New sincerity. Harry Kasparov about why Biden’s words about “Putin killer” are not a bravado, but a change of course

(With an alternative point of view, according to which Biden made a diplomatic mistake, you can find James Sherra’s column from the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute).

Biden’s affirmative answer to the question “is Putin the killer” is not a bravado, a forced decision. It was important to hear from the leader of the free world that Putin with his regime and Russia are not the same thing.

This prepared, in my opinion, question and a conscious answer to it were needed for another reason. Biden once again recorded the difference in his approach to Russia compared to the previous administration. Trump said to a very similar question in an interview with Fox News: we, they say, are also not without sin. Biden clearly said: “Yes!”, And this seemed to have a shock in the Kremlin, because they were not ready for such frankness there.

In the Kremlin, Biden was not ready for such frankness

They are used to the fact that the West can somehow scold them and threaten a finger. But Biden translated the confrontation into a different plane. Moreover, we see how this determination of the American president is reinforced by a whole complex of sanctions measures, which, finally, begin to look like sanctions that potentially threaten the well -being and stability of the Putin regime.

It is well known that you can roll out a whole sanctions set that will not have serious consequences for the regime. But this time, in my opinion, we are talking about such a wide package, for example, about the ban, as in Soviet times, supplies of high -tech products. It is not yet clear which industries will affect, but for the Kremlin it will definitely be painful. Moreover, in the future, this will have serious consequences, because the supply of such technologies require long -term coordination, which means that the sanctions will repel the desire for many companies to work in the Russian market.

It is important that the Biden administration confirmed its opposition to North Stream-2, although many doubted that this would happen. And here lies a very important point for those who do not pay attention to the subtleties that go beyond diplomatic etiquette. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo also spoke a lot of correct things, but Trump leveled all his rhetoric. Therefore, to say that the previous administration had a tough policy in relation to Russia, at least naive. Biden recorded the most stringent position, and then Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Minister of Defense Lloyd Austin are already entering into business. In all key directions, American politics goes into the channel of a clear confrontation with Putin and Putin's dictatorship.

American politics goes into a channel of clear confrontation with Putin's dictatorship

This is indirectly evidenced, for example, the actions of the Ukrainian authorities. Under Trump, Zelensky was afraid to say anything to Putin. Moreover, there is a lot of evidence that in the immediate environment of the head of Ukraine, work was conducted against the interests of Ukrainian statehood. Now, the Zelensky administration actually enters into a response hybrid war against Putin: prohibits three pro-Russian television channels, imposes sanctions against Viktor Medvedchuk and his family, de facto leaves the Minsk process.

The courage of Zelensky is certainly connected with the fact that he knows the American position, knows how Washington will behave in the event of a new round of armed confrontation.

Putin, given the situation in Russia and his difficulties in communicating with world leaders, can decide on aggressive actions in Ukraine. However, it seems that Washington and Kyiv are ready for such a scenario. This can create a situation in which Putin’s regime may face the biggest problem for any Russian undemocratic power (and, it doesn’t matter whether this is a monarchy or a dictatorship) with a geopolitical defeat.

Let me remind you that all major reforms in Russia over the past two centuries have been associated either with a military or geopolitical failure. The reform of serfdom was certainly a consequence of a crushing defeat in the Crimean War, which demonstrated the complete unpreparedness of Russia to resist England and France, leading democracies of the world. To create a competitive economy in Russia and modernization of the army and navy, it was necessary to carry out reforms. The manifesto of Nicholas II is a direct result of the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. 1917 is the country's fatigue from an endless war. She was not lost, but she showed that the monarchy could not cope with these challenges. Gorbachev’s restructuring and the collapse of the USSR is the result of defeat in the Cold War and Afghanistan. The empire that cannot expand and which retreats is doomed.

All major reforms in Russia over the past two centuries have been associated either with the military or geopolitical failure

Putin's Russia did not yet have such an important factor that would lead to the collapse of the dictatorship and to crushing defeat. Aggression against Georgia, the capture of the Crimea, the incitement of the war in the Donbass, participation in the war in Syria is a series of local geopolitical successes, which allowed Putin to gain authority both in the eyes of his colleague dictators and in the eyes of the whole world, because he looked invulnerable.

