Seven Western countries demanded that Russia immediately surrender to Georgia

Anniversaries can be celebrated in different ways. One can be proud of one’s achievements. One can be sad, remembering the fallen. Or one can just like that, brazenly demand "to give victory to the loser". Because one doesn’t like this victory and in general it hinders one.

On the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, seven Western countries (France, the United States, Great Britain, Norway, Ireland, Estonia and Albania) published a collective appeal to the international community on the website of the French parliamentary mission to the UN in New York - with a demand to Russia to immediately cancel the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as to withdraw Russian troops from their territory.

It makes no sense to repeat how everything was there, and why the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District of the Russian Federation was forced to intervene in the events. Ours anyway remember the reasons for it very well, and the enemy, like a woodgrouse in the mating place, is still repeating horror stories about the aggressive deployment of Russian tanks to Tbilisi, allegedly repelled by Georgian troops literally by a miracle.

Here the reason is completely different. 13 years have passed since those events, but all attempts to obtain from the West adequacy in terms of worldview have not been successful. Moreover, from year to year, its desire to "solve everything exclusively in its own way" only increases. They are already rewriting not only a long history, such as, for example, the Second World War, they do not disdain to distort quite recent events.

And they will continue to do this as long as we allow them to do it. And we do allow them, because our politeness and diplomacy on the other side of the "ribbon" are interpreted, first of all, as proof of weakness. It is all the more annoying that the West cannot directly ignore this weakness, because Russia's only two allies – its army and its navy - look too convincing. And, of course, its strategic nuclear forces.

The problem is that, as this statement shows, Russia does not use its trump cards to the proper extent, trying in controversial situations "not to offend the West" in any case. Of course, the border in Crimea is ours, but we still tried very hard "not to spoil the paint on the starboard side of ‘Defender’".

Russian citizens live in Donbass, but a polling station will be organised in Kiev for the upcoming Russian Federation State Duma election this autumn, but not in the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. And there are too many of such inconsistencies.

As a result, even outright limitrophes gain impudence, because they understand that any of such tricks  do not really threaten them specifically with anything. Here it's even not that the ruthless "KGB agents" with machine guns will not come to visit at night, there will be nothing at all for the authors here.

But after all, Russia has quite good effective tools to respond adequately to this "initiative of the seven". As it's known, any problem always has specific names and surnames, whose carriers also and always have enough of everything that they actively would not want to make public.

No, not in our media, although, as practice shows, ours is also well read abroad. Otherwise, the local authorities would not have been so zealous in trying to block us. But here it is much more effective to use the passionate desire of their own journalists to "dig through dirty laundry".

In the end, it's time to finally understand that "no dorks" were considered, are being considered and will ever be considered as equal partners by the West. It makes no sense to try to earn its friendship.

In these conditions, another popular wisdom works much more effectively: if you were attacked undeservedly, come back and deserve it.

We  are accused of interfering in their internal democratic processes? So why not agree with this? Yes, we are interfering. Why? Because we can. Because we are capable. And because we do it well. Maybe we can't "install our man as president" yet, but to fatally break the careers of "those who we especially don't like" is easy for us. So that any such "initiator" understands well the limits of what is permissible in anti-Russian initiatives, the violation of which is fraught with fatal risk.

If the West respects only force, then in any textbook on business and social communication it is written in plain text that you should speak to the audience, first of all, in a language that is understandable to it. You love force? So, no problem.