Vișovan Ciprian

După Peiu și "suveraniștii" care spun ca trebuie să "ieșim urgent din NATO" de la PPPR, sare și securistul bătrând Dragoș Paul Aligică să se arate încântat de vehicularea "unuia dintre cei mai apropiați prieten", Marius Lăzurcă ca șef la SIE. Dincolo de trăncăneala absconsă obișnuită, ce îi unește pe cei doi este atitudinea față de crimele Rusiei din Ucraina: capul la cutie și mersul pe burtă, opoziția la ajutorul Occidental pentru de Ucraina, poate-poate câștigă rușii si vine "Pacea". *** Pasaje din neașteptatul de ticălor articol al lui Gabriel Elefteriu recomandat de Lăzurcă drept un "duș rece necesar": - a whole generation of “international affairs” scholars really believed (some still do) in the existence of something called the “rules based international order”, and other such nonsense. - The heightened apprehension and sense of danger about what might result from the Alaska summit comes from the entirely manufactured – and literally illegitimate, in the sense of not having support in law – narrative that “Ukraine’s fight is Europe’s [or even NATO’s] fight”. Somehow, in the European mind, the fate of Ukraine has assumed an overwhelming importance for “Europe’s” own future. - Whether or not Ukraine’s heroic defence deserves European support in a moral sense – and, by all moral standards, it obviously does – is a separate and very distinct question from whether Europe has any actual formal obligation to Ukraine, and also from how important Ukraine’s fate actually is to Europe’s security. On both of these latter points the prevailing opinion in Europe is very strong – indeed, it is extreme – but that does not make it right or true. - globalist thinking of European regimes. It’s the view that sees Europe’s hard-won wealth and civilisational accomplishments as a kind of common holding of the whole mankind and something to be “shared with the world” out of an invented sense of “responsibility” to global welfare. After all, it is this anti-national, rotten mindset that enables Europe’s scandalous foreign aid schemes and pro-“migrant” open-border policies, along with a host of other abominations emanating from continental chancelleries. - the war is not fundamentally Europe’s problem – it is Ukraine’s problem. Europe has chosen to make it its problem. That may be a justified and welcome choice from a moral point of view with regards to the Ukrainian people, if not necessarily with regards to the European people who have to pay for this choice and who are at risk of being dragged into the war because of it. - EU member states are defended by NATO, and that defence works given that there is no actual evidence of Russian plans to invade NATO territory. The idea that Putin wants to roll across EU’s and NATO’s borders is a matter of opinion and speculation, not of fact. - Putin’s main conflict, in terms of the vital national interests of Russia, as he sees them, is with Ukraine. NATO is certainly the perennial geopolitical rival, but no more than it has always been; and with a potentially-friendly Trump in the White House, perhaps even less. - Europe’s key interest at this point should be for the fighting to just stop, so the vast European expenditures on this Slavic war could be curtailed. - The risk of further escalation and of NATO overall being dragged into a war in the depths of Eastern Europe, for no good reason, would also be significantly reduced. - Ukraine has become an ideological crusade for European establishments and beyond. - Europe’s future security and prosperity depends on two things. One is what it does within its borders, not what humanitarian projects or adventures it pursues abroad or just across the border *** Astea sunt cele mai ticaloase pasaje. Cititi articolul, este identic cu gandirea lui Dungaciu, omul cu "externele" de la AUR, si cu gandirea lui Aligica, gandita dar nerostita, pentru ca lui Aligica ii e frica si de umbra lui si nu poate vorbi decat in dodii. Ca Lazurcă.