Top Russian Pundits: If We Want Peace, We Have to Prepare for War...and Quickly

Sergey Mikheev, top political expert: Indeed, both Germany and France will play tag-team. Nothing else can be expected from them. Besides, I think that Merkel didn't attend the forum because, among other things, Macron was there, which had been agreed upon long ago. And her visit shortly before the forum was, if I may, kind of a run-up to it. It was the beginning of the forum, and I'd put her visit in its context. They both arrived after meeting with Trump, after failed talks with Trump, which only speaks to the fact that they're playing this card: like, we failed to agree with Trump, let's go to Russia, not to China or elsewhere, but to Russia. Like, we know that your relations are quite tense, s, we'll visit Russia, and Macron will attend the forum. Obviously, it's a game, but our foreign partners' rhetoric at the forum signals that despite France's problems with economic growth, despite the Kuril Islands issue with Japan, the Americans putting pressure on everyone in a unipolar manner is proving to be increasingly less effective. Indeed, they lack the resources to complete tasks in all aspects. Some were recently trumpeting that Trump has failed in everything, now it's trendy to say that Trump succeeds in everything. I believe that both assumptions are false, and the Americans' position is far from easy.

 

Macron spoke a lot but didn't make any practical suggestions. But his rhetoric is important as well. For instance, he remembered that NATO was responsible for the deterioration of relations with Russia, and its eastward expansion contradicted the obligations it had assumed. He said the same about the EU expansion. We'd been talking much about it for a long time. But our opponents denied it, denied any obligations, said we were excessively rehashing. The French President decided to finally say it, which is crucial to understand the ongoing processes. He could have avoided it, limiting himself to vague phrases. He is trying to act as a mediator between Europe and America, which we've already mentioned, and also between the EU and Russia. In his view, these two roles complement and oppose each other at the same time. He wants to gain political benefits from it. OK, then let's play along with him in this sense, whatever the French economy is — and its growth is poor. It's the perfect opening for a discussion on lifting the sanctions to give a boost to the French economy. What can the US do to boost France's economic growth? Apparently, nothing but threats. And here there are plenty of opportunities.

As for optimistic trends, don't overestimate them, though they do exist. It correlates with the fact that the experts' conclusion on the Malaysian airplane was made public on the same day that the forum's main gathering took place. It has no evidence or arguments, only a statement. Of course, I'm convinced that it is no coincidence. It's an attempt to mar the forum in St. Petersburg and switch the spotlight to this issue. But I think that the issue of MH17 won't produce the same effect as it used to. It provoked the first round of economic sanctions. More evidence is needed, but there isn't any. If they dig deeper, it will be a repeat of the Skripal case. Thus, in my opinion, the threat is that some diseased mind can come up with a new provocation. The Skripal case collapsed, MH17 won't have the same effect the second time.

The situation tends to be drawn right-about harsh sanctions. The new Italian government officially strives to lift the sanctions. I don't trust them much, like other Europeans, they dissolve action in speech and are very scared. Sometimes they're afraid of their own shadows. But still, they all tend to be tired of the pressure on Russia. Moreover, they don't see any results from four years of maximum pressure. Even more than four... Where are the results?

So, I suppose that a new provocation may occur in order to prevent all of this. It may be quite dangerous and even bloody, hard-hitting to give an emotional push to the situation.

— I see your point. The government in Kiev has officially declared that Russia is developing chemical weapons of a new type which might be used... Well, it's quite obvious.

— And launched from the Crimean Bridge.

— Of course. The second interesting issue touched upon by Macron, which you have omitted, regarding the Skripal case is that Boris Johnson, in particular, stated that they would boycott the FIFA World Cup. But Macron said he'd pay another visit during the World Cup. Macron can't but understand that it contradicts the British zealous declaration.

— The French have actually been contradicting British zeal for the past 800 years.

— Absolutely. However, at first, they supported Britain in the Skripal case. There was a problem with diplomats too. At first, they ganged up together. Now they've made it clear that they don't believe them.

— Your American world is a utopia. Pax Americana is turning into utopia. The Americans are trying to retain it by all possible means. Having failed here, they threaten with sanctions not only to us but also to their European allies. That is, the American alliance is being torn apart by sanctions policies towards allies. Why? Because of the US's poor position. It's challenged by multiple attempts to revisit the American world. Obama would veil it, but Trump expresses it in plain terms, in a rough and primitive manner. He says: "We'll put pressure on all of you unless you lay down before us". But he won't be able to crush all of them. I believe that the US is becoming weaker that's why they're using force. Take the French with their talks about sovereignty. If they obeyed every command, why threaten their companies? Why adopt the second set of sanctions against them?

And my last point: The Iranian controversy oddly enough creates an opportunity. So far, the US has done everything to bring Russia and China together. China is reacting to the pressure exerted by the US trying to deny China's right to set new trade rules. And so they befriend Russia because if we're crushed, China will be next. That's why they support us. Currently, we are close strategic partners. However, some Europeans told me that this Iranian controversy is slowly cracking American-European relations. Russia has a chance to engage in a political dialogue with Europe. The course of history is not in favor of America. And the fact that America resorts to brute force is a sign of weakness rather than strength.

— We have 15 minutes left.

Sergey Mikheyev: Since you've mentioned Iran, I'd like to say that Iran can make a move that Kim Jong Un made and succeeded. He tried to force the USA out of the game and establish relations with South Korea. Iran can keep the deal for now, even at the expense of their own interests and try to improve its relations with Europe in order to deny the Americans the majority of their options. We, Iranians, stick to the deal that's been approved by the UN Security Council The Americans don't, and the Europeans are getting their arms twisted. Now, a couple of words about sovereignty. I'm going to join your discussion. Sovereignty is not about trade, finance channels, and traveling. All those aspects haven't drastically changed over time. Sovereignty is about making your own choices. It's not just the supremacy of the national law on the territory but also the ability to make your own choices. There have been numerous cases when trade has tried to disrupt sovereignty. Take the old Novgorod, for instance. They tried to retain their trade ties to Europe but were punished by a hit squad and had to accept their terms. Or when political oligarchs tried to exchange sovereignty for financial benefits in 1612. Nothing new about that.

— They were called browyar.

— Nothing new about that. The setting changes every time but sovereignty has always remained and will remain essential because it's an ability to make your own political choices instead of following orders. That's what the Americans are after: they want the whole world to obey their political choices while the national laws are only applicable when the Americans benefit from it.

So when they speak about a new American model, I wouldn't say there is one. Unfortunately, that's the reason everything President Putin said at the Forum sounded right and promising, but I don't believe in a bright future. Unfortunately, our future won't be bright because the American model never changes and they'll continue to exert pressure against us and others resorting to more and more radical and sometimes even questionable means. That's why we must understand that if we wish for peace, we have to prepare for war. All those talks about... The Forum was definitely a positive initiative but we won't become close friends. The US is not eager enough to become friends with Russia.