In such a situation, there is always a desire to hold a victorious war. But today it may turn out to be an extremely risky operation, fraught with the most serious consequences for the regime. The situation in the world has changed, and the reaction of the West will be completely different-it is precisely because of Biden’s position against the backdrop of the cowardly and inconsistent position of Europeans. Europe is clearly not ready for confrontation, not least due to corruption. So changing the position of the American administration may be an extremely unpleasant surprise for Putin. Moreover, if Ukraine receives even a small amount of modern warfare from the Americans, the result of the confrontation may not be at all the same as mediocre Russian generals see it. The army led by Shoigu is already a diagnosis. They can fight like a punks in the gateway - only when they are much stronger when you can bomb Syrian cities with impunity, where there are no air defense systems. But a new clash in Ukraine may be completely different.

In addition, in the case of Russian aggression against Ukraine, not to mention the Baltic countries, America will really roll out the most stringent package of sanctions, taking into account that the money of the Putin elite is in the West. I assume that there will be a disconnection from the SWIFT network. But while Biden, although he sends a clear signal to the Kremlin, who he sees Putin, at the same time as an old and experienced politician talks about the need to negotiate on mutually important issues, such as SNV-3. And this is a completely reasonable position. Even Ronald Reagan, who cannot be suspected of excessive sympathy for the Evil Empire, did not refuse negotiations.

Even Ronald Reagan did not refuse negotiations with the Empire of Evil

True, by and large, outside the theme of nuclear disarmament, there is nothing to talk about the parties. The Biden administration is concerned with climatic problems - but Russia is not an ally in this matter, because it is almost the main pollutant in the world. If you look at the world map, it is quite obvious that in the problems that require the participation of the United States, Russia plays the role of the arsonist. Washington has a Chinese problem, but it is strategic: Biden for too many years to think about what will happen to China in 10-15 years, when this confrontation reaches a different level. And the problems of Russia, from the point of view of America, are urgent. The actions of Putin as a firm of conflicts are much more dangerous. In addition, behind China, no matter how you relate to it, economic power is worth it. And Putin has nothing but corruption, nuclear blackmail and political will - like any dictator, which has not yet been stopped.

For Putin, confrontation with the West is a geopolitical revenge for the defeat of not even the USSR, but a totalitarian system. Putin hates democracy, the very idea of ​​civilian freedoms, which deeply contradicts his nature. Therefore, the Archizadach Putin is a weakening, and ideally, the denunciation of structures such as NATO and the European Union, that is, the return of peace to the era when everything was decided by several superpowers at a large table in the geopolitical casino, and everyone else had to wait for the decisions of their fate at the entrance.

Therefore, when Biden answered in the affirmative to the “killer” in an interview with ABC, he meant a set of accusations, and not just an attempt to kill Alexei Navalny, as was interpreted by a number of experts. And this nuance should take into account the Navalny team, which appeals to the West and requires sanctions and more severe pressure on Putin. In these conditions, to oppose yourself to the free world, defiantly pointing the Crimea on the map of ready to reach protests - this is a mistake that will inevitably have consequences. Moreover, ignoring the requirements to remove Crimea from a protest card - in my opinion, this is playing along with the Kremlin propaganda. One of the problems with Navalny is that in its political history there are many statements that are considered absolutely unacceptable in the West. And this, as the story with Amnesty International, which deprived the all -in -law of the prisoner of conscience, has shown, is skillfully used by Putin's propaganda.

I have to spend a lot of time protecting Navalny in Western media, saying that even the most serious political disagreements should fade into the background, because his life is now in a serious danger. For his courage and perseverance, he can pay the largest price. Under these conditions, the next reminder of the incident of Navalny’s inconsistent position in the Crimea is the leveling of our efforts to mobilize the world community in his support.

And, in addition, the Navalny team should not forget that in Russia not one political prisoner, but several hundred. The transition from the slogan “Freedom to Navalny” to “Freedom Political Personal” would expand the border of protest, would have connected it with not one person, but with the entire dictatorial regime. Navalny - a catalyst for a mass protest movement, which in Russia again began to gain momentum. The main thing is that the energy of a new protest wave, rising against the background of favorable changes in the geopolitical conjuncture, is not wasted again wasted into fictitious, completely controlled by the Kremlin, electoral procedures.