I have a good friend who is on a completely different “side of the barricades”, so to speak. I am a statesman, he is a liberal and an oppositionist.
However, when communicating, we do not swear and are able to conduct dialogue quite calmly. We even make fun of each other. And today, in general, my small political victory occurred: my liberal friend seemed to think and took the path of correction and began to lean towards my point of view.
In this article, I will convey the course of my reasoning, maybe even some of the fans of Navalny will at least understand the true state of affairs.
So, the trial of the “main opposition leader of the country” was watched by representatives of 16 states (someone reports about 18). Looking ahead, I will say that 12 of them are members of NATO, and the remaining 4 are strongly dependent on NATO.
And here I have a question: since when is NATO so much interested in a strong, prosperous and sovereign Russia?
I remember that during the cold war, they spent trillions of dollars there, just to weaken the USSR and throw it off the political map of the world. And now they are bored out there on Olympus alone?
Do they really want to revive Russia in order to get a real opponent again and play “King of the Hill” with it? Show me someone who really believes this?
It is quite obvious that NATO is interested in a weak Russia, which has no industry, no army (especially nuclear weapons), and no political weight. They need a Russia that will simply supply cheap resources, labour and give in to any US decision, as does Ukraine – their current friend.
In general, they need a Russia like in the 90s. And yet, it was at that time that the NATO countries absolutely did not care about human rights in Russia.
People went missing by the tens of thousands. Journalists, politicians, and businessmen were killed here – but there were no sanctions, and the west did not make any demands. On the contrary, Clinton danced with a drunken Yeltsin and called him his friend.
And where were the western human rights activists when this same Yeltsin fired tanks at the parliament? And when he started the war in Chechnya? And when he sent 18-year-old conscripts to this Chechnya for slaughter?
Now, because of one unfortunate blogger who was convicted by law, they announce sanctions against us, but in those days, no sanctions followed for the bombing of an entire region.
It’s simple, guys. When Russia is weak – it is good for them. When Russia itself gives away East Germany for free, pumps trillions of dollars into western offshore companies, and betrays Yugoslavia, it is simply beautiful for the west.
But when Russia tries to increase its economic power, blocks financial flows, restores the army and returns political weight – it is bad for them. And for a bad Russia, there are always a hundred reasons to declare sanctions.
Just as there will be money for “Echo of Moscow“ and “Dozhd“, which will convince some Russians that Russia is a terrible country and it needs to be urgently dismantled from the inside.
This whole thing with Navalny is just an excuse. If there was no Navalny, there would be Prisonalny, Mourningalny or Carnivalny. What’s the difference? There would be a desire, but there is always a reason for sanctions.
To better understand the essence of all this, let’s look at who exactly sent their representatives to the court. Who is so concerned about human rights in Russia?
- Czech Republic
Well, these five are our eternal “detractors” (to put it very mildly). I think there can be no doubt that these countries certainly do not dream of a strong and prosperous Russia.
For example, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, even inside themselves cannot provide Russians with worthy rights (they receive only the status of “non-citizen” and the oppression of the Russian language), but in Russia they directly sleep and see that Navalny’s rights are respected.
These lads dream of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, and therefore wait for the moment when Russia will show at least the slightest weak spot. Does anyone believe in Tokyo’s desire to strengthen Russia even more and thereby push the Kuril Islands even further?
- United Kingdom
Actually, the backbone of NATO. Is there any doubt about their intentions? So read the beginning of this article again. I would rather believe that wolves love cabbage than in London’s dreams of a prosperous and strong Russia.
Known henchmen of the US and UK. Many are members of NATO, which means that they do not have full sovereignty and are completely dependent on Washington’s decisions.
It is strange that Australia is not here yet – another famous fighter for human rights who, however, like all other fighters, safely stuck its tongue in a well-known place after Saudi Arabia brutally killed an opposition journalist Khashoggi right on the territory of an embassy.
Well, after the whole affair with Charite and the supposedly discovered Novichok – God himself told them to continue to meddle in those matters that do not seem to concern them.
However, in the case of Germany, I think the situation is not so simple. One part of the German elites clearly wants rapprochement with Russia (these are those who are in favour of Nord Stream), the other part is strongly opposed (these are those who have found mythical Novichok in order to announce sanctions and promote their business interests).
These are the only ones I didn’t expect to see. They sort of hold sovereignty in everything…
Although, if we remember that Switzerland is the main money pot of the west, then it is also very interested that money from Russia continues to flow like a river to Swiss banks, and not stay in our country and work for its prosperity.
As we can see, Navalny’s support group consists entirely of countries that expect Russia to weaken and return to the model of 1993.
So if these countries support Aleksey, then Aleksey, in their opinion, will lead Russia to decline. Isn’t that obvious?
Obyasnyu na paltsakh
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.