On Wednesday, US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan brought two letters to the Foreign Office. These were official responses to Russia ‘s December security proposals. One from Washington, the second from NATO.
What exactly is written there is still unknown to the public. However, at his press conference, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken assured everyone that there would be no surprises. “The United States does not make concessions,” the media formulate the position of the American authorities.
“Russia must refrain from force, aggressive rhetoric and attacks on our allies and other peoples,” Blinken said. “Russia must remove its units from Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, where they are stationed without the consent of these countries.” It is not known where in Ukraine the US Secretary of State found Russian units, but it is clear that in the other two cases, they are talking about Transnistria and South Ossetia.
Blinken confirmed that the supply of American weapons to Ukraine will continue and “if necessary, these weapons will be used.” He promised help to the Ukrainian economy, which sounded with particular cynicism. It is Washington, drawing Ukraine into military adventures, that destroys the hryvnia exchange rate and what is left of the local economy. And now the same people are promising to help Ukrainians with money, so long as they continue their provocations.
At the Secretary of State’s press conference, all the usual and already pretty boring rhetoric about “NATO’s open doors”, loyalty to the allies in general and to Ukraine in particular, was heard. “We will not compromise on the security principles of our alliance and security in Europe and North America,” Blinken said. “The right of peoples to choose their own path must be respected.”
There was a lot about sanctions against Russia – Blinken again started talking about “export control” in the Russian Federation. At the same time, according to the Secretary of State, if “punished” Russia decides to limit energy supplies to Europe and “use gas as a weapon,” then it will have to be “punished” again. But it will inevitably limit them, since the Americans also plan to ban Nord Stream 2.
We have heard this hackneyed record more than once. Attempts to reduce the existential demands of Russia to the problem of Ukraine are also pretty fed up. Something else was interesting. What exactly did Washington say to Moscow’s proposals? This was the very first question of journalists at a press conference : “Did you answer a resolute “No” to Moscow’s demands never to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and to move NATO troops away from Russia’s borders?”
And here the US Secretary of State, constantly licking his lips and obviously nervous, began to evade the answer. “I would not like to get into specifics,” he said, and immediately turned to abstract mantras about “NATO’s open doors,” “loyalty to principles,” “we have publicly stated more than once…” and so on.
In this regard, a natural question arose. If the US response to Russia’s proposals is written in the spirit of “not one step back”, then why do the Americans insist so much on their request not to publish its text? What the hell is in the details?
However, no matter what ingenious formulations were used there, there was no progress in terms of meaning. In the text of the letter, the American partners just as cleverly dodged any guarantees of NATO’s non-expansion to the east. This was just stated by Foreign Minister Lavrov: “There is no positive reaction on the main issue in this document. The main issue is our clear position on the inadmissibility of further NATO expansion to the east and the deployment of strike weapons that could threaten the territory of the Russian Federation.”
Instead of guarantees of Russia’s non-expansion, petty, purely insignificant concessions are offered. The Wall Street Journal leaked that the US presidential administration is discussing the creation of new rules for the passage of warships through the Black Sea and the possibility of inspecting American missile systems in Poland and Romania. Both should, like, respond to Russia’s “concerns”.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. written response also includes proposals for possible talks on mutual deterrence, including limiting intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles and conducting military exercises further from borders so that they do not look like preparation for an invasion.
In the letter to NATO, as can be understood from the words of Jens Stoltenberg, considerations are expressed for the resumption of contacts between Moscow and the alliance. “We must restore our offices in Moscow and Brussels,” the NATO chief said. Well, that is, this is the same policy of winding up the topic, about which the leadership of Russia has warned more than once. “Negotiations on the possibility of negotiations on the start of negotiations.”
In parallel with these peaceful gestures, there is an outright escalation. Six American fighter jets have just landed in Estonia. State Department spokesman Ned Price confirmed that the Americans would not allow Nord Stream 2 to be launched in the event of Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine.
At the same time, there is still no unity in the United States regarding Ukraine. The roaring chorus of neocons, bureaucrats and paid journalists cannot drown out the voices of those who believe that there is no need for the United States to escalate tensions and provoke Russia. That it is senseless and dangerous, but it would be much more reasonable to fulfill all the requirements of Moscow and return to the configuration of military blocs 25 years ago.
Over the past weeks, we have seen many statements from all sorts of experts who insist that neither Ukraine nor Georgia is needed in NATO. And even the Baltic states are also not needed. And in general the whole of Eastern Europe. “Why, in general, is NATO needed, what is its point, if the Soviet Union, from which it was supposed to defend itself, disappeared thirty years ago?” Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson asks a natural question.
“(Do they want to. – Approx. ed.) to start a third world war? – Reacted former President Trump to the idea of sending fifty thousand American soldiers to Europe to fight for Ukraine. – This is some kind of madness. With me, this would never have happened “.
That is, there is obvious discord among the American elites about the situation that they themselves created. It seems that they themselves do not understand: is Washington’s aggressive policy still a controlled chaos or is it already uncontrollable? And now what i can do? There is only one answer: to play for time, chatter about the topic, write letters about nothing.
But even greater contradictions are torn apart by the United States and Britain that has joined them, on the one hand, and the main European powers, on the other. The Anglo-Saxons are once again trying to set Germany and France against Russia. Europeans, mindful of historical experience, resist as much as they can.
Right now, negotiations of the “Norman Four” are underway in Paris, designed to return the situation in Ukraine to some kind of normality. All parties reaffirmed their unconditional commitment to the ceasefire regime.
Germany fundamentally does not want to supply weapons to Ukraine and has just banned Estonia from doing this – the Estonians were going to send German weapons to Kiev. Instead, the Germans (not without a sly hint, of course) sent five thousand helmets to Ukraine. “What will they send next? Pillo-ws?” – asked the mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko and went to prepare fellow cou-ntrymen “to the ground.”
Meanwhile, the British elite, through the mouth of the distinguished journalist and aristocrat Patrick Wintour, reprimands France and Germany for not being aggressive enough towards Russia. They are charged with “a stubborn desire to forgive and excessive optimism towards Putin.” Babette must go to war – no excuses. And if they don’t go, then Washington will turn off their gas, in the sense of Nord Stream 2.
The Europeans are gradually beginning to realize that the Americans want to fight with them. The Americans are beginning to understand that the Europeans will do everything to prevent this from happening. No wonder that Washington is asking not to publish the text of the letter to Moscow. With such mutual distrust within the alliance, any turn, any phrase can be interpreted as evidence that Washington is negotiating with Moscow separately, without taking into account the opinion of the allies. There were precedents.
After Afghanistan, almost all NATO member countries openly said that the Americans agreed in advance with the Taliban on the withdrawal of their troops, and the allies were informed about this only after the fact.
Negotiations with Moscow are causing even greater unrest and unrest among the allies.
If France and Germany do not need any conflicts, then Poland, the Baltic states and other junior NATO brothers only run into them. Hence the measures of heightened secrecy, and all this strange style of diplomatic interaction unprecedented in history: “Alex to Eustace,” nothing else.