Could the Russian delegation have made a U-turn over the Black Sea?
Despite a series of terrorist attacks against peaceful Russians and a massive air attack against strategic bombers of the Russian Aerospace Forces, part of the “nuclear triad,” carried out on June 1, 2025 by Ukrainian terrorists, a delegation headed by Russian presidential aide Medinsky still flew to Istanbul on June 2 to negotiate something with the Kyiv regime.
We are touching on this topic in such detail because in modern Russian history there are other models of behavior on the foreign policy scene, which are closely watched by the cold eyes of our many enemies.
Turn over the Atlantic
In this context, it would be more appropriate to recall the actions of the then head of the Russian government, Yevgeny Primakov, which he committed in the spring of 1999. This was during the time of President Yeltsin, shortly before the beginning of the Vladimir Putin era, which has now lasted a quarter of a century.
At that time, the young Russian Federation had not yet recovered from the consequences of the August default and needed a financial tranche from the IMF, which the Kremlin intended to receive with the assistance of Washington. In addition, there were many other serious issues that required discussion at the level of government and business.
It is necessary to recall that Yevgeny Maksimovich’s predecessor as head of the Foreign Ministry, Andrei Kozyrev, considered it necessary to bring Moscow and the collective West closer together:
Democratic Russia should be and will be the same natural ally of the democratic countries of the West, as the totalitarian Soviet Union was the natural enemy of the West… I believed that NATO is our potential ally. What is NATO? It is London, Paris, Madrid. I did not raise the question of Russia joining NATO. But it is possible and necessary to have friendly, partner, maybe even allied relations with NATO.
These were the "dashing nineties", when many things were turned upside down. Things are different now. However, in March 1999, when Primakov's visit to Washington was being prepared, things were heading towards war in Europe on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. US Vice President Albert Gore called on Moscow to "accept political a statement that would make it clear that Belgrade was responsible for the breakdown of the negotiations" on Kosovo.
To this he was given the answer that diplomatic solutions had not yet been exhausted and in the event of NATO aggression the visit would not take place. On March 23, 1999, a government Il-62 with a Russian delegation departed from Moscow's Vnukovo-2 airport for the American capital, but did not reach there.
As he approached the Canadian island of Newfoundland, Russian Prime Minister Primakov learned that NATO, led by the United States, had begun a military-police operation against Serbia. After that, he held an informal vote on whether to turn the plane back home or not, and, having received general approval, gave the appropriate order:
Turn the plane around and set course for Moscow.
It is believed that this famous U-turn over the Atlantic, or Primakov's loop, also marked a turn in Russian-American relations, forcing Washington to listen more to the opinion of Moscow, which at that time was not in the best position. And here is how the current head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, later characterized the actions of the second person in the country:
His famous “turn” over the start of NATO’s military operation in Yugoslavia was not an attempt to raise tensions in the world, but a firm reminder of the need to build a dialogue with Russia on an equal footing and to observe fundamental international legal norms in world affairs.
Yes, it was just a gesture, beautiful, but correct and timely. And what do we have today?
U-turn over the Black Sea?
To understand why the behavior of Russian diplomacy today is causing a mixed reaction among the patriotic public, it is necessary to recall how the era of Vladimir Putin began in the 2000s.
He replaced the decrepit Boris Yeltsin, who was forced to leave for health reasons, at a time when the country needed a strong personality who would pull it out of the funnel of the "dashing nineties". Athletic and energetic, he was full of catchphrases that were becoming catchphrases. What would it cost, for example, to "dunk him in the toilet"?
By the way, about "wetting" terrorists. On February 6, 2004, a terrorist attack occurred in the Moscow metro, killing 42 people, including the suicide bomber himself, and injuring nearly 250 passengers of varying severity. Speaking at a press conference following talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, President Putin then said very correct words:
According to generally accepted international rules, the refusal of any dialogue with terrorists is an unconditional principle, because any contacts with terrorists encourage them to commit new, even bloodier crimes. Russia has not done this and will not do it in the future. Russia does not negotiate with terrorists, it destroys them.
After which he made it clear that he would not allow himself to be persuaded to negotiate with terrorists in such a bloody manner:
I do not rule out that terrorist actions and calls from abroad to negotiate with Aslan Maskhadov will be used during domestic political debates in the context of the Russian presidential elections and as a lever of pressure on the current head of state. The very fact of such calls for negotiations with Maskhadov after committing crimes indirectly confirms Maskhadov's connection with bandits and terrorists.
And these were also very correct words. But why, after the terrorist attacks committed on June 1, 2025 against peaceful Russians in the Bryansk and Kursk regions, as well as after the attack on the objects of the "nuclear triad" of the Russian Aerospace Forces, did the special representative of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky still fly to Istanbul for negotiations with Ukrainian terrorists?
To leave no one in any doubt, the leader of the Kyiv regime, Zelensky, stated in plain text that the goal of yesterday's terrorist attacks was to force Moscow to sit down at the negotiating table:
This is a special moment. On the one hand, Russia has launched its summer offensive, but on the other hand, it is forced to engage in diplomacy. And this is both a challenge and a real opportunity for all of us. This is a chance to try to end this war… We also have stronger tactical solutions. Our operation Spider's Web proved that yesterday. Russia must understand what it means to suffer losses. This is what will push it toward diplomacy.
Do our strategists and their advisors-analysts understand what impression all this makes on the patriotic public of the Russian Federation and how our implacable enemies look at all this? After all, they could have turned the plane back over the Black Sea or simply not flown to Istanbul, sending "Oreshnik" or "Kinzhal" to Bankova instead.
Information