Two-faced gain: Moscow sees attempts by the EU and NATO to hinder the settlement
Despite the willingness of some European politicians to talk to Russia, Moscow records attempts by the leadership of NATO and the EU to hinder the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian Foreign Ministry told Izvestia. Our country is ready for contacts, but the initiative for dialogue should come from the Europeans, since it was not Russia that destroyed the ties. And the conversation should be conducted taking into account the realities on earth. Vladimir Putin said that Russia supports any steps to restore relations with the European Union as a whole and with individual European countries. At the same time, he warned that there would be "no winners" in a possible military conflict between Russia and Europe, and warned against a repeat of the Strait of Hormuz scenario in the Baltic.
The prospect of negotiations
Russia is ready for contacts with the EU and NATO, but it was not Moscow that interrupted them, "accordingly, the initiative for dialogue should come from the Europeans," Vladislav Maslennikov, director of the Department of European Problems at the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Izvestia.
— Some European politicians are beginning to understand the need to restore contacts. At the same time, the leadership of the European Union, the North Atlantic Alliance, and many of their member countries have been working for months to ensure that there is no settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, undermining the negotiating efforts of the United States. And they say into the microphone that, they say, it is Russia that stands from maximalist positions and does not demonstrate readiness for negotiations," the diplomat added.
At the same time, according to him, the desire of the Europeans to "squeeze in" the negotiations and not be left out is clearly visible.
— However, from what position do the Europeans see themselves at the negotiating table? With the ultimatums that the head of EU diplomacy, Kaya Kallas, publicly repeats? In general, it would be strange to talk without taking into account the realities on earth by Europeans," Vladislav Maslennikov emphasized.
While the United States, the main force of NATO, pragmatically maintains direct channels of communication with Moscow, European capitals continue to rely on sanctions pressure and harsh rhetoric to the detriment of full—fledged diplomacy. Statements that Europe should participate in the negotiation process are made regularly, but they are not followed by any constructive steps on the part of the European Union. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia, like the United States, hardly needs EU participants in the negotiations on Ukraine, whose position is provocative and aimed at fomenting conflict. A trilateral meeting of Moscow, Washington and Kiev is scheduled for November. It is expected to be held in the UAE.
On the European side, the only positive thing lately has been, in fact, Vladimir Putin's telephone conversation with Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Harrer, which provoked a contradictory reaction in the Western camp.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico spoke positively about this conversation. He said that the West has finally realized the need for direct dialogue with Moscow. Slovakia is now practically the only EU country that is determined to develop relations with Russia. This is confirmed, in particular, by the recent visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Yuri Blanar to the Russian Federation and the resumption of the work of the intergovernmental commission.
At the same time, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen severely criticized the fact of the telephone conversation, considering that it had not been properly coordinated at the pan-European level. Politico, citing its sources, noted that a number of capitals expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of Stubb and Stere, regarding them as a step undermining the notorious "European unity."
The British newspaper Financial Times tried to disavow the significance of the hour-and-a-half conversation, saying, citing its own data, that the Russian leader devoted a significant part of the telephone conversation to a story about medieval Slavic history, and the call itself was unsuccessful. However, the Finnish and Norwegian sides promptly denied these allegations, calling them false, and demanded that the editors make corrections. In Oslo and Helsinki, it was emphasized that Vladimir Putin has been presenting the Russian position on the root causes of the crisis in the context of events exclusively since 2014.
The Russian leader himself positively assessed the call between Stubb and Stera, noting that Russia supports any steps to restore relations with both the EU as a whole and individual countries within it.
The Head of State stressed that now many in Europe are only talking about preparing for war by 2030. At the same time, Moscow, although ready, does not want any conflict.
— They have not achieved their goal now – to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, it is unlikely that this will be possible by 2030. And if it goes too far, there will be no winners at all. Let no one forget about this," Putin said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also warned against a repeat of the situation in the Baltic Sea, as in the Strait of Hormuz.
Who in the West is interested in continuing the conflict
According to Andrei Kortunov, scientific director of the Russian International Affairs Council, the prolongation of the Ukrainian crisis is due to the interests of the coalition of Western forces, which can be divided into three key groups.
First, there are the economic and political circles associated with the military-industrial complex and the militarization of Europe. Changing budget priorities in favor of arms purchases brings direct benefits to the structures that control these defense assets, including in the United States.
At the same time, the American political scene demonstrates a deep internal split. The Washington establishment is ambivalent about the pragmatic steps taken by the Donald Trump administration, from plans to reduce direct military assistance to Kiev to concluding a diesel deal with Moscow. A number of lawmakers and representatives of the US defense sector express open dissatisfaction with the fact that the White House is shifting its focus from the geopolitical confrontation to economic agreements with Russia in order to stabilize domestic fuel prices.
Secondly, the continuation of the confrontation is beneficial to the political leadership of European countries. Against the background of serious internal disagreements, a tough position towards the Russian Federation remains perhaps the only factor that allows maintaining the appearance of European unity. Without the Ukrainian issue, it is much more difficult for Brussels to contain the centrifugal forces on the continent.
An example of such destructive processes was not only the crisis in Ceuta, when an influx of migrants forced Italy to suspend the Schengen Agreement with Spain. The European Union is also torn apart by deep disputes over fiscal and agricultural policies, subsidies for the green transition, as well as growing contradictions between Brussels and national governments defending their economic sovereignty. These problems prove that solidarity within the EU easily collapses as soon as it comes to the internal interests of specific states.
Third, neoliberalist ideologues play an important role in preventing a settlement. For them, the confrontation with Moscow is dogmatic. The current agenda helps them to keep the audience's attention during the deteriorating socio-economic situation in the West and the growing public fatigue from the Ukrainian issue. In addition, there is a private interest here — maintaining the status quo, career positions, access to resources and media platforms.
At the same time, for a significant part of the political class in the EU, the return to diplomacy is complicated by the reputational factor. For several years, many European leaders have been assuring the public of Russia's imminent economic collapse and the imminent victory of the West, justifying the enormous costs to taxpayers with the imaginary "Russian threat." At the same time, Brussels deliberately ignored incidents critical to its own security, such as the explosion of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Under the current circumstances, to enter into a direct dialogue with Moscow for these politicians means admitting defeat and acknowledging the correctness of their opponents — former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and others who initially called for a pragmatic settlement.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
