Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Kiko
The US was obliged to send a Russophobe to negotiations with Russia, by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD, 11/10/2021.
Of course, no one guarantees that these negotiations will end successfully. They probably won't get anywhere. However, it is still worth trying. Even if for this you need to endure Nuland in Moscow for several days.
On October 11-13, Victoria Nuland, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, will visit Moscow. She will have to hold talks with a number of Russian dignitaries (including Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov), at which the parties will ask each other questions and, possibly, receive answers to them.
And the Russian public has one single question: do we need to meet with Nuland? The lady who was going to "push Putin to the wall" (this is what the title of her article in 2020 sounded like )? Which advocates the isolation of Russia, because, as she herself wrote, "some, including myself, were overly optimistic, believing that the more Russia gets closer to the free world, the better and more democratic it will become as a partner." ? Who refused and still refuses to recognize Russian interests in the post-Soviet space, and even more so to respect them? Which Moscow first included in the sanctions lists, and now, for the sake of the opportunity to make this visit, has it removed from them?
Yes, I removed it for a reason - according to the words of Maria Zakharova, “they included Russian representatives, international affairs officials, in their sanctions lists, so in this case this issue was resolved on an equal footing”. That is, in other words, they excluded some Russian from the lists, and we removed Nuland from there. However, the problem is that today the Americans have excluded it, and tomorrow (well, more precisely, on the 14th, after Nuland's return to Washington) they will include it back - especially since the United States no longer needs any reasonable reasons to replenish the lists. Such an exclusion is only a tactical exchange and generally has no strategic benefit for Russia, so all the headlines from the series “The United States had to make a deal with Russia for Nuland’s visit to Moscow” do not correspond to reality at all. However, this visit is useful. And - under certain circumstances - it can be considerable.
Recall that in June 2021, Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden held a very productive meeting in Geneva. At it, they agreed to stop the escalation of the conflict in relations between Russia and the United States, to see how it would look, and also to try to start some kind of pragmatic dialogue. And the United States, strange as it may seem, has more or less complied with this agreement. All these months Washington refrained from any drastic anti-Russian steps: it did not accept significant packages of anti-Russian sanctions, did not arrange large-scale military provocations, did not incite Kiev (but, rather, on the contrary, set it down) and even, with all its rhetoric across Crimea, did not send to the highly publicized Ukrainian "Crimean Platform" of any significant official.
Of course, all this Biden did not out of the kindness of his soul. He sharply criticized Trump's approach to foreign policy issues, but nevertheless adopted some of Trump's theses. For example, refraining from scattering resources on unnecessary conflicts and concentrating them on what is most needed - that is, containing China. The Biden administration is now actively pursuing the architecture of this containment - for example, through the creation of the AUKUS tripartite alliance and attempts to derail or diminish the significance of the Beijing 2022 Olympics. Yes, the Americans also need a conflict with Russia — to mobilize the American elites, to justify the existence of NATO, to weaken Europe and keep it in its sphere of influence — but this conflict must be: a) manageable; b) low intensity. Therefore, Biden does not need any sharp moves in relations with Moscow.
However, it is impossible to keep bilateral relations in a state of "escalation freeze" for a long time. There are many controversial issues between Russia and the United States, in which it is necessary either to try to build a dialogue, or at least to clearly draw red lines to each other and agree not to cross them.
Apparently, the American Undersecretary of State is going to Moscow for a technical (that is, at the level of performers) dialogue. The parties will talk about Ukraine - about what to do with Volodymyr Zelenskyy (who, due to his lack of control, has ceased to suit even the United States) and the Minsk Agreements. On Iran - Washington is trying to negotiate with Tehran on the resuscitation of the nuclear deal, and it needs any help in this. As for China, the United States still hopes, if not to pull Russia up to its plans, then at least somehow pull it away from Beijing. With regard to further arms reductions, the Americans are worried about the latest Russian hypersonic and nuclear weapons, which not only restore parity and the principle of a guaranteed retaliatory strike, but also nullifies all current and future American missile defense systems.
Finally, they will talk about ambassadorial matters - at the suggestion of the Americans, staff in diplomatic missions have already been reduced to a minimum, the United States has practically stopped issuing visas to Russians, and not only Russian citizens, but also Washington, suffer from such happiness. After all, everyone understands that various exchange programs and visits of "young leaders" to the United States are an important element of the "soft power" strategy. And if it will be extremely difficult to agree on other issues, the restoration of normal diplomatic relations is quite possible. And in general, the Russian-American dialogue is needed not only by Washington, but also by Moscow - for de-escalation, for increasing its own capabilities in negotiations with the same Iran and China. In the end, to move away from the abyss of a possible third world war.
Of course, it may seem to someone that if you need to negotiate with someone, then certainly not with the anti-Russian-minded Mrs. Nuland. That Washington could send some other diplomat, more constructive. However, firstly, Nuland is a professional of the highest standard, especially on issues related to Russia. Secondly, being a professional, she does not put her Wishlist in the first place - and it will not be she who will make the final decisions. Her task is to conduct technical negotiations and then report their results to her superiors.
Finally, she is Biden's safe negotiator with Russia. Victoria Nuland went to Moscow not only because she is the Deputy Secretary of State, and not only because she knows Russian realities. Biden is playing it safe - he is sending a "hawk" to hide from possible criticism and accusations (for example, from the same Trump) that Washington is going to almost surrender to Moscow. No one will be able to accuse Nuland with her views of intending to surrender American interests - which means that she will save the dialogue between Russia and the United States from sabotaging the press, which happened during the attempt to negotiate with Trump.
