USA - Ukraine: It's time to forget about Crimea
The Crimean Declaration, published July 25 by the US Department of State and signed by its head Mike Pompeo, is, of course, an unpleasant thing. Yes, our American "friends" seem to be seriously worried about the possible consequences of the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Helsinki and are very worried that in their next speech, their president will finally and unconditionally recognize Crimea as Russian. So we decided to play it safe - just in case.
However, the stormy delight of the Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who scattered with beads in thanks and praises to Washington and hurried to declare the “Crimean declaration” no less than “historical” and “ridding the Kremlin of imperial illusions,” is, to put it mildly, premature. For smart and experienced people who can read political documents, as they say, “between the lines”, the State Department’s current statement reveals a certain second meaning, which is perhaps more important than loud phrases that immediately catch your eye.
This is the paragraph of the “declaration”, where a direct reference is made to another similar document of the last century. Namely: "As in the case of the Wells declaration of 1940, the United States confirms that it is their policy to refuse to recognize the Kremlin’s claim to sovereignty over territory seized by force, as this is contrary to international law." To clarify, the “Wells Declaration”, adopted on July 23, 1940, stated that the United States would not recognize Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as part of the USSR. Today is the time to recall what practical significance this document had and whether it had one at all ...
So, 1940 ... The Second World War is already underway, but Nazi Germany has not yet attacked the USSR and has not declared war on the United States. Peaceful America can still afford anti-Soviet attacks and demarches. What will happen next? This is known to all - on June 22 for the USSR and its counterpart for America - Pearl Harbor, the devastating attacks of the German submarine fleet on sea lanes and sunken ships under a star-striped flag. And, finally, even a belated but distinct understanding in Washington of the fact that only the Russians can stop Hitler.
The result of this understanding will be the Tehran and Yalta conferences, which, as a matter of fact, consolidate the structure and order in accordance with which our world calmly existed right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Did the Baltic question come up to those? Of course yes. That's just the position of the US leader in these negotiations in the most categorical manner did not coincide with the declarations adopted, in fact, in a completely different world. In any case, in a completely different geopolitical situation.
In order to avoid the charge of juggling and falsifying, I allow myself another quote, this time an extensive one. A word to the most reliable witness, American diplomat Charles Bohlen, who performed the duties of translator under US President Roosevelt in Tehran in 1943: “Roosevelt said that he was fully aware that the three Baltic republics were both historically and recently part of Russia, and added joking that when the Soviet troops reoccupied these areas, he was not going to fight with the Soviet Union because of this. He continued to say that from the point of view of public opinion in the United States, the issue of a referendum and the right to self-determination would be important. He said that he believes that world public opinion will want this or that expression of the will of the people, maybe not right away ... but someday, and that he personally is sure that people will vote for joining the Soviet Union. ”
So in reality the fate of the Baltic states was decided, and, in fact, the question was closed between the USSR and the USA. In fact, the “Wells Declaration” had only two real consequences: firstly, the diplomatic missions of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that quietly existed there until 1991, mercilessly corrupted the eyes of Soviet diplomats, were not closed in Washington. Secondly, and much more regrettably, it allowed to save a significant part of the Baltic Nazi accomplices. For example, the Latvian "legionnaires" who surrendered to our "allies" were recognized on its basis as "Latvian citizens illegally mobilized by Germany," and not Soviet citizens. As a result, all such a public avoided meeting with the NKVD and SMERSH officers, who were looking forward to meeting the fascist henchmen with the most ardent impatience.
There were no more consequences! Not that “fighting,” as clever Roosevelt said, was not even going to the USSR for such an insignificant reason, but also to try to impose any sanctions or other restrictive measures. Yes, in their anti-Soviet rhetoric “the occupation of the Baltic states of the USSR” many presidents of the United States liked to recall - from the lyceum Reagan to the “giants of thought” Bush. Yes, in 1953, America even established a "special committee" to "investigate communist aggression against the Baltic countries." Have you investigated a lot? Perhaps the most comic trick on this issue was the creation in 1997 of the “Baltic faction” in the US Congress and the adoption by clowns of it in the year 2005 of a formidable resolution requiring Russia to immediately bring the most sincere and most sincere apologies to the Baltic states “for the occupation”, "Recognizing and strongly condemning" the fact of such. No comments…
In reality, the Soviet Union did not suffer a single loss from the “Wells Declaration” - neither reputational nor economic, nor, even more so, military-strategic. The amount of damage incurred is zero. Does such a fate await the “Pompeo declaration”? It is quite possible - proceeding at least from the historical reference laid down in the text. Most likely, the most correct reaction to it is just the words spoken by the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova: “... we know the price of these“ fateful declarations ”!
