He doesn't know what exactly. Assad knows exactly what he can get away with. - Your partner is proud of himself

The first two questions can be found in the article Five questions for a man before he goes too far.

QUESTION #3: HOW DO YOU LOOK AT...?

This is a multifaceted issue that concerns a whole gamut of relationships - from relationships with your loved ones to relationships with this world as a whole.

Each answer will reveal him: whether he is serious about obligations, the family in which he grew up, what kind of father and husband he could be, how he relates to life and the people around him and all that. Ask about it before you kiss this man, perhaps even before you agree to go with him - it will be a great phone conversation. Feel free to ask these questions, because what else are you supposed to do with this man but not talk? If he does not want to talk about it, then something is wrong with him. Get away from him.

First, find out his relationship to the family. Does he want a family? How does he treat children? If you have a child, tell your man about him - he should know about it, but most importantly, you should find out if he sees himself as a father. If he doesn't want kids, and you do, then you can stop all this right now. (If a man says he doesn't want kids, he probably won't change his mind no matter how strong his feelings for you are.) Also, if he doesn't like kids, which you do, where will the relationship lead?

Then ask him about his relationship with his mother. This is the first relationship a man has with a woman and if it's good then chances are he knows how to treat a woman with respect and has some idea of how to claim, provide for and protect not only a woman but also potential family. I don't know a single boy who doesn't love his mother. We learn to protect her and provide for her; we learn about the basics of love for a woman from her. Actually, if a man has disagreements with his mother, he is likely to have disagreements with you. If in his answer you hear something like: “My mother and me? We just don’t get along together…”, erase his phone number and his text messages and leave him.

After learning about his relationship to his mother, ask about his father. If he had a great relationship with his dad, then he was probably raised with the core set of values that he will bring to your potential family as well. I understand that a lot of men grew up without fathers, but chances are that the man you're interested in had some kind of authority figure in his life who showed him the basics of masculinity, or perhaps not having a father of his own showed him some things that he wouldn't want to do when he becomes a father himself. If anything, ask questions about his relationship with his father, and his answers are sure to show you what kind of father he can become.

Listen carefully to how he speaks about other people and the world around him. Ask if he believes in God or another higher power (the World, Life, the Universe, the Higher Mind - everyone calls it in his own way), which "coordinates" the processes taking place in this world, whether he is interested in self-development issues. Find out what beliefs are the guiding force in this man's life.

After all, what moral barometer does he check against? What might motivate him to be faithful to you? What can make you do what is right for you and your children? What can make you feel whole? I'm not saying you shouldn't date a man who doesn't go to church or whose aspirations are different from yours. But if his core beliefs don't line up with what you think, then there's likely to be problems.

The next two questions should be asked after you've been dating and chatting with him for a while. Ideally, ask them before you part with the "sweetie" (you know what I'm talking about). If you have already had sexual contact with a man, you can still ask these questions. The answers to them may hurt a little more, but at least you will know.

QUESTION #4: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT ME?

Ask this question after a while - it should get to know you a little. His answer will be important because he will show you what his plans are for you. You have a right to know. Believe me, when he first approached you, he thought something about you, and you should know what it is.. Something attracted him - he liked your hair, your eyes, your legs, your clothes - in a word, he approached you for a reason. But what exactly he is going to do with you, you will learn from his answers.

Listen carefully. I assure you, this will be the case, because all men answer this question in the same way: « I think you are great, you will be a great mom, you are funny, kind. really beautiful, you turn me on, you are energetic, friendly, hardworking, very smart. You are the kind of woman that I could see next to me, "- the usual set that we know you want to hear. However, you do not need this verbal husk, but the specifics. So keep asking him: "Oh, do you consider me kind? What makes you think I'm kind?" And listen, if he can't give you a concrete example of how you showed your kindness, then he doesn't really think of you that way, but if he says, "Remember, on my mom's birthday, you called me and reminded me that I should I choose a card for her?” If he tells you that he thinks you're a great mom, let him tell you what it is about you that makes him think you're a great mom.

And so on - about every character trait that he attributes to you. If he can give you specific answers, then he listened to you and listened to what was said - he determines whether he is going to keep you, whether he sees himself in a permanent relationship with you. And that could mean that you are at least on the same relationship page.

QUESTION #5: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT ME?

