The mood of the observers is extremely cautious.
Burnt in milk - this applies not only to Gorbachev's triumphs of detente, but even to dates with Trump - are now blowing on water.
A well-known exception is the already very pique vests, they are also sofa analysts, who immediately give out a lot of scenarios.
From the complete isolation of Russia and even almost a war with a united, as never before, the Western world to the miraculous transformation of V.V.
Putin to M.S.
Gorbachev.
Those will make a "hand hoh" in all directions, after which a complete harmonium will come.
As you know, talking nonsense is not to roll bags.
People who are somewhat more responsible see much more serious restrictions on the joint political creativity of the two presidents.
As for the American sovereign, there is especially no need to prove anything here. The example of Trump, whom Congress put a spoke in the wheels with some wild ecstasy, is obvious. And not just Trump. The separation of powers may be a great and excellent thing, but if the president's foreign policy decision is a little beyond the general consensus, the matter ends in slowdown. There are a lot of cases, starting with Woodrow Wilson: he ardently defended the creation of the League of Nations at Versailles, the League was created, but without the participation of the main trick. Congress did not want to.
Both the Americans themselves and those who deal with them are well aware of this feature of the US political structure and, accordingly, have it in mind.
If the signature of the leader of some other power (we do not take into account Ukraine) means a lot, then the signature of the US President means much less, because the Congress can always come out with “no permission”.
And that's all, and will not be.
In 1968 L.I.
Brezhnev admonished the rebellious satellite A. Dubchek: “Do you think that you can do whatever you want?
Even I, at best, can do 10% of what I want. "
What percentage does V.V.
Putin is hard to say.
Again, Gorbachev's experience is there.
For example, it is impossible to "evacuate" Crimea under any weather conditions.
So the terms of friendship in the form of leaving Crimea and Donbass to their own devices are completely counterproductive.
Therefore, unlike the fantastically wide corridor of fantasies, the real corridor of possibilities was and will be extremely narrow.
Restoration of full-fledged diplomatic and consular relations.
This is real and meets the interests of both parties.
Perhaps some - not now, but in the future - arms control measures.
Perhaps - again in the future - the interaction of special services in the cybersphere.
Nobody needs a mess here.
An exchange of prisoners would be nice - a renewal of the traditions of the Berlin Glienicke Bridge.
But working out an exchange formula is an extremely difficult task.
But at least all of the above is not impossible.
With good will on both sides - why not try.
Whereas the genre "be realistic - demand the impossible" is best left to meaningless dreamers.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.