Lavrov Explains the Mechanism and Nature of "Partnership" of Russia's Big Capital with the West and Global Capitalism

On September 27, Sergey Lavrov with eyes fixed to the floor gave an interview to RT at the UN in New York.

In this connection, Lavrov explained Russia's and Russian big capital's concept of "partnership" with the West and global capitalism:

Russia is seeking compromise and accommodation.

Thus, for example, at the beginning of the war in Syria (the West's attempt at overthrowing the Syrian government by force, by al Qaeda-led armies, to establish a dictatorship of the latter in the name of "democracy," "freedom" and "moderation"), Russia and China put together a resolution that called on the Syrian government to negotiate with al-Qaeda "revolutionaries" the new character of Syria.

For the West, this effectively pro-Western proposal was still not good enough. [Too little. Too little short of the complete regime change, overthrow of the Syrian government and an opportunity to see a repeat of Qaddafi's final moments.]

So, instead of presenting this resolution for voting in the Security Council and making the US to veto it in public, that is, in the face of the US clear Nyet (No) to Russia's attempt to be helpful and forthcoming, Russia decided to withdraw its resolution. In the name of "partnership" with the West.

Russia decided that the US does not need to be put through what the US does not want to go--in this case, having to use a veto.

According to Lavrov, this is how Russia's "partnership" ought to work. As Lavrov explains, such "partnership," thus exemplified by Russia, is "more correct and more ethical, if you want," than "partnership" practiced by the West--by the West that, mind you, does not even bother to recognize any presence or existence of such partnership. See and listen here at 4:00-6:00

As this helpful explanation of the nature of Russia's partnership with the West indicates (and only Russia is using this formidably sounding term in its relationship with the West), one may start realizing that what we have at hand is yet one of the numerous cases of "relationship" in which one side is holding desperately to its abuser and where the other side displays numerous symptoms of a successful and self-confident sociopath.

Whether the concept of "partnership," as displayed here by the abused, is actually "more correct and also more ethical, if you want," however, remains a question the answer to which is not hard to verify.

One thing, however, appears to be self-evident. In this abusive relationship, which can be described as "partnership" with a good deal of self-denial or delusion, even the abused is not allowed to have much of his principles left.