what then? ..
As noted by the spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova, the EU "continues the unfriendly line, alienates itself from its neighbors on the Eurasian continent, and also returns to the diplomatic vocabulary the formulations of the Cold War period, while promoting archaic block thinking."
It moves away from its neighbors, discards its chief diplomat, according to the precepts, and then complains about the rapprochement between Russia and China, which is allegedly based on "rejection of democratic values."
And he laments this and denounces all the same Borrel.
Where is the logic?
And she's gone for a long time.
As in the situation with the recent strange revelations of President Biden, we are not talking about Russia at all, but about the image created by it, in which they first of all see themselves.
The image of Russia plays a structure-forming role in dogmatic thinking and European politicians.
In relation to her, there are certain strict standards, the adherence to the letter of which is vigilantly monitored, and any deviation becomes a reason for accusations.
There are clear instructions, circulars and directives of Russophobia - a kind of internal dictatorship.
Why does Europe need it?
It is hard to say.
Perhaps, politicians see this as a cement for European cohesion - a kind of myth for a united Europe.
There is also a large share of ancient fears and complexes in this, which they are trying to adopt and steer somewhere ...
And Borrell ... What Borrell?
He simply defends the purity of his Euro-democratic blood, defends himself against political inquisitors who are quick to punish and are ready to arrange a comradely trial.
Yes, we all dreamed of a different Europe, of joint work for the good.
But it did not work: the EU preferred the very archaic of the Cold War and bloc thinking, the dictatorship of rigid dogmatic thinking.
He encloses himself with a palisade, and even if towers and barbed wire around the perimeter will appear - after all, everything that is outside scares and conceals numerous dangers, and they can attack there ...
All this is evidence of grave intra-European ailments, deepest stagnation and degradation.
Can the EU overcome this inertia?
Or will it continue, as Maria Zakharova noted, to deepen the "dividing lines"?
After all, this is not only about the destabilization of international relations: "continuing in the same spirit, Brussels runs the risk of being left on the sidelines of world economic development."
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.