“Thinking” and “believing” are completely different things. So don't get confused. If a man cannot tell you how he feels about you after a month of dating, then he does not relate to you in any way - he just wants to get something from you. Ask a man how he feels about you, and he will become confused and nervous: “I told you before - I think that you ...” - he begins. You immediately interrupt him and say: "No, no, I want to know how you feel about me." He may fidget in his chair, start scratching his head, light up a cigar - will do everything to avoid an answer, or will think about what he thinks you want to hear from him. But you must force him to answer this question.

Don't be discouraged if he doesn't respond right away: he needs to address a part of himself that he doesn't like to address - his emotions. Men have problems with emotions, and it is not easy for them to express them.. A man can answer questions about God and children, about his mother, but with this question you are asking him to look into his soul, and our genes do not provide for heart outpourings. But that doesn't mean you should stop asking. You are looking for something like this in his answer: “When I don’t see you, I miss talking with you, I’m always interested in knowing what you are doing, and every time you appear, I just feel better in my soul - you Exactly what I was looking for." In other words, his answer should make you feel great. He may not have fallen in love with you yet, but he is madly in love with you, and he probably thinks that he wants to try to start a long-term relationship with you, because when he starts to state this and mentally put in the place of the one he is will be able provide and protect in this sense, he sees the future together with you. And that's where you want to be with this guy.

The answer "I think you're cool" does not work here. And if you understand that his feelings for you are not very deep - that he is simply not with you, then you do not need to be with him. Slow down until you start hearing and feeling words from him that you think are important to hear.

You have a right to know the answers to these questions.

We men are well aware that we have to answer these questions, and any real man will answer them. You may not necessarily like the answers, but he will answer them. If he refuses, then don't worry about him. Don't think that you will fix it later, that you will wait, etc., because it is nothing more than an empty hope. Before you know it, you will learn the hard way that this is not your hero, and you will start conversations with your friends like this: “Imagine, I slept with him, but he is not, I don’t even know if he likes children ... » Don't let that happen. Trust yourself - you have the right to know all the answers right away; you should ask these questions within the first few months of dating you, and preferably before you have had your first sex.

If you're already dating someone, ask them to clarify the situation. Or you should perhaps ask them in the hope that they will reinforce what you may already know: either you need to end the relationship or you are moving in the right direction. His answers will help you cut your losses or make you say to yourself, "I'm glad to be with this man."

By the way, our answers to questions can make us look differently at the woman asking them.. We definitely want to know the opinion of our women on these issues, but we are not going to bring them up - especially if our intentions towards you are not pure. But in your conversations on these topics, your man just might learn something about you, something that will make him realize that he has a pretty solid woman on his side.

Let's say he tells you that he wants to be an engineer, and you tell him that you have engineering friends who can give you good advice about a new profession. And he starts thinking: “Wow, this woman is interested in my goals! She offers to help me. Maybe she could be the person to take me to the next level.” And, perhaps, he will think about whether to include you in these plans to reach the “new level”.

You see, you receive information from him and imagine yourself in different roles - do I see myself in his short-term plans, in his long-term plans, as part of his family, as the mother of his children, helping him continue a solid relationship with his mother, do I see him as a model father for our children, do I see the whole picture? But this is a two-way street: listening to your questions, this guy defines who you are - a goldfish or just a fish for fun.

Based on Steve Harvey's book Act Like a Woman, Think Like a Man.

The attractiveness of women through the eyes of men.

What is the opposite sex talking about? What do men and women want and expect from a relationship? How to create an atmosphere of trust in a couple? Practical recommendations and answers to the most exciting questions.

An excerpt from the speech of Irina Miroshnichenko and Pavel Zygmantovich at the conference "Man and Woman 2014"

If you liked the article and was useful - subscribe to updates.

Receiving the award which your Free Academy generously bestowed on me, I experienced a feeling of great gratitude, all the more profound because I was well aware of the extent to which this distinction exceeds my modest personal merits. Any person, especially an artist, strives for recognition. Me too, of course. But when I learned about your decision, I unwittingly compared its significance with what I really am. What person, still quite young, rich only in his doubts and far from perfect writing skills, accustomed to living in the solitude of work or in the solitude of friendship, would not be frightened at the news of a decision that in the twinkling of an eye exposed him, lonely, immersed in himself? , for all to see in the dazzling rays of glory? Could he accept this high honor with a light heart, while in Europe so many other, truly great writers are condemned to obscurity; in the hour when his homeland suffers endless disasters?

