The US is ready to recognize Crimea as Russian, but on one condition
For Washington to lift economic sanctions against Russia, to recognize the Crimea, and also to curtail the expansion of NATO at our borders. The corresponding steps contain a «plan» to restore relations with Moscow, proposed by the former special assistant to the President of the United States Ronald Reagan, and now a senior researcher At the Institute of Cato Doug Bandow (Douglas «Doug» Bandow).
In his article for the publication of National Interest, he urged to find a «modus vivendi» — so to speak, a way of mutually beneficial existence of the two countries, relations between which at the moment, to put it mildly, are far from ideal. To do this, according to Bandow, the United States must, first, recognize the Crimea as Russian territory. Secondly, to help stop the expansion of NATO’s military bloc to the East.
According to the expert, Russia has no interest in a conflict with Europe or America, but it is against the West threatening the security of its borders.
At the same time, the author puts forward a condition for us to stop supporting the residents of Donbass. Then, he believes, Ukraine will not be profitable to become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance.But the fact is that the meaning of this «giveaway game» on the part of the United States is not in the desire to find, indeed, a common language with Russia. And Bandow, in General, he reveals the cards, recognizing that the main purpose of this, in his words, «temporary agreement» with Moscow — to tear Russia from China.
Washington, he believes, should do everything possible to contain the power of Beijing, so good relations with Russia in the interests of the American side.
For some reason, he is sure that from a cultural-historical point of view, our country is more likely to approach Europe and the United States than China. And in this case a decisive factor.
It is clear that the basis of the plan proposed by the former special assistant Reagan is old as the world principle of «divide and rule.» But why do they think they know better than we do who we have to support and who we don’t, especially on their terms?
— You surely have noticed that this is based on the old principle, — commented the scientist-Americanist Dmitry Drobnicki.
— But Doug Bandow, despite the fact that he works at the Cato Institute, his article is still published in The National Interest. And this is one of the main publications of foreign policy realists of the United States. And here, perhaps, it is worth remembering Kissinger and Nixon of the early ’70s.
There was the so-called «Kissinger triangle» in its formulated: a schematic representation of the principle that Washington should keep Moscow and Beijing to itself much closer than Moscow and Beijing will be in relation to each other.
And I must say that in the era of détente, through the efforts of Nixon and, of course, Henry Kissinger, who is, we can say, the founder of modern American foreign policy realism, this «triangle» more or less existed. Another thing is that he, of course, had a huge number of side effects.
In particular, the Americans missed the peaceful growth of China, as a result of which China in a few decades became the first economy in the world.
«SP»: — is not the Americans themselves contributed?
— Undoubtedly. Because China has become an integral part not only of the global economy but has become an integral part of the so-called Chimeric — the Union of China and America. What else Ian Bremmer (known expert in the field of American foreign policy — ed.) called the world «Big two» (by analogy with the «Big Seven», «Big twenty»).
But, it is clear that there was a certain kind of tension in this world…
As a matter of fact, a certain number of Americans voted for Donald trump precisely because this globalization with the allocation of such Southeast Asia as a factory of things led to the ruin of American producers, the loss of jobs, perhaps the loss of the pace of reindustrialization, access to the next technological level, etc.
As for the current moment, the question here is precisely that the people who publish in the National Interest, they tend to insist that foreign policy realism is more alive than dead.
A very important point: Trump in April 2016 (in my opinion), representing the new foreign policy team, delivered his keynote speech on the principles of American foreign policy at THE Ni publication.
But the only person from there — retired General Michael Flynn — in the trump administration worked a record small amount of time. He left her before the inauguration of the current President. He was just caught on the fact that the first place he ran — to negotiate with our Ambassador Kislyak.
So Flynn was the only person who seemed to be fulfilling All these bands covenants.
In fact, indeed, such ideas exist. The problem, however, is that the trump administration today simply does not have people who represent this point of view.
