The conflict in the east of Ukraine is entering its completion stage. At least, the format of the war as a way to resolve the issue is being seriously considered now, probably only on domestic talk shows.
Tanks-guns-planes did not give Kiev any result, except for even greater hatred from civilians, who suffer most from the fighting.
The economy has long been laid down, absolutely illogical triumphant reports in the Ukrainian press are meant for people with two meanders and do not impress the West. The image of a poor country, a state in which weapons and those who are ready to shoot weapons, more than rats in the Paris subway.
Before the APEC summit in Beijing and the Canberra G-20, US President Obama, or rather his advisers, undertook everything to return the States to the negotiation process.
This message was picked up by the Ukrainian “experts”, who explained this need with everything, except for the obvious - the head of the White House urgently needed a “short victorious war”, or at least an active participation in it. By “war” in this case, I mean negotiations. Peaceful.
Democrats have failed both in the elections to the Congress and in the elections to the Senate. Obama, having clenched his teeth and the remnants of the former rating, simply had to demonstrate his capacity at least in the foreign policy arena.
Putin does not object, he has his own game - to demonstrate the EU’s inability to solve the Ukrainian problem.
It was on the orders of Washington and Moscow that the Ukrainian President (no matter how painful it was to realize) put forward the idea of the “Geneva format” allegedly from himself. Washington and Moscow nodded approvingly.
November 5 Poroshenko talks about this format to John Kerry in a telephone conversation.
Yatsenyuk, offering the “Geneva format”, also appears immediately. In principle, the opinion of Arseny Petrovich, with whom hardly anyone will sit down at the negotiating table now (too much was said), was not particularly interested in anyone, but he expressed it. And he is pleased, and for the general background is good:
“One of the most effective and realistic formats is the Geneva format, which provided for the participation of the United States, the European Union, Ukraine and our northern geographic neighbor. It is not advisable to again call on Russia to do what it agreed to. But to recall the need to fulfill each of the 12 points of the Minsk agreements, I consider it necessary to raise this issue once again. ”
The next day, the Russian Foreign Ministry picks up the topic. Please note - everyone who talks about the “Geneva format” supplies this idea with his own message.
Yatsenyuk blames Russia, Russia blames Ukraine. But in the end, everyone calls for the same thing, for the form “broken”:
“... Now it is obvious that all these agreements (from 17 of April) were grossly violated by the Ukrainian side. Looking at the current situation, the question arises whether it is advisable to return to a format that did not bring the expected result. Isn't it better for the Ukrainian side to first try to accomplish what has already been agreed upon and what was promised to be done? ”
Broke "two days, after which Lavrov quite unequivocally supported the format:
“They recalled that in the Geneva statement of 17 on April of this year. The Ukrainian leadership, through its minister, has pledged to immediately begin a political process, a constitutional reform involving all regions and political forces. J. Kerry and I agreed that today this task may be even more relevant than in April, when we agreed on the immediate start of such a process. We will still try to convince the Ukrainian leadership to begin to fulfill this obligation. ”
"Al Jazeera" immediately reports:
"The United States and Russia find points of rapprochement for Ukraine"
“Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov supported the US participation in resolving the Ukrainian crisis, noting that this would be“ a step in the right direction. ” His comments obviously reflected the reduction of tension in bilateral relations, which recently reached its highest point since the end of the cold war. ”
In order for the negotiations to see the world from the correct angle, the term “cold war” must firmly take root in the heads of the inhabitants.
This is not a concession by the States, it is a kind of “peacekeeping mission” with the aim of preventing the world from slipping into the era of a new cold war. And she is close, close as ever!
On November 9, the US Secretary of State publishes in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" the article "New Cold War?":
“... unfortunately, the sad truth is that the freedom that Americans and Germans today enjoy, who freely elect political leaders, express their opinions and can be blacksmiths of their own happiness, is still under threat in too many parts of the world. Even in Europe. ”
Everything is very bad. Europe is under threat. No one feels protected. The world is heading for the abyss.
“The aggressive behavior of Russia in Ukraine is unacceptable. Crucial is that Germany and the United States stand on the side of our partner and stand up for the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. ”
We want to protect Ukraine from the aggressor. Protect with all your might. We condemn Russia.
"The post-war world order and order after the fall of the Berlin Wall, from which millions of people around the world have won, are at stake."
The point, as you see, is not only in Ukraine. And this is understandable. The problems of Ukraine for Europe are already a few ... boring. The romantic aura in the smoke of burning tires gave way to disappointment in the current government, which is not capable not only of reforms, but of any intelligible plans for the development of the country.
Added tar in a half-empty barrel of honey and the hypocrisy of Ukraine about the sanctions against its own aggressor. "You, Europeans, impose sanctions, put your own business, and we wait with it for now."
Therefore, the problem of Ukraine is not so hooked on a European or American as its own problem. And she, Kerry claims, is colossal. The whole world is at stake. No joke.
“Also of crucial importance is the resumption of constructive relations with Russia if Moscow is ready to take the necessary steps. It is in the interests of all of us that Russia, Europe, the United States and Canada can unite to fight global problems, such as extremism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and infectious diseases, and benefit from peace, stability and economic cooperation. ”
Having heated the public, we turn to negotiations that are able to prevent the impending catastrophe. And we end up with absolutely peace-loving theses crossing out both the threat and the collapse of the world system:
“Can the cold war start again today?” The answer is no, if we recall that 25 years ago sought unity, freedom and peace, both for Germany and for Europe. The answer is no if we convince other states that the old dividing lines between the East and the West must be left behind. The answer is no, if we continue to concentrate on these goals today, tomorrow and in the coming decades. ”
The cold war will not start. The United States will not allow this to happen and will start looking for a compromise solution with Russia. Moreover, they will make the Russian Federation ... an ally on many strategic issues.
On the same day, former US Secretary of State Kissinger gives an interview to Der Spiegel. He also speaks of the dangers of the Cold War, and also brings everything to a peaceful solution, to a compromise.
Moreover, Kissinger speaks of a certain “mistake of the West”, which did not understand the situation in Ukraine:
“If the West wants to be honest, then it must admit that it made a mistake. Europe and the United States did not understand the significance of the events that began with the negotiations on economic relations between Ukraine and the European Union, and then turned into demonstrations in Kiev. This (relations between Kiev and the EU) should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. ”
Neither subtract nor add, as they say.
If someone is ready after this to say that a sharp change did not occur in the policy of the United States in relation to the conflict in the east of Ukraine, that place is on the political talk shows of the national spill.
People who can think, understood.
As understood and an unambiguous phrase of the American sanctions:
“They are fraught with the danger that large states in the future may try to take protective measures and begin to regulate their own market more strongly. We publish lists of people whose accounts are frozen and which we prohibit entry, but what will happen next? When something starts, you should not lose sight of the end of the enterprise. ”
Of course, steps to compromise should have been made by Moscow and Kiev. The Kremlin is not really limited to the statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
For example, the disarmament of Bezler's units by the “DPR army”, as well as the inclusion of the Brain unit in the “army” indicate that the irreconcilable “war party” in the East is being cleaned.
What did Kiev do? Poroshenko made a pompous, pompous, and, in fact, useless statement that he "would not give" a chance to start a "third world madness."
In principle, the president of Ukraine in matters that decide the two world superpowers, is a small matter. When it is necessary - to declare, when it is necessary - to shut up, sign and shake hands.
The air smelled of peace. And in the air is the question "what was all this for?"