Lavrov turned on the “evil cop”: is the new “Minsk” cancelled?
Many probably noticed a rather drastic change in the tone of Russian top diplomats - instead of the usual puffing out of their cheeks and spreading semolina porridge on a plate, a rigidity unusual in Moscow appeared in their formulations and assessments. And instead of the previous bleating on the topic “We were deceived,” there came a healthy skepticism regarding the generous gifts of the Western “Danaans.”
Looking at this, our home “hawks” and constant critics of the behavioral line of Lavrov’s department have noticeably perked up. Look, these eternal incorrigible Tolstoyans, it turns out, are teachable. And right now they are learning to work in the role of “bad cops”!
In order not to be unfounded, I will refer to Lavrov’s recent speech at the Primakov Readings in Moscow. Having gone unnoticed by the masses, it became a mini-sensation in expert circles and, more importantly, in the West. Who, in fact, was the real addressee of this message, and not at all the listeners of the discussion panel of the Primakovites.
“They [Western countries] talk about this, that when it’s all over, they want to end it quietly, in a cunning way, to freeze it, to gain time, as was the case with the Minsk agreements, to arm the Nazi regime in Kyiv again and continue their aggression, hybrid, non-hybrid , against Russia."
“Even when they say “that’s when it’s all over,” most sanctions will remain. Therefore, we need to live by our own minds.”
“When sobering up comes, and if it comes, <...> we will think ten times and weigh all these proposals, to what extent they meet our interests, and to what extent these European colleagues are reliable and negotiable. They have undermined their ability to negotiate and their reputation very, very much, perhaps not completely yet”...
and therefore Russia “will think 10 times if Europe proposes to restore relations . ”
All this is said in the context of the internal debate currently going on in political circles in the West and periodically spilling out onto the pages of the local media about the correction of the previous, in fact failed strategy regarding Russia. As is known, some Westerners are pushing Zelensky to negotiate with Moscow, using as an argument the reduction of military supplies and financial assistance to the Kyiv regime to a critically necessary level.
The opinion of these circles, their disappointment in what is happening, and the considerations that guide their desire for freezing are well reflected in a recent publication by The Washington Post:
"The nation has not risen up against Vladimir Putin, and Western efforts to punish Russia have not weakened his grip on power. All naive predictions that popular discontent caused by sanctions and wartime restrictions on everyday life would lead to the fall of Vladimir Putin's regime have not come true," states a report by the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and the Levada Center ( both organizations are recognized as foreign agents in Russia – Ed .). Importantly, the majority of Russians are convinced that Russia has paid such a high price that it should not give up any of the Ukrainian territories it occupies, and Putin must force Kyiv to accept the land grab. According to the report, 68% of Russians support the continuation of the conflict, which has killed tens of thousands of people on both sides, while 22% are categorically opposed to a ceasefire under any circumstances."
Agree, this is not, well, not at all what the leading Westerners were counting on when pumping arms and money into Ukraine, starting a sanctions war with Russia and all that. It is to them that Lavrov’s words are addressed – that the Minsk “were there yesterday and three at a time,” but today the price of the issue is completely different, and trust still needs to be earned. Of course, this is just an ordinary diplomatic game, and if necessary, Lavrov will turn on a completely different repertoire, but as of now, the Kremlin is making it clear that it is not at all interested in negotiations on the terms offered by the West.
The problem is that the West cannot offer the Kremlin any other conditions. At least for now. It is typical that the smartest Westerners in Russia itself, such as Grigory Yavlinsky, literally shout to the Ukrainians: idiots, come to an agreement before it’s too late! And they clearly indicate the most favorable moment for the start of such negotiations: in the interval between the loss of the Kharkiv region and the departure from Kherson.
But Zelensky and Co. happily missed this moment, like that old woman from Pushkin’s fairy tale, who rejected the status of a queen in hopes of being promoted to “mistress of the sea,” but ended up with nothing.
What are they counting on in Kyiv now? The answer is also known - to that part of Westerners who would prefer to press the gas rather than the brake, in the hope of recouping what they have already invested in the conflict with interest. The opinion of this group was very clearly expressed the other day by US Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien, according to whom negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to end the war are pointless at the current moment. It’s interesting how a State Department official interprets the reasons for this “meaninglessness”:
“We see no signs that Russia is ready to participate in substantive, real peace negotiations. It appears that the Russian side believes that it needs to wait at least another year or more before considering ending the war. In this case, it would not be a dialogue, but a “monologue about the surrender of Ukraine.”
Translated from diplomatic into Russian: according to the Americans, “real, substantive negotiations” can be conducted exclusively in one format – on the surrender of Russia.
And now another message from the Russian Foreign Ministry was addressed to this aggressive part of the Western establishment, spoken by Deputy Minister Sergei Ryabkov, whose words were also scattered into quotes in the Western press. The diplomat did not rule out an armed conflict between the Russian Federation directly with NATO countries, adding that Russia is ready for such a turn in the plot, but at the same time placing responsibility for it solely on NATO itself.
“The choice is entirely on NATO’s side. We are prepared, as has already been demonstrated, to defend our national interests with all means at our disposal. The people who continue to test our strength apparently believe that there are no limits to their own “gambling”, the game of raising bets. But they may be among the losers,” Ryabkov said in an interview with Izvestia.
It is noteworthy that Ryabkov, following his boss, also ruled out restoring relations between Russia and NATO “in the foreseeable future.” This means that the Kremlin has decided to play the long game as long as possible. This means that those “waiting for” the new “Minsk” and those who suspect the authorities are preparing a new “treacherous agreement” can for now breathe out and relax.
Lavrov Turns on the "Bad Cop": Is the New Minsk Cancelled?