There are wonderful lines attributed to Omar Khayyamualthough no definitive attribution has been established:
Two people looked through one window:
One saw the rain and the mud
Another – foliage of green ligature,
Spring and the sky is blue.
Two people looked through one window.
If we compare the statements of two high-ranking interested parties – the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinkina and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkova lately, you immediately understand what kind of “window of opportunity” it is for Russian-American negotiations.
Blinkin: “NATO Defense Alliance. It exists for defense, not for attack. “
Ryabkov: “NATO needs to collect money and go to the borders of 1997”
Blinkin: “Moscow is promoting a false narrative that NATO threatens Russia, that NATO plans to deploy military infrastructure in Ukraine to fuel a conflict with Russia, and that NATO allegedly pledged not to accept Eastern European countries into the Alliance after the Cold War, and is now allegedly breaking these promises … Each of these statements is not true. “
Ryabkov: “Even a layman understands that demanding concessions from Russia in a situation where it is NATO that has been seeking to ‘push back’ our country over the past decades and transfer it, if not to the role of a subordinate, then to a secondary role in international politics, and to do this with direct harm to our security will no longer succeed. We will not agree to any concessions. “
Blinkin: “I can assure you in advance that during these negotiations … no tough commitments will be made.”
Ryabkov: “Negotiations cannot be easy. They will be businesslike. I think we will not waste time. “
Looking at such “ligature and mud” and “rain from the blue sky” you will inevitably ponder. First of all, over the position of the Russian diplomats: what are you ultimately trying to achieve? Well, then, let’s say, they cheated, but now? I will also paraphrase from the classics: “So that it was such a piece of paper, with which NATO could not even come to the door. The final piece of paper. Actual. The real one. Armor”. Is this goal-setting?
Alas, what kind of “guarantees” – states “agree” only when they run out of opportunities with resources in a certain direction. And they disavow under any pretext when they reopen. For example, due to mistakes that weakened a competitor-enemy. Or a stalemate in the national economy, which America, with all its problems, has not yet been observed.
It is tempting to send NATO to the “lines of 1997”, but it would not be bad to recall the “Partnership for Peace” – the rationale and forerunner of the so-called “NATO expansion to the east.” The program was signed by Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels on June 22, 1994. JUNE, 22! The Russian Federation needed a lot of common words for what, pragmatism – zero.
For what – to the opposite side, it is perfectly clear: the preservation of the “military alliance” after the collapse of the USSR, in the first place. Secondly, the arms market: the famous NATO standards, to which “not only all” countries have technical capabilities, which allows them to “sell” weapons at inflated prices. Accordingly, the expansion of such a market, like any other, is warmly welcomed by the “laws of the market”.
They will object – then the “damned nineties”! With their “kozyrevschina” and “eltsenoid”. However, in May 2002, at the NATO military base Pratica di Mare near Rome, between Putin, Bush Jr., secretary general Robertson in the presence of other “partners” the declaration “NATO-Russia Relations: A New Quality” is concluded. At the same time, the “Russia-NATO Council” was established.
And all these “friendly gatherings” after the “fourth expansion” in March 1999, when Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were admitted to the Alliance. And in March 2004, the fifth broke out – with all the Balts, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. By the way, relations between NATO and the Russian Federation stopped (after 08.08.08), and then they were interrupted at the initiative of the Alliance, and not at all the Russian Federation.
In short, they “yielded” and more than once, put up with the “advancement”, just to stay on the side chair at the same table. They “did not quarrel” to the last line, standing behind the “red lines”. And patriotism, suddenly, woke up from the realization that finances at the macro level are nothing more than statistics, if there is nothing else behind them. Figures, fetish! But on a personal-selfish level, money may well “freeze” or even take away out of bounds.
After all, the former public property was “redistributed” according to the same lawlessness. For what “foreign investors”, “import jurisdictions” and “foreign arbitrations” were needed – they hoped, they say, that strangers would cover them from their own. Those are happy, but on condition: then you are below us, then we are above you. And then the zealous leaped out, because the economic formation itself, like NATO, is demanding “expansion”.
Both from the official statements and from the numerous PRESS “leaks with leaks” it is obvious that the Russian-American talks are another inflated event in the series of “talk?” Parasitic diplomacy “from the day before yesterday”, which is not capable of producing results today, must somehow justify the fact of its existence, therefore “troubles for the sake of vanity.” But what if we offer the Americans to bash their heads against the wall? No, but what if …
Upon arrival, the Biden administration made it clear that they did not need either an improvement or a deterioration in relations with Russia. To promote its own interests, the White House needs “predictability,” that is, the very “stability” on which the Kremlin is jammed. Of course, everything flows, everything changes – the only question is “how much.”
Really, all programs of “import substitution” have been completed; do not care about restrictions (why then propaganda erased all languages); greedy and cowardly before, now they are ready to take risks; NATO is on the verge of collapse; a meteorite fell on America? Or “at least” the planes flew into the towers? (In September 2001, the Russian Federation unconditionally supported the United States in the “fight against international terrorism,” and already in December 2001, the Americans unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems).
In addition to the middle finger, you need strong arguments, objective facts, an unyielding will, tangible without words. Otherwise, these are not negotiations, but persuasions, where ultimatums are not rolled out. Either you dictate or they dictate. Even for internal use, explanations of the predictable failure of the next Russian initiatives (“we offered, and they sent us”) has long been “recyclable”. Well, as much as you can about “wolves, wolves, shameful” – the shepherd closed in. And already – not fear with indignation and sympathy, but bewilderment and contempt.
Finally, clarification. Blinken did not say: “Putin is restoring the Soviet Union”, this is the wording of the CNN. And the US Secretary of State said that one of President Putin’s goals is to restore a sphere of influence over countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union. This is unacceptable! ”Agree,“ sphere of influence ”and“ Soviet Union ”are two big differences.
Of course, for the United States, “this is unacceptable,” they sense a hypothetical competitive potential, have a historical example. That is why the USSR was formed in the shortest possible time (5 years after the “dashing 1917s”), because that former government, now spat upon, had what alternative to offer and what rules to provide. And she didn’t have a mind with a will (there’s just no one else).
And now 20 years have passed, if you count from the “damned 90s” and all someone outside and otherworldly is to blame. That “the Bolsheviks planted mines” (yeah, in the intervals between wars, the creation of nuclear weapons and the exploration of natural deposits). That “NATO is transferring the country to the role of subordinate.”
Contrary to the idle maxim – not “the communists all about … clicked”, but those who ceased to be communists. As homonyms: the word is one, but the meanings with ideas are different, the “goat” can be athletic, or maybe horned. Are there ideas that the modern Russian Federation is able to offer its neighbors not for the sake of the former past, but for the sake of a common future (there will not be enough resource money for everyone, “added value” must be earned)? That’s just it. As the saying goes, not “Putin will restore the Soviet Union”, NATO soldiers will do it for him.