Nothing Kryminal

In August 2008, I conducted a discussion in LJ about the Russian-Georgian war. One of my opponents cited a historical analogy proving, from his point of view that America behaves in similar circumstances in the same way as Russia. This analogy is the conquest of Texas, which was previously the territory of Mexico. This parallel did not convince me at all.

Until 1821, Texas was a Spanish colony, and when Mexico became independent, he became part of it. By this time, American colonists were there the majority. In 1834, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who established the regime of a military dictatorship, came to power in Mexico. Texas did not agree with a new order and two years later proclaimed Texas by an independent republic. Santa Anna answered a military campaign during which he shot hundreds of civilians, but in the end he suffered a cruel defeat, was captured and was forced to sign an agreement on the withdrawal of troops. The Republic of Texas recognized and established with it the diplomatic relations of the United States and the largest European powers. In 1845, a referendum was held in Texas, the majority of whose participants spoke in favor of joining the United States. And only after Mexico refused to recognize the results of the referendum, the war began, which ended in surrender and displacement of Santa Anna.

I do not see any parallels with Southern Ossetia, and even more so with Crimea in the history of Texas. But the point is not so much in this as that the user argued with me, whose userpic was the emblem of the Ukrainian special forces "Berkut". Then I did not pay attention to it. And now I remembered. How round the earth is round!

The weekend passed in anxious expectation. Morning Saturday is an ideal moment to start aggression. By Monday, you can have time to put everyone before the fact. The super-stringing meeting of the Federation Council resembled a competition of Soviet readers-deck: “Your word, comrade Mauser”, “Good should be with fists” and, finally, a kind of masterpiece of parliamentary rhetoric: “We are losing time for the president, it's time to vote!” But the president acted following the example of the dragon from the play of Schwartz: "When I start, I will not say. The real war begins suddenly. I understand?" He was hunting to see what they would do in the western capitals.

In the capitals managed to hold meetings of the UN Security Council and the NATO Council. Everyone was actively calling back among themselves and with Putin. Barack Obama talked with him for an hour and a half. The press release of the White House says :

President Obama told President Putin that if Russia has concern about the attitude to ethnic Russian and national minorities in Ukraine, it will correctly solve this issue peacefully, through direct interaction with the Ukrainian government and through the direction of the UN Security Council or the organization of security and cooperation in Europe ... President Obama clearly stated that the continuation of violation of sovereignty and territorial integration of Russia. Ukraine would negatively affect Russia's status in the international community.

And this is the Kremlin press service message :

]

*In response to the concern shown by Barack Obama, the plans of the possible use of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine Vladimir Putin attracted attention to the provocative, criminal actions of ultra -rationalist elements, which are essentially encouraged by the current authorities in Kyiv.

The Russian President emphasized the presence of real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens and numerous compatriots located on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin emphasized that in case of further spread of violence to the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and the Russian -speaking population living there.*

If these texts are reliably conveyed by what has been said, then the conclusion is obvious: not only did not agree on anything, but also spoke different languages.

Then everyone began to wait for the announced appearance of Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday morning television political talk shows. From the very first minutes of the first of them - the “meeting with the press” of NBC News - jubilant reviews fell into Facebook: Kerry called everything his names! Kerry gave Putin on the first number! I, alas, have a completely different impression. And it only intensified after the second program - "this week" ABC News. I am not a fan of overlap rhetoric, which American politicians are large masters. I am interested in the dry residue: what are America and its allies are going to do?

The presenter of the “ Meeting with the Press ” David Gregori showed Kerry a fragment of Friday statement by President Obama, in which he said that “any military interference in Ukraine would entail consequences,” and asked the Secretary of State: “What are the consequences?” Kerry replied that for a start, the leaders of the "eight" may not go to the Summit in Sochi. The question may also arise about freezing assets, prohibitions on entry (he did not say whose assets and whose entry). Normal trade relations can be rolled up, and as a result, the volume of investments in the Russian economy will be reduced, and the ruble exchange rate is already falling.

The host of " This week " George Stefanopulos is a more experienced and sophisticated person in international affairs. He interrupted the ranting of Kerry with a replica: "I know that Russia violates (international law. - V.A.). How do you punish it for what it has already done?" After a long preface, Kerry repeated about “serious consequences” for trade, investments, assets, deprivation of the right to enter. "Are the United States ready to impose sanctions if Russia does not retreat?" Stefanopulos asked. But I received in response only a new portion of eloquence.

Apparently, America is not ready for trade and economic sanctions against Russia. It is enough to look at the Moscow catering, at iPhones and other gadgets in the hands of Muscovites, for software, which is in their computers, on the posters of cinemas, on the racks of supermarkets to understand: the sanctions will hit primarily to American companies. When in January 1980, President Carter announced the introduction of a grain embargo for the Soviet Union, he promised that the government would buy grain exported from American farmers at market prices. And he fulfilled his promise.

Today it is hardly possible. Of course, the share of Russia in the US foreign trade is small, but for individual companies the consequences will be very serious. If we talk about suppliers of agricultural products, then these are the same farmers, small and medium -sized businesses, and in America this is a political question: a small business is the basis of the American economy, it should be encouraged and not infringed in every possible way. The consequences of such infringement can already affect the next, critical elections for democrats. About tens of thousands of Russian citizens who will lose their jobs due to sanctions and are unlikely to remain sympathy for America after that, I am not saying.

Among the comments on how to punish Russia, I came across an article by historian Timothy Snyder - an authoritative expert on Eastern Europe. His offer seems completely crazy to me. He proposes to introduce not electoral, but general restrictions on visas for Russian citizens, freeze dozens of bank accounts without any reason - then, they say, the Russians will change their minds.

This is a certain way to make enemies in the face of people sympathizing with the West. In addition, the venerable professor is probably unknown that in Europe whole resort cities live only at the expense of tourism from Russia. Who compensates for losses to tour operators, hotels, and restaurants?

“Of course, these measures will cost expensive,” writes Snyder. “But the price of an armed conflict in the middle of Europe will be much higher.” Undoubtedly. But the West is unlikely to be ready for such victims. This is primarily necessary for political will, but no one just has it.

By the evening of Sunday, the light suddenly dawned at the end of the tunnel: Putin agreed to the proposal of Angela Merkel to create a group to investigate the situation in the Crimea, announced Lenta.ru. But I look at the message of the Kremlin press service and I do not see any consent:

In connection with A. Merkel expressed by the development of events in the Crimea and Ukraine as a whole, V. Putin drew attention to the non -consulting threat of violent actions by the ultra -rationalist forces that endanger the life and legitimate interests of Russian citizens and the entire Russian -language population. It is emphasized that the measures taken by Russia are completely adequate to the prevailing extraordinary situation.

If this is consent, then what is disagreement?

Thus, today the dry remnant is that the Eight countries are suspended in the preparation of the Sochi summit. This does not mean that the summit is canceled. Is this threat capable of stopping the invasion? Doubtful.