«SP»: — What, exactly, the author has in mind, when says about the need to distract Russia from China?
— First, here, of course, we must bear in mind that Bandou does not call for war with China. Unlike, for example, from the also former assistant to trump Steven Bannon, who was ready for rapprochement with Moscow, if only she helped, so to speak, the containment of China, etc.
But there are there other points of view on this subject…
The same Bremmer, predicting what will happen after a period of uncertainty that began around 2016, said that different configurations are possible. And the «Big two» is very possible. The cold war is also possible. But the cold war is not with Russia, but with China.
And when you start to understand, and wherein the construction of Bremmer Russia, it turns out that Russia is not there. In his understanding, «Russia will inevitably fall into the Chinese orbit, and there is nothing to discuss here.» For Bremmer, this issue is resolved.
«SP»: — And as to this we must treat?
— First, we must understand that today Russia is sandwiched between the Euro-Atlantic and China. Rhetoric is rhetoric — it can be very tough on the part of the West and very soft and even brotherly on the part of China — but we are really sandwiched between serious structures that are the only ones ready to move to the next technological stage and to a new level of digitalization.
Yeah, with your problems. The West — some problems — is, first of all, the destruction of the United West. China has its own difficulties, which are associated with almost unsolvable problems in the domestic market. Each of the systems will solve the problem of transition to a new technological level in its own way. The main thing is that they do not solve it at our expense.
What with his master’s shoulder, Bando offers: «Well, okay, the Crimean yours» is like «thank you, comrade, Bandow», we know ourselves.
In fact, of course, for the normalization of relations with the West, for the cessation of, indeed, the brutal escalation of these relations between us, we need to demand something more.
«SP»: — We still promise to curb NATO at our borders…
— What is NATO expansion to the East today? NATO’s eastward expansion came to an end in 2008, when an attempt to «assemble» Georgia to join the Alliance ended with them losing their territorial integrity. Ukraine tried to draw — first through accession to the European Union (it is clear that the EU was advancing to the East with NATO) — lost territorial integrity of another country on the borders with Russia.
Therefore, we do not need us help here — Russia has made it clear that it will not allow further progress of the bloc to the East.
But what we can ask in return for NATO’s cessation of such a tough confrontation, the consequences of which the Americans understand best through the increased influence of Beijing and the rapprochement of Beijing and Moscow, is a big question.
By the way, we need to calculate all the losses that the sanctions have caused us. There’s a lot to discuss.…
But it is necessary to understand, though Bandow — a very respected person in the United States, but his opinion today is not exactly decisive.
On the other hand, of course, we need to be more careful with the Chinese side as well. If we adopt the Chinese standards in the 5G networks, it is a very serious step. If we really fit into the «One belt — one road», in one way or another, we support a large Chinese program of globalization — this also requires quite certain steps on the part of our Chinese partners. For example, regarding the Western sanctions imposed against us.
«SP»: — In the nineties for the sake of friendship with America, we actually surrendered our allies in Cuba and North Korea, now we are offered to abandon the support of the Russians in the Donbass. Are they serious?
— There it is written not Russian, «support of separatism» is written there. But the support of «separatism on Donbass», it is very not a strict requirement.
A non-strict requirement is a thing that is not clear what it means. If tomorrow Ukraine, relatively speaking, falls apart, Russia will stop supporting separatism.
The Americans, by the way, also signed the Declaration on the cessation of support for the Kosovo liberation army in the 1990s. They actually stopped its support and even disarmed some of its armed groups. But Yugoslavia when it disintegrated.
That is, this condition is formulated in the style of an absolutely optional requirement. What does it mean to support separatism? Well, this part of Ukraine will depart to us, we will cease «to support separatism».
But, most likely, it is written so very carefully and streamlined — type, do what you want in Ukraine, just for God’s sake stop getting closer to China.
That’s the whole point. And so the publication is called National Interest. Russia, too, must first of all respect its national interests.