by Irina Alksnis
[RIA] The most popular topic of recent days in the West has been the discussion of threats allegedly voiced from Moscow. First, a week ago, Boris Johnson spoke about this , who said that Vladimir Putin threatened London and him personally with missiles in a telephone conversation.
True, the entry of the former British prime minister, who is striving with all his might to return to power, was not very successful, because comments rained down from all sides, directly or indirectly accusing him of lying. Yesterday, two notable opinions were added to the piggy bank.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the Russian president had never "threatened either him or Germany." At the same time, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told a fascinating story about how, at the request of Vladimir Zelensky , he turned to Putin and he gave his word that the Ukrainian president would not be killed.
From Russia, all these insiders and discussions seem somewhat strange. Putin has been known for more than two decades for his adherence to the traditions of diplomatic and foreign policy activities, as well as for his extreme restraint in his statements, especially in conversations with foreign colleagues.
Accordingly, all this fuss around the real and imaginary words of the Russian leader looks like some kind of circus, especially incomprehensible due to the obvious severity of this topic for the West. In any case, in recent years, in one form or another, it has surfaced more and more often, which indicates that it is painful for local politics.
The explanation for this phenomenon seems to be simple: the West looks in the mirror - and what he sees there frightens him more and more.
Often there is an opinion that all these foreign policy rules and norms are empty and meaningless ceremonies that no one really needs. This is not true. More precisely, part of the diplomatic protocol is indeed already largely ritual in nature, but at its core, the rules developed over the centuries are a kind of security technique for international relations, and, like any TB, they are written in blood.
That is why in foreign policy from time immemorial such importance has been attached to the accuracy of the wording - because you always had to pay for words, and very expensive at that. That is why a whole set of norms has arisen, which, at a superficial glance, may seem unnecessary and even stupid.
For example, why is it impossible (unreasonable, dangerous) to kill the head of another state if your countries are hostile and even at war?
Well, first of all, in most cases it is simply pointless, because the vacant place will be taken by another person, who will almost certainly continue the same course. By the way, in this sense, the situation around Zelensky is extremely revealing. He is a typical representative of the Ukrainian elites who enthusiastically monetize the destruction of their own country. So what's the point of removing it? Zelensky's death will not solve any problems for Russia, but it may create additional ones.
And secondly, retribution can fall personally on the head of the head of the country that organized the murder, and even on his entire family. In the old days, getting to any monarch or president was not a very difficult thing, so the taboo on killing geopolitical rivals was, among other things, a manifestation of common sense.
And just these deterrents at some point completely stopped working in the West. Why this happened is generally clear - in many respects this is the legacy of the colonial and the realities of the neo-colonial system. Much of the world USA and Europein principle, they were not perceived - and still are not perceived - as full-fledged sovereign countries, and it must be admitted that they had grounds for neglect.
In any case, those elites often demonstrated obvious state immaturity and severe internal contradictions. As a result, we have many examples from the last century, when the West inspired, and even directly organized coups and assassinations of national leaders, so that they would be replaced by their own creatures who pursued the "correct" policy. At the same time, there was practically no risk of retribution for such decisions for Western leaders - the hands of potential avengers were short.
With the collapse of the bipolar system, the situation worsened. Before the eyes of the world, for three decades the West has done almost everything it wanted, not only with other countries, but also with their leaders. The physical destruction of objectionable foreign statesmen has become quite a common and open practice - from the death of Milosevic in The Hague to the brutally murdered Gaddafi.
Such a long impunity also affected the public position and rhetoric. It has become commonplace that Western representatives regularly utter heresy that is simply unthinkable by diplomatic standards, including outright lies (such as the "Powell test tube", the twentieth anniversary of which was celebrated the other day) and direct threats to life against the leader of a nuclear power. They really lost the habit of being responsible for their words, and Boris Johnson in this sense is quite a typical representative of such an approach, which is based on the principle "Meli, Emelya, your week."
However, there are more far-sighted people there, who are beginning to realize what a dangerous road the West has taken. After all, in recent years, success in the implementation of this policy cannot be particularly boasted of, and even in relation to countries whose elites seemed to have been uncomplaining puppets for decades. It suddenly turned out that, regardless of the political and ideological position of the forces in power, stubborn "willfulness" is shown by the states of Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
The local elites suddenly began to demonstrate a desire for independence and an obviously increased state maturity. Attempts by Americans and Europeans to use the usual methods to solve problems often turn into even worse consequences, as, for example, during the attempted military coup in Turkey in 2016.
And this makes one wonder how such behavior could end for the West, which still acts like a bull in a china shop. He refused to comply with the basic rules and norms of international relations, he defiantly violates all the historically established taboos of world politics. A natural question arises: will the world observe the same principles in relation to the USA and the Old World when it finally destroys their hegemony?
It is not surprising that individual representatives of the West are frightened by the answer that they have found for themselves on this question, and they are trying to smooth out the unbridledness of their own colleagues in the camp.