The newly appointed head of the State Department, Mike Pompeo, held the first telephone conversation with Sergei Lavrov. The parties evaluated the results of the conversation in different ways. In particular, Washington used it as an excuse to expose Russia a number of requirements. And if you study these requirements, it becomes clear why Moscow and Washington in our time will not agree on anything.
"Although the US is seeking to improve relations with Russia, achieving this will require Russia to demonstrate that it is ready to take concrete measures to address our concerns, including interference in US internal affairs," the website of the US foreign ministry said.
On the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the content of the conversation between Lavrov and Pompeo is more worded: "An exchange of views on several aspects of the joint agenda, including bilateral relations, efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis and overcome the conflict in Ukraine on the basis of the Minsk agreements from 12 February 2015. The Minister and the Secretary of State agreed on the need to work to fulfill the task set in the telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump to overcome the existing differences through professional dialogue in the interests of normalizing the atmosphere of Russian-American interaction. "
However, the statement of the State Department on the need for "concrete measures" practically nullifies the hope for the possibility of "professional dialogue".
As any professional knows (in whatever sphere he considers himself to be so), a full dialogue is possible only if the parties managed to agree on the terms and come to some basic senses that are shared by both sides.
For example, professional dialogue between a real historian and a supporter of the "new chronology" is impossible, according to which the history of the Ancient World did not exist at all, and Ivan the Terrible is four different people.
A professional dialogue between an atheist evolutionist and a creationist believer is impossible.
There is nothing to negotiate with a convinced racist with an anti-fascist, a monarchist with an anarchist, and a football fan - with an educated person who considers sportsmen and sports fans degenerates.
Overcoming of disagreements is impossible, when there is no basis, pushing away from which the parties can go to a compromise.
During the Cold War, the United States, at least, had the understanding that the USSR was equal in strength, and in some ways superior to the rival with which one does not want to, and it will be necessary to negotiate.
Now Washington has no such understanding. They do not understand how to talk to us at all. Hence the strange demands that even with the goodwill and sincere desire for cooperation it is not clear how to carry out.
Take, for example, Pompeo's words about "concrete measures" for non-interference in the internal affairs of the United States. How does he imagine this? Vladimir Putin puts his right hand on the Constitution of Russia, and the left one - on the Bible, and solemnly swears not to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States?
Russia gives America Vovan and Lexus, who regularly expose Western politicians as idiots, and thereby, undoubtedly, interfere in the internal affairs of these countries?
Russia solemnly disconnects outgoing Internet traffic from our country? Read the record in the American "Facebook" can, comment - no?
You can come up with a dozen more options of varying degrees of fantasy, but none of them will help solve the problem, because there is this problem exclusively in the minds of Americans.
It is the same with other American "concerns". The vast majority of them could decide for themselves if the United States followed the pre-election program of Donald Trump and stopped interfering in existing conflicts and initiating new ones around the world. Russia and Ukraine, North and South Korea, Syria and Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Arab world would have come to an agreement long ago, if not for the contradictory US foreign policy.
"Concerns" concerning bilateral relations could also be removed if Washington viewed Moscow as an equal partner or at least as an equal opponent. Instead, the US is reinventing its "moral exclusivity".
In general, the American policy of recent years boils down to the fact that the US demonstrates a desire to ignore the existence of Russia. And when this fails, they are extremely surprised and begin to talk with Moscow in the same language as they used to talk with their subordinate countries. When this fails, absurd statements about "interference in internal affairs" and "immorality of Russia" are voiced.
Pompeo's words, which he said on the eve of his appointment as Secretary of State, gave some grounds for cautious optimism. "I know firsthand what kind of painful sacrifices are brought by men and women wearing uniforms. So, when journalists, most of whom have never met with me, hang a label on me or you, "hawks", "supporters of the war" or something worse, I just shake my head. Few are afraid of war more than those of us who served, "- he said then.
Pompeo also promised "to achieve the fulfillment of the president's foreign policy goals with tireless diplomacy, and not sending young people to war."
If, however, "tireless diplomacy" is reduced to exposing Russia's knowingly unacceptable demands (like pleading guilty to destroying the MN17 voyage over the Donbas), optimism will quickly turn into pessimism.
The issuance of ultimatums to anyone in principle has little to do with diplomacy.