New Cold War: Suspicions of convergence on a background of tension

By Costas Raptis

No krypton. The written answers of the USA and NATO to the two draft international treaties submitted to them by Russia, claiming legally binding security guarantees, were leaked in their entirety, and even in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, although the American side had explicitly asked them to remain confidential. “give space to diplomacy”.

And reading both texts confirms the general crisis expressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after their receipt: that the US response is more lenient than that of NATO. To be precise, it paves the way for possible arrangements for the mutual removal of intermediate-range missiles, the deepening of the nuclear weapons control framework, the transparency of military exercises and the commitment not to deploy Tomahawk anti-aircraft missile systems. Poland and Romania (verifiable from the Russian side, with mutual inspection of two American bases in Russia).

At the same time, of course, Washington’s response raises other demands from Moscow – e.g. on the diversification of its nuclear arsenal, the actions of its Navy and Air Force in international waters and airspace and so on. But that’s exactly what trading means. After all, Russia’s maximalist position that NATO should step back from its 1997 position also has a negotiating function.

But the fact that even the protagonist of the Ukrainian crisis, US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, in an interview with TASS hints at the concept of “indivisible collective security”, embodied in the founding of the OSCE and most recently shown by Moscow that underground convergences are perhaps greater than previously thought.

On the contrary, the NATO text looks more like an ideological manifesto. And the difference in style and content can not be accidental.

Redemption of time?

Washington (in order to prevent a possible escalation that now causes the same awe) approaches a give and take that for reasons of prestige it does not want to name as such, leaving to its most Russophobic allies, such as Poland and the Baltics Democrats, the satisfaction of NATO’s “arrogant” stance? Or is it just a role-playing game in order to buy time?

In any case, Russia’s central demand, that is, Ukraine not to join the Atlantic Alliance in the future, remains unanswered, since the United States has always supported NATO’s “Open Doors” policy.

A fact that leads us to the next crucial question: What will be (in the field no longer of consultation, but of action) the Kremlin’s response? The quasi-ultimatum, which was the delivery of two draft international treaties to the United States and NATO, was an explicit attempt to counter what Russia sees as a tactic of gradually encircling it by “salamiizing” its security concerns. Therefore, Vladimir Putin has committed himself and the entire Russian elite in advance to a prospect of overturning the balance of power “on the ground,” without further ado that will eliminate the advantage of surprise.

Symbolic shots

Does this mean military action against Ukraine, as Western officials and the media have been insisting for months now? Unknown. Moscow has said it has no such intention – and the interesting thing is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is also in a hurry to make reassuring assessments, disrupting his relationship with Joe Biden, as their latest tumultuous telephone conversation has shown.

At present, those interested are limited to small symbolic shots. The US president announced the deployment of another 3,000 troops to Eastern Europe (a number of importance, of course, purely political, rather than operational), while Russia banned Deutsche Welle from operating in its territory in retaliation for German obstruction of its German-language program. Russia Today. But diplomacy does not remain inactive, judging by the positive atmosphere in which the meetings “composed of Normandy” (France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine) continue and of course the impending transition of the extremely “lukewarm”, with Cold War criteria, Chancellor Olaf Solts in Washington on Monday, with a future destination in Moscow.

How the Eurasian forces are coordinated

But now Putin is, literally and figuratively, somewhere else. His presence in Beijing for the start of the Winter Olympics gave him the opportunity for an extensive substantive discussion yesterday with Xi Jinping, in the first meeting that the Chinese president had with his foreign counterpart after the outbreak of the pandemic.

The Kremlin strongman objectively has the lead among the 32 leaders in Beijing, as the first to officially confirm his departure, at a time when the Anglo-Saxon powers were promoting the idea of ​​a diplomatic boycott of the Chinese organization as well. who is set to co-sign an “important political document” and various agreements with Zonganghai’s tenant.

Russia has every reason to show the political support it has received these days from China, for example at the UN Security Council meeting that the US tried to provoke on the Ukrainian issue. During the meeting between the Foreign Ministers of Russia and China in preparation for the meeting of their leaders, Wang Yi stressed to Sergei Lavrov that Beijing understands and supports Moscow’s position in the negotiations with the US and NATO. And Russia is retaliating by supporting China on the Taiwan issue.

Disconnection infrastructure

It was not immediately clear when the new steps in promoting the Sino-Russian “strategic relationship” concerned China’s energy supply, through the new Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, the interconnection of alternative payment systems to Swift. which the two countries are developing or investment and armaments agreements. In any case, the infrastructure for a major disconnection from the West is being prepared methodically.

Hence the weighty statement by State Department spokesman Ned Price that the US has “a range of tools” against companies, even Chinese, that will try to circumvent any new US sanctions. “If Russia adds that it thinks it will mitigate the effects through a closer relationship with China, it is wrong.”