Ukraine as a diplomatic masterpiece of the United States
To better understand the idea, first of all you should look at the maps of Eurasia: a map of minerals, a map of population density, a map of the location of the industry, etc. (there are a lot of them, and they are well known to us from school geography lessons). So, there is a rather funny paradox here: the largest in the world, Russia has a rather small population (France + Germany), and a very small part of it lives in the Far East. The population and industry of Russia are located mainly in the European part of the country. But right next to the Kuril Islands is the industrial superpower Japan, and there it is just the opposite: there are many people (127 millions, comparable to the Russian Federation), and there is very little territory and resources. Adam Smith and his invisible hand of the market immediately come to our aid: we must cooperate with Japan. Japan should cooperate with Russia, everything is simple.
Enter the position of the very 127 of millions of Japanese who sit on each other’s heads, but at the same time differ in discipline and diligence. We are just made for each other! In itself, the flow of events leads us to cooperation. The territory of Japan is 377 thousand square kilometers (this is approximately the Amur region of Russia - 809 thousand people), but 127 million people live in Japan. And they all want to eat and make money. And here is near our Far East. Almost half empty and underdeveloped. We really need each other, and we could be friends. But always some sort of "but" creeps in. Americans in 1951 understood it as well as ours. And precisely because of their efforts, the very problem of the 4 islands, or northern territories, arose. Just do not think that it is a matter of harming the samurai or in a random concourse of events. It was a very competent and sensible diplomatic trap. Neatly knotted Gordian knot.
Just appreciate how far ahead the American politicians looked at 1951 from the birth of Christ. How they managed to tighten the diplomatic "loops". And they tightened them so that it is impossible to unravel them absolutely. Remember any meeting of our and Japanese politicians, what are they talking about? That's right, about the islands, you guessed it. I do not set myself the task to retell history all such negotiations, and this is not the subject of my interest in this case. I would rather speak on the results. Russian diplomacy has made monstrous efforts to find a way out of this impasse. Useless. At the same time, our diplomats should not be considered fools and traitors. Normalization of Russian-Japanese relations could change a lot in the Far East. But all is useless: the loops of the South Kuril problem are tightly tightened. It all started in San Francisco, and everything was done very well. The USSR did not officially receive these islands, and Japan had a reason to arrange permanent demarches against us.
Khrushchev and two islands? It was a desperate attempt to escape from the Far Eastern trap. The USSR was not rich, and the tension in the Far East was absolutely useless. Creating a “second front” far from the European part of the country was very expensive. The Japanese politely demanded all of the 4 islands, and the negotiations ended. The funny thing is that the era of Khrushchev, Yeltsin and Putin here is practically no different. As far as different politicians, and the scheme of work with the Japanese was exactly the same. Which, by the way, clearly proves the eternity of the laws of geopolitics without regard to the political regime. It does not matter who is sitting in the Kremlin: Nicholas I, Nicholas II, Stalin, Khrushchev, Yeltsin or Putin. The layout is the same. All the same Sakhalin and Kuriles. Which is quite ironic from the point of view of promoting democracy, but in itself a change of the state leader does not solve foreign policy problems. Mode change, by the way, too.
So Putin, oddly enough, had about the same layouts as Khrushchev. And he struggled with all his might. And also offered 2 island. And it all ended in nothing. A kind of "quadrature circle." A diplomatic task capable of driving a better diplomat to madness. The Japanese need us, and we need them, but any political discussion between us begins and ends with those same islands. I remember the film “The Beginning”: the Americans managed to throw an idea-virus into the Japanese brain, which blocks any attempt to establish relations with them: “Return the islands”. Agree - the work of the master. A kind of programming of the whole nation. The Japanese are missing a historical chance to participate in the development of the Far East, a hedgehog is clear that they will not get any islands, but the “mental blockage” works on time. Return the islands. Moreover, it’s clear why Russia cannot return the 4 islands: the Sea of Okhotsk will no longer be our inland, and this outweighs any Japanese buns. The Sea of Okhotsk is not only valuable bioresources, but also a launching pad for launching missiles of our submarine rocket carriers. Return the islands.
A kind of masterpiece: an absurd and absolutely impracticable requirement becomes the national idea of a big nation. Even Yeltsin in the depths of his shame could not make such concessions. But so it was planned. So it was conceived: an artificial problem was manually formed that did not have a reasonable solution. And any, the most rigid and independent Japanese politician will demand the same: “Return the islands”. Even if the American troops leave the sacred land of Yamato, the problem will remain, and even the Japanese have not mastered Hokkaido, it’s cold there. I will not lie, but I read at Parshev (“Why Russia is not America”) that Japanese warriors receive a double salary in Hokkaido - it’s cold there, the conditions are extreme. Russia offered a lot of options, up to the joint development of these very “territories”. The answer is standard: “Return the islands”. So the development of Russian-Japanese relations is blocked tightly and very reliably, as originally intended.
