După ce am citit ultima carte a lui AM, am vizualizat clar faptul că acest tren, de care făcea caz HB-M, a plecat din gară. Pentru a nu mai reveni. Cred că simțeam și înainte acest lucru, dar acum îl pot verbaliza, rațional.
Mi se par foarte interesante toate întâlnirile găzduite sau facilitate de MS. Am senzația, acută, că reprezintă normalitatea, adică căutarea rațională de soluții la probleme practice. Cu o atitudine deschisă, de colaborare și de întrajutorare, cu care de altfel am crescut în RSR. Și pe care ne străduim acum atât de mult să o negăm, să o diabolizăm.
În jurul nostru (vecinii noștri chiar) totul este dinamic, totul se reorientează; lumea e deschisă spre colaborare, spre întrajutorare, spre sprijinire reciprocă în dezvoltare. Noi, nu. Avem această aroganță fudulă, prostească, de #WEARENATO, și “noi suntem ginta latină”, șî “vrem o țară ca afară”; și suntem complet obnubilați de mirajul “valorilor occidentale”, pe care le proclamăm inept, mimetic, slugarnic, fără a înțelege că sunt o iluzie, o prostie, și că sunt doar “un băț cu care suntem bătuți”.
Văd, zilnic, cum oamenii care au construit RSR, așa cum a fost ea, se sting. Și iau cu ei simțul realității, al normalității, al conștiinței interesului propriu. Rămâne o buimăceală generală, din care nu mai putem distinge realitatea, și rațiunea de a fi. Gândindu-mă la anii dinainte de 1939, cred că istoria se repetă. Și, din nou, suntem în afara ritmului istoriei. Nu știm dacă vom mai avea ocazia de a fi sincronizați. De această dată, rușii nu vor mai veni. Nu îi mai interesează decât cei care sunt interesați de soarta proprie.
Revoluția în ce privește forța militară și aplicarea ei înseamnă că nu mai este nevoie de “zone tampon”. În acest moment Rusia este pe picioarele ei. Este un pol de normalitate, echilibru, dezvoltare (economică, socială, culturală). Nu o interesează cei care nu sunt interesați.
Trenul a plecat din gară. Nu se va mai întoarce. Iar gara… nu va rămâne aceeași. Poate nu va mai rămâne deloc.
UPDATE 07.09.2019: mirându-mă, singur, de miasma de nostalgic comunist ce domină cele scrise mai sus, mă mir și mai mult de articolul Saker-ului (memorare). Și îmi aduc aminte de senzația de întâlnire a capilor Mafiei pe care orice întâlnire a oficialilor din conducerea statului american excepțional mi-o dă.
UPDATE 08.09.2019: venind vorba, iată exhibit A. (memorare) Iacă și samizdatul. (memorare)
UPDATE 09.09.2019: iacă și pe MZ. (memorare) Frumos textul despre festivitățile de la Varșovia, cel despre UN(SC). Iacă și răspunsul la o întrebare șablon:
Question (translated from English): Finland has urged the EU to improve relations with Russia. Given the criticism you have aimed today at the global liberal order, what confidence-building measures do you think possible to implement this project – I mean to improve relations between Moscow and Brussels?
Maria Zakharova: I am not in the business of criticising the liberal world order beyond the pale of reality. I said that we had never allowed ourselves to criticise some or other political systems, values or preferences chosen by some or other countries. But we will respond if faced with the events of the sort that have been just held in Warsaw, events that are ostensibly dedicated to the beginning of WWII but in fact get turned into an exercise in rewriting history and lynching Russia. We will respond to any attempts to distort history and revive the hegemony instead of displaying a realistic attitude to various political systems and their contribution to or role in the 20th and 21st centuries. What we see right now, is that just a single political system is being proposed as a global value, while the rest is being rejected. We are responding neither unilaterally nor spontaneously. We are reminding people about historical facts and realities. You cannot say that the liberal world order has brought stability and prosperity. If you do say this, you should name the specific countries, to which the liberal world order has brought prosperity, stability and freedom. You must indicate the countries that have indeed prospered during these years, as well as those that are now worse off. Certain countries are better off because others are less well off: so, there is a direct link.
I would like to stress that the only thing we do is to state the realities. We are reminding people of historical facts and are not urging anyone to criticise neighbouring countries, regions or continents. We call for cooperation and mutually beneficial interaction. We think that it is harmful and criminal to engage in criticism and historical revisions based on a current political situation. If, in the 20th century, the countries, which had gone through an immense tragedy and, despite their different views on the world system, still managed to defeat the evil and come to terms on how they interpret it, why, dozens of years later, should some obscure politicians, who have absolutely no relation to those events, think they have the right to rewrite all this and reduce it to zero? Who gave them this right?
They are doing this today – not ten or fifteen years ago – because the war veterans are dead. Because the war veterans are few and far between in this world. From the point of view of those statement-mongers in Warsaw, the time has come when the world is unable to rise to the defence of the historical truth. There are just a handful of war veterans and other participants in those events left. No one, regardless of the political system, would have allowed this sort of rigmarole 10, 20 or 30 years ago: people would come, WWII veterans, who would explain how it was in reality and would not allow anything like the macabre show that was staged in Warsaw the other day.
I do not know what Finland’s appeal you are talking about. Perhaps you could quote the person that urged Europe to improve the relations with Russia. The fact that this leaves you asking questions is strange. Because it is good to cooperate; it is normal to develop relations and enhance collaboration between countries. What is not normal is to impose unilateral sanctions, pursue isolation of other countries, interfere with the affairs of other states and then claim that these actions are meant to preserve and support peace and democracy. Even when we do not agree and feel targeted by an aggressive policy of Western countries, we have never given up on the idea of cooperation. We have always been all for it.
Supposedly, we could take a different stand because over the 20th century alone we saw multiple attempts at aggressive behaviour towards our country. Still, we never got tired of saying that we will keep protecting our interests while seeking cooperation. Is it possible to defend one’s own interests and at the same time support collaboration on equal terms? Absolutely. This is what international law is for, as a legal foundation of our relations. This foundation was built and there is no need to destroy it. This base allows countries to promote their own interests while cooperating, developing and competing, in a normal and honest way, in various activities such as the economy, finance, development, science and so on. This is normal. What is not normal is to dismantle the foundation, to isolate countries, to use the rule of force in the 21st century when we have come to the understanding of law’s dominance in the life of a state, a nation and individuals. If you tell me who made the statement I will be able to be more specific with my comment. This is a very general response.
Question (retranslated): It was an article in The Financial Times. Finland currently holds presidency in the EU and is urging for the improvement of ties with Russia, according to an article published today.
Maria Zakharova: This is a result of today’s reality, wishes of people and businesses. All that is stopping the EU and Russia from developing normal cooperation is an attitude of a number of politicians and representatives of the political establishment – and not the European one. As we understand, the push is coming from the United States. Do not forget that Brussels imposed sanctions against Russia only under US pressure. Representatives of both Brussels and the United States admitted to this fact. I can quote specific White House representatives who revealed that only after Washington directly put pressure on Brussels, the latter resorted to the anti-Russian sanctions. This is the only hindering factor. Everything else is along the lines of Russia-EU cooperation. It seems obvious to me. The biggest proof is the EU’s losses caused by artificially stalling cooperation with Russia.