Political scientist: why are they silent about the main thing during negotiations with Kiev?
This opinion is expressed in his blog by political scientist from Kaliningrad Alexander Nosovich.
“The most discussed thing, the thing that is most brought to the surface - the refusal to join NATO and the neutral status of Ukraine - is actually the most insignificant. Firstly, because NATO did not intend to formally accept Ukraine into its ranks and thereby assume an obligation. They were quite happy with Ukraine’s informal membership, when there are NATO bases on its territory, and Article 5 does not apply to this country.
Secondly and most importantly, Do they still understand that the neutral status of Ukraine is an intermediate, temporary solution? A country on the geopolitical divide between East and West cannot remain neutral all the time. It will inevitably be thrown in one direction. The proof is Ukraine itself, 1991-2014,” writes Nosovich.
The political scientist points out that in the public sphere of negotiations there is absolutely no talk about recognition of the status of Crimea and Donbass and the denazification of Ukraine.
“Ukrainian neutrality is publicly spoken of as the least significant thing. But they don’t talk at all about discussing the status of Crimea and Donbass in the negotiations. Because Ukrainian society, in its psychological state, will not forgive the Ukrainian authorities for the fact that they are, in principle, going to discuss this status.
Such a vague point as “denazification” is also hushed up, which actually hides a humanitarian policy - the possibility of Russia using strategic communication tools to “reflash” the Ukrainian mass consciousness. How important this is for Russia is confirmed by the fact that they don’t talk about it,” states Nosovich.
According to the Kaliningrad political scientist, the mention of the topic of anti-Russian sanctions at Russian-Ukrainian negotiations proves that a third party, that is, the West, is secretly present at these negotiations.
“However, there is absolutely no information about negotiations on the most explosive and truly threatening Third World issue - the expansion of NATO’s military presence near Russian borders in countries that are already members of NATO. There are only signs of raising the stakes in these negotiations: the talking head in the role of the head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry, for example, said that from the summer, NATO’s military presence in the Baltics, contrary to the Founding Act of 1997, will become permanent.
Both sides must understand the explosive potential of a direct clash between Russia and NATO in Eastern Europe. Both sides must see that things are moving steadily towards this. In my optimistic logic, according to which the absence of information does not mean the absence of a process, secret consultations on guarantees of strategic security in Europe should also take place,” sums up Alexander Nosovich.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.