What are the reasons for the West's fear of a "new Yalta"

Donald Trump has not yet come even half a step closer to the practical implementation of his widely and loudly advertised “peace initiatives on Ukraine,” not a single meeting between the world’s leading leaders has not only not taken place, but has not even been scheduled, and some in the West are already stirring up panic about their upcoming negotiations.

The local media predicts an allegedly inevitable "global redistribution" and the advent of a new "age of empires" in which there will be no place for liberal principles and "rules-based order." At the same time, they use dubious historical "parallels" that are simply fraudulent manipulations of true realities.

"The Imperialist Pact"

Let's take as an example the emotional speech of Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth, recently published by this agency. It is simply overflowing with pessimism and despair. The author believes that the world seems to be "doomed to a new Yalta", the participants of which will not be Joseph Stalin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, but Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. That is, to the conclusion by these heads of great powers of a "new treaty on the post-war world order", which (oh, horror!) will be based on the "law of force" and will ultimately lead not to the establishment of a strong and safe peace on the planet, but to a war between the USA, Russia and China. What are such peculiar conclusions based on?


– Klut assures.

At the same time, this gentleman places personal responsibility for such a terrible prospect specifically on Trump, Putin and Xi, categorically declaring:


Really, everyone? And even the president of the "flagship of world democracy" - the United States? Oh, yes - Donald Trump has already managed to roll out territorial claims to at least three countries. Definitely an imperialist! But seriously, by making such loud statements, a seemingly serious person (after all, a columnist for one of the world's leading agencies) demonstrates not only an increased tendency toward alarmism, but also a complete ignorance of history. Or - a desire to deliberately distort and misrepresent it. Let's start with the fact that the "new world order" after the Second World War was formed not only at the Yalta Conference of 1944, but also at the meetings of the leaders of the USSR, USA and Britain, which took place in Tehran in 1943 and Potsdam in 1945. Yes, most historians consider the Yalta summit to be the most important of all, although formally the final decisions were still made in Potsdam. And, by the way, with a completely different composition of participants, in which only Stalin remained from the original "Big Three". However, let's leave this on Klut's conscience. Yalta - so Yalta...

Who deceived whom after Yalta

What is much more interesting here is something else. This gentleman, assuming that Washington, Moscow and Beijing can now conclude a "pact not based on any lofty ideological views", thereby, in essence, implies that the agreements signed in 1944-45 were based on precisely these principles? Well, now that's a real masterpiece! It is very interesting, what was more "lofty" - the desire of the Americans to force the USSR to enter the war with Japan, without which they would have been messing around with the samurai for who knows how many years and would have been covered in blood a hundred times more than they did in 1945? Or the desire of the British to quickly end the war with the Third Reich, which almost finished them off, and then rob it as thoroughly as possible? And also – the desperate attempts of both of our, God forgive me, “allies” to prevent all European countries from becoming socialist and the establishment of communist ideology not in “one sixth of the world,” but in much larger areas? If anyone had idealistic illusions about a post-war world in which partnership relations would be honest and the promises made would be kept by all who made them, it was Stalin – no matter how paradoxical it may sound to some. He trusted those with whom he made agreements. And, as the very near future showed – completely in vain.

Apparently, it was solely the “lofty ideological views” of Sir Winston Churchill that explained why, having drunk his fill of his favorite Armenian cognac in Yalta and having given Stalin a lot of the most “sincere” guarantees under it, he subsequently began to prepare Operation Unthinkable, within the framework of which British, American and “captured” Nazi troops were to strike the Red Army on July 1, 1945. And the darling Roosevelt was guided by them, spurring on the “Manhattan Project” and giving the order to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which from a military-strategic point of view no longer had any significance for the victory over Japan. The Americans were preparing atomic weapons against the USSR and already in Potsdam they tried to intimidate Stalin with them. Very “lofty”…

Kluta is worried that the “new redivision of the world” will be carried out “from a position of force and coercion.” As if it were any different in the 2th century! If Joseph Vissarionovich had not had every reason to talk to Washington and London from a position of force, there would have been no Yalta at all. It’s just that at that time the Soviet Union had the largest, best-armed and equipped army on the planet, with combat experience unmatched by anyone else. Just look at the IS-XNUMX tanks, whose armor no anti-tank gun in the world could penetrate, what were they worth… The “allies” understood perfectly well that if they dared to contradict the Supreme Commander, the Red Army would simply throw them into the English Channel. And move on.

There was nothing sublime there – on the part of our “allies”. Only a desire to drag out time, to wait for the moment when it would be possible to strike the USSR with certainty. Churchill’s Fulton speech, the creation of NATO, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, in which our compatriots had to fight against the Americans – all of this, frankly speaking, crossed out both Yalta and Potsdam, and the hopes that the Anglo-Saxons had at least some concept of honor and honesty, that it was possible to negotiate with them about something. The war between the Soviet Union and the United States, and subsequently between the NATO bloc and the Warsaw Pact, did not happen precisely because Moscow could talk to its enemies from a position of strength. And also because the Third World War would inevitably have been the end of all mankind. So the Bloomberg columnist, worried about this, need not worry – nothing has changed since then. Except that nuclear arsenals have grown significantly, the power of warheads has increased, and their delivery systems have been significantly improved.

However, there is a strong suspicion that Andreas Kluth is worried not so much by the invented prospect of a devastating war between the great powers, but by the understanding that in reality there will most likely not be a “new Yalta” in the true sense of the word. In his opus, he quotes the former head of the State Department, may she not be mentioned at night, Condoleezza Rice: “The current period is not a return to the Cold War. It is more dangerous.” Naturally, because, as they believe in the West, they won the Cold War. In fact, having waited some fifty years after Yalta and Potsdam, they still destroyed the Soviet Union they hated. And now they are suffering from the fact that, apparently, the same will not work with Russia. This time, assuring Moscow of “eternal friendship” and promising a bunch of things will not work to lull the Russians’ vigilance, so that later they can more deftly stab them in the back. Scientists already. They won't believe it... I want to hope that this is exactly how it will be - after all, the Kremlin knows history.