As they say, you can put a boat on a ship, but not a ship on a boat. That is why this analysis is quite right, that is why Russia will not be in Europe or indeed in Asia exclusively, it will always be a bridge. On one side Russia will have old european associations, on the other Asian. Like all bridges and conduits, it will add value to those that use it, paying the toll of course as they go. Russia will form aliances on both sides, but will still stand distinct. Russia does not desire or need blocks. Russia works for trade improvement and security guarantees. By anchoring both sides of the bridge on firm foundations, Russia can guarantee the bridges existence, not just through its presence, but the benefits of trade and security it brings to partner users. Russia can be in European and Asian sets at the same time, to see it in a mathematical way. Russia just due to geography is the only capable enabler of a Euro Pacific pole. Russia sees the world in terms of mutually beneficial alliances rather than idealogical religeously dogmatic blocks. This vision gives Russia agility, wheras other fixed block relationships are incapable to adapt easily to changes in world order. Because they have huge inertia. Russia's way is core principles and laws with freedom to adapt to particular circumstances and conditions. So Russia is principled based developemnt, wheras Blocks are committee script like developments. Thi s different approach is sometimes very difficult for others to grasp who come from the 'stability' and predicatbility of commitee block decision making, where the outcome is known before the decision taken, because the decision is always the same, regardless of input parameters. Yes Russia's approach is more dynamic, more unpredicatble on the fringes, but in a way that brings a 'stability' all of its own from an opposing block. Because a block must stay the same, by definition, in an unpredicatble world, regadless if the block is rotting from inside.