"New Yalta" turned out to be "New Munich Agreement": on the results of the Putin-Biden summit

The two-hour negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden, during which even the indispensable for such cases “entourage” in the person of closest assistants and translators was removed from the video communication screens, ended as predicted by the absolute majority of those who undertook to make predictions about its results. As a matter of fact, no "breakthroughs", "reboots" and similar nonsense were expected. However, now some people are still trying to present the really difficult conversation of the presidents in all senses as a kind of “fateful milestone” on the way to a “new Yalta”. That is, the achievement between Russia and the "collective West" of some kind of agreement on mutually acceptable contours of the world order.

To our great regret, in this case, if historical parallels suggest themselves, then they are of a completely different kind. Biden (or any other politician from Washington) is certainly not Hitler in any way, and the US is not the Third Reich at all. Nevertheless, the general tendency makes us experience an extremely unpleasant "deja vu" - the same advance to the East, to our borders, and not with peaceful and friendly intentions. Attempts to "appease at any cost" the "Aryans" who have just begun to declare their geopolitical appetites have cost the world dearly. Our country, by the way, did not take part in the infamous Munich Agreement, but also tried to delay the moment of the collision as much as possible. Isn't something similar happening now - something that will later have to be bitterly regretted? Let's try to figure it out.

"Spirit of Geneva, come!"

The "spirit of Geneva", which the "high contracting parties" intend to "preserve" in their relations and attempts to resolve the contradictions between them, is said in the official statement of the press service of Vladimir Putin, published at the end of the summit. What is meant specifically by this is deeply incomprehensible, but it sounds beautiful. True, an appeal to spirits and the like would be more suitable for a spiritualistic seance, and not for a conversation between heads of state who are already on the very thin edge of a full-scale conflict. In this situation, specifics would look much better. But the trouble is that things are not very good with her. If we try to impartially compare the statements made at the end of the meeting by the White House and the Kremlin, then willy-nilly we will have to admit that each of its participants diligently and firmly "led his party", in fact, completely discordant with his own counterpart. There was no "duet" - there were two "solos".

For example, our president came up with a proposal to "zero", without delay, all those prohibitions and restrictions on the activities of the missions of the two countries, to which the "diplomatic war" between Washington and Moscow, which has been going on for many years, has led. At the same time, Vladimir Vladimirovich did not fail to mention that it was started by the American side, which began to massively expel employees of our embassy and consular offices, openly and grossly interfere with their normal activities. Everything that Russia did was just an inevitable and forced "mirror response". Alas, as it was sung in the famous song, "and in response - silence." Apparently, the current head of the White House and his administration have no intention of either admitting their own mistakes or working to correct them. Moreover, together with the Kremlin. Not a very good sign, frankly.

However, no matter what the press releases say about the leaders' discussion of topical issues of our time, such as the Iranian nuclear program or cyber security, everyone understands that most of the time it was about the situation that has developed around Ukraine. Rather, that "acute crisis" on its borders, which, in fact, was "created" exclusively by the efforts of the American State Department and a whole host of its "volunteers" in the face of the Western media and some European politicians... Again, it’s not in the “non-profit”, by and large the point here, but in the fact that it has been turned into a kind of symbol, rather even a fetish in the confrontation between Russia and the “collective West”, which is now unfolding in all its breadth and power.

Be that as it may, but on this issue, apparently, the dialogue did not work out - followed by two emotional monologues in the style "each about his own". And if Putin tried to convince his interlocutor using concrete examples that the “destructive” and even openly “provocative” policy of Kiev was the “stumbling block” for establishing a lasting peace in Donbass, then Biden stubbornly bent his own way. The American leader insisted solely on the fact that the movements of Russian troops on Russian territory were "threatening" and abundantly threatened with sanctions. In response, Vladimir Vladimirovich said that responsibility should not be shifted to our country in any case, and again referred to the "military development of Ukrainian territory by NATO forces", insisting on its complete unacceptability for Moscow. Was he heard? It is highly doubtful. Do you understand? No doubt about it, no. It is to this conclusion that the analysis of statements made subsequently by representatives of various "branches" of the US administration forces us to come.

