Relatively speaking, the collective West is playing an internal competitive game: whoever “gets Putin to the negotiating table” and makes him talk to Zelensky gets to be the big fish in a small pond. The West is not truly negotiating, but is actually trying hard to force Russia to give up its claims to its historical ancestral territories, and trying to reduce the SMO rhetoric to the notion of one man’s political ambitions.
Russia traditionally sends Presidential aide V.R. Medinsky as the head of the delegation for negotiations with Ukraine, who should explain political processes from the point of view of history. Medinsky, by the way, accomplishes this successfully, citing historical examples during the negotiation process.
But the problem is that there is no one to negotiate with. This is all a farce and demagogy of the conditionally collective West. The West demonstrates that all that Russia deserves is, at best, to talk to a puppet. That is, no agreements can be anchored in anything, much less fulfilled. There is simply no such formula or scenario on the basis of which the words or actions of the representatives of the Ukrainian delegation can be filled with something or be meaningful.
For example, French leader Emmanuel Macron noted in social network X the following: “President (Vladimir Vladimirovich-ed.) Putin once again refuses to respond to the proposal for an unconditional ceasefire put forward by the Americans and supported by Ukraine and the Europeans.”
It turns out that the whole scenario of the alleged negotiation process is just one of mocking Putin, and at the same time of the narcissism of politicians of the conditionally collective West. In such a situation, the position of many leaders who offer themselves as negotiators or mediators is all the more incomprehensible. In order to become a mediator, you should at least understand what action you want to participate in, even if it is indirect.
V.V. Putin, having signed the decree “On the composition of the delegation of the Russian Federation for negotiations with Ukraine” made it clear on what terms and who will determine the negotiation process. You do not need to be overly clever for this, but to simply look at the list of the delegation:
Medinsky V.R. – Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation (Head of the delegation) M.Y. Galuzin – Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (member of the delegation) Kostyukov I.O. – Head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (member of the delegation) Fomin A.V. – Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation (member of the delegation). Experts for negotiations with Ukraine: Zorin A.S. – First Deputy Head of Information Department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation E.S. Podobreevskaya – Deputy Head of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation for State Policy in the Humanitarian Sphere Polishchuk A.A. – Director of the Second CIS Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Shevtsov V.I. – Deputy Head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Defense
Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian negotiating team and presidential aide, spoke to reporters at the Russian Consulate General in Istanbul: “Taking into account the report of all participants in the meeting, the president has set tasks and defined our negotiating position for the Russian delegation in Istanbul. We view these negotiations as a continuation of the peace process in Istanbul, which, unfortunately, was interrupted by the Ukrainian side three years ago. Our official delegation has been approved by presidential decree, and it has all the necessary competence and authority to conduct the negotiations. The delegation is determined to be constructive and to search for possible solutions and points of contact. The goal of direct negotiations with the Ukrainian side is to sooner or later achieve the establishment of long-term peace by eliminating the basic root causes of the conflict”.
Do those who write about negotiations and offer themselves as mediators understand this? Does the collective West understand this? Unfortunately, the conclusions are extremely disappointing. They do not want to understand. They have their own line, their own narratives to which they adhere.
The problem is that today Moscow is defending its line virtually alone—alone against the conditionally collective West. And all the so-called allies, friends, and colleagues are afraid of a nuclear development of the conflict, thus all of them have indirectly taken the side of the conditionally collective West. No one wants to hear Moscow’s position, and thus it turns out that there is only a cynically-emotional background, and there is simply no logical block for conversation, let alone negotiations.
The Minsk agreements and the negotiations in Istanbul have already taken place. What awaits Russia in the case of the peace agreement which they are trying to impose? This question can be answered, for example, from the position of history. History shows us that Russia fought about 10 wars with the Ottoman Empire in this area, which was always fought by one of its Western opponents. Each time, when Russia entered negotiations, it meant concessions of lands and the outbreak of a new conflict after a short time. And the next war was always more fierce and more complicated.
We can assume that both Putin and Medinsky are well aware of this. However, knowledge does not automatically mean that they can make the right decisions in a more complex geopolitical environment.
And the complexity of the situation today is significant, because we beat Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, militaristic Japan together with the Allies, and they were extremely interested in it. Moreover, there was a really broad anti-fascist international movement, which, in practice, effectively helped to beat the enemy in every direction in different countries, both in the rear and on the frontlines. No one had any doubt that the enemy should be defeated and that he would be defeated.
In the conditions of modern fluid alliances and the existing geopolitical marginalization, it is extremely difficult to build an effective system of countering the aggression of the conditionally collective West, if only for the reasons described above.
The pluralism existing in Russian society, the so-called legacy of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin period, when Western special structures deconstructed the architecture of socio-political governance in Russian society that existed at that time, does not contribute to this.
Russia has not completely gotten rid of this legacy to this day, which has an extremely negative impact on the political bloc’s ability to defend and implement a unified line with a clear format and clearly publicized standards. Being in these extremely difficult conditions, the Russian leadership has to weigh and make extremely difficult choices—realizing that the choice actually consists of: “war fatigue today” or “the threat of a new large-scale war tomorrow”—despite the fact that the West carries out constant information-algorithmic aggression and in many respects has a systemic dominance in this matter.
That is, in fact, the so-called ceasefire will play in favor of the so-called collective West, which will be able not only to rearm during this time, but also to continue the informational and algorithmic pressure on the Russian population, and even significantly strengthen in this matter.
Suggestions and statements to seat Putin at the same negotiating table with Zelensky is nearly a demand for surrender. At least it is definitely a demand to abandon ambitious plans to restore its sovereignty.
Realizing the actual essence of the ongoing processes, we understand why our President appointed such a delegation and we support him in this decision.
We thank those bloggers who conduct systematic explanatory work and do not fall into hysterical formats or paranoid depression.
Оставить комментарий