US State Department spokesman Ned Price sternly demanded that Russia explain the "provocations on the Ukrainian border."
By such, Price meant the movement of troops across the territory of the Russian Federation.
Such a qualifying sign of provocation as a clash with a neighbor or shelling of a neighboring territory was not observed in Russia's actions, however, the representative of the State Department understands the meaning of the word “provocation” broadly.
The United States regards Russia's actions, including the "build-up of forces near the border with Ukraine," as an escalation and, consequently, a provocation.
And in general: "The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with its partner - Ukraine - in the face of attempts to intimidate it by Russia, and the United States is concerned about any attempts by Moscow to intimidate Ukraine, wherever these attempts are carried out - on Russian territory or on the territory of Ukraine" ...
From Moscow they answered: "God will give."
Deputy Foreign Minister S.A.
Ryabkov noted that "Russia is taking the steps on its territory that it considers necessary, and completely ignores signals from the United States that have nothing to do with this."
These words spoken with great fervor produced the desired effect.
The representative of the State Department changed the tone and announced that the United States was ready for a dialogue with Russia on the situation around Ukraine: "We are open to communication with Moscow."
Once again, American diplomacy caused not fear or anger, but only bewilderment: "What was that?"
From a formal point of view, there was, of course, no reason whatsoever to demand Russia to answer.
On our own land, wherever we want, we march there.
And the strict requirements voiced by the senior assistant to the junior groom are either completely exorbitant megalomania, or the absence of any idea of diplomatic etiquette at all.
Moreover, there are no precedents for such curiosity.
Many powers - both large and small - would be interested to know where some US fleet is sailing and what it has forgotten there.
But since in international waters the fleet sails wherever it wants, it has the right, it is customary to satisfy curiosity about at least land, at least bulk movements of another power in a different way.
And it has long been known.
This method is called communication through diplomatic channels.
The representative of the country concerned meets somewhere with the representative of the country for which there are questions.
And it clarifies the meaning of the maneuvers to which the respected partner is undoubtedly entitled, but which cause concern among some other powers.
And is it possible to agree on a reduction in military activity.
We, of course, understand the reasons for Marshal Voroshilov, who once said about border exercises: "It is never harmful to scare," but, nevertheless, is it possible to scare less actively in this place and at this time?
And in the course of a private confidential conversation, diplomats come (or do not come - that's how God willing) to some compromise solution.
For example, the US incites Ukraine less (or Ukraine incites the US less), and as a reciprocal courtesy, exercises on the border with Ukraine are being conducted on a smaller scale.
For such cases, in fact, the diplomatic departments, including the State Department, are kept.
Clashes of interest are inevitable, but with intelligence and tact, some conflicts can be ironed out without letting them become overly proliferated.
The way of doing business, chosen by the United States, in which at first some State Department clerk with all honest people behaves like the ruler of the world, after which, having received a shock, he says that we are for peace and dialogue and in general I am not like that, I am waiting for a tram, seems less productive.
This does not contribute to respect for such a power, but contributes to the confidence that such a partner should be kept strict.
Unless the formidable Blinken is also an agent of Moscow.
They have been bred lately as uncut dogs.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.