However ... Donald Trump, alas, does not even draw to the palest likeness of Roosevelt. And if so, then, whether the next Russian-American talks will turn into Tehran-43 and Yalta-45 of our days today depends entirely on Russia and its leader.
However, the stormy delight of the Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who scattered with beads in thanks and praises to Washington and hurried to declare the “Crimean declaration” no less than “historical” and “ridding the Kremlin of imperial illusions,” is, to put it mildly, premature. For smart and experienced people who can read political documents, as they say, “between the lines”, the State Department’s current statement reveals a certain second meaning, which is perhaps more important than loud phrases that immediately catch your eye.
This is the paragraph of the “declaration”, where a direct reference is made to another similar document of the last century. Namely: "As in the case of the Wells declaration of 1940, the United States confirms that it is their policy to refuse to recognize the Kremlin’s claim to sovereignty over territory seized by force, as this is contrary to international law." To clarify, the “Wells Declaration”, adopted on July 23, 1940, stated that the United States would not recognize Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as part of the USSR. Today is the time to recall what practical significance this document had and whether it had one at all ...
So, 1940 ... The Second World War is already underway, but Nazi Germany has not yet attacked the USSR and has not declared war on the United States. Peaceful America can still afford anti-Soviet attacks and demarches. What will happen next? This is known to all - on June 22 for the USSR and its counterpart for America - Pearl Harbor, the devastating attacks of the German submarine fleet on sea lanes and sunken ships under a star-striped flag. And, finally, even a belated but distinct understanding in Washington of the fact that only the Russians can stop Hitler.
The result of this understanding will be the Tehran and Yalta conferences, which, as a matter of fact, consolidate the structure and order in accordance with which our world calmly existed right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Did the Baltic question come up to those? Of course yes. That's just the position of the US leader in these negotiations in the most categorical manner did not coincide with the declarations adopted, in fact, in a completely different world. In any case, in a completely different geopolitical situation.
In order to avoid the charge of juggling and falsifying, I allow myself another quote, this time an extensive one. A word to the most reliable witness, American diplomat Charles Bohlen, who performed the duties of translator under US President Roosevelt in Tehran in 1943: “Roosevelt said that he was fully aware that the three Baltic republics were both historically and recently part of Russia, and added joking that when the Soviet troops reoccupied these areas, he was not going to fight with the Soviet Union because of this. He continued to say that from the point of view of public opinion in the United States, the issue of a referendum and the right to self-determination would be important. He said that he believes that world public opinion will want this or that expression of the will of the people, maybe not right away ... but someday, and that he personally is sure that people will vote for joining the Soviet Union. ”
So in reality the fate of the Baltic states was decided, and, in fact, the question was closed between the USSR and the USA. In fact, the “Wells Declaration” had only two real consequences: firstly, the diplomatic missions of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that quietly existed there until 1991, mercilessly corrupted the eyes of Soviet diplomats, were not closed in Washington. Secondly, and much more regrettably, it allowed to save a significant part of the Baltic Nazi accomplices. For example, the Latvian "legionnaires" who surrendered to our "allies" were recognized on its basis as "Latvian citizens illegally mobilized by Germany," and not Soviet citizens. As a result, all such a public avoided meeting with the NKVD and SMERSH officers, who were looking forward to meeting the fascist henchmen with the most ardent impatience.
There were no more consequences! Not that “fighting,” as clever Roosevelt said, was not even going to the USSR for such an insignificant reason, but also to try to impose any sanctions or other restrictive measures. Yes, in their anti-Soviet rhetoric “the occupation of the Baltic states of the USSR” many presidents of the United States liked to recall - from the lyceum Reagan to the “giants of thought” Bush. Yes, in 1953, America even established a "special committee" to "investigate communist aggression against the Baltic countries." Have you investigated a lot? Perhaps the most comic trick on this issue was the creation in 1997 of the “Baltic faction” in the US Congress and the adoption by clowns of it in the year 2005 of a formidable resolution requiring Russia to immediately bring the most sincere and most sincere apologies to the Baltic states “for the occupation”, "Recognizing and strongly condemning" the fact of such. No comments…
In reality, the Soviet Union did not suffer a single loss from the “Wells Declaration” - neither reputational nor economic, nor, even more so, military-strategic. The amount of damage incurred is zero. Does such a fate await the “Pompeo declaration”? It is quite possible - proceeding at least from the historical reference laid down in the text. Most likely, the most correct reaction to it is just the words spoken by the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova: “... we know the price of these“ fateful declarations ”!
However ... Donald Trump, alas, does not even draw to the palest likeness of Roosevelt. And if so, then, whether the next Russian-American talks will turn into Tehran-43 and Yalta-45 of our days today depends entirely on Russia and its leader.
Information