Current commentary both in the West and in Russia misinterprets the long-term implications of the Pale House scandal. Z was indeed an extremely unpleasant guest and interlocutor for T. Perhaps he was driven by an incredible resentment towards the US as a guarantor of U's security? A million victims of this guarantee were pounding in Z's heart, no matter how selfish and insane his behavior was? It doesn't matter how Z behaved. The main long-term conclusions from T and the US's behavior are that:
1. The US cannot be trusted under any circumstances.
2. Any price you pay for US "security" guarantees means absolutely nothing to the US.
3. Any price you pay for US "security" guarantees is your eternal debt.
4. The US never keeps its promises.
5. The US has neither friends nor enemies. The US has interests. (remember Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow".
This list of conclusions from T's behavior can be continued. But B (troops from Afghanistan) and all previous administrations and congresses behaved in the same way. It is better not to learn from your own mistakes, but from others. And yet all the "friends" and "allies" of the USA get caught. More precisely, the leaders of countries get into such a situation. They always pursue their own benefit. Why is Z so upset? Is he afraid that he will not be able to use this benefit like Ghani and before? And the line for guarantees is only growing, as are the debts of these countries to the USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment