Well, of course, we didn’t hear anything unexpected here, but nevertheless it is necessary to take note of the fact: the newly elected head of the territory of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has now officially supported the United States joining the negotiations in the Norman format on the settlement of the conflict in Donbass. At least, he said this on Wednesday, August 28, at a meeting with the adviser to the American president on national security, John Bolton, who is now carrying out his next Eastern European voyage.
Actually, what else could you not even say in this situation, namely, what the head of the colonial native administration said, in fact, if the desire (together with the experiencing Brexit Great Britain, which is especially piquant in this situation) to "participate in the Norman format" was expressed brother in the person of the same Bolton: the only question here is whether Bolton himself agreed on such agility with his own superiors, for his superiors are now in the most obvious way, let’s say, a little before.
Although, perhaps, he agreed: everything is pretty bizarre there at the Washington Regional Committee, and Merkel and Macron, judging by the latest pictures from the G7, are not considered particularly trustworthy - so why not start them according to the good American tradition hedgehog, I'm sorry, underpants. And then watch with interest the reaction. On the Russian side, it will obviously be coldly neutral: the Russians have long been convinced that the situation there is pretty crafty.
The Normandy format, alas, is of little capacity: Kiev almost intentionally did not intend to proceed with the implementation of the Minsk Agreements and is not going to, and the sanctions policy towards Russia no less obviously reached an impasse. At the same time, there are not even remotely provided for any viable alternatives to the Normandy format, and neither the USA nor the new Ukrainian administration even voiced a possible agenda with which the Anglo-Saxons could come there.
Well, it’s not just “we’ve come to drink a little tea from the cold, but we’ll solve the problems at the same time”: after all, in global geopolitics it’s customary to understand why you came somewhere, but “just chatting for democracy” is not trivial in the format: speech , after all, it is about a non-healing bloody wound in the very center of Eastern Europe. And in conversations on this subject, one simply cannot do without understandable specifics: and if there is nothing to say so far, then why, in general, excuse me, did you come in?
Moreover, the Americans did not voice this agenda for an understandable and quite banal reason: they simply do not have it. Yes, no one even bothered to develop it, simply because the "citadel of democracy" is not very interested in blood pouring in the opposite hemisphere. And from the point of view of geopolitical tactics, paradoxical as it sounds, they are quite satisfied with the current state of affairs.
And, by the way, this is one of the most obvious tactical reasons why the inclusion of Americans and Britons even in the current, rather, excuse me, impotent Norman format seems absolutely inappropriate. It’s just that in this world everything depends on the correct and accurate setting of tasks, and such a task as the pacification of the territory is, by definition, not worth the Americans and the British.
They simply do not need it - even based on ordinary logic. Because anyone needs it: Ukrainians themselves, Russians, neighbors in the European subcontinent ... And for Americans with islanders, what sadness is that, sorry?
They fight and fight themselves - they are not the first, and they are not the last. Reconciling - well, no - also, in general, is normal: with the task of “we will make America great again”, as well as with Brexit, a peaceful settlement in the east of Ukraine does not correlate here at all, which, by the way, is repeatedly mentioned, as far as we know, said Bolton’s boss Donald Trump, who emphasized that “for the most part” Ukraine is still the “European question”. Hence, in fact, the “inexpediency” of the participation of Americans with the British in the Norman format: it is simply difficult for them to contribute something positive there, they will not be able to give this Norman format anything, but can only complicate everything.
Therefore, everything is simple here: there is such a well-known taxi driver’s phrase about "you check or go."
Sometimes it’s really possible to forget “about drafts” (however, recall for a second that the Minsk agreements adopted in the agreed Norman format passed the UN Security Council, and these are pretty serious “drafts”). But what is the point of getting into this broken-down, rattling rattle, if you are invited to forget about driving along with the "checkers"? And why, then, excuse me, were we going here at all? In order to turn everything that is happening into some regular “Geneva conference”, or something, and finally get the problem?
Well, this (not counting other cute little things - such as the one that all previous agreements would have to go along the beard), if it does, will not be Norman, but some other format.
But the main thing here is still not the point: from the point of view of both global politics and the global economy, our overseas partners in this rebellious territory have almost no goals and tasks unresolved. They are not interested in whoever says anything (except for speculative assets), or the famous Ukrainian chernozems (there are enough of them, take into account the specifics of the industry: the USA was not even interested in Argentine agriculture at one time - it was a big deal), nor Ukraine as a military bridgehead (without the Crimea it is, in general, completely uninteresting: the Americans are a sea people) - it’s too expensive to contain such beauty. And in order to denote pressure on the Russians in the current format, it is quite much cheaper to maintain the Baltic states, for example. Which countries, moreover, are already in fact members of NATO, and this further reduces the cost of the issue. Well, then why, excuse me, contain this horde?
It’s all simple: for some reason, when analyzing the geopolitical situation around the current territory of Ukraine, everyone trivially overlooks the so-called time factor, but it’s very serious here.
The fact is that even in the midst of the “Maidan” events, Ukraine, which at that time was the largest logistics center on the Eurasian transit routes, was a rather welcome prize for the Europeans, now it has turned from this prize into an equally obvious burden.
This means that the tasks have been practically completed (even gas transit has been completely eliminated, but it is not so long and difficult). So, you can minimize your business, hedge risks, cut hosts and give them slippers: it’s advisable to break everything there more or less.
Moreover, it’s not at all out of spite, but exclusively with pragmatic tasks: the Americans don’t really need this suitcase without a handle anymore, and whoever gets it from its competitors - at least Russians, at least the EU - the more they will bother with it later on the more resources they kill, the better. Somehow, it’s probably foolish for people with higher economic education to explain this nonsense. Therefore, the presence of Anglo-Saxon powers in the Norman format most closely resembles the famous Russian proverb about the admission of a goat to the garden: in this “garden”, and so, of course, everything is pretty well trodden, but this bearded bastard will devour all the rest, and even heap a heap of heaps right in the middle of the surface. Moreover, there is no sense in it anyway: goats milk, as is known from another Russian folk aphorism, unfortunately, is simply not given by definition.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.