From the western direction, we have about the same thing: industrial, overcrowded Germany (German territory 357 thousand sq. Km: approximately like Buryatia with a population of thousand people 975), which is in great need of our resources, and we need their equipment, and there were no Kuriles here (Konigsberg was a thing of the past). Nothing hindered cooperation! By the way, quite funny: Königsberg is a legendary German city, East Prussia is an integral part of Germany, but the Germans resigned and continued to live happily ever after, but for the Japanese 4 islet, which are not connected with the history of Japan Harbor) became the "fulcrum". So, the business Russia - Germany grew by leaps and bounds. There were no serious disagreements, collision points too. But this did not suit everyone ...
The Ukrainian crisis has many dimensions, we can talk about it endlessly, but there is such a cut in the problem: to push Russia and Germany together. That, in general, was performed. Moreover, it was performed brilliantly: a very close, but ambitious politician had to be put at the head of Germany. Such as Merkel. And then the Germans (people disciplined), like sheep behind a leader or a rat (after the Hamelin rat-catcher), will run after them. Then this close, but revanchist-minded chancellor has to offer the bait: such as Ukraine ... Do you see how the picture develops? In theory, the Germans themselves did not really need the very Ukraine. Too big, too alien, too poor. There are some natural resources there. In short, the country is distant, cold and corrupt. Never Czechia. And the Germans are extremely calculating people. Therefore, it was necessary to work, long and hard, year after year, building a brick by brick building the “European future of Ukraine”.
Forget all these old nonsense about the "core country", about the fact that the one who owns Ukraine owns Eurasia (and then the entire Galaxy), fairy tales about the fact that without Ukraine Russia cannot be an empire. Advocating it all. Ukraine itself is an insignificant third world country. For Russia, it has rather ethnic and historical significance. Russia could not lose Crimea and Sevastopol, Russia could not give Donetsk to Bandera. But Ukraine as a whole? Are you sure that Russia needs it? In theory, Russia did not give a damn about which of the Ukrainian oligarchs was more important and richer. And nobody was going to encroach on the sovereignty of Ukraine: "Smoke heaven for yourself." Therefore, an armed coup, therefore extremists, murders and threats to the Russians. You see, without very serious efforts, light Ukraine and turn it into a main theme News no one would succeed. Too Ukrainians are non-governmental and non-revolutionary people (Robespiers are not them). Therefore, truly titanic efforts were made to replace the oligarchic Yanukovych with the oligarch Poroshenko. And with shots, blood and arrests. Moreover, these two “son of a bitch” are even outwardly similar. And both are pro-American politicians (i.e. both are not ours!). Why, why?
But if we want to organize a zone of confrontation between Europe and Russia, then everything is clear, then everything is going. Moreover, the most natural way in Ukraine was the territory of cooperation between Russia and Europe. Well, there was nothing for each other to beat their faces. It was more logical to agree, to divide into spheres of influence ... Why are we fighting, Panov? (My favorite question). I stubbornly refuse to consider the Square as the center of the galaxy. That is why the "cynical Bandera" massacre and massacres. This is not an accident, and this is not a bust of performers. So it was intended to provoke Russia (by the Americans, of course). Ukraine could have rotted on the side of the road for decades, and no one would give a damn about it. Who, for example, is interested in Bangladesh? Are you worried about the problems of Honduras? And the people of Honduras have a lot of problems ...
Who was interested in Ukraine in November 2013? Well, Yanukovych did not sign the Euro-Association, and damn him! In a year we will choose Poroshenko, and everyone will be overwhelmed! The Americans again furnished everyone, and especially the Tortoise Tortoise, they not only played with speckled cards, but also juggled! Merkel went all the way up to the absolutely unnecessary Ukraine for her, and therefore got into serious money (Yatsenyuk will voice you a more precise amount - he has all the moves written down), finally tweaked Putin and irrevocably lost the promising Russian market! And why? Gentlemen, Ukraine is not a "super prize" once, rather a suitcase without a handle, and for both Europe and Russia. The Customs Union, which Putin insistently proposed, is a customs union. Everything. We did not need residents of Lviv in the Armed Forces. Thank. Ukraine, no one was going to seize. With the "departure" of the Crimea and the Donbass, Ukraine is all the more unnecessary for anyone in Russia.
