By Vadim Gorshenin
No matter how high and complicated foreign policy might seem, it does not differ much from street laws, after all. Or the laws of Russian roads.
By the way, Inna Novikova, Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief, when on a trip to the city of Severodvinsk, was surprised to see that traffic lights were off. She asked our now-deceased correspondent in the city, Andrei Mikhailov, how drivers decide who should give way if there are no signs of priority. Andrei smiled and said that drivers look each other in the face - the one that looks away first gives way. This is a street kind of behavior, is it not?
This story about the looks on the road occurred to me, when I learned the news about former shareholders of Yukos filing a lawsuit at a US court to recognize the ruling of the Hague International Tribunal. The same idea comes to mind when the authorities of Belgium and France arrest Russian property, or when the authorities of Finland deny a Russian parliamentary delegation entry to the country to take part in the work of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. This is just a part of those spits in Russia's face, but there are many others.
Also read: Vadim Gorshenin: Russia can win Cold War
How does Russia respond? With dignity, of course. However, it is only Russia that can hear its own explanations and arguments. All other countries either do not hear or do not want to hear them. Some others act proceeding from the concept of "revolutionary expediency" as Washington prescribed.
This is when the notion of street behavior comes to mind. You know that you can easily knock down that other bloke that is jumping around in front of you, but you do not touch him, because you know that you are stronger, or just because you know how to behave. In this case, you know that you are doing the right thing, but how does it look from the outside?
We know that the decision of the Hague Tribunal was based on the international agreement that was signed by Russian representatives, but was not approved by the Russian Parliament. In other words, it has no power of law in Russia. Does it mean that we have lost the dispute? Of course not. Moreover, a court of arbitration should consider an appeal from Russia on this issue. In a nutshell, the proceedings have not been completed.
Did the countries, with which Russia has diplomatic, i.e, friendly relations, have the right to seize the property of their partner at the time when the dispute was still open? In my opinion, they did not. A diplomatic procedure should have been conducted in the first place - this is how things work, at least.
Yet, the property was arrested. The same may occur in the United States of America. Jumping around and sticking out one's chest - this is what boot-lickers do. From this perspective, Belgium and France have exposed their humiliated position in front of Washington to the fullest. The latter is checking how Russia will react to its boot-lickers' actions. We all know what happens when boot-lickers step away and the leader comes forward. That will be the time for some good fight.
The situation is the same when it comes to Finland. Any sanctions do not affect the work of international organizations and their representatives. Moreover, according to the rules of diplomatic relations, Finland, former outskirts of the Russian Empire that became independent by the will of the revolutionary Russian authorities, was obliged to give prior notice of the alleged decision of the Finnish Foreign Ministry to deny Russian MPs entry to the country - not just shortly before the start of the meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
Russian officials claimed with dignity that they would skip the meeting in Finland to take part in the the same meeting next year. Why? Do I miss something?
If one of the OSCE countries behaves in such a way, while other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe show no protest about it - do they want to see Russia in this meeting at all?
It appears that Russia's spineless responses in issues of foreign policy take the country to the big fight with the leader of the boot-lickers.
A lot has been said about the looming Third World War. No one wants it, but everyone talks about it and even discusses possible war tactics. Some experts, whom Pravda.Ru interviews, believe that NATO would siege Russia instead of conducting open combat actions. We all know that even ideas may materialize, but here we have words already!
Moreover, the siege has begun. In Europe, they discuss questions of how to hamper the work of Russian journalists, they arrest the property of Russian information companies in Belgium and France.
Russia may continue to behave with dignity that no one else values. Yet, in addition to the Western world, there are other worlds that are closely watching Russia to see whether they rely on Russian blokes.
Judging from their point of view, I would not. Turning the other cheek can be acceptable in personal relations, but when it comes to international relations - this is nothing but weakness.
Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru
Washington will not defend Ukraine from Russia. Rising tensions in the Donbass help the Americans strive for their own far-reaching goals in the international arena