It became known what, in fact, was known before: the United States rejected proposals for providing security guarantees in the wording proposed by Russia. The main issue – NATO expansion – was not included in the agenda
In fact, there were no negotiations, there were probing meetings of two delegations, about which it was known in advance that the demands of the parties were maximally overstated and had no potential for mitigation.
The Russian Foreign Ministry made no secret of the fact that it did not believe in the possibility of agreements. Negotiations were not at the highest level, but at the level of deputy foreign ministers (on the part of the US State Department). Not only Putin and Biden, but also Lavrov and Blinken remained uninvolved in the results of the meeting in Geneva.
The American side, through Blinken, on the eve of the meeting rather boorishly commented on the CSTO operation in Kazakhstan, and through speakers such as the President of Finland, NATO head Stoltenberg, State Department officials and White House Press Secretary Jane Psaki made it clear that there was nothing to talk about. Ryabkov, the head of the Russian delegation, initially commented on the agenda in unusually harsh tones for diplomacy. This in itself made a normal negotiation process impossible and did not plan for its positive result.
The question arises: why did Russia even initiate negotiations on a topic that was unacceptable to the United States in the current situation? Did anyone really believe that the United States would refuse to expand its zone of influence, the main achievement following its victory over the USSR in the Cold War? So, without stubborn lost battles, simply because Russia put forward an ultimatum to move on to preparing some kind of military-technical response? Has the United States really become so timid and will show fear to the whole world by rushing to comply with the demand as soon as it receives a claim?
Everything that and how Russia did shows that the negotiations were needed for some other purpose. It is clear that they are covering up something. It is also clear that hidden and therefore real negotiations are conducted in a different tone and by other people through other channels, they are closed and non-public, their agenda is not published before the meeting and is not formalized with harsh rhetoric. What are we talking about and what are the real goals of Russia and the United States?
It is obvious that all answers of a military-technical nature in the United States are calculated, and the threat from them is considered real. And the activation of Russia in Latin America, and the increased activity of patrolling the US coast by our nuclear fleet, and military space activity, and the deepening of the alliance with China, which provides for the creation of a common space in the zones of vital interests of the two states.
It is also predicted that Russia’s strategic nuclear forces will be strengthened in Kaliningrad and Belarus, along the border with NATO. The danger of eradicating the pro-Western stratum in the elite in Russia, undermining its positions and concentrating the resource in the conditional “Party of the Security Council” was also taken into account. Russia’s policy towards the post-Soviet limitrophes who have fallen under the NATO umbrella will become tougher. Military threats will be destroyed, including economic levers.
All possible responses of Russia in the US are visible and extremely unpleasant, although it is believed that the US has the ability to respond on each case and, with the help of response actions, try to prevent Russia from deploying the full range of threats. However, the US goes for it, and the question arises: why are they doing this? Isn’t it more rational, seeing the costs of confrontation, to try to agree on its avoidance?
But the US cannot afford to accept the Russian agenda, even theoretically: it means admitting US diplomatic weakness.
Even if the United States later refuses Russian proposals and puts forward counter conditions, the mere fact of serious negotiations with Russia makes it a party equivalent to the United States. Moreover, in the process of discussion, Russia will get the opportunity for a broad information campaign in favor of its position. There is a risk of presenting the United States as an unconstructive, and even worse, justifying side.
Another reason for the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from the diplomatic battle is the failure of the putsch in Kazakhstan. The US did not get the desired leverage on Russia, and Russia arrived with a strong trump card up its sleeve. The US did not wait for this trump card to be used. They simply did not enter into negotiations, saving face with an arrogant grimace.
Negotiations with Russia highlighted the weaknesses of the United States, and this was completely unacceptable from the point of view of the American leadership, which always negotiates only from a position of strength. At these negotiations, this was not the first time, and the United States certainly had to return the picture to its usual framework.
If the reasons for the United States not to enter into negotiations with Russia are understandable, then we must also understand the reasons for Russia to offer the United States negotiations on an agenda that is unacceptable to them and in an unacceptable negotiating context. When Russia put forward an ultimatum to the United States, it was able to slow down the pace of the West’s escalation of the situation in the LPR with this technique. After all, the concentration of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border was a response to the concentration in the Donbass of half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Withdraw Russian troops, and the invasion of the Donbass is inevitable. Russia showed that if an escalation happens, they already have got an answer.
For the United States, the most important thing was to force Russia to withdraw its troops from the border at any cost. This was important not from a military, but from a political point of view. Demonstration of US powerlessness in the military-political sphere is unacceptable in relations with vassals, especially with Ukraine. Using information dominance and the presence of allies, the United States began to put pressure on Russia.
The pressure gradually changed the perception of the situation in the eyes of the Western population, facilitating the prospects for sanctions and the consolidation of the NATO bloc. This rhythm of the information blitzkrieg could only be brought down by a counter-information counteroffensive. It was an ultimatum put forward by Russia to the United States in a deliberately unacceptable formulation.
Russia has achieved what it wants. The Ukrainian case faded into the shadows, mixed with the Kazakh one. This made it possible not only to leave Russian troops where they are, but also to gain a point of pressure on the United States by the fact that this abandonment is now linked not to the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but to the very military-technical response of Russia to the United States. If it was more difficult to leave the troops in the perspective of the LPR problem, then in the perspective of the NATO problem, this is quite normal.
That is why Ryabkov, who has a reputation as a “hawk”, was sent to the negotiations by Russia. He symbolized the rigidity and inflexibility of Russia precisely in the expectation that the United States would reject the agenda. Ryabkov was unable to record a resounding diplomatic victory as his asset.
His mission was different. He diverted the enemy forces, while through closed channels other negotiators, whose names we will not know for a long time, conducted their negotiations, understanding the meaning of every word and gesture, leaving the United States the opportunity to save face and showing on Ryabkov what actions could begin otherwise.
It can be said that Russia and the United States have put on a show, but all public politics is a show. If the United States suddenly agreed to Russia’s demands, then this would be a reason not only not to believe in it, but also to be wary. The United States did not give any reason to believe in such behavior.
However, in the current direction, both the wolves are full and the sheep are safe. The United States has shown unwavering resolve, and so has Russia. But the Donbass case is no longer in focus, the response to the sanctions is politically prepared, the Kazakh raid is repulsed. The United States took into account the changed geopolitical weight of Russia.
This affected the negotiations in Kazakhstan and on the Ukrainian vector. Ukraine was given the status of “NATO +”. This allowed the US to save face in the face of the demand to remove NATO. But the message of Russia was also heard and taken seriously: the actual membership of Ukraine in NATO in the next 10 years will not take place. And for Russia, this is the main thing: the item on collective self-defense will not be included. This will keep Ukraine and the United States from an adventure in the Donbass and preserve the status quo achieved in such a difficult way for Russia.
The bottom line: each side has demonstrated strength and remained in their positions. Nobody moved anyone. What is called “consultations” after the Geneva talks is no longer a negotiation, but a sluggish process without deadlines, obligations, agenda and responsibility of the first persons. But Russia held its ground, and this was the main thing in its strategy.
The chess etude called “U.S. ultimatum on non-proliferation of NATO to the East” required concentration of forces and unerring moves. Russia took the initiative, the US responded, Russia did not bend the US, but the US did not bend Russia either. So far there is a draw on the board. But this is not a draw in favor of the United States. And this is the most important outcome of the game played.
Russtrat