Yes, I knew this panic fear, this inner turmoil. And in order to regain peace of mind, I had to measure my modest person with this undeservedly generous gift of fate. Since it was difficult for me to relate myself to this award, relying only on my own merits, I did not find anything else but to call for help that which throughout my life, under the most diverse circumstances, supported me, namely: the idea of \u200b\u200bmy literary creativity and the role of the writer in society. Allow me, filled with feelings of gratitude and friendship, to explain - as simply as I can - what it is, this is my idea.

I can't live without my creativity. But I never put this creativity above all else. On the contrary, I need it precisely in order not to move away from people and, remaining myself, to live in the same way as everyone around them lives. In my eyes, creativity is not the joy of a lonely artist. It is a means to excite the feelings of as many people as possible, giving them a "chosen", sublime image of everyday suffering and joy. That is why it obliges the artist not to retire, puts him to the test with the most banal and universal truths. It happens that a person chooses the destiny of an artist because he feels himself "chosen", but he very quickly becomes convinced that his art, his chosenness, feeds on only one source: recognition of his identity with those around him. The artist is forged precisely in this constant wandering between himself and others, halfway from beauty, which he cannot do without, to the human community, from which he cannot escape. That is why a true artist is alien to arrogant contempt: he considers it his duty to understand, and not to condemn. And if he has to take sides in this world, he must be only on the side of society, where, according to the great saying of Nietzsche, it is given not to fate to reign, but to the creator, be it a worker or an intellectual.

For the same reason, the role of the writer is inseparable from heavy human duties. He, by definition, cannot today be the servant of those who make history; on the contrary, he is at the service of those who undergo it. Otherwise, he is threatened with loneliness and excommunication from art. And all the armies of tyranny with their millions of warriors will not be able to pull him out of the hell of loneliness, even if - especially if - he agrees to go with them. But on the other hand, the mere silence of an unknown prisoner, doomed to humiliation and torture somewhere on the other side of the world, is enough to save the writer from the torment of isolation - at least every time he succeeds, among the privileges bestowed by freedom, to remember about this silence and make it public through the means of his art.

None of us is big enough for that calling. But in all the circumstances of his life, obscure or temporarily famous, suffering in the shackles of tyranny, or so far endowed with freedom of speech, the writer can find a sense of living solidarity with people that will justify his existence - on the only and indispensable condition that he shoulder, as far as it is in his power, two burdens that make up all the greatness of his difficult craft: serving the truth and serving freedom. Since the vocation of the artist is to unite as many people as possible, it cannot be based on lies and slavery, which, wherever they reign, only increase loneliness. Whatever the personal weaknesses of the writer, the nobility of our craft will forever be based on two difficult obligations - refusing to lie about what you know, and resisting oppression.

For twenty or more years of insane history, thrown helpless, like all my peers, into the frantic whirlpool of time, I supported myself with only a vague feeling that today the profession of a writer is an honor, because this occupation obliges, and obliges not only to write. It inspired me, in particular, to carry, to the best of my ability and abilities, together with all who experienced the same story, the cross of misfortune and the torch of hope, a symbol of everything that we shared among ourselves. To people born at the end of the First World War, who celebrated their twentieth anniversary just at the moment of the emergence of Hitler's power and at the same time the first revolutionary processes and for the greater improvement of their education, plunged into the nightmare of the Spanish and Second World Wars, into the hell of concentration camps, into the Europe of torture and prisons, today you have to raise your sons and create value in a world threatened by a nuclear catastrophe. Therefore, I think no one has the right to demand optimism from them. I am even of the opinion that it is our duty to understand - without stopping at the same time to fight this phenomenon - the mistake of those who, unable to withstand the yoke of despair, reserved the right to dishonor and sank into the abyss of modern nihilism. But the fact remains that most of us, both in my homeland and in Europe, have abandoned this nihilism and moved on to the search for a new meaning in life. They had to master the art of existence in times fraught with a worldwide catastrophe in order to be reborn and begin a fierce struggle against the death instinct that rules our history.

