Moscow-Washington: Warming Just Around the Corner?

RTA analyst Sergey Isaenko is sure that there has been ‘thawing’ in the relations of the largest geopolitical powers in the form of steps towards the problem regions of Europe Stagnation with a minus sign Stalin’s five-year plan is long in the past, but the magic of the number five still haunts world politics. It took Russia, the European Union and the United States exactly five years to bring down the conflagration of the Ukrainian crisis. It seems that in 2019 it’s been cooled so that you can already take it with your hands without getting burned. Leaving out metaphor, we should recognize that in 2017-2018, the situation in the relations of world powers reached an expected and logical dead end: on the one hand, it is impossible to give up geopolitical ambitions, on the other – no one can afford bringing the matter to a direct conflict, with all the consequences. Brussels, Washington and Moscow had to agree, but there is a paradox: elites could, but people in the form of ossified oligarchic clans in Moldova and Ukraine didn’t want. The negative stagnation in the processes on the European continent, especially in its post-Soviet part, had a negative impact on the economies of these countries and on the prospects for a ‘reset’ of the situation on the world stage. By the same token, after the departure of Poroshenko in Ukraine and Plahotniuc in Moldova with direct and indirect pressure from Europe and America, the situation in Eastern Europe played out in fresh colours. After that, the first signs of the imminent geopolitical warming began to come out one by one. Heralds of the new world The main events in Eastern Europe in the first half of 2019 are, in fact, triumphant victories of anti-oligarchic forces in Chisinau and Kyiv. Not only the local political opposition, but also foreign partners had to try hard in a small and completely subordinated to just one person Moldova: only after the recognition of the new power of the PSRM and ACUM Plahotniuc and his closest henchmen were literally bundled off. Ukraine in this sense got help from a powerful electoral and reputational resource of Volodymyr Zelensky: the former showman easily overcame the toxic Poroshenko in the elections, and then led to the Verkhovna Rada a party named after his movie. The Ukrainian case as a whole appeared more successful: Zelensky, contrary to expectations, proved to be the resolute and independent politician, literally having declared ‘lustration 2.0’ against all who was anyway connected with Poroshenko’s regime. In terms of geopolitics, the changes hastened in the wake of internal transformations in the countries of the region. Zelensky announced a policy to resolve the conflict in Donbas, abolished the Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and actively began to search for mutual understanding with Moscow. He’s already done it: it is recorded how Zelensky at the airport met prisoners who were released by Moscow as part of the long-awaited exchange. The Kremlin itself still keeps its distance from Kyiv and does not give reason to believe that Russia favors the new government of Ukraine. However, exactly after the conversation of Zelensky and Putin process of exchange of prisoners turned from wishes to concrete steps. In Moldova, the main geopolitical ‘blockbuster’ of the season is a sensational visit to the country by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Meeting in Chisinau with Igor Dodon he proposed to start the disposal of ammunition in depots in unrecognized Transdniestria. The issue of the removal of these weapons has long been a universal way to put pressure on Moscow, and now the Kremlin offers Chisinau to agree and start the process by efforts of Russian military experts. What’s next? According to experts, the most expected consequence of the warming of contacts between the conditional West and Russia may be progress in unresolved conflicts in Europe. The first and most obvious case is, after all, Kosovo. Pristina, with the support of international allies, is almost openly making it clear that Serbia has no option but to recognize the independence of the enclave. Apparently, Belgrade really has no choice – soon the unwillingness to accept reality will cause problems in the form of international pressure. Objective number two is Donbas. Zelensky literally re-launched in Ukraine a debate on the future of the Lugansk People’s Republic problem and explicitly invites Moscow to dialogue. The exchange of prisoners in this sense became a mutual curtsey of the parties, which confirms that everyone is interested in a settlement in the East. At the same time, the media reported that Kyiv suspended the procedure of termination of bilateral agreements with Moscow, launched under Poroshenko: perhaps that, too, should be added to the ‘good intentions’ list. The third conflict region, where progress is clearly needed, is considered Transdniestria. President Igor Dodon, hoping to take advantage of the emerging geopolitical consensus on Moldova, hastened to ‘unveil’ his plan for the settlement of the Transdniestrian issue, which, however, was coldly received by the pro-European camp. One way or another, after the change of power in Ukraine and the reset of contacts with Moscow, Chisinau sees a certain window of opportunity to break the Transdniestrian impasse. The only thing that remains in question is the limits of the compromise attitude of the Kremlin and the White House. A landmark event this week was the sudden resignation of John Bolton: Donald Trump dismissed his adviser some time after his visit to Eastern Europe. And although Bolton publicly supported Shoigu’s idea to dispose of ammunition from Transdniestria, it is not clear how exactly this ‘hawk’ of American politics presented the results of his trip to Minsk, Kyiv and Chisinau. And what exactly lies behind his differences with Trump – denial or support for the current ‘warming’ with Moscow?