The double standard as a policy tool
Confidence in Russia - this is what the West is missing, above all, in its actions of building on the European continent of a united and indivisible security system. Hence is the escalation of international tensions, instability, uncertainty in relations between the states, emergence of new centers of force affecting all the European countries security.
In turn, the lack of confidence is a product of the West's double standard policy in relation to Russia and its allies. In many cases, precisely this policy leads to distrust between the states and becomes one of the main barriers on the way toward the formation of stability, building a system of security in Europe and in the world in whole.
History shows that the double standard policy allowed at all times quirky and deceitful politicians to weave their intrigues. But nowadays too, assessment of the same actions of subjects varies depending on relations each of these subjects has with the person making evaluation. The actions of 'friends', of course, are justified, and the steps of the 'strangers' are censured and considered unacceptable.
For example, for the United States, the al-Qaeda that carried out a hostage-taking attack in Kenya is bad, and the al-Qaeda that massacres in Syria is good. It even was to be supported in the fight against the government forces by tomahawk etc. air strikes. However, the U.S. president changed his mind and agreed to accept an alternative offer from Russia.
A new wave of criticism against Moscow and personally President Vladimir Putin fell from politicians and the U.S. media in connection with the Russian President's article on September 11, 2013, published in The New York Times. Putin's publicistic speech warning about the danger "to lay into people's heads the idea of their exclusivity, whatever it was motivated by," was taken by Washington with insult and outrage. First of all, due to the fact that the Russian president, in his article questioned the United States' exclusivity the Americans are supposedly so sure of. One cannot but agree with the president stating that the United States is not at all an 'exceptional' country. Such beliefs make the Americans to ignore the standards of international law.
In the same speech, the head of the White House called the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad a 'murderer- dictator'. This is not the first time that the leaders of the United States ? bearers of the 'American exceptionalism' within their values mark like that undesirable and rebellious people. The world has got accustomed to the fact that the U.S. calls those who oppose Washington dictators, terrorists and other negative terms. But the real dictators and terrorists are the U.S. partners. This was in the 1980s, during the war in Afghanistan when both President Reagan and the American media considered Mujahideens 'freedom fighters', and today the United States is at war with them, calling them 'terrorists'.
Washington and Brussels can not understand Russia's stand on the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, which tends to undermine the stability and security on the European continent as a whole.
For a long time, the NATO countries leading circles have kept discussing the idea that "NATO poses no more threat to Russia", the alliance intends 'to establish on the basis of trust a strategic partnership with Russia." However, the WikiLeaks documents published on the Internet prove that NATO does not trust Russia, the alliance headquarters have drawn a secret plan code-named Eagle Defender for the military defense of Poland and the Baltic States from attack by Moscow.
This plan developed by the United States and Germany and approved by the NATO Military Committee in January, 2010, provides for that in the event of an armed attack on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania they will be protected by 10 Allied divisions - from the U.S., Germany and Poland. To deploy divisions, the ports of Germany and Poland will be used, including American and British military ships with troops on board.
At present, the Western media are actively discussing the joint West 2013 Russian-Belarusian exercise, which, according to some politicians and public figures of Poland and the Baltic states, "speaks for Russia's unreasonably high military activity in the Baltic region, which constitutes a military threat to the region and requires cooperative training from the NATO military and political leadership."
There is no need to repeat Russian and Belarusian military's statements and points, which refutes this opinion and speak for the defensive nature of the West 2013 exercise. But there is a counter-question: what should Russia and Belarus think of the largest in the last 10 years NATO Steadfast Jazz combined arms exercise, held in November in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, the purpose of which is the need to "test the capability of the NATO command and Response Force' to perform the task of "joint response of the Allied forces to a foreign invasion of the territory of the Baltic States and Poland." The foreign invasion means, of course, the military aggression of Russia's and Belarus' Union State against the Baltic countries and Poland. So, instead of trust Moscow gets the same old policy of suspicion, an enemy image.
The results of the joint West 2013 Russian-Belarusian exercise make it clear that in the Union State the task of maintaining a high level of combat readiness of the Regional militant group is systematically addressed, and any provocation on Russian-Belarusian borders will be doomed to failure.