Each generation is sure that it is it that is called upon to remake the world. Mine, however, already knows that he cannot remake this world. But his task is perhaps even greater. It is to keep the world from dying. This generation, which inherited a mutilated history - a mixture of crushed revolutions, mad technology, dead gods and exhausted ideologies, a history where the current ordinary rulers, no longer able to convince, are able to destroy everything, where reason has sunk to the service of hatred and oppression, had to revive in himself and around him, based only on his own unbelief, at least a small part of what constitutes the dignity of life and death. In the face of a world threatened with annihilation, a world that our grand inquisitors could transform forever into a realm of death, this generation takes on the task in a mad counterclockwise run to restore peace between nations based not on slavish subjugation, to reconcile labor and culture and build, in alliance with all people, an ark of harmony. I am not sure that it will be able to complete this gigantic task, but I am sure that everywhere on earth it has already made a double stake - on truth and freedom - and, if the opportunity arises, it will be able to lay down its life for them without hatred in its soul. It - this generation - deserves to be glorified and encouraged everywhere, wherever it is, and especially where it sacrifices itself. And, in any case, it is to him that I would like, being sure in advance of your sincere approval, to redirect the honors that you have shown me today.

And now, having paid tribute to the noble craft of the writer, I would also like to determine his real place in public life, because he has no other titles and virtues than those that he shares with his brothers in the struggle: defenseless, but steadfast, unjust, but in love. into justice, giving birth to their creations without shame, but also without pride, in front of everyone, eternally restless between suffering and beauty, and, finally, called to evoke images from the depths of the dual soul of the artist, which he stubbornly and hopelessly tries to affirm forever in the destructive hurricane of history . Who, then, would dare to demand from him ready-made solutions and fine-hearted morality? Truth is mysterious, it always eludes comprehension, it must be conquered again and again. Freedom is dangerous, it is as difficult to possess as it is intoxicating. We must strive towards these two goals, albeit with difficulty, but resolutely moving forward and knowing in advance how many falls and failures await us on this thorny path. So what kind of writer dares, clearly understanding all this, to speak before those around him as a preacher of virtue? As for me, I must repeat once again that I am by no means such. Never could I refuse the light, the joy of being, the free life in which I was born. And although the craving for all this is to blame for many of my mistakes and delusions, it undoubtedly helped me to better understand my craft, it helps today, prompting instinctively to cling to all those people condemned to dumbness who endure the life created for them only thanks to memories. or short, unexpected returns of happiness.

So, having determined my true nature, my limits, my debts, and also the symbol of my difficult faith, I feel how much easier it is for me now, in conclusion, to show you all the immense generosity of the distinction with which you honored me; how much easier it is now for me to tell you also that I would like to accept this award as an honor given to all those who, sharing with me the hardships of the common struggle, not only did not receive any privileges, but, on the contrary, suffered misfortunes and were subjected to persecution and persecution. It remains for me to thank you from the bottom of my heart and publicly, as a token of my gratitude, take the same eternal oath of allegiance that every true artist makes to himself every day silently, in the depths of his soul.

Albert Camus, 1957

LOVE is a beautiful and mysterious word, it is an extraordinary feeling! No one has given him a scientific definition, no one knows 100% what she looks like, you never know where she is waiting for you, and in general, why exactly these two fall in love with each other without memory? It’s just that everyone has their own love, it is very different, but it is invariably a wonderful feeling that you really want to know.

But how to understand that it is HE who is your only one? What will you feel when you meet him? I think that many young girls (and sometimes women) ask themselves such questions. Before I met my beloved, I myself asked myself these and other questions more than once. Now I have already answered them for myself, and I want to help those who are waiting for their love. Of course, I understand that there is no single algorithm for determining what it is. I just want to tell you how it was with me, and I hope that my experience will be useful to you.

To begin with, I will say that it is very important to form in your mind the image of your beloved. This is written in detail in the article Law of attraction, or how to attract a man. It is important to ask yourself questions: what should it look like? What character traits should he have? How should he treat me? And I to him? What kind of relationship should we have? And in general - what do I really want from a relationship? I think this will at least save you from many mistakes, from deliberate self-deception (after all, if you don’t understand what you really want, then you will get “something”, it’s not a fact that it will be what you need). I will not dwell in great detail on how to form this image of a dream man, there are quite a lot of articles on this site on our site "Solar Hands".