“The Fuhrer promised me a summer cottage in the Crimea ...” - for some reason this phrase stubbornly climbs into my head from a speech by a famous comedian. I do not know who promised what to Angela Merkel, but the return of the Crimea as a condition for the lifting of sanctions is pure Kuril-2. Just freshly baked and not yet matured. But the word of the Chancellor is harder than granite. And especially the German Chancellor. The most freezed liberal in Russia today understands that the Crimea is ours, therefore, to demand his return is to drive relations into a dead end. But that is exactly what we are seeing. And Mr. Steinmeier has already said about the 10 years that will be needed for the confrontation with Russia. You see, Germany could not focus on this issue. But what is said, it is said: the annexation of the Crimea. Now all the Germans, until the last Turk, will fight day and night for his return to Ukraine. You can fight for it for a very long time, it’s like building communism. The horizon is far, but quite clearly visible. How do you imagine the normalization of Russian-German relations in such a scenario? Return Crimea to Ukraine, and we are very cooperative! It seems to me a dead end.
It is even worse with the belligerent and burning Donbass: from the very beginning it was an attempt to crush the “dissenters with Bandera” by military methods. Attempt impudent, stubborn, shameless. There is evidence that only the irretrievable loss of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in manpower amounted to about 10 thousand people. Met a number and more, but not the essence. The problem is that the conflict is fundamentally insoluble. This proved Minsk-1 and Minsk-2. There was an attempt by Kiev with the support of the EU and the United States to crush the southeast. The attempt failed. But think for how much resources were spent on this (not only Ukrainians died in the Donbas, but also residents of NATO countries). By the way, an extremely paradoxical situation developed in the Donbas: The West closed its eyes to all the crimes of the Kiev junta - just win! There were many crimes, victory was not achieved. They went all in and lost. But this makes a peaceful settlement of the situation fundamentally impossible: too many corpses and ruins. But before the start of the "ATO" / punitive operation - these were for the most part citizens of Ukraine, loyal and law-abiding. The result was unexpected for the West: without any “Russian invasion”, the Armed Forces of Ukraine were stopped and suffered heavy losses. Nobody was simply laying on this, there were two working options: the first is a full-scale Russian invasion and the return full boycott and blockade, the second is the rout and genocide of Donbass.
Both options were very carefully calculated and planned. But in the industrial south-east of Ukraine, a miracle happened: absurd, bloody, but it happened. And there simultaneously happened a humanitarian catastrophe and the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And the situation is in full and final deadlock. By the way, this military conflict is extremely bright, convex and clearly demonstrated one thing that is categorically unacceptable for many: Russians and Ukrainians are two very different nations. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and the “volunteer battalions” demonstrated extreme cruelty and complete inability to fight. That was, that was. I do not know, but for example: the Prussians, the Austrians, the Bavarians, the Saxons - and all seem to be different German peoples, but all are fighting well. Nobody complained. But "sbroynye forces" somehow did not please ... Or take the same Spain: the Castilians, the Catalans, the Basques - always fought well. Although the last two nations consider themselves Spaniards to be fundamentally unwilling. Or the inhabitants of sunny Italy just fought poorly, and the inhabitants of Naples differed little from the inhabitants of Livorno. Something like this. Or take the Polish conscripts, for example ... So two different people. Especially if you look at the success of Ukrainians in the construction of their own statehood.
But the bottom line is that this paradoxical result made a dead end in relations across the Russian Federation - the EU complete and final. And the "surrender" of Donbass here already does not solve anything. It will only be the “first step,” from their point of view. You see, these geeks (Europeans and especially Germans) have a very high opinion of themselves. They climbed to the Donbass, "got their teeth" (favorite expression of the President) and now they are in anger and rage. In a rage, anguish and sadness. They crave revenge and "revenge." You will laugh, but even the "surrender" of the Crimea and the Donbass together will not lead to an immediate "lifting of sanctions." In essence, the “war” is at an impasse. Neither side of its continuation is unprofitable: neither Russia nor Europe. But Europeans need only victory. Ideology, damn it. That is, here and now, Russia should capitulate on level ground, that is, merge everything (everything else). Then, maybe, the sanctions will be canceled, but not a fact. It’s just that Merkel and others like her seriously invested in the “Ukrainian project” and cannot just admit their defeat. The aunt very successfully “bought an elephant” and now has to live with him in the same house.
In general, Germany had a bunch of other problems in 2013, and Ukraine was not a priority for it (that's why they did not give a penny). Ukraine had to get to the Germans for free (like from a bush!). Therefore, in general, they climbed into this adventure: “here we shall throw off the“ Janissary ”and Ukraine will sign everything”. But the Ukrainian problem began to unwind and swell. This, by the way, testifies to the complete incompetence of German politicians - they even could not roughly figure out the consequences of their actions. Thus, for 2, the situation with the EU-Russia and especially Germany-Russia has changed dramatically: instead of mutually beneficial cooperation - an overt conflict. And designed and created quite artificially. There was no such potential in Ukraine for such a quarrel. Due to the ambitiousness, arrogance and incompetence of the ruling elite of Germany, she was drawn into absolutely unnecessary opposition in the east. And at the moment she can no longer get out of it without a serious loss of reputation.
