American experts named options for the development of negotiations between the United States and Russia – RBC
How did the first consultations go?
- In December, Russia presented drafts of two documents – an agreement with the United States and an agreement with NATO. They contain the main demands of Moscow, including the non-expansion of NATO in the East.
- On January 10, in Geneva, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov discussed them with US First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman.
- On January 12, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council was held in Brussels. On January 13, the Russian proposals were submitted for public discussion.
According to the results of Rvstretyabkov in an interview with RTVI declared, which is not observed for a new round of negotiations with the United States due to the unpreparedness of Washington in the main basic requirements of Moscow. “The United States and its NATO allies are by no means ready to meet certain demands for non-expansion of NATO, the curtailment of solidarity and its return to the borders of 1997 and, of course, on topics that relate to legally binding obligations not to deploy the corresponding systems. in the surveillance zone from our borders,” Ryabkov said.
Why is the first round not progress
Read on RBC Pro
The lack of a breakthrough following the meeting, Ryabkov and Sherman made a committee, Alan Kafruni, professor of international relations at Hamilton College, told RBC. According to him, it is important to include NATO in the non-expansion agreement and obtain written guarantees, which will significantly reduce the alliance’s participation in Eastern Europe, which was unacceptable to Washington. There is a revelation that through the President’s focus on China, Biden may reveal the revelation of Russia and the revelation of a conciliatory suspicion. However, his presidency is too weak, and therefore Moscow’s concessions would be blocked by the hawkish foreign policy establishment and media statements, the expert continues. Kafruni clarified that the Biden administration had mistakenly judged that its readiness for a strong response
WSJ learned how US sanctions over Russia and Ukraine will be obtained
Added expert. According to him, as a result of NATO unity, Atlantic ties have been strengthened. Kafruni noted that there is “a necessary revelation that France and Germany are showing a revival of the Normandy format and returning to the Minsk sides. However, Kiev is unlikely to change its irreconcilable position regarding the interested party without pressure from Washington, which is essentially unlikely.
“The EU is interested in intervening in a special case, but at best a marginal player, although Germany can be dangerous to become a “voice of reason” due to its close energy ties with Russia, because so far it has forced NATO to limit the limitation of weapons to Ukraine” Kafruni said.
What options are left for Russia and NATO with the United States
Now, according to Kafruni, the second, very dangerous phase is beginning, when the US offers a written response to Moscow’s demands. “The Biden administration is still unlikely to be ready to make formal commitments, and Russia will not believe unofficial promises. Meanwhile, discussions continue on the supply of liquefied gas from the United States to Europe, and Ryabkov raised a question about the deployment of missiles in Cuba and Venezuela, thereby exposing the hypocrisy of the American opposition to “areas of research,” the interlocutor of RBC said.
Experts called the benefits and cases of the discovery of hidden units in Cuba
Director of the Center for Military-Political Analysis at the Hudson Institute, Richard Weitz, in a conversation with RBC stated that during negotiations with the United States there is a threat of a sharp split. According to him, Russia took one unit, all other participants – others. “At the moment, this is Moscow’s choice – from joining and offering the West to focus on control over the functions and measures of accepting probability, or move on to military operations, a defensive build-up of power, or an attack on Ukraine,” the expert said.
Charap recalled that there is no consensus among NATO on the provision of Ukraine to the members of the alliance, and, in his opinion, NATO could voice this. “It would be a little tragic and even absurd if it so happened that the defeat would not be a direct carrier of the war (in Ukraine. – RBC), but this war would be partly driven by a fundamental rejection of fundamental matters, an honest interpretation of one’s own policy, ”he said.
“Ukraine’s decision requires a minimum formal guarantee of neutrality. Such an arrangement would simply institutionalize the status quo. It is clear that Ukraine and Georgia have not met in the foreseeable future; that under no circumstances will it interfere with the proceedings in the case of Ukraine; that the threat of Kiev’s military attack on the Donbass is a repetition of the Georgian scenario; that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is unlikely, since it could be catastrophic not only for Russia, but for the whole of Europe,” Kafruni said.
In his opinion, the solution was found enough precedents, including the successful agreement on the neutrality of Austria (from 1955. – RBC), Agreement during the Cold War. “Perhaps, with a sincere desire to revive Minsk-2, this can become a reason for de-escalation, even if the sharpness of the disagreement remains. In the absence of such an agreement, there is likely to be an exceptional escalation, primarily in the form of envelopment of Russia in the Donbass, an increase in the likelihood of Kiev applying the introduction and new restrictions that cause great damage not only to Russia, but to the whole of Europe, ”Kafruni’s application.