So how was it with me? How did I understand that this was exactly the man with whom I wanted to be, how did I understand myself, my feelings for him?

Firstly, even before meeting my beloved, I had a certain experience of communicating with men. And over time, I formed an image of those relationships that I would like to see, and of what I would not want for sure. I had some ideas about what love is for me and what I want to experience next to MY man.

He must be handsome. Why am I putting this in the first place? It's not that beauty is the most important thing. No, as personal experience has shown, admiration for appearance does not last long if this is not your person, if he does not have a number of qualities. But we must admit that we first see him, and then we learn about his inner world. Therefore, it is natural that we first evaluate his appearance. And here, what is the most important thing for me to understand? MY man should be handsome just for me. And here it is not about world standards, not about the images from the covers of magazines, not about what relatives and friends say. HE must be beautiful just for me. He must be very attractive to me, I must be pleased to look at him. It should be fun, day after day, all the time! That's why my beloved, "my beloved", is beautiful to me! I like to watch him - how he talks, walks, laughs, sleeps, reads, ... It never bothers me.

charm, attractiveness, sex appeal. Again I say bye not yet about the mind, etc. just because his mind may not immediately catch our eye, we will not be able to immediately get to know a person very closely, his tastes, passions and dreams. But we quickly realize - are we drawn to a person or not? A man for his woman should be very charming (that is, it doesn’t matter what others think, but that’s exactly what he is for her). It is important that it be attractive and desirable for you. Strong sexual attraction in a couple is very important! Without this, your relationship will be inferior, not close enough. Therefore, do not deceive yourself, if this is not there, if I were you, I would think, but is it him?

mutual interest. You must be interested in each other. If a man is not interesting to you, if you are bored with him, then what kind of love can we talk about?

Those two points that I described above will not matter if you are not interested in him. Again, I’ll clarify what I’m talking about now about how to recognize in a man the one with whom you want to build a long, close, happy relationship. How to understand that he is the one with whom you are truly in love? This is not about temporary infatuation, or superficial relationships.

It's easy with him. It is possible that your very first meetings and conversations will not be ideal. Maybe he will not always be able to find the right words, or maybe he will be somewhat lost when communicating with you, or a little awkward to joke, or somewhat clumsy to care for. Don’t let this bother you, such situations are described on our website in the article “How to understand that he likes you? ". But be that as it may, the important thing is that in general it should be very easy and comfortable for you to communicate with him.

In general, I quickly gained confidence in my man. It was quite natural for me to be open with him, it seemed to me that I understood him well, although I still knew practically nothing about him. Almost from the first meetings and to the present, I am very comfortable next to my beloved.

It is good with him always and everywhere. You can spend a lot of time together, it’s easy for you to communicate, you are always interested together, you constantly come up with some kind of joint activities, you have a lot of topics for conversation, they seem to arise by themselves, so you can chat for hours. You want to meet often, call up, spend a lot of time together. This is important, because if these sensations are not present during the period when you are just dating, then what will happen when you live together and will be around for a long time?!

You are not annoyed by his habits, his features. Let me explain right away that we are all not perfect, in life together there are a lot of moments when we find compromises, learn something or learn not to be annoyed by the fact that, for example, he throws socks on the floor. But I know that there are moments when you can be annoyed, how he eats, how he sleeps, how he dances, how he talks, how he laughs. That is, when a lot of little things annoy, almost infuriates. This is the first call that this is not your person and that this is hardly true love! After all, when you love, many features even seem cute, well, or at least they are not annoying.

He inspires you! This is very important for me personally. What do I mean by inspiration in the context of our conversation? You want to come up with something to please him (gifts, funny or romantic SMS). You want to come up with joint activities (walking, watching DVDs, biking, going to the beach, going to the movies, dancing). On holidays, or on ordinary days, you want to make surprises for him, perhaps cook a romantic dinner for him. There is always a desire to learn something and discover new things together. You want to learn something for him, to be even better and more attractive.

To be honest, there were only relationships in my life and the man was a good, kind, smart, handsome, talented, interesting and generally wonderful person. But we parted! There were several reasons, but one of them was that I listened to myself and realized that he did not inspire me.

He makes you happy! When you are with him - you feel good, you smile, you rejoice, you are a HAPPY WOMAN and you are HAPPY!! This is the most important thing!

