Recently, there have been more and more reports that, nevertheless, negotiations are underway between the main antagonists of international politics - Russia and the United States. What are Moscow and Washington talking about now, which makes us doubt the sincerity of the United States - and are there any chances to agree on Ukraine?The moves of international diplomacy are bizarre.
President Joseph Biden officially almost heads a global company to isolate Russia, and at the same time senior officials of his administration are conducting non-public negotiations with Moscow. This is reported not only by the American media, but also by official representatives of the White House.
In turn, Moscow has never refused to negotiate with the United States. "Yes, there are big difficulties – they were immediately identified by the Russian leadership. Vladimir Putin has often said that the United States easily renounces any agreements and cannot be trusted," political scientist, RIAC expert Elena Suponina explains to the newspaper VIEW. "So, of course, there is no mutual trust, but at the same time there is no possibility to refuse such contacts, because too much is at stake."
According to Suponina, back on February 21, at a memorable meeting of the Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev said that negotiations with the West should be conducted. And first of all, we need to talk to the United States, because everyone else will do what Washington says.
Rockets without Cheating As for the specific topics of real discussions, Moscow initially did not comment on such information.
"You know that the fabric of our relations is very thin right now. There is no need to talk about dialogue. But any sporadic, even non-systemic, and there are no systemic contacts, these sporadic contacts cannot be announced in advance," said Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin's press secretary.
However, on November 11, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that a meeting of the bilateral advisory commission of representatives of Russia and the United States on the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START), which regulates the number of nuclear warheads and carriers from the parties, will be held in Cairo in late November – early December.
The meetings themselves will last about a week – and it is clear why, because a whole series of issues will be discussed at it. Among them are the resumption of inspections, the US attempt to withdraw a number of carriers from the treaty (which, according to Washington, are used for non-nuclear operations). "Because of this, there is a situation when the Americans de facto have at their disposal a significant number of strategic carriers, namely heavy bombers and ballistic missile launchers of submarines, which at least do not fit into the requirements of the treaty," Sergei Ryabkov explains.
Indeed, the START theme is important for both States. "Here the parties have corresponding claims to each other, but regardless of the state of Russian-American relations and total distrust, it is important to discuss the implementation of the START-3 treaty while it is in effect. In addition, it is also important to move on to a dialogue on the outline of strategic stability issues after this treaty expires.
It is clear that we will not be able to work out any new agreement, but it is nevertheless necessary to talk about the prospects of strategic stability," Dmitry Suslov explains.
And not just to talk about prospects, but to develop some new format of dialogue on nuclear stability, which takes into account the new realities in bilateral relations. So, Dmitry Suslov continues, "the decision of the parties to resume this dialogue indicates that the hybrid war between Russia and the United States will last for a long time, that both sides perceive this hybrid war as a new norm and adapt to it."
"2 on 1" did not work out Meanwhile, the Russian-American negotiations do not end at the START.
The parties are discussing not only missiles, but also people.
"Contacts between the United States and Russia have not been interrupted all the time of the conflict. According to my data, first of all it was about contacts on so-called "humanitarian issues". In particular, about the exchange of prisoners, an example of which is the return of pilot Yaroshenko to Russia in April. Similar issues are being discussed now – we are talking about the exchange of Viktor Bout and some other prisoners who are sitting not only in the USA, but also in the EU. On the American side, they are talking about the athlete Brittney Griner, as well as Paul Whelan, accused of espionage," explains Elena Suponina.
According to Suponina, both former American officials (for example, former US Energy Secretary Bill Richardson) and individual countries can play the role of mediators in these negotiations. For example, Turkey, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia and some others.
For Joseph Biden, the fate of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan was of particular importance before the midterm congressional elections – the American president wanted to "bring Americans home" and thereby score political points. However, it is believed that his formula "we change two Americans for one Russian" did not suit Moscow. Russia demanded the exchange of two for two – that is, to attach Vadim Krasikov, who is sitting in Germany on charges of murdering Chechen terrorist Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, to Paul Whelan.
Judging by the fact that the other day Brittney Griner was transferred from a pre-trial detention center to a colony (where she must serve 9 years for drug smuggling), so far the parties have not agreed. But just for now. "The United States will offer some new conditions and this dialogue is also being conducted regardless of the general climate and total distrust between our sides," Dmitry Suslov believes.
Experts believe that an exchange deal can become a plausible excuse and a springboard for negotiations on other important issues. In particular, on resolving the US-Russian contradictions over Ukraine.
In fact, of course, negotiations related to the situation in Ukraine are already underway. "In particular, about managing escalation and reducing the risks of its occurrence. That is, simply put, preventing a direct military clash between Russia and the United States with a nuclear component," says Dmitry Suslov. - The parties discuss, respectively, the limits of permissible red lines, stipulate the likely answers to each other's steps. Discussion of this topic is absolutely necessary without taking into account the total distrust between Russia and the United States simply because the risk of escalation is high – otherwise there would not have been these consultations. Neither Russia nor the United States is interested in World War III and the use of nuclear weapons."
Nevertheless, the Americans claim that this is not a negotiation "on Ukraine" and does not violate their formula "no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine". The statement is doubtful, of course.
"The fact that Ukraine is allegedly taken out of the bracket during these contacts is rather a slyness on the conscience of those who say this. Maybe this is true during individual meetings, but in general it is always implied that the Ukrainian issue is present," says Elena Suponina. In addition, it is reliably known that they are discussing this with their allies without Ukraine, which already violates this principle," Dmitry Suslov says.
If you believe a number of media reports, the Americans are also negotiating directly on Ukraine directly with Russia. The parties are trying to find ways to compromise – situations where both Russia and the United States can declare themselves winners.
However, to date, the parties have not yet found anything. There is a lot of indirect evidence of this – and one of them is the refusal of the parties to hold official bilateral talks at the G20 summit.
"The Putin-Biden summit did not take place and will not take place on the sidelines of the G20, because we do not even have any preliminary agreements on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. Such a dialogue and even such contact could make sense if the conflict was at least suspended and if the parties had certain preliminary agreements on the contours of a peaceful settlement. Until this happens, then there will be no corresponding meetings," says Dmitry Suslov.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