Of course, no one guarantees that these negotiations will end successfully. They probably won't get anywhere. However, it is still worth trying. Even if for this you need to endure Nuland in Moscow for several days.
https://m.vz.ru/opinions/2021/10/11/1123411.html
Of course, no one guarantees that these negotiations will end successfully. They probably won't get anywhere. However, it is still worth trying. Even if for this you need to endure Nuland in Moscow for several days.
On October 11-13, Victoria Nuland, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, will visit Moscow. She will have to hold talks with a number of Russian dignitaries (including Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov), at which the parties will ask each other questions and, possibly, receive answers to them.
And the Russian public has one single question: do we need to meet with Nuland? The lady who was going to "push Putin to the wall" (this is what the title of her article in 2020 sounded like )? Which advocates the isolation of Russia, because, as she herself wrote, "some, including myself, were overly optimistic, believing that the more Russia gets closer to the free world, the better and more democratic it will become as a partner." ? Who refused and still refuses to recognize Russian interests in the post-Soviet space, and even more so to respect them? Which Moscow first included in the sanctions lists, and now, for the sake of the opportunity to make this visit, has it removed from them?
Yes, I removed it for a reason - according to the words of Maria Zakharova, “they included Russian representatives, international affairs officials, in their sanctions lists, so in this case this issue was resolved on an equal footing”. That is, in other words, they excluded some Russian from the lists, and we removed Nuland from there. However, the problem is that today the Americans have excluded it, and tomorrow (well, more precisely, on the 14th, after Nuland's return to Washington) they will include it back - especially since the United States no longer needs any reasonable reasons to replenish the lists. Such an exclusion is only a tactical exchange and generally has no strategic benefit for Russia, so all the headlines from the series “The United States had to make a deal with Russia for Nuland’s visit to Moscow” do not correspond to reality at all. However, this visit is useful. And - under certain circumstances - it can be considerable.
Recall that in June 2021, Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden held a very productive meeting in Geneva. At it, they agreed to stop the escalation of the conflict in relations between Russia and the United States, to see how it would look, and also to try to start some kind of pragmatic dialogue. And the United States, strange as it may seem, has more or less complied with this agreement. All these months Washington refrained from any drastic anti-Russian steps: it did not accept significant packages of anti-Russian sanctions, did not arrange large-scale military provocations, did not incite Kiev (but, rather, on the contrary, set it down) and even, with all its rhetoric across Crimea, did not send to the highly publicized Ukrainian "Crimean Platform" of any significant official.
Of course, all this Biden did not out of the kindness of his soul. He sharply criticized Trump's approach to foreign policy issues, but nevertheless adopted some of Trump's theses. For example, refraining from scattering resources on unnecessary conflicts and concentrating them on what is most needed - that is, containing China. The Biden administration is now actively pursuing the architecture of this containment - for example, through the creation of the AUKUS tripartite alliance and attempts to derail or diminish the significance of the Beijing 2022 Olympics. Yes, the Americans also need a conflict with Russia — to mobilize the American elites, to justify the existence of NATO, to weaken Europe and keep it in its sphere of influence — but this conflict must be: a) manageable; b) low intensity. Therefore, Biden does not need any sharp moves in relations with Moscow.
However, it is impossible to keep bilateral relations in a state of "escalation freeze" for a long time. There are many controversial issues between Russia and the United States, in which it is necessary either to try to build a dialogue, or at least to clearly draw red lines to each other and agree not to cross them.
Apparently, the American Undersecretary of State is going to Moscow for a technical (that is, at the level of performers) dialogue. The parties will talk about Ukraine - about what to do with Volodymyr Zelenskyy (who, due to his lack of control, has ceased to suit even the United States) and the Minsk Agreements. On Iran - Washington is trying to negotiate with Tehran on the resuscitation of the nuclear deal, and it needs any help in this. As for China, the United States still hopes, if not to pull Russia up to its plans, then at least somehow pull it away from Beijing. With regard to further arms reductions, the Americans are worried about the latest Russian hypersonic and nuclear weapons, which not only restore parity and the principle of a guaranteed retaliatory strike, but also nullifies all current and future American missile defense systems.
Finally, they will talk about ambassadorial matters - at the suggestion of the Americans, staff in diplomatic missions have already been reduced to a minimum, the United States has practically stopped issuing visas to Russians, and not only Russian citizens, but also Washington, suffer from such happiness. After all, everyone understands that various exchange programs and visits of "young leaders" to the United States are an important element of the "soft power" strategy. And if it will be extremely difficult to agree on other issues, the restoration of normal diplomatic relations is quite possible. And in general, the Russian-American dialogue is needed not only by Washington, but also by Moscow - for de-escalation, for increasing its own capabilities in negotiations with the same Iran and China. In the end, to move away from the abyss of a possible third world war.
Of course, it may seem to someone that if you need to negotiate with someone, then certainly not with the anti-Russian-minded Mrs. Nuland. That Washington could send some other diplomat, more constructive. However, firstly, Nuland is a professional of the highest standard, especially on issues related to Russia. Secondly, being a professional, she does not put her Wishlist in the first place - and it will not be she who will make the final decisions. Her task is to conduct technical negotiations and then report their results to her superiors.
Finally, she is Biden's safe negotiator with Russia. Victoria Nuland went to Moscow not only because she is the Deputy Secretary of State, and not only because she knows Russian realities. Biden is playing it safe - he is sending a "hawk" to hide from possible criticism and accusations (for example, from the same Trump) that Washington is going to almost surrender to Moscow. No one will be able to accuse Nuland with her views of intending to surrender American interests - which means that she will save the dialogue between Russia and the United States from sabotaging the press, which happened during the attempt to negotiate with Trump.
Of course, no one guarantees that these negotiations will end successfully. They probably won't get anywhere. However, it is still worth trying. Even if for this you need to endure Nuland in Moscow for several days.
https://m.vz.ru/opinions/2021/10/11/1123411.html