When there's no doubt! This is what I understood for myself. If you even ask yourself the question “like it - don’t like it”, then you DON’T LIKE it. It's just that when you meet a really strong feeling, your love, you will no longer ask yourself about it.

I must admit that my example may not be perfect, you may have your own understanding of love, priorities, and in general you may experience slightly different feelings.

It is also important to remember that no matter how strong your feelings are, it is worth analyzing a person’s actions from time to time so as not to deceive yourself, but to really see whether this is the person you can rely on, with whom you will feel good, comfortable, quietly for the rest of your life?

Sincerely, Olga Sheina.

No one fully knows what exactly shaped his thinking. It is difficult for me to trace in detail the origin of the concepts put forward in this book, and to get to the bottom of the reasons for their gradual change in the course of many years of work. Many sociologists have contributed to their development, and whenever a source is known, it has been cited in numerous notes to individual chapters. But among them there are six people to whom I am in special debt, in varying degrees and for various reasons, and it is to them that I want to pay tribute.

The very first and deepest gratitude is reflected only to some extent and too late in the very dedication of this book to Charles X. Hopkins. Thanks to the fact that this man, my sister's husband, lived in this world, many people's self-esteem was strengthened. And the bale is alive, those who came into contact with him, he will also be alive. With love, respect and gratitude, I dedicate this book to Hop, who found he could teach others.

To my good friend George Eaton Simpson, now of Oberlin College, I am indebted for taking on an arrogant sophomore to understood, how it excites the intellect to study the work of systems of social relations. I could not have imagined a more favorable acquaintance with sociology.

Even before Pitirim Sorokin plunged into the study of world historical processes (as presented in his Social and Cultural Dynamics), he helped me get rid of the narrowness of the circle.

from the notion that the effective study of society is limited to America, and from the slum-inspired notion that the main theme of sociology is the study of such peripheral problems of public life as divorce and juvenile delinquency. I gladly and honestly acknowledge my debt to him, which I have not yet repaid.

To George Sarton, who is highly respected among historians of science, I am grateful, in addition to consultations, for the friendly disposition and for granting me the right to work for almost two years in his famous room 189 in the Harvard Library. A little bit of his influence can be found in the first chapter of this book, on requirements for the history of sociological theory, and in Part IV, on writings on the sociology of science.

Those who read the following pages will soon realize how much I am indebted to my teacher and friend Talcott Parsons, who, early in his teaching career, infected so many with his enthusiasm for analytic theory. The scale of his personality as a teacher was manifested in the fact that he developed an inquisitive mind, and did not produce obedient students. The intellectual closeness to which small graduate school in sociology at Harvard in the early 1930s, allowed graduate students like me to maintain a close and continuous relationship with a lecturer on the level of Dr. Parsons. It was, in fact, a narrow circle of like-minded people. This is hard to find these days in departments with dozens of graduate students and a small group of overworked professors.

In recent years, working as a team in the Department of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, I have learned a lot from Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Since it is evident from our innumerable conversations that he has no idea how much I owe him intellectually, I am especially glad to have the opportunity to draw his attention to this publicly. Not least, his skeptical curiosity played a role in compelling me to formulate even more clearly the reasons why functional analysis seems to me at present the most promising, although not the only, theoretical approach to a wide range of problems in human society. Moreover, by his own example, he reinforced in me the conviction that the great difference between sociology as a science and sociological dilettantism lies in the systematic and serious that is, intellectually responsible and strict, studied

what at first seems like an interesting idea. What is it like

it seems to me that Whitehead also means it in the final lines of the epigraph to this book.

The other four people need little expression of my gratitude; one, because everyone who knows me knows how much I owe her; the other three, because, when the time comes, they will discover for themselves what it is that makes me feel great gratitude towards them.

Chemical weapons against their own population. A year has passed, and Assad apparently used the poison again in the besieged suburb of Damascus, killing dozens of people.

Will President Trump again decide that the use of chemical weapons is intolerable? Will he retaliate with another missile attack? Maybe. But it doesn't matter. If we talk about Syria, then Washington behaves there inconsistently, and ultimately, disinterestedly. And Assad knows this. And he also knows that as long as there is no prolonged and concentrated US military action, his regime will be able to live and prosper. He rarely puts himself in real danger. For years, Assad has carefully balanced, combining aggression and brutality with strategic patience. This helps him in his relations with the US and will certainly help him again during the last crisis.

