What is Russia's strong position in negotiations with the US?
It became known what, in fact, was known before: the United States rejected proposals to provide security guarantees in the version proposed by Russia. The main issue - the expansion of NATO - was not included on the agenda. In fact, there were no negotiations, there were probing meetings of the two delegations, about which it was known in advance that the demands of the parties were maximally overstated and had no potential for mitigation.
The Russian Foreign Ministry did not hide that it did not believe in the possibility of agreements. Negotiations were held not at the highest level, but at the level of deputy foreign ministers (from the US State Department). Not only Putin and Biden, but also Lavrov and Blinken remained uninvolved in the results of the meeting in Geneva.
The American side, through Blinken's mouth, on the eve of the meeting, rather rudely commented on the CSTO operation in Kazakhstan and through speakers such as the President of Finland, NATO head Stoltenberg, State Department officials and White House press secretary Jen Psaki made it clear that there was nothing to talk about. Ryabkov, the head of the Russian delegation, initially commented on the agenda in unusually harsh tones for diplomacy. This in itself made a normal negotiation process impossible and did not plan its positive result.
The question arises: why did Russia initiate negotiations on a topic that was unacceptable to the United States in the current situation? Did anyone really believe that the United States would refuse to expand its zone of influence, the main achievement following its victory over the USSR in the Cold War? Just like that, without stubborn lost battles, simply because Russia has put forward an ultimatum to proceed to the preparation of some kind of military-technical response? Has the United States become so timid and will show fear to the whole world by rushing to fulfil the demand, having barely received a claim?
Everything that Russia has done and how it has done it shows that the negotiations were needed for some other purpose. It is clear that they are covering something with themselves. It is also clear that the hidden and therefore real negotiations are conducted in a different tone and by other people through other channels, they are closed and non-public, their agenda is not published before the meeting and is not framed with harsh rhetoric. What are we talking about and what are the real goals of Russia and the United States?
Obviously, all the answers of a military-technical nature in the United States have been calculated, and the threat from them is considered real. And the activation of Russia in Latin America, and the increased activity of our nuclear fleet patrolling the shores of the United States, and military and space activity, and the deepening of the alliance with China, which provides for the creation of a single space in the zones of vital interests of the two states.
Russia's strategic nuclear forces are also predicted to strengthen in Kaliningrad and in Belarus, along the border with NATO. The danger of the eradication of the pro-Western stratum in the elite in Russia, the undermining of its positions and the concentration of resources in the conditional "Party of the Security Council" is also taken into account. Russia's policy towards post-Soviet limitrophes that have fallen under the NATO umbrella will be tightened. Military threats will be destroyed, including by economic levers.
In the United States, all possible responses of Russia are extremely visible and unpleasant, although it is believed that the United States has the ability to respond to each case and try to prevent Russia from deploying the entire range of threats with the help of retaliatory actions. Nevertheless, the US is opting for this, and the question arises: why are they doing this? Is it not more rational, seeing the costs of confrontation, to try to negotiate its avoidance?
But the United States cannot afford to accept Russia's agenda even theoretically: this means recognising the diplomatic weakness of the United States. Even if the United States later refuses Russian proposals and puts forward counter-conditions, the mere fact of serious negotiations with Russia makes it an equivalent party to the United States. Moreover, in the course of the discussion, Russia will have the opportunity of a broad informational campaign in favour of its position. There is a risk of exposing the United States as an unconstructive, and even worse, excuse-making party.
Another reason for the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from the diplomatic battle is the failure of the coup in Kazakhstan. The United States did not get the desired leverage on Russia, and Russia came with a strong trump card up its sleeve. The US did not wait for this trump card to be used. They simply did not enter into negotiations, saving their face with a haughty grimace.
Negotiations with Russia highlighted the weaknesses of the United States, and this was completely unacceptable from the point of view of the American leadership, which always conducts negotiations only from a position of strength. This was not the case at these negotiations for the first time, and the United States certainly had to return the picture to its usual framework.
If the reasons for the United States not to enter into negotiations with Russia are clear, then it is also necessary to understand the reasons for Russia to offer negotiations to the United States in an unacceptable agenda and in an unacceptable negotiating context. When Russia issued an ultimatum to the United States, it was able to use this technique to slow down the pace of escalation by the West of the situation in the L/DPR. After all, the concentration of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border was a response to the concentration in Donbass of half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces. If Russia withdraws its troops, an invasion of Donbass is inevitable. Russia has shown that if there is an escalation, the answer is ready.
For the United States, the most important thing was to force Russia to withdraw troops from the border at any cost. This was important not from a military point of view, but from a political point of view. The demonstration of the US’ powerlessness in the military-political sphere is unacceptable in relations with vassals, especially with Ukraine. Using informational dominance and the presence of allies, the United States began to put pressure on Russia.
The pressure gradually changed the perception of the situation in the eyes of the Western population, facilitating the prospects for sanctions and the consolidation of the NATO bloc. Only a counter-information counteroffensive could bring down this rhythm of the information blitzkrieg. It was an ultimatum put forward by Russia to the United States in a deliberately unacceptable wording.
Russia has achieved what it wanted. The Ukrainian case has moved into the shadows, mixed with the Kazakh one. This made it possible not only to leave Russian troops where they are, but also to gain a point of pressure on the United States by the fact that this abandonment is now linked not to the actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but to Russia's military-technical response to the United States. If it was more difficult to leave the troops in the perspective of the L/DPR problem, then in the perspective of the NATO problem it is quite normal.
That is precisely why Ryabkov, who has a reputation as a "hawk", was sent to negotiate from Russia. He symbolised the rigidity and inflexibility of Russia precisely in the expectation that the United States would reject the agenda. Ryabkov was unable to record a resounding diplomatic victory to his credit.
His task was different. He distracted the enemy's forces, while through closed channels other negotiators, whose names we will not know for a long time, conducted their negotiations, understanding the meaning of every word and gesture, leaving the United States the opportunity to save face and showing Ryabkov what actions could begin otherwise.
We can say that Russia and the United States have played a certain show, but all public policy is a play. If the United States suddenly agreed to Russia's demands, it would be a reason not only not to believe it, but also to be wary. The United States did not give any reason to believe in such behaviour.
However, in the current direction, both the wolves are full and the sheep are whole. The United States has demonstrated unwavering determination, and Russia has demonstrated the same. But the Donbass case is no longer in focus, the response to sanctions is politically prepared, the Kazakh raid has been repulsed. The United States has taken into account the changed geopolitical weight of Russia.
This affected the negotiations in Kazakhstan and on the Ukrainian vector. Ukraine came up with the status of "NATO+". This allowed the United States to save face before the demand to remove NATO. But Russia's message has also been heard and taken seriously: Ukraine's actual membership in NATO will not take place in the next 10 years. And for Russia, this is the main thing: the item on collective self-defence will not be included. This will keep Ukraine and the United States from an adventure in Donbass and preserve the status quo achieved in such a difficult way for Russia.
In the dry balance: each side demonstrated strength and remained in its positions. No one moved anyone. What is called "consultations" after the talks in Geneva are no longer negotiations, but a sluggish process without deadlines, commitments, agendas and responsibilities of top officials. But Russia held its ground, and this was the main thing in its strategy.
A chess problem called "The US’ Ultimatum on the non-proliferation of NATO to the East" required concentration of forces and infallible moves. Russia took the initiative, the USA responded, Russia did not bend the USA, but the USA did not bend Russia either. It's a draw on the board so far. But this is not a draw in favour of the United States. And this is the most important outcome of the game played.