Is peace “like a boy” possible?

Pessimist: “Everything is bad, everything is just terrible.” Optimist: “Don’t worry, it will get even worse.” It is this bearded anecdote that comes to mind when you read numerous discussions about how Russian-American relations will develop after the White House finds a new owner.

By coincidence, the Americans will most likely elect the first black president on exactly the day (declared in Russia as the Day of Unity and Harmony) when in Moscow representatives of the United Russia youth movement will rally under nationalist slogans, which the capital authorities for some reason banned rally patent nationalists from DPNI. If someone were specifically looking for some symbol of the differences between the two countries, they would not find anything better.

There is no doubt that George Bush did a lot to ensure that relations between the two countries were at their lowest point since the collapse of the USSR. And the point here is not at all about the decision to deploy a third positional area of ​​the global missile defense system in Europe, not about the creation of military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, and not about attempts to quickly drag Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. And it’s not even that he, the only one of Vladimir Putin’s interlocutors, managed to discern the soul in the eyes of the Russian president.

It seems to me that Bush played an important, if not decisive, role in the formation of Putin’s and Putin’s ideas about how the world around us works. The main one was the American invasion of Iraq. It was then that the Kremlin finally became convinced that the rule of law, all sorts of rights and freedoms, are nothing more than verbal tinsel that can be used to cover up one’s intentions from time to time, but it is simply stupid to believe in it.

In fact, according to domestic leaders, the world is structured approximately the same way as the St. Petersburg gateway, that is, “like a boy.” The weak are beaten. And you must constantly demonstrate your own strength, beating the weak from time to time. Politics is an endless fight for control of a region with boys from the back alley. And woe to them if they risk ending up on our street in the evening. The fight stops only for a while, when all the good city boys unite to “rub the patch” of the very insolent “village” ones who have gotten into the habit of going to “our” dances. Of course, there is only one way to establish yourself in such a world - constantly bullying the most powerful street gang, but at the same time avoiding direct confrontation. That's the whole world order.

Let me note that Russian diplomats call this “boyish” world multipolar only as a diversion. The Kremlin does not need all states to have equal rights and responsibilities. Not at all, the cool guys should sit down and once again re-divide the world, cut into zones of “privileged interests”, and create a Security Council for Europe with permanent members who have the right of veto.

Now let's ask a simple question: what policies should the new American president pursue in order to comply with these street concepts?

First, stop looking down on our sovereign democracy. Don’t even think about hinting that this democracy of ours is different from their “vaunted” one. As you know, even their elections are indirect. While the entire Russian people unanimously vote for the one whom the national leader indicated, it’s funny to say that until the last day it is not clear who is in the kings. And this is stability?! It would be nice if the new owner of the White House not only kept quiet about the peculiarities of Russian foreign policy (which George Bush did), but also threw scarves over the mouths of all sorts of excessively talkative senators and congressmen.

Secondly, stop insulting Moscow with the possibility of admitting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. In fact, it was clearly said that the Russian people should be controlled in “manual mode” for another twenty years. And then Tbilisi and Kyiv have gained the impudence and declare that their democratic institutions meet the requirements that Euro-Atlantic structures impose on their members.

Thirdly, the new US president must, on the one hand, deal with Russia as a great military power, the only country in the world capable of destroying America. Thereby strengthening its international authority. But at the same time, do not bring matters to direct confrontation, to a new “cold war”.

Well, now answer whether there is an American politician in nature who can meet the harsh concepts of the “boyish world.” The answer is obvious. This means that no significant improvement in relations between the two states can be expected. In his latest speech, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for the speedy conclusion of a new Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty. It would seem that the Americans have finally agreed with what Moscow has been trying to achieve for the last six years. However, this means that in practice the Americans are returning to the concept of mutual deterrence in relations with Russia. And this, without fools, is a direct path to a new confrontation. There is no guarantee that Washington will stay on the brink in the virtual “cold war” that the Kremlin is foisting on it. A war that is limited to militaristic rhetoric and even demonstrative actions like sending ships to Venezuela. And then the world will look completely different from what it seems to the over-aged Kremlin boys.