“A customer can get a car of any color, provided that this color is black,” once famous American business tycoon Henry Ford once said.

A statesman can hold any views on Russia, provided that these views are negative - this is how the “democratic rules of the political game” look today in the countries of the West.

Sounds like a Soviet propaganda cliché?

Ask the former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Gerhard Schröder, who, because of his refusal to reconsider his views on relations with Russia, was about to impose sanctions in the EU.

Or better this way: ask about it those "modern, democratic, enlightened and progressive" politicians who are going to impose these sanctions.

However, by and large, they do not need to be asked about anything.

They will tell you everything themselves, even if you do not want it.

For example, the European Parliament is going to demand “to expand the list of people affected by EU sanctions by including European board members of large Russian companies.”

First of all, we are talking about Schroeder and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria, Karin Kneissl.

And what motivates such a proposal?

But what.

As Stefan Berger, a member of the European Parliament from the German Christian Democratic Union (the same party that Schroeder twice defeated in elections), told the German publication Die Welt, this resolution will be “a signal that former chancellors should take into account the interests of their state even after their departure from positions."

Of course they should.

But who said that everyone should understand these interests in exactly the same way?

Most likely, no one will respond to the call “Author to the studio!”

It is unlikely that anyone in Europe would want to defend the need for unanimity in the abstract sense.

In theory, there is still "complete freedom of speech and complete freedom of thought."

But in practice, when it comes to Russia, these freedoms are already limited.

As a result, very few politicians and statesmen in the West today risk expressing “alternative views” on relations with Russia.

However, I would like to recall the famous quote from George Orwell's book: “Even if you are in the minority, even if the entire minority is you alone, this does not mean that you are crazy.

There is truth and there is untruth.

And if you adhere to the truth, and the whole world is against it, this does not mean that you have gone crazy.

Gerhard Schroeder told The New York Times last month: “A country like Russia cannot be isolated politically or economically in the long run.

German industry needs raw materials that Russia has.

This is not only oil and gas, but also rare earth elements.

And this is a raw material that cannot be simply replaced.”

Can anyone convincingly refute these words of the former Federal Chancellor?

And if he can't, then who here "takes into account the interests of his state" to a greater extent - Gerhard Schroeder or his persecutors?

There is a policy of hysteria, and there is a policy of common sense.

But if someone is having a tantrum, will arguments based on common sense help her stop?

Experience shows that they will not help.

Hysteria has its own "logic" (or anti-logic).

Real logical arguments will be able to break through the hysterical "protective armor" only when this very hysteria comes to its natural end.

Gerhard Schroeder already sees this finale clearly.

According to the former chancellor of Germany, after the end of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, the West will still have to resume its cooperation with Moscow: "This is how it always happens."

A very realistic view of the situation.

And it is this realism that infuriates the persecutors of Gerhard Schroeder so much.

Even despite the "protective armor of hysteria", they feel the power of his arguments.

They feel that these arguments are very difficult (if not impossible) to refute, and so subconsciously decide not to bother with it.

Why get into a meaningful argument when you can just yell "Atu him"?

Then, of course, that this is required by the real interests of the state whose government Schroeder headed as Federal Chancellor.

But those who are now subjecting Gerhard Schroeder to fierce attacks will not yet understand this.

And some of the "hunters" of the former German chancellor are even proud that they do not want to understand anything.

For example, several members of the German Bundestag propose to stop state funding of the Schroeder bureau (office).

This is motivated by the fact that the former federal chancellor himself does not use this premises and does not fill vacant staff positions in his office.

“Thus, there is no basis for staffing and allocating premises,” the authors of the initiative cheer.

The fact that Schroeder's former employees have retired, and he has not yet recruited new ones, remains behind the scenes.

And this also fits well into the framework of the “anti-logic of hysteria”.

Only being in an “altered state of consciousness”, one can decide that there is at least a drop of nobility in such a method of reprisal against a carrier of a different opinion.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.