Assad is listening carefully to signals from Washington and understands what US aspirations and concerns are in the Middle East. And what he has been observing lately, he clearly likes it.

A week before the chemical attack, Assad heard President Trump announce that American troops would withdraw from Syria "very soon" and let someone else handle Syria's problems. A few weeks earlier, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had said that the United States would remain in Syria indefinitely and that its goal - nothing more, nothing less - was to remove Assad. And then Tillerson was fired.

In the face of such chaos, contradictions and inconsistencies, Assad quite naturally feels confident in himself and uses chemical weapons. He probably thinks that he can survive and wait out the limited blows of our controversial president. He is sure of this, because for several years life has convinced him that the United States lacks the desire and firmness in order to call him to account for numerous atrocities. And this means that he can periodically commit extremely aggressive actions, after which the world community inevitably makes angry protests and carries out limited response actions, the effect of which is small.

Assad's key means of survival is to wait out his indecisive enemies.

In 2003, he saw the United States invade neighboring Iraq and pull its fearsome dictator out of a hole in the ground. For a while, Assad was worried that he would be next. But instead of appeasing the Americans by withdrawing support for terrorist groups and an alliance with Iran, he decided to wait until the United States exhausted its forces in Iraq. (He facilitated this by sending extremists there.) Naturally, the United States not only spared Assad, but also left Iraq, returning home.

In 2005, Lebanese President Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. Suspicion fell on the Syrian regime and its Hezbollah allies. The United States responded by stepping up diplomatic pressure and eventually forced the Assad government to end its 29-year occupation of Lebanon. But Assad was not discouraged.

His government again infiltrated Lebanon through spies, recruited agents and local allies. Assad knew that the United States was tired of the Middle East because the Iraq war had gone wrong. Therefore, instead of ending his interference in Lebanese affairs, he began to gradually intensify it. The international tribunal investigating Hariri's assassination turned its attention from the Syrian regime to individual members of Hezbollah.

Pretty soon, Hariri's son Saad, who became the new prime minister, swallowed his self-respect and visited Assad in Damascus. He wasn't the only former enemy to come build bridges. French President Nicolas Sarkozy also received Assad as a guest of honor on Bastille Day 2008, although Paris had previously accused him of killing French ally Rafik Hariri.

In 2009, John Kerry arrived in Damascus, calling the Syrian president "the most important player in bringing peace and stability to the region." So, Assad has weathered another passing storm of Western hostility, which has been replaced by outright friendship. At the same time, he defended his interests in Lebanon.

As civil war broke out in Syria in 2011, President Barack Obama urged Assad to leave. At times it seemed that the United States might even try to get this exit. However, Assad took a number of steps to defend against American intervention. He made it possible for the Islamic State (an organization banned in Russia - ed.) to gain a foothold, creating a dilemma for the Americans, who had to think: are we really going to allow jihadists to take over Syria? As long as the Islamic State existed, Assad was safe and could only wait. He was not only spared. The United States even obligated him to fight the Islamic State, while allowing him to freely wage war against the opposition.

As the Islamic State weakened, Assad's life was once again in danger. The group's defeat removed the Assad-Jihadist dilemma, but it also coincided with the emergence of a new administration in Washington obsessed with undermining the influence of Assad's main ally, Iran. However, despite Tillerson's pledge to maintain the US military presence in Syria, President Trump soon signaled that the US would defeat ISIS and withdraw from Syria.

Most likely, this will not be the last US word on Syria. New chemical weapons attacks could force Washington to put pressure on Damascus again, and then Trump will try to prove that the “red lines” mean something. If so, then Assad will again take a wait-and-see attitude, waiting for the American response, whatever it may be. He is well aware that these actions will not endanger the survival of his regime. And then Assad will resume the conquest of Syria. (Though it is entirely possible that the political machine in Washington is completely dysfunctional, and therefore unable to strategize and execute it.)

American politicians like to say that Assad didn't win the war because much of Syria is occupied by foreign powers, cities are in ruins, and his regime has become a pariah on the international stage. But Assad himself believes that he is winning, that he will eventually return the country to his control, and that a wave of air and missile strikes will not change anything. And who can blame him for such confidence?

Faisal Itani is Senior Fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for Middle East Studies at the Atlantic Council.