Let me start with the news: Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said at a press conference that until the very first day of the special operation, the United States was very actively involved in the diplomatic process and she was personally in constant contact with our Foreign Ministry.

She said that her country understood our security concerns and explained to Russian diplomats that there are many ways to address them.

Sherman says that we have repeatedly insisted on returning NATO to the 1997 borders - and this, in her opinion, is absurd: countries have the right to decide their own status within the framework of military alliances.

I don't know about 1997, but the fact that NATO should stop expanding to the east, we really talked almost every day.

They also reminded of the concept of the indivisibility of security: an alliance can call itself a defense alliance, but missiles and shells fly in the direction they are directed.

We see NATO weapons in Ukraine, which are aimed at Russia in the truest sense of the word.

So there is a clear illustration of our concerns.

In the 19th century, the United States formulated the Monroe Doctrine: we do not interfere in the affairs of Europe, but we will not allow military-political alliances near our borders either.

The beginning of the Cold War finally broke this principle, and its end and Russia's voluntary abandonment of the Warsaw Pact was regarded as an opportunity to establish new, monopolar rules of the game.

Almost immediately, NATO began its expansion.

A little later, "democratic" coups and revolutions began, including in the territory of the post-Soviet space.

By a surprising coincidence, the new regimes began their activities with an active rupture of political and economic ties with Russia.

Constantly - to the detriment of himself and common sense.

In addition to hosting the alliance's military infrastructure, there have been initiatives to provide plans for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine.

Saakashvili unleashed a war against South Ossetia not out of the blue: he had guarantees of intercession from the United States.

But even then we gave a signal: Russia will not allow the interests of peoples close to it to be infringed upon for the sake of Western strategies.

Then there was 2014 and Crimea.

We have given an even clearer signal that we will not allow chaos and outright threats near our borders.

But even this lesson did not lead to substantive negotiations.

Moreover, for all eight years, Ukraine has been made the main enemy of Russia.

If we consider the West as a threat to our sovereignty, there is a logic in these actions: it’s cool to have a second European army under your control and turn it against Russia at the right time.

The current geopolitical chaos is a man-made thing.

In parallel with it, there was a second consecutive economic crisis, and now the world is threatened by the famine that economists are talking about.

However, the EU, the UK and the US are doing nothing to end the conflict.

Apparently, they are satisfied with the planet, teetering on the brink of a comprehensive military conflict.

Maybe they are sure that the winner in it will get everything, if, of course, there is something left.

So I don't think the US will change its policy voluntarily.

But our position, as well as the position of other major states, will sooner or later lead to a new security architecture.

And Russia will play one of the key roles in this process.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.