Victory for Nord Stream 2? Do not flatter yourself

It should be noted that the White House, for example, several times made changes and additions to the "final communique" on the talks. And if the first version of the text could still be considered moderately aggressive, then the further, the more distinctly "hawkish notes" became in it. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that Biden allegedly "warned" Putin about "military assistance" to be provided to the United States "in the event of Russian aggression" not only to Ukraine, but also to "other countries of Eastern Europe", in particular the Baltic states, and also Poland and Romania. Was it just a response to the thesis about the "non-proliferation" of the North Atlantic Alliance to the East - or am I misunderstanding something?

The US State Department also did not stand aside, whose representatives in the most vivid colors tried to set out "hellish sanctions" threatening our country in the event of an invasion, right up to the notorious "disconnection from world payment systems", which, as the State Department pledged meaningfully, " will certainly affect every Russian ”. A wonderful repertoire of threats and ultimatums - not exactly new, but filled with great enthusiasm. Yes, Vladimir Putin did not ask, but demanded from Biden "legally enshrined guarantees" that NATO strike weapons and its bases would not appear in the countries adjacent to Russia. Nevertheless, the American president once again stressed that there could be no talk of any guarantees, and the Kremlin's "red lines" were unacceptable to him as such. Against this background, everything else, frankly, looks nothing more than verbal husk and empty shaking of air. In fact, Russia is unequivocally denied the right to any "vital interests" and "spheres of influence." This is the main thing.

"Nord Stream 2" ... Well, yes, yes, of course - the fact that the draft defense budget presented exactly after the presidential summit in the US Congress completely lacks items on sanctions against this "national treasure" of ours is already being submitted as a "huge victory for Moscow." Moreover, this moment gave some people a reason to voice absolutely schizophrenic theories from the field of conspiracy theories of the worst kind: supposedly the whole story with the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was originally conceived and played out like cunning Biden and Putin. Target? The first was hungry for the laurels of the "peacemaker" who managed to "prevent a military crisis in Europe" and was able to leave Nord Stream-2 alone without "losing face." Well, and ours, of course, sought the final "green light" for the launch of the gas pipeline. I will allow myself to spoil this dubious quality "honey" with a fair amount of tar. "Victory" in this situation was ensured exclusively by the cold approaching to Europe.

Washington is well aware that if the local countries really lack Russian energy and the topic of their presence or absence turns from a political issue into a matter of physical survival for millions of people, any "agreed upon in the spirit of Euro-Atlantic unity" sanctions will go to waste. Together with "unity" itself, by the way. It is economically unprofitable for the Americans to save the “allies” who give the oak tree by supplying their own LNG. It is much easier to make a "broad gesture", while making it clear once again that Europe really depends on the goodwill of the United States in all serious issues, and not on some kind of Russian pipe. Moreover, if necessary, it can be plugged up later.

One could speak of a "new Yalta" if, following the summit, Joe Biden clearly and distinctly stated that neither Ukraine nor Georgia would ever become members of the North Atlantic Alliance. If the American military stationed in the same Baltic states received the order to pack their belongings. If only the return of our diplomats to Washington was announced and the start of large-scale negotiations between the United States and Russia at the level of foreign ministers, the Ministry of Defense and other departments in order to resolve at least the most painful and complex issues, of which a real "critical mass" has already accumulated between the countries. None of this is, and, apparently, is not expected.

In fact, the United States makes it clear to our country: we are ready not to particularly infringe on your economic interests (if they coincide with the interests of our allies), but nothing more. Geopolitics will be created by the "collective West", and you have to either "fit" yourself into its framework, or to know the full weight of its anger. The status of a "gas station country" (or, if you prefer, a "gas hub")? Alas, yes. It is absolutely impossible to see anything else in the results of the summit meeting held on the eve, no matter how much one would like. "Teams of both presidents" will conduct "consultations on sensitive issues for the two countries"? Well, this is called "agreed to negotiate."

At the same time, the situation is moving towards the stage at which any agreements (and, in fact, "appeasement" of Washington for the sake of its refusal to introduce a new portion of anti-Russian sanctions) Moscow will be able to achieve exclusively through direct surrender of its national interests. As much as someone would not like to see something different in the presidential summit, but this is perhaps its main and most disappointing result.