Yuri Fedorov: President's dream

I think I will not be mistaken, suggesting that at the end of last week a lot of champagne was drunk in the Kremlin. Putin's dream came true: the US president, after long hesitation, finally agreed to meet him. Diplomats are trying to "determine the format" headlong. On their jargon, this means to agree on when exactly the meeting will take place; Will the presidents be shake hands or limit themselves with simple nods; How much time will be allotted to the press; Will there be a press conference and other procedural moments after the meeting. It is extremely difficult to determine the agenda and subject of the conversation: it is impossible to single out questions on which some positions are possible in a few days - although journalists carefully list the entire set of accumulated problems: Ukraine, Syria, “American cottages” of the Foreign Ministry ...

However, the lack of real results of the meeting is unlikely to upset Putin. He is important not so much a conversation as a photograph in which he shakes his hand to the leader of the most powerful power of the world. And if he is especially lucky, he, as if by chance, abandones reporters: "Donald and I discussed several world problems." Putin needs to neutralize at all costs, albeit partially, his shameful failure at a meeting with Emmanuel Macron . Indeed, in the Russian establishment, they are increasingly asking the question: do we need a president, from whom the powers that be disgusted out?

Successful Russian intellectuals, of course, express restrained optimism. Alexey Kudrin recalled that after the first personal contact of Putin with George Bush, "a significant part of the fears and prejudices was overcome." He expects that Putin and Trump "will present to each other a lot of arguments that will contribute to this." Naturally, Putin will not be Putin if he does not present his arguments: “And where is the evidence? And, in general, we are not there. And if we are there, then this is not us” - and so on. He can hint that Trump has the same ill -wishers in the US Congress. And share your own experience with parliamentarians, who unanimously support and approve the actions of the leader. However, drawing analogies between that long-standing meeting of Putin with Bush Jr. in Ljubljana and his upcoming date with Trump, Kudrin is mistaken. Then, 2001, the world puzzled over the question: Who is Mr Putin ? Today everyone knows well: Mr Putin is a “other reality”, inclined almost to children's lies and a politician entangled in his own intrigues, who unleashed aggression against a neighboring state. True, Kudrin cannot even hint at these circumstances.

Putin’s calculation is clear. The question, in fact, is different: why is the US President to meet with Putin, helping the Kremlin leader to correct a noticeably battered image and at the same time exposing his own at the same time? If the conspiracy theories do not repeat, then there can be two answers. First: personally warn the owner of the Kremlin that you should not play with fire. This means: it is time to stop deploying ground -based cruise missiles, grossly violating international agreements; Claces with American aircraft in Syria or South Baltic will turn into major troubles for Russia. The second: try to find the points of contact with the Kremlin, closing his eyes not only to the tightening authoritarian regime, but also on Putin’s causing behavior in the international arena - there and then where and when this does not directly affect American interests. This is called "pragmatic" politics, usually connecting it with the name of Henry Kissinger.

If President Trump really risk “normalizing” relations with Putin, without waiting for him to leave Ukraine and Syria, then NATO should double the efforts to protect the Baltic states

A classic example of Pragmatism of Kissinger is his assessment of the Paul Pot regime. In 1975, shortly after the half -pushers seized power in Cambodia, being the US Secretary of State,Kissinger said to the Thai Foreign Minister : “You must say to the Cambodians ( that is, the Red Khmers. - RS ) that we will be friends with them. They, of course, are bloody thugs, but we will not interfere with them. We are ready to improve relations with them.” This statement came to my mind when I found out about Kissinger’s next visit to Moscow.

By the way, the "pragmatic policy" of Kissinger often fails. So, his main task was to ensure the worthy exit of the United States from the war in Vietnam. For four years he conducted tedious negotiations in Paris, and finally, in January 1973, he signed a peace agreement. The future of South Vietnam was supposed to determine on the basis of free and democratic elections under international control, both American and Severovetnamian troops should have been withdrawn from there. The United States withdrew its troops, North Vietnam, of course, was not, and in January 1975 he captured the southern part of the country. In other words, Kissinger’s attempt to solve the problem on a “pragmatic” basis failed. Transactions with the devil do not lead to anything good.

But back today. The Moscow academician Alexander Dykinin suggested that the American president would “break out of his surroundings”, and expressed the opinion that the parties should “brush the figures from the board and start with a clean leaf”. It is clear that the academician wants to say something pleasant to his Kremlin curators. But he, like many of his colleagues, is mistaken. The tense state of Russian-American relations is caused by the intrigues of the malicious opponents of Trump and his environment. The American establishment is gradually being convinced that the actions of the Kremlin create a real threat to the security of the United States and their allies.

The point is not only in the intervention of Moscow in the American elections. In the winter of this year, in Russia, the deployment of high -range missiles has begun. This is a defiantly rude and provocative violation of the missiles of medium and lower range missiles. In Washington, in response, more and more persistent requirements are heard from this agreement. There was a real prospect of a new missile crisis in Europe, similar to the crisis of the 1970–80s. Then Mikhail Gorbachev was able to turn the resistance of the Soviet military clique, and small and medium -range missiles were eliminated. Putin is unlikely to represent how dangerous for Europe and especially for Russia a new missile crisis can be. But this is only one problem of many. If in Washington they close their eyes to the annexation of Crimea and hybrid aggression in the east of Ukraine, the next step of the Kremlin may well be the invasion of the Baltic countries. Something similar was already. In 2008, the United States and Europe did not respond to Moscow aggression against Georgia. In the Kremlin, this was considered proof of the weakness of the West and invaded Ukraine.

It is impossible to predict the results of the meeting of Trump and Putin. And yet, most likely, they will look into each other's eyes, say their “arguments” and part deeply dissatisfied with each other. With a good mine with a bad game. But if President Trump really risk “normalizing” relations with Putin, without waiting for him to leave Ukraine and Syria, then NATO should double the efforts to protect the Baltic states.

Yuri Fedorov - political expert

Opinions expressed under the section may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office