While Finland and Sweden are being dragged to NATO in order to be shaved to the right format and infected with the virus of Russophobia, Serbia is consistently demonstrating a non-opportunistic policy.
Now, against the backdrop of powerful pressure on this country from the side of "progressive" humanity, Serb support for the idea of joining the EU is teetering on the brink of a historical minimum.
According to an Ipsos poll, only 34% of Serbs polled would support a possible entry into the EU, and about 44% would vote against it.
The Ukrainian crisis and the massive pressure to force Belgrade to burst out with sanctions curses against Russia are cited as the reasons for the current Serbian Euroscepticism.
At the same time, it must be understood that the authorities of the country are trying to maintain a balance: Belgrade has a clear European vector, after all, one geographical location obliges, but at the same time, in relation to Russia, it distances itself from the sanctions policy and breaks the established pattern.
It was formulated by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the country, Alexander Vulin, who noted that the European Union "measures the country's love for Europe by hatred for Russia."
A sort of principle of political disjunction "either - or".
By the way, it was fully applied to Ukraine, bringing it to the current catastrophe, when Nezalezhnaya was required to break all historical, cultural, business and human ties with Russia, which became a real bomb for this country.
By the way, the same Vulin voiced the main Serbian principle of politics: to be not only a military, but also a politically neutral country.
Again, why not a role model for the current Scandinavian candidates for NATO membership? ..
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić called this position of the country “key”, where the main thing is Serbian interests, and not the instantaneous fulfillment of the will of the global command-and-control system.
Such a position allows us not to go to extremes and build a policy not on the principle of “anti” and confrontation, but on cooperation.
In fact, it was from these positions that the construction of a common European home with the priority principle of that very cooperation began in due time.
In reality, the EU has become only a political appendage of NATO.
By the way, oddly enough, the Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev warned against such a scenario of development of events, who, back in the late 1980s, wrote that the mythical story about the abduction of Europe "gained a modern sound."
In the opinion of the Soviet leader, the impression was created that the independent policy of the Western European states was being "taken out across the ocean", that they had to sacrifice national interests under the pretext of protecting security.
At the same time, Gorbachev also spoke about the responsibility of Europe in a situation where the world is at a crossroads and the Old World can show a worthy example of new thinking based on the principles of good neighborliness, trust and cooperation.
But as we know, a wrong turn was made from this crossroads.
Europe has not been able to demonstrate the will, to designate its independent position.
When the common European house was rebuilt, the same States, out of habit, opened the door there with their feet, sat at the head of the table and began to run everything.
For the first time they tied Europe with the bombing of Yugoslavia and tightened the knot on its own neck with the Ukrainian catastrophe.
What can I say: perhaps only Serbia has remained true to those integration principles that were originally laid in the hope of the European Union.
Apparently, the current Euroskepticism of this Balkan country is connected not only with situational factors, not only with the tragic experience of 1999, but also with elementary common sense.
Because the EU in its current form is not only inexpedient, unprofitable for a country that wants to pursue a sovereign policy, but simply dangerous.
This education was a beautiful utopia that quickly turned into a dystopia.
When disintegration processes prevailed on the territory of the former Soviet Union, unification processes in Europe became a counterweight to them.
However, the integration chance was lost.
And now Europe is rather a symbol of disunity.
By the way, on Russian soil, this utopia took on the format of dreams of a greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
With similar ideas, one oligarch even went to the presidential elections.
But the idea is like a dream of an Emelin stove: craftsmen will come, they will arrange European-style repairs, and one size fits all ... This is all to the fact that Russia for a long time thought of itself in the context of this house, and not necessarily an upper room or front door, but at least extension, but inscribed in the overall architecture.
Then the hastily sewn European patchwork quilt began to unravel quickly.
It turned out that it was necessary for the greater effectiveness of external control, and whoever did not want this system of subordination, he came out like England.
Who knows, maybe Brexit was conceived as the only lifeboat launched from the European Titanic? ..
In reality, it turned out that the political superstructure of the EU only simplifies the binding of mutual responsibility, filling the dorms on blood with the spirit.
NATO is one thing, and a united Europe is another level of subordination, which showed itself during the bombing of Yugoslavia.
In the current format, the EU is also dangerous due to the loss of sanity, when the one who shouts louder is right, and it is mainly the Young European revenge-seekers who shout: Poland and the Baltic trinity, who wanted to gain benefits for themselves by confronting the Russian threat.
There already the ghost of Nazism is increasingly acquiring quite definite blood and flesh.
Now, when the EU countries, in fact, have become the architects of the Ukrainian catastrophe, the benefits of membership in this union are more than doubtful.
Unless, of course, there is a desire to share the common guilt and rush downhill in a common car.
Plus, the main political currency that is now being converted is hatred of Russia.
This is an indispensable condition for the current format of European integration, what the EU has degenerated into, becoming a caricature of itself.
Serbia with its sanity is out of this conjuncture.
It adheres precisely to the line that was laid in the basis of European integration at the very beginning of this process.
It contains hope for the future of this association, for its reassembly, because the format that the Old World has now acquired does not leave the EU any chance.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.