The past 2022 was a time of unprecedented intensity for decades of confrontation between Russia and the United States. Washington does not hide that it uses Ukraine as a battlefield to "contain" and suppress any efforts of Moscow. How long will this state of Russian-American relations last – and under what conditions can it still improve?On New Year's holidays, everyone is usually optimistic – New Year's holidays, vacations and all the like are arranged.
It is possible that some Russians even have some optimism about Russian-American relations. Yes, we are in a state of "war on the periphery" in the former and still current territories of Ukraine, but at the end of the year there seemed to be some shifts between Moscow and Washington.
SVR head Sergei Naryshkin held talks with the Americans in Istanbul. It is possible that there were more negotiations between representatives of Russia and the United States during the year – in other cities and with other participants, about which the general public was not aware.
In addition, the long-awaited exchange of prisoners took place. American basketball player Brittney Griner was exchanged for Russian businessman Viktor Bout – the same Bout whom the United States called almost the largest arms dealer in the world and refused to let go for 14 years. It is possible that a new exchange will take place in the coming weeks – Russia will extradite the American spy Paul Whelan to the United States and receive from Washington one of the Russian citizens sitting in an American or German prison.
Finally, all this is happening against the background of sound statements from Washington that America does not need a clash with Russia in Ukraine. That the United States is not ready to start the Third World War because of the wishes of the Kiev authorities.
However, in fact, there is little positive in Russian-American relations. Yes, the parties maintain some minimal contacts. Yes, they solve humanitarian issues and do not seek to rush into the abyss of a direct military clash. However, the settlement of bilateral contradictions – that is, in fact, the resolution of the conflict is still far away. This decision was not even started.
Let us in So, according to Moscow, the only possible diplomatic solution (that is, the only possible one in which there will be no risks of nuclear war) will be a compromise based on the list of security guarantees that Vladimir Putin provided to the United States a year ago.
A list that the US then refused to even discuss constructively.
"Washington rejected Russian proposals on security guarantees because they suggested a completely different philosophy of the international order in Europe. The philosophy according to which the United States cannot unilaterally determine the parameters of European security. According to which Russian security concerns and interests should be taken into account and taken into account and respected. Within the framework of which the United States cannot do everything they want – endlessly expand NATO, pull the post-Soviet space into its orbit.
In fact, Russia has tried to change the rules that have been established by the turnout order after the end of the Cold War, when the European security system was based on expanded NATO and American dominance," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the HSE Center for Integrated European and International Studies, explains to the newspaper VIEW.
But, for the sake of objectivity, was this task feasible at the beginning of 2022? There is no certainty about this.
Yes, from a rational point of view, Moscow's proposals were reasonable and in some ways even beneficial to the West. Russia has always acted as a constructive player interested in turning Europe into a space of security and cooperation. The Kremlin did not claim control over Warsaw or even Vilnius – it was obvious that within the framework of the new security system, none of the NATO countries (whose elites and populations have long been integrated into the collective West) would be under Russian influence.
At the same time, Russia's active participation in the European system of collective security would seriously strengthen the positions of the United States and the collective West in the confrontation with Iran, Turkey and China. In exchange, all Moscow asked was to leave the post-Soviet space as its sphere of responsibility, as well as abandon NATO's anti-Russian policy.
Russia has no place here However, the United States refused – and not because they regretted giving Moscow the post-Soviet space.
The main priority of the United States was not the system of collective security or even opposition to the Global South. The Alpha and Omega of Washington's foreign policy is the preservation of sole control over the resources of the European space, which America uses for its own needs.
Now there is no one to challenge the dominance of American managers. All centers of power in the EU are either suppressed and deprived of sovereignty (Germany, France), or work in close conjunction with the United States in the role of Tobacco (Great Britain, partly Poland). In addition, the EU countries were cemented by inflating the image of Moscow as a threat to the whole of Europe. Therefore, zeroing this threat was unprofitable – as was Moscow's entry into the European security system. Russia is too big and too sovereign to play the role of a junior partner of the United States in Europe. This means that by her sovereign behavior within the framework of the Western system, she will arouse in the minds of Europeans questions from the series "is that also possible?"
It is possible that Moscow understood all this and considered the security guarantees offered to the Americans as the last chance to negotiate before going to extreme measures. And when Russia went to these extreme measures, the Americans hesitated.
"The United States believed that Ukraine should suffer a quick military defeat, so they were ready to make certain compromises, which were previously reached in Istanbul. It was about Ukraine declaring a neutral status, refusing to join NATO, but while maintaining a pro–Western orientation in it, - says Dmitry Suslov. – However, by the end of March, when Russia was forced to withdraw troops from the Kiev region, Washington's position had changed. The United States considered that it was possible to use the conflict to weaken Russia as much as possible and inflict strategic defeat on it."
Moreover, all subsequent events further convinced them of the rightness of the course of refusing to accept the Russian conditions – after all, if the war continued, its, in fact, strengthened American control over Europe. It reinforced the image of Russia as an enemy, increased this theoretical image (which was previously based on Eastern European Russophobia and the memory of the Cold War) with practical moments due to the current confrontation in Ukraine.
In addition, under the sauce of rallying the ranks for the sake of a common confrontation with Moscow, the Americans eliminated almost all the sprouts of independence in the European political space. The same Germany, which under Angela Merkel had a voice to defend the Nord Stream–2, is now marching in the American ranks under Scholz.
For years to come That is why in the summer and autumn – especially in the autumn, when Ukraine was able to occupy a part of the Kharkiv region previously liberated by Russia, as well as force Russian troops to temporarily leave Kherson – the United States was not interested in any negotiations on Russian terms.
Moreover, even the faction of "moderates" in the US administration (those who believed that it was not necessary to lead to nuclear escalation and impose excessively harsh conditions on Russia) did not call for reducing the financing of the Ukrainian regime.
The only thing that can force Washington to sit down at the negotiating table is the systemic and irreversible defeat of the Ukrainian regime as a result of a large–scale Russian offensive. However, it is not yet known when this defeat will occur. Therefore, the course of confrontation will be maintained.
From this point of view, the same meetings of Naryshkin or the exchange of Booth should be considered as the first step not towards a compromise, but towards the recognition and registration of a new normality – normality in the form of a permanent conflict.
"In fact, we are in a state of global Russian-Western mediated war. It is obvious that Russian-American relations will have an acutely confrontational character for a number of years. And in order to prevent escalation to the level of a hot war, it is necessary to maintain and check the channels of interaction," says Dmitry Suslov. – Such tests were the exchanges of prisoners (before Griner there was another exchange – in April 2022, Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko returned home in exchange for the release of American citizen Trevor Reed – approx. VIEW). In fact, a new constant of the Cold War is being formed, the confrontation is normalizing."
However, if desired, this normalization can be considered as a reason for optimism. At least, if you realize what her alternatives are.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