As everyone understands very well, neither Crimea, nor Donbass Russia is going to donate. What makes the prospects for Russian-German relations completely vague. There was no concern - a woman bought a pig ... Merkel, in fact, pulled Germany into a long conflict with Russia. And Germany (as the main country of the EU) pulled in all of Europe. Here such turns out. American diplomats eat their bread for good reason. The knots of the “Ukrainian problem” are tightly tightened: Russia cannot hand over the Donbass and the Crimea to the right-wing axes and continue financing Ukraine, but these are the conditions for “normalizing relations”. And then most likely not all. The Germans now have on their hands the classic task of a leader: how to make up the word "VICTORY" from two "inappropriate" syllables. The APU lost, the Ukrainian economy died, the state of Ukraine is slowly but irreversibly falling apart, the Russian market is lost, and the Germans still have to pay Ukraine’s bills and payments are rising. But no one likes to admit their mistakes. Therefore, the official German version: Putin is to blame for all the troubles of Ukraine. Therefore sanctions. Sanctions to change Russia's policy towards Ukraine.
The funny thing is that Russia already has very little policy towards Ukraine. Relationships, in fact, ended. Whether the Rabbit will finish its Magic Wall or not is no longer so important: the flight connection is interrupted, trade tends to a minimum, the visa-free regime has been canceled. Cultural exchange with the country professing Bandera ideology? Not even funny. Russia has "fixed" the situation and is already building a railway "bypassing" Ukraine. What position can Russia change in Ukraine? There are accusations that, say, every fifth article on the topic "what's there, among the Ukrainians," but the reason is that Ukraine creates endless problems, and not in the friendly interest in the neighboring country. Ukraine may disrupt the gas supply of Europe or the power supply of the Crimea. Or do some more dirty trick, that's all interest. Ukraine is a classic “neighbor with a perforator”. And in the morning 3 his nationality is absolutely not important, the puncher is important.
But on the whole, Russia is not particularly worried about Ukraine’s future. “The fewer the relations, the better,” but now the same Germans will constantly impose negotiations on Ukraine on us. And what is there to "talk"? “- Hello, Alla bothers you! “Alla doesn't bother me anymore ...”. It is from here that the legs of Donetsk shelling and explosions of power line pylons “grow”: if you completely ignore your neighbor, he may scratch your car to tie up the conversation. For Russians, the word “Ukraine” has become the name of an indecent disease. This country in a paradoxical way combines hatred of Russia and absolute dependence. Therefore, it can only offer us problems. It is in this vein that Americans actively use it (but do not feed). By and large, Russia doesn’t care how the Germans will solve the problems of the Kiev regime (they are unsolvable), but the Germans will necessarily negotiate with us “en masse” with Ukraine, that is, in general ... And these negotiations will be endless.
In the minds of German politicians there will be an idealized picture: Ukraine within the borders of 2013, Ukraine at the same time in the free trade zone with the EU and Russia. And it is clear that in a “magical” way, German firms are regaining the Russian market. That's what they will fight for. So with Germany everything will be approximately as with Japan: one hundred years of negotiations. In general, a year and a half has passed since the introduction of the sanctions and they have been renewed once again. The process has begun. Exactly the same trap as in the Far East. Any negotiations will be limited by the question of the "territorial integrity of Ukraine." The Germans at the very beginning made a very gross mistake, having gone to support the coup in Kiev, everything further - already the consequences. And at the same time, it is necessary to take into account the “obstinacy” and obstinacy of the Germans: all arguments that bilateral relations are seriously affected, that any cooperation becomes impossible, that this decision on sanctions has a deadly significance for mutual relations, they will respond that sanctions will be lifted when ...
In short, "return the island." Therefore, German business in Russia is doomed to extinction. It's simple: both Russia and Germany are historically the countries of state capitalism, a truly big business is impossible here without the consent of the current government. What's in Germany, what's in Russia. Frost relations seem like a long time, but a holy place is never empty. German business in Russia, by the way, was welcome in many respects for political reasons: it had to fulfill the role of a “lobby”, a stabilizer. As practice has shown, he is not able to perform a similar role in bilateral relations, and he does not even want to do that. Then why is it needed (on special, preferential terms)? To the Germans earned "kids on milk"? Excuse me. So in general, in the “Ukrainian crisis” the most important thing is not Ukraine at all. The most important thing is that this conflict brought down relations between Germany and Russia, and how to restore them (on what basis) is absolutely incomprehensible. In politics, we have huge differences with the Germans, and big business, as it turned out, cannot serve as a basis for relations.
The same atlas ...
Information