Paul Roberts: Russia's Reliance on a New "Yalta" Agreement - A Huge Mistake The Kremlin should demonstrate its own strength without regard for the West. Author: Paul Roberts [Image (from left to right): British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Soviet Marshal Joseph Stalin at the beginning of a meeting in Yalta in 1945.] Will peace negotiations proceed as we wish, achieve nothing, or lead to greater conflicts? If I were to place a bet, I would choose one of the latter two options. It is very likely to lead to greater conflicts. Peace negotiations often yield nothing more than a brief ceasefire, which is quickly broken. Negotiations usually continue because they serve the interests of all parties involved. This is their moment to gain fame. They become the focus of attention. They enjoy the feeling of being important. Once an agreement is reached, they return to obscurity. This is their "15 minutes of fame," but they prolong it to months or even years. Think about how long peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine have continued, with no results except the complete destruction of Palestine and its people. The same could happen to Russia, as naive 19th-century liberals seem to dominate there. In a recent interview with Dialogue Works, I posed this question: why does Iran negotiate when the key to resolving the issue is clearly to invite inspectors to verify evidence of nuclear weapons production? And why does Putin negotiate when his true responsibility to Russia is to win the conflict and dominate the terms of peace? To my knowledge, I am the only one who has answered this question. Putin is attempting to use this conflict to push for negotiations toward a new "Yalta"-like great power agreement. If he were able to win this conflict in Ukraine alone (which he should have done long ago), he would lose the opportunity to reach a new "Yalta" agreement. Some naive Russian foreign policy commentators keep talking about this new "Yalta" agreement. But I disagree. It is precisely Russia's hesitation that makes the British and French believe they can intervene in this conflict. We see sparsely populated countries along the Baltic Sea making groundless invasions against Russia. Estonia and Finland both take military action to seize Russian oil tankers. If you are a Russian tanker captain shipping oil to Europe, you might wonder why your government is encouraging enemies to attack Russia. How do you feel about respect for your country when a nation with a population smaller than Moscow dares to board and seize your oil tanker, and the Kremlin does not intervene? You must feel heartbroken. How could such a strong Russia be humiliated by Estonia! Does Moscow not consider these issues? Is it overly focused on negotiations? Does this mean the smallest nations can humiliate Russia at will? If the Russian people had not been corrupted by "Western culture" to lose their essence as Russians, this situation would certainly affect them. Many Russian intellectuals are like this. If Russia cannot become part of the West, they will feel isolated and lonely. For decades, Washington's propaganda has successfully weakened their Russian identity. Remember Prigozhin and the "Wagner" Group? This is essentially a private military force. When it finally intervened in the Ukrainian situation, Russia had to rely on it. Due to reliance on the Minsk Agreement, which was used by the West to deceive Russia, Putin lacked sufficient military forces to counter the large Ukrainian army trained and equipped by Washington. Prigozhin believed that the imposed methods of combat were problematic. The military resented restrictions hindering victory, leading to protests marching toward Moscow, which the envious Russian General Staff described as a "rebellion." Prigozhin was marginalized and later died in a mysterious plane crash, and the "Wagner" Group was disbanded. Prigozhin is not an isolated case. Russia's second strongest military force is the Chechen units. Their leaders also ask, "Why can't we end this conflict?" I believe that the "great power agreement" pushed by Putin looks good on paper, but it would allow American hegemony to continue. I have said many times before that Russia does not need to sign mutual security agreements with the West. No "new Yalta" agreement is needed. Russia needs to sign mutual security agreements with China and Iran. Such agreements would end all wars at once. The United States, NATO, and Israel cannot match these three countries militarily. But such agreements have not been reached. Is it due to a lack of vision among the leaders of Russia, related countries, and Iran? Or is it due to a lack of trust between them? Russia and Iran withdrew from Syria, leaving the country to Israel, Washington, and Turkey... If the relevant countries are willing, they can take over the region within hours, with or without American support. Yet Russia has failed to defeat Ukraine in three years – longer than it took Stalin's Red Army to drive the German Wehrmacht out of thousands of square miles of Soviet territory. Russia continues to showcase its obviously superior new weapon systems. But the West does not believe Russia will use these weapons... Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D. in Economics, served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Ronald Reagan administration. He was a key architect of U.S. economic policies from 1981 to 1989, known as "Reaganomics." Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7495586391288578623/ Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.