As it turned out, there are still not enough of these formats and proto-formats, so that the situation in the Donbass truly moves into a peaceful course, and that once weapons scumbags from the so-called terbats of Ukraine calmed down under a hanging iron fist. It turned out that the mentioned scumbags do not understand any paper language in principle. If the agreements were written even on the most independent Ukrainian Move, even on truly democratic English, even on surzhik, they don’t understand, even kill ... That's it - “even kill” ...
Is this all that over the past year and a half has been clarified? Of course not. Perhaps, the main postulate, which is clarified, as they say, reinforced concrete, was the postulate that there is no point in negotiating, excuse me, with the “Kuchmas” and even with the “powders”, no. As there is no point in negotiating with the invitation of German old women playing the role of Federal Chancellor, and with the French men, politically wagging the back deck. Negotiations, as it turns out, can be more or less intelligible if Russia speaks directly with the representative of the state that turned Ukraine into a zombie state, which today is under the banner of striving for democracy against the background of the default in the economy. And the state is, of course, the United States of America.
And, judging by everything, on the basis of such considerations, it was decided to give birth to an “additional” format - Kaliningrad, apparently taking into account the fact that the Kaliningrad region is like that hypothetical bridge capable of sort of connecting the West with Russia. Such persons as Vladislav Surkov and Victoria Nuland took part in the process of conceiving the format, the first being under "sizzling" American sanctions, and the second is known as the godmother ukromaydana, who handed out the notorious 2014 buns in the center of Kiev in February. How did the political conception pass?
No one kept the candle, as they say, and official information is at least, but comments and backstage rumors, as in other cases and always in the case of Vladislav Surkov, are maximum.
If we talk about the official side of the issue, then the words of Surkov should be cited as the starting point of the information frame of the meeting "at the top". These words leads the news agency Interfax:
Quite thorough, constructive and useful consultations took place. It was a kind of brainstorming on the search for compromises for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. On some sensitive issues, such as constitutional reform, security and elections, ideas have been put forward that can be discussed in a contact group in the Norman format. The negotiations were constructive and were designed to support the current work in the "Norman format" and the contact group.
Commented on the negotiations and the American side. In particular, psaccessor John Kirby, speaking during the briefing, said that "negotiations concerning the implementation process of the Minsk agreements were constructive."
Frankly, it is difficult to remember those negotiations in Ukraine, which their parties would rate as “non-constructive”, and therefore, in any case, the results of conceiving the Kaliningrad format as an addendum to Minsk-2 will let know (even if it sounds three times trite) the time most likely already near. However, now at least one fact can be assessed as quite constructive. The fact is that there were no representatives of the Kiev Kunstkamera at the talks, which thereby made the Kunstkammer make it clear that her job was not to inflate her cheeks, building up 80-level negotiators, but to fulfill what is prescribed by the agreements. If for all those meetings and negotiations that took place with the participation of the most diverse “Kuchmas”, the settlement process has not actually moved from a dead end, then the conclusion is the same: the elders will agree, and directly ...
In the large Ukrainian media, realizing that the publication of the material about the meeting of Surkov and Nuland, without a single representative of the “most independent” state, and even in Russian Kaliningrad, “tse zrada”, decided either not to mention such negotiations at all, or let newswhat is called a "running line". They say they met, they say, they talked, but we, they say, are square from temechka to the tailbone, and therefore will bend their line anyway.
And this is where the main question arises: what actually turned out to be the Kaliningrad “conception”, which lasted as long as about 6 hours? It is clear that the format is not at all that one of the parties has undertaken to dictate to the other side only its own conditions, and therefore there is an assumption that the negotiations tried to reduce, as economists say, to “quality mitigation”. This idea is also suggested by the fact that the negotiations were organized by no less than the presidents of Russia and the United States. According to news agencies, it was Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama who, during a telephone conversation, discussed the Kaliningrad meeting of their representatives, who, instead of exercising in the already meaningless ornate diplomatic, finally move on to discuss the fulfillment of obligations by the parties to the conflict substantively.
The fact that right after the end of the negotiations “Surkov-Nuland” with their “brainstorming”, representatives of the LDNR authorities (even the Ukrainian media wrote about this) declared their full readiness to discuss the proposals that were received during the Kaliningrad meeting drew attention to themselves. developed. But in Kiev they did not say anything ... In principle, this is precisely what causes concern. "Softening" is it maybe "quality", but will it be mutual? In other words, will the option that the States have long since been elevated to the priority rank of their foreign policy — first negotiate and reach agreements, and then quietly wash their hands, declaring that I am not me, etc. — will not happen.
It kind of warms the soul that this is by no means the first negotiations on this kind of sensitive issue, and therefore at the time of negotiations the parties knew a lot (and almost everything) about the negotiation methodology of each other, and there is an assumption that this is why they spoke really frankly. Well, simply if they spoke unreservedly, then one can state one thing: neither side of the process is interested in reciprocal steps aimed at the so-called de-escalation, and each of these parties is only waiting for the opposite side to sit in puddle. But since they didn’t get into this very puddle in almost two years, even with a series of very tough unilateral actions, it’s clear that in the future with this approach there will be no abrupt failure of a single party. There is only one conclusion: either to actually compromise the two sides at the same time, or to confirm that Donbass porridge is not even for years, but for decades. But who said that the United States does not like this kind of porridge? ..