The normalization of relations between Washington and Moscow is impossible. For her, a comparable geopolitical subjectivity of players is needed. And when one of the parties is in financial, economic, regulatory, political, institutional dependence (on the other hand), this means that the word "normalization" as a point of equilibrium is not possible here in principle. Not about any "second Yalta" can not speak.
A recent meeting between NATO's Chief of Staff, Cortez Scararotti and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery Gerasimov was held in Baku. According to its results - the commentary of the Bulgarian political observer Plamen Paskov.
What caused the need to meet Gerasimov and Scararotti in Baku, and what, in your opinion, was the agenda of the talks?
In fact, this is not their first meeting. Just like Valery Gerasimov and Curtis Skaraportti met 19 this April, again in Baku. So you can talk about the almost already established tradition ...
Generals Gerasimov and Scararotti - people are strictly military, with a wealth of practical combat experience, including, in hot spots. This, of course, affects the negotiation process in favor of specificity and lack of emotions. Another question is that they can decide within the framework of a mandate to negotiate ...
Proceeding from this, as well as the meeting place, one can suppose that Syria, Iran, and the US presence in the Caspian region (Kazakhstan) were discussed. Plus Iraq, the logistics of the US operation in Afghanistan. A separate subject is an incident in the Kerch Strait area ...
The main point, of course, was the presence of Iran in Syria. This is a topic for the military, as it affects the interests of not only the United States, Russia, but also other players - Turkey, Israel, for example.
The necessity of the meeting was caused not least by the exhaustion of the grounds and the sense of Russia's formal presence in Syria. The IGIL officially defeated (somewhere already 2-3 times, at least), the demarcation (in fact, occupation) zones in Syria are outlined, and no one is interested in the revision of this status quo by military means.
Interests of the parties are understandable, trends are marked. The question is who will fall back now, and who will win.
The US, apparently, insists, among other things, on the following:
- absence of Iranian military and "proxy" minimum in 20-30 km from the border with Israel in Syria;
- Russia's refusal to sell, service or technical assistance to Iran or conditionally Syrian air defense in Syria;
- agreement to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Personally, my opinion - Russia will gradually make concessions for most of the issues outlined. This is a matter of time.
Did the parties succeed in reaching a consensus on problematic issues?
Specifically, this meeting could not lead to final decisions or agreements.
Speaking about dynamics, I will repeat, the Russian side will agree to most of the "proposals" of the American side. The question then - how to pack and present it in Russian media for the Russian audience. In the plan, the next victory of Russian diplomacy and foreign policy will be needed. The United States can even play the Kremlin in this regard, but it will not change the merits.
Is it worth to expect the normalization of bilateral relations between Washington and Moscow in principle?
I do not see any special prerequisites for this. Normalization of relations at such a level exists when there is a comparable geopolitical subjectivity of the players. And when one side is in financial, economic, regulatory, political, institutional dependence on the other hand, this means that the word "normalization" as a point of equilibrium is not possible here in principle. Not about any "second Yalta" can not speak.
"Normalization" in the Anglo-Saxon (in this case, the American) understanding of the word will mean "manageability", but in essence - subjugation. As they say, "predictability of behavior" ...
What will end with the conflict in the Kerch Strait? Should we expect a regrouping of forces in the region, a new package of sanctions against the Russian Federation?
The introduction of sanctions is actively discussed both as a result of this incident and beyond its consequences. The conflict, as such, in the geopolitical sense, in my opinion, is already exhausted, because almost all goals have been achieved.
As for me, this conflict was not needed in the personal plan of P.Poroshenko or V.Putin. In the political sense, he did not need either Russia or Ukraine, if we talk about the interests of the states.
The incident in the Kerch Strait area has its strangeness - 8-10 lasted for hours, a "leak" of the video of the ram's record was organized and so on ...
However, more serious goals have been fully or partially achieved. Putin's meeting with D.Tramp in Buenos Aires (G20) has become impossible. There were no postponement of elections in Ukraine, although a military position was introduced on 30 days, P.Poroshenko received his definite dividends. One can talk about delaying the signing of an agreement between Gazprom and Ukraine on gas transit through Ukraine towards South Eastern Europe (partially achieved) ... In the dry state there was a blockade, a delay in important meetings and events.
Will NATO's military presence in Eastern Europe increase in 2019 year?
No doubt And this will happen on the Quantum Satis principle (as much as necessary - lat.) Another question is what will be the specifics of this gain.
NATO remains the instrument of the United States for military control and pressure on the whole of Europe, and the European "proxy army" of the United States - for military operations against "big Russia". Let's see what will be the distribution of forces actually in the USA between so-called "Isolationists" (supporting Donald Trump) and "global bankers-financiers."
"Isolationists" NATO in its current form, with the current functional, at the present price is no longer needed. This does not mean that they are for peace or for reducing control in the region. Donald Trump simply proposes that all NATO members pay adequate funds for their defense and security so that the Alliance ceases to be in the US content by more than 70%.
So the format of NATO military presence in Eastern (and Western) Europe directly depends on the political survival of D.Tramp as US President ...