Adequate response to double standards policy
Only the lazy do not speak about the policy of double standards in the modern world. However, in our country, with enviable persistence, they continue to wave their fists towards the West, accusing him (the West) of yet another lie. And there are plenty of examples of this kind of exposure, but until recently we continued to open our mouth in surprise when we saw a new American (British, NATO) “forbidden” move. Isn't it time to accept this game, which you can’t call a new one. The policy of double standards was known even in the era of ancient Rome, when the powers-to-be could negotiate an attack or non-aggression on a particular geographic area, receive money for the army of Rome not to go there by war, and then all the same gave orders to military leaders to seize the province . Well, what can you do if the code of honor often does not fit in with such a concept as personal gain and protection of personal interests.
The policy of double standards flourished in the period of feudalism in Europe. Even on the territory of our country during the period of the Mongol yoke and feudal fragmentation, double standards allowed one to rule, while others were more and more inclined under the yoke of Horde exactions.
Therefore, the words about the double standards of the United States or the leadership of NATO can and should be taken as one of the methods of world politics, which is expressed in protecting the interests of certain circles.
In this regard, even the words of Hillary Clinton about the fact that Russia, together with China, will have to “explain to the people of Syria” in terms of imposing a veto on the Damascus resolution, look no more than an ordinary political move. This move is that the United States again wants to shift the vector of world attention from the problems of the global crisis to the “fight against terrorism” plane. If Mrs. Clinton excuses our and Chinese leaders that they did not step on the "Libyan rake," then the Secretary of State can, as they say, go sideways. Reasonable people do not want Syria to start what the North Atlantic Alliance has arranged in Libya. If Russia supported this resolution in the Security Council, then Syria, as well as the Jamahiriya, would simply have been bombarded with NATO planes. At the same time, as everyone understands, NATO frankly doesn’t give a damn where this or that bomb or rocket hit, the main thing is to embody a strategic plan. The plan here is not distinguished by great originality: hit other people, so that your own may be afraid. In connection with the latest events on the streets of American, Australian and other cities of the world, such a NATO strategy may well be useful for solving internal problems. Surprisingly: hundreds of thousands of people are unhappy with the policies of the authorities and bankers in many developed countries of the world, and the military machine continues to be torn into battle with a certain semi-virtual enemy. This is not even a policy of double standards, but rather ordinary imperial complacency or even nonsense!
Recently, it is increasingly possible to observe how the American authorities are becoming hostages of the policies of their predecessors. In this case, a certain confusion slips even in the words of the Head of the US State Department, and in the speeches of President Obama. In particular, the Americans firmly stated that they were not going to recognize the legitimacy of the new president of Abkhazia. This is understandable: after all, the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of Abkhazia itself. But, on the other hand, the United States was one of the first to recognize the PNS of Libya as the country's only government vested with managerial powers. At the same time, no referenda, no elections, no polls were held in Libya. If the “most democratic” state in the world recognizes a crowd of people with machine guns in their hands as the legitimate Libyan power, then all that remains is to shake hands.
In today's world, one does not need to grit one’s teeth, indignant at the policy of the double standards of individual states. You just need to reciprocate. It is worth noting that, more recently, the Russian authorities seem to have learned to respond to all sorts of external insinuations in precisely this way. For example, you smile and deploy missile defense systems at our borders, and we smile back and strengthen the military contingent on the Kuril Islands. You press the "reset" button and persistently do not accept us into the WTO, and we are switching with China to the dollar-free calculations within the framework of the "ruble-yuan". You reproach us of oil and gas monopolism and dictate the conditions for the sale of our products, we build gas pipelines bypassing "unreliable partners." There are a lot of examples.
So any policy of double standards can itself rest against an adequate response. It is only necessary to come to this answer without hysteria and waste of forces, means and nerves.
Information