Jan 29, 2021
0 0

“It is not Trump who won, but Clinton, it is not known whether we would have survived to this day”

"It is not Trump who won, but Clinton, it is not known whether we would have survived to this day"

Photo: AP / TASS

As much as one would like to think that the absolutely correct recommendations of P.K. Roberts (who else can know how to do business with the United States, if not a person who has been in the highest circles of the United States for many decades?) Can be useful to someone in Russia authorities, we have to admit that the respected author is mistaken. There are no such people. Another thing is that the public should know what the line of the Russian Federation in relations with the United States could be if someone decided to do business with the Americans in the interests of Russia.

In this sense, the form in which the summary of the telephone conversation between Putin and Biden was presented by the two parties is significant. There is no need to explain that both the Kremlin and the White House in such cases suck and lick their formulations to a shine.

It will be all the more interesting to compare them in order to understand the positions of the parties. And try to understand: are these positions on the same level or is one of the parties looking down on the other? Does the other understand that she is from below?

The numbering of the paragraphs was put down by me in order to identify the correspondences, discrepancies and contradictions in how the parties look at what it was between them.

The translation of the White House release is also, of course, mine.

To start. About the importance the parties attach to the conversation. The Kremlin posted a message on the first page of the site. The White House buried it on the second page of the Briefing Room.

Point number 1 can be said to be the same. You can ignore the little things like “junior”. Just think, Biden’s dad was called exactly the same as himself – Joseph Robinette Biden.

Item 2 is more interesting. Old man Biden calls Moscow – and the conversation, as you know, took place on his initiative – when it was at half past nine in the Mother See. In Washington – 13:35. That is, my grandfather had finished the night and was calling. He doesn’t care what time it is on the other end. I just took a position “from above”. It’s good that I didn’t call near the end of my working day. But he could.

Item No. 3 – there are no differences in content.

Item No. 4 – in the release of the White House, there is silence about congratulations from Putin. Accordingly, not a word about expressing gratitude for the congratulations. Did Biden express his gratitude during the conversation? This secret is great. The White House is also silent about the fact that “normalization of relations between Russia and the United States would meet the interests of both countries and – taking into account their special responsibility for maintaining security and stability in the world – of the entire international community.” Does it feel beneath its dignity to talk about it?

It is very strange, but the Kremlin takes the trouble to speak on behalf of the two sides about the emotional reaction to the conversation: “The presidents expressed satisfaction with the exchange of diplomatic notes carried out today on reaching an agreement on the extension of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms.” The White House is silent about this.

Item number 5 – international issues. The White House sees it as “strong US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty” and “other issues causing concern (hereinafter, it is highlighted by me – S.D.), including breaking into SolarWinds, reports that Russia appointed awards for (assassinations – S.D.) American soldiers in Afghanistan, intervention in the 2020 U.S. elections and poisoning Alexei Navalny “,” Biden clear made it clear that the United States will act firmly in defense of their national interests in response to actions Of Russiawhich cause harm“. That is, Biden is clear and unambiguous accused Russia. Putin told Biden to stop anti-Russian propaganda? Unclear. The Kremlin simply indicated that it had considered an “internal Ukrainian settlement.” “Considered” or Heard?

And the White House, for its part, is silent about the fact that there were “… The possibilities of cooperation were considered in the fight against such an acute problem as the coronavirus pandemic, as well as in other areas, including the trade and economic sphere,” that “… the US withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, the problem of preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program, … as well as the Russian initiative to hold a summit of permanent members of the UN Security Council. ” In this case, silence is by no means a sign of consent. Most likely the opposite is true.

Nor did the White House condescend to confirm or deny that “… the conversation between the leaders of Russia and the United States was of a businesslike and frank character.”

Item No. 6 does not make sense to analyze.

I would like to draw the readers’ attention to the place in the article by P.K. Roberts, where he sets out the position of Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, in relation to Russia. These days, propagandists of all stripes began to dance on Trump’s bones: he didn’t do anything to relieve tension, he only gave smiles, but Biden came on you – in the very first week he extended the START III treaty and “saved the world”.

I wonder if they are stupid or did the order come from the AP?

Do they not understand that Trump has been tied hand and foot by the frenzied-hysterical media campaign and laws passed by Congress? American presstitutes bluntly declared him both an “agent of Russia” and a “puppet of Putin.” They split into atoms not only meaningful words, but also interjections in his speeches concerning Russia. In gestures and facial expressions, they looked for and found evidence of his betrayal. The House of Representatives has announced two impeachments – which is unprecedented – and the Senate is now preparing the court. Trump fulfilled his great world-historical mission by the fact that even in the 2016 election campaign, he dared to proclaim the need not only to normalize, but also to improve relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. It is not he who won, but Clinton, it is not known whether we would have survived to this day.

In the States, the power layouts are not at all the same as ours. The American president, who did not surrender, but only stammered to give part of American territory to another country, would be impeached by the House of Representatives, and the Senate would be removed from office and brought to justice as a traitor.

And we gave the Barents Sea to the Norwegians – and nothing. Did any of the propagandists disguising themselves as patriotic statesmen even squeaked that the president who proposed this and the “legislators” who ratified his proposal are traitors?

Returning to our sheep, that is to say, to Russian-American relations.

Here now – if not, then it is – a unique situation. Traditionally – since Soviet times – almost all the main more or less positive agreements with the United States were reached when the Republicans were in power in Washington. The mechanics of this process are purely psychological: the American establishment and almost the majority of the American population have always seen our country as an enemy. And Republicans have always been on the extreme right wing of the political spectrum. If Democrats were patriots and anti-communists, then Republicans were ultra-anti-communists and jingoism patriots. And there was no one to criticize and accuse them, Republicans, from the extreme right, anti-Soviet, anti-Russian positions for the “deals” with the Soviets / Russia, and accuse them of anti-Americanism and betrayal. This extreme right-wing position was theirs and theirs alone.

It so happened that Trump, who advocated the normalization of relations with Russia, a supporter of the real economy, a nationalist (in our opinion, a patriot), became President of the Republican Party. And all the media and social platforms are in the hands of global financiers. For them, uniting with the democrats on the platform of anti-Russian hysteria is two fingers on the asphalt. Which was brilliantly implemented.

And now – to fan the hysteria about the fact that Biden sold out to Russia in the States to no one (yet?). Biden himself is from the very clique that fanned anti-Russian hysteria.

So there are interesting times ahead.

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply