Hillary magic button. Iran is one of the main topics of negotiations

ALL PHOTOS

The first meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which took place on Friday in Geneva, turned into an oddity that can be called symbolic. According to Interfax, Clinton gave Lavrov a souvenir in the form of a button on which the Russian word perezagruzka, a symbol of new relations, was supposed to be written in Latin. However, an error crept into the word on the button. The written word looked like this: peregruzka. RIA Novosti notes that in English this word - reset - was spelled correctly.

"You spelled it wrong, there should be a reset, not an overload," the Russian minister corrected. Nevertheless, as the agencies report, both foreign ministers pressed the souvenir button. And Clinton laughed and promised that she would try to prevent "overload" in Russian-American relations.

Lavrov and Clinton held their first full-scale meeting at Geneva's InterContinental hotel on Friday to discuss the future foundations of Russian-American relations. The main topics were ABM, START, the Iranian nuclear file, cooperation in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the settlement of the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking.

Following the meeting, the heads of the foreign ministries gave a joint press conference, during which they expressed satisfaction with the "very productive" dialogue that had taken place and hope for continued interaction on a number of bilateral and global issues.

"On issues where there are differences, we will work honestly and openly," Clinton said. "Both sides are ready for this kind of work. Today we have a great chance to build relationships, a chance that should not be missed," RIA Novosti quotes the Secretary of State. . She added that both countries are aware of their responsibility for what is happening in the world.

Lavrov, for his part, noted that after negotiations with Hillary Clinton, they developed an excellent personal relationship. He also took the liberty of once again joking about the confusion in the spelling of the word "reset", noting that at least one practical result at the meeting had already been achieved: "We agreed on how the reset should sound both in Russian and in English. No discrepancies ", - he said.

The parties were convinced that they would still be able to find a common language

Speaking about the problems of missile defense and strategic offensive arms, Lavrov expressed his conviction that the United States and Russia could find a common language. "I am sure that we are quite capable of reaching a common denominator, and perhaps with some advantage for our strategic relations - on the issues of both START and missile defense. I note the readiness of our American partners for dialogue," he said.

In his opinion, the United States is ready to take Russia's interests into account when resolving these issues.

Earlier, the American side admitted the possibility of changing approaches to the issue of deploying elements of missile defense in Europe, and Hillary Clinton, before the Geneva meeting, announced the US interest in cooperation with the Russian Federation in this area.

The head of American diplomacy informed that "an agreement was reached at the talks to expand cooperation in resolving the issue of strategic offensive weapons." "We also agreed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and strengthen the non-proliferation regime," she added.

Answering the question whether the parties will be able to agree on a new START agreement before December 5, 2009, when the current document expires, Lavrov and Clinton expressed their mutual readiness to do everything to reach an appropriate agreement.

"The issue of a new strategic offensive arms treaty is a high priority for our government," Clinton said. "Instructions have been given to begin work on this issue immediately. We want to reach a new agreement by the end of the year."

The parties also touched upon the existing problems related to the threat of violation of the non-proliferation regime. In particular, the Iranian nuclear program was discussed in detail at the meeting. In this regard, Clinton indicated that Washington is "considering potential steps to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," and "will do everything possible so that it does not support terrorist organizations."

In the meantime, she continued, sanctions against Iran "will be continued."

At the same time, Clinton assured that the United States is ready to conduct an open dialogue with Russia on this issue. "Unity in approach to Tehran's nuclear program is very important," she said.

On the occasion of the meeting, security measures in Geneva were stepped up

Increased security measures were taken in Geneva in connection with the meeting between Clinton and Lavrov. Many streets of the city were blocked, a large number of policemen were observed.

Journalists who made their way to a hotel to attend a press conference faced the same tight security measures as, for example, when boarding a flight to the United States.

There was a dog in the hotel building that sniffed the bags of some journalists for explosives. Metal detectors were also installed there, personal belongings were not only seen through, but also carefully looked through by security officers.

GENEVA, March 7 - RIA Novosti. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are pleased with the outcome of their first talks, which took place on Friday in Geneva, and look forward to continued dialogue and interaction on a number of bilateral and global issues.

The first meeting between the heads of the foreign affairs agencies of Russia and the United States lasted a little more than the planned two hours and took place against the backdrop of Washington's declared desire to "reset" relations with Moscow, which were badly spoiled during George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.

At a press conference following the talks, Clinton called the meeting "very productive."

Among the main topics of cooperation, the heads of the diplomats of the two countries named the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, the settlement in the Middle East, as well as the problems of the Iranian and North Korean atom.

"On issues where there are differences, we will work honestly and openly. Both sides have shown a willingness to do this kind of work ... Today we have a great chance to build a relationship that cannot be missed," Clinton said, adding that both countries aware of their responsibility for what is happening in the world.

"In addition to the problems to be solved, we talked about purely practical issues that should facilitate contacts between citizens on environmental issues," the Russian Foreign Minister said in turn.

In addition, according to him, the United States and Russia are interested in bringing economic relations to a new level.

Lavrov also noted that after the talks with Hillary Clinton they had "excellent personal relations", expressing the hope that the US Secretary of State would agree with him.

The United States and Russia hope to reach a new agreement on START by the end of the year

The United States and Russia have agreed on a work plan to reduce strategic offensive weapons and non-proliferation issues, Washington hopes that by the end of the year it will be possible to agree on a new agreement on strategic offensive arms, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

"Indeed, we discussed the issue of control. This is part of the agenda ... We intend to prepare a document by the end of the year. This is a high priority for us," Clinton said.

According to her, the US and Russia have already defined some elements of a new strategic offensive arms treaty.

Lavrov, in turn, also expressed confidence that Russia and the United States will reach a new agreement on strategic offensive arms by December 5 this year, when the current strategic arms reduction treaty expires.

"We will do everything to achieve the set goal," he said, noting that the United States is ready for a dialogue on strategic offensive arms, taking into account Russia's interests.

The current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expires on December 5, 2009. It was signed in 1991 by the presidents of the USSR and the USA and obliged Moscow and Washington to reduce their strategic nuclear forces from 10,000 warheads on each side to 6,000.

Iran is one of the main topics of negotiations

As the heads of the foreign ministries of the two countries reported, one of the important topics of the talks was the Iranian theme.

Lavrov stressed that Russia does not violate international obligations to supply weapons abroad, including to Iran, and in military-technical cooperation with Iran, Moscow takes into account the concerns of the United States and Israel.

"Issues of military-technical cooperation with Iran and other countries are resolved exclusively in the legal field, in accordance with Russian export legislation, which is one of the most stringent in the world, and in accordance with international obligations," the Russian minister said.

"We only supply non-stabilizing, defensive weapons," Lavrov said, adding that he would like the same restraint towards those countries that recently used offensive weapons near Russian borders.

In his opinion, the way to remove such concerns lies through the intensification of work on the proposals of the "five plus one" group on Iran. These proposals provide for the beginning of an equal dialogue with the participation of all countries of the region on the issue of ensuring sustainable security.

Clinton, in turn, said that the United States does not intend yet to abandon unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran.

"We discussed the issue of Iran in great detail. We are now reviewing (foreign policy). We would like to know how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah," the secretary said.

According to her, the United States will be glad to hear advice and suggestions from Russia regarding new approaches to this problem.

For his part, Lavrov said that Russia is very pleased that the Obama administration is ready to listen to the views of other countries, including Russia.

Stabilization in Afghanistan is a common task

Sergei Lavrov called the stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan a common task for Russia and the United States.

"We agreed that we will contribute to the success of the conference on Afghanistan under the auspices of the SCO, which will be held in Moscow on March 27, as well as the conference to be held on the initiative of the United States at the end of March in Europe on the issue of Afghanistan," he said.

Kosovo and Georgia remain problematic issues

Kosovo and Georgia remain problematic issues on which the US and Russia have so far failed to bridge their differences.

"Kosovo is definitely one of those issues on which we still have serious disagreements," Sergei Lavrov said, stressing that Moscow still considers Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence illegal. The Russian minister recalled that Serbia had applied to the international court on the issue of Kosovo's independence, and added that Russia would express its opinion in this court.

In turn, Clinton named Georgia among the problems on which Washington and Moscow have serious disagreements. According to her, in this region "it is necessary to reduce the level of violence and promote the Geneva process."

One practical result of the meeting has already been achieved

As Sergei Lavrov noted, despite the "burden of problems", one practical result has already been achieved at the meeting.

"We agreed on how the reset should sound in Russian and English. There are no discrepancies," the minister joked, referring to the incident with a souvenir presented to him - a red button for "resetting" relations.

As it turned out, the button says "reset" in English, and "overload" in Russian. After Lavrov's explanation, the secretary of state laughed and promised that she would try to prevent "overload" in Russian-American relations.

Continuing the linguistic discussion about this, Clinton noted that the word "overload" is also somewhat correct. "We're going to be overloaded in terms of work," she said, adding that it was a very big agenda.

Lavrov agreed with Clinton, saying: "The burden is huge, but there is no desire to get rid of anything. The agenda is heavy, but do not compare it with the stone that pushed Mount Sisyphus. We will definitely cope with this stone."

He also expressed his hope that the "red button" they pressed would not be compared to another "red button" that had previously been a symbol of the possible start of a destructive war.

"We will press the button to reset our constructive relations," the Russian Foreign Minister stressed.

America can go for a new "reset" of relations with Russia, but under certain conditions. This, according to IA TASS, on the eve of the pre-election presidential debate in the Democratic Party, said the ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

She, as one of the participants in the election race, was asked whether she was ready - if she became president - to press the "reset" button in relations between the two countries, as was the case in March 2009. The answer was purely pragmatic - it all depends on what "we (the United States) get for it." As an example, Clinton recalled that seven years ago, the United States was able to obtain permission from the Russian Federation for the transit of military cargo to Afghanistan, concluded an agreement on the limitation of nuclear weapons, and agreed on sanctions against Iran. The fact that the symbolic red button, presented then in Geneva by the US Secretary of State to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov, as a sign of a reset in relations between Moscow and Washington, turned out to be married, she did not mention.

However, a minor incident (on the button in English it was written "reset", and in Russian - "overload") in the end turned out to be prophetic. Clinton then promised Lavrov, who drew her attention to the mistranslation, not to allow "overload" in Russian-American relations. But then there was Libya, Syria and Ukraine…

Naturally, you ask yourself: does Russia need a “reset-2” today? Yes, even on Washington's almost ultimatum terms?

- Let's start with the fact that Hillary Clinton is the leader of the Democratic Party. And the Democrats recognized during the 2008 election campaign that America is not omnipotent. He cannot lead the world alone, - comments the head of the Center for Research on US Foreign Policy Mechanisms of the Institute for the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergey Samuilov.

“Therefore, cooperation with other states is necessary to solve global and regional problems. Or, as they put it, "building partnerships." Clinton herself, when she was secretary of state, as I remember, in the summer of 2009, said that “we must move from a multipolar world (even then the White House administration recognized that the world had become multipolar) to a multipartner world. During Obama's first term, more or less, all of this was realized. And then came the Ukrainian crisis. And the "reset" with Russia was buried.

"SP": - But not through our own fault. We made contact. And the Americans, behind our backs, prepared a coup d'état in Ukraine. As a result, today we have an “overload” of relations, and not a “reset” ...

- By the way, the incident with the button, which then took place at the meeting between Lavrov and Clinton, indicates a very low level of American diplomacy. They could not accurately translate one word into Russian.

And the fact that Clinton did not rule out a second “reset” is, in a certain sense, a continuation of the Democrats’ pragmatic policy. Republicans are not like that. They do not recognize that America is not in a position to lead the world alone. They think she can do it all.

"SP": - Clinton set conditions. What did she mean?

- It is difficult to say specifically what she may require as payment for the next reboot. But in recent years, there has been a very serious debate in the United States about the fact that the geopolitical role of Russia and China has sharply increased in the world. Therefore, I do not rule out that they will strive to do everything so that the role of Russia and China does not grow so much within the framework of this polycentric world.

I will focus on just one example. The other day, information literally passed that a new bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, began operating in China. In our government they say that this is not an alternative to the generally recognized IMF and the World Bank, which are de jure bodies of the UN - i.e. international. This is an addition to them. However, it is clear to everyone in the world that this is real competition. What is the meaning of it, it is not difficult to guess: the IMF and the World Bank are only de jure bodies of the UN, but de facto the United States dominates there.

China, India and Russia will play the main role in the new Asian Bank. These are the main donors, sponsors, etc.

And if Clinton becomes president, she will, of course, strive to ensure that this bank is not too much of a competitor to the IMF and the World Bank. This means that it will put pressure on both China and Russia.

At the same time, I do not think that it will start supplying arms to Ukraine. What exactly will a traditional Republican do if he comes to power. In this case, the resumption of a full-scale war in the East of Ukraine is quite possible. And then our leadership will have no choice but to actually bring in troops and liberate these regions entirely from Kyiv.

"SP": - But the current rhetoric of the madam-ex-secretary of state can not be called peaceful either. Speaking of the "reset", she said that Washington should not allow Russia to take, as she put it, "a more aggressive stance in Europe and the Middle East." That is, when we defend our national interests, they call it aggression. When they begin to impose theirs on the world, this is the promotion of democratic values.

For them, this is the normal world order. In relation to us, to China, to other countries, of course, this world order is discriminatory. It ensures the dominant role of the United States, and Western civilization in general. For them, this is the norm. But when we are outraged, or China, and create some kind of alternative (as with a new bank) structures, they naturally perceive this as an attack on normality. And they are presented (and will be presented) as aggression, or a manifestation of some kind of imperial ambitions.

"SP": - At the same time, they do not offer to agree on a mutually beneficial basis, but again set conditions ...

- Here we must proceed from the civilizational mentality. The attitude towards non-Western states on the part of Western civilization is chauvinistic. And Russophobia in general is the centuries-old psychological basis of the self-consciousness of the West.

But where their interests coincide with ours, they will cooperate. We agreed, with Russia's mediation, on Iran's nuclear program. And now - after the lifting of sanctions - Iran will soon enter the market with its oil. Which for us, in general, is not very good, since the price of it will fall even more.

"SP": - Or maybe, on the contrary, we will finally get off the raw material needle ...

- Of course. But this will take several years. Although they already admit that their sanctions against Russia have not worked. After all, what were they looking for?

From the point of view of Western psychology, the main thing for a person is material well-being. They thought, they say, “we are now worsening the material well-being of tens of millions of Russians, they will become indignant. The protests will start. This intractable power is overthrown. Someone will come along." And the exact opposite happened. What does this say? This suggests that they absolutely do not know our history. Our mentality is not understood. And most importantly, they do not want to understand.

In this regard, the Democrats are still smarter than the Republicans.

SP: Let's say. But do we need another "reset" on Clinton's terms?

“Reboot” is just a ringing slogan. I would say that we need to act pragmatically - where interests coincide, go for cooperation. Both Putin and Lavrov and Medvedev said that we are ready to cooperate where interests coincide. And where they diverge, it is necessary not to aggravate relations. So that the sphere of disagreements and confrontation does not grow to such an extent that it could crush the sphere of cooperation. A reasonable balance is needed here.

Therefore, in principle, we do not need this “reset”, as some kind of handout from the United States. You just need to be pragmatic. Where interests coincide, there is cooperation. Where they disagree, look for compromises.

Political scientist and publicist Leonid Krutakov believes we have a lot to learn from the Americans:

- The way the United States firmly and consistently defends its interests around the world can probably be credited to them. God grant that our country will always pursue its own interests in the same way.

If during the negotiations we defend our positions and clearly outline the lines beyond which Russia will never back down, then perhaps the agreements will be firmer and tougher. And not like under Gorbachev, when we gave up half of Europe and surrendered the Warsaw block just like that, you live for a great life. For a promise that, it turns out, was not even legally fixed - I mean the advance of NATO to the East.

"SP": - What does Clinton mean when he speaks of his interest?

- And the interests of the United States are more or less clear. The first is to turn Ukraine completely into a territory that will never, under any pretext, cooperate politically with Russia. Second, remember Obama recently said that America is the only country that should set the rules for business conduct. All this is obvious. And we see this in the signed Transoceanic Partnership and in the planned Transatlantic Trade Partnership.

What are they willing to sacrifice in this position in order to reach an agreement with Russia? I honestly. I don't see what they can drastically sacrifice here. Because the United States has too much at stake in this game.

Recently, the former head of the U.S. Accounts Chamber David Walker stated that America's external public debt is not 19 trillion, but 65 trillion dollars, including all obligations, including insurance, within the country. 65 trillion is the amount by which America has already climbed into the future. That is, in the future, profits are divided and scheduled, and to refuse them means to get massive bankruptcies.

What they can offer Russia in this design is hard to imagine. Maybe they will promise once again that Russia will be included in the global American project and will receive its share from this. That is, a share of the rent, as she received at high oil prices, when they were at $135 per barrel. Because high oil prices, first of all, hit the economies of China and Europe. And the oil-producing countries, in fact, made a profit on this. Maybe… But I don't think it's possible to repeat this combination now.

I don't know how to "reboot". But, of course, negotiations are needed. Otherwise, if there is no dialogue, it means war. I do not think that there is an interest in the war on their part, or on ours. Therefore, we need to negotiate. Moreover, without Russia, which has a nuclear and military-technical potential comparable to America, it is impossible to resolve world issues.

And just security issues today came out on top. Therefore, Clinton, as a politician and contender for the US presidency, could not help but note that she would definitely try to find common ground with Russia. If you don’t look for them, then the world will simply slide into hell

Whether they can find it, this is a rather complicated question, in my opinion.

Exactly 10 years ago, on March 6, 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a "red button" symbolizing the reset in relations between the two countries. The meeting took place in Geneva. On the eve of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation reminded of the event.

The gift turned out "with a hint." The fact is that on the button, instead of perezagruzka, it was written peregruzka. The translators made a mistake, and today a typo has become an occasion for analytical research. After all, we understand that the reboot did not happen, and the overload, on the contrary, seems to be a success. As RIA Novosti was told on the eve of the deputy head of the Center for the History of the Russian Diplomatic Service Pyotr Barulin, in whose institution the "button" is now stored, that meeting after 8 years of "silence" was more successful. According to him, inspired by the talks, the foreign ministers of the two states sincerely smiled at each other. Upon learning that the Russian word was misspelled on the button, Clinton got out of the situation with a joke, Barulin said. According to him, she attributed this to the fact that Lavrov and she "overloaded" themselves with work on agreements.

The heads of the foreign ministries pressed this button together, despite the mistake. According to Barulin, the talks were on such topical issues as the South Caucasus, Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula.

"The countries went towards each other, at that time they supported each other. Well, what happened then, we know," the diplomat concluded.

Following Peter Barulin, bloggers draw their own conclusions. So, Alexander Samokhvalov writes for "Radio Stydoba" that "the reboot obviously failed."

"And it couldn't be otherwise. If we continue the analogy with a computer, then Russia should have completely shut down and reloaded from a save file of the 1990s. A file with a drunk president, no army, no economy, no sovereignty, no prospects. Exactly such a Russia is a correct, democratic state, from the point of view of the West. Only with such a Russia can one be friends and pat her on the shoulder, gently pushing even closer to the abyss, "network analysts believe.

If we return to the diplomatic language, we will also be forced to state: they tried to reset relations, but as a result, Russia received constant pressure from the United States and other Western countries, which, as it becomes clear, is not at all connected with the events of 2014. Sanctions began to be introduced as soon as they realized that Russia would not return to the status of a weak state, but would defend its interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke about this earlier. Russia has been and will be an independent sovereign state. It will either be such a state, or completely cease to exist, the president recalled during his address to the Federal Assembly. Putin expressed his position against the backdrop of attempts by a number of countries around the world to put pressure on Moscow, pursuing their own political interests. Separately, he spoke about the US decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. At one time, Moscow and Washington decided to limit themselves to the production of medium and short-range missiles, while other states took part in such developments. Putin admits that today the world has changed. Indeed, there were questions. But the Russian leader still considers the actions of the United States to withdraw from the treaty short-sighted.

“If you wanted to leave, you should have said so, and not use far-fetched accusations against Russia to justify your unilateral withdrawal from the treaty. They would have done better, like in 2002, when they left the missile defense system, openly, to be honest. It’s good or bad is another question. I think it's bad. But they acted honestly. And how do they actually act now? They violate everything themselves, and therefore they appoint the guilty. And they also mobilize their satellites. They are so ... neat, but Still, the Americans are grunting."

If the "reset" button was brought by the furious Russophobe Clinton, then nothing but "reset" could have happened.
10 years of the event.

— Radio Stydoba (@RadioStydoba)

y. She was supposed to symbolize a new start in a relationship, however

the inscription in Russian on this very button was made with an error. Instead of the word “reset”, it flaunted “overload”, which subsequently gave experts many reasons to joke that the new policy was doomed at the start.

True, having learned from her Russian colleague about the mistake, Hillary Clinton found something to answer: "We are carrying out a reset, and because of this, both I and Minister Lavrov will be overloaded with work."

Both sides were ready to improve relations, which at the end of the US presidency were going through hard times. The culmination was the clash between Russia and Georgia during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, which the United States, ignoring the actions of Tbilisi, considered Moscow's aggression.

At the time, Obama, who had been much critical of his predecessor's policies, was really keen to improve relations with Moscow. In the National Security Strategy adopted in 2010, Russia, along with other members, was noted as a country that is one of the "key centers of influence" in the world.

“We had a big list of priorities, and these were specific goals that we named in the early months of the Obama administration. We achieved something, and it was a period of good cooperation, ”McFaul recalled.

Having accepted the “reset”, Russia also accepted a number of American proposals. In particular, Moscow agreed to help Washington deliver goods to Afghanistan, imposed sanctions against Iran, and signed an offensive arms limitation treaty with Washington in 2010.

In turn, the United States facilitated the admission of Russia to the World Trade Organization (although many today call this a controversial step), made certain changes to plans for the deployment of missile defense in Europe, lifted sanctions on a number of Russian defense companies, and also ceased to promote expansion plans so intrusively in the post-Soviet space.

“I was present during most of the president’s meetings with both Putin and Medvedev, and I don’t remember talking about NATO expansion – this issue seemed closed,” McFaul recalled.

However, by pressing the "reset" button, Russia and the United States were not able to get rid of the burden of accumulated problems overnight, and, it seems, they were not striving for this. Moscow believed that the "reset" gave it some freedom of action in the post-Soviet space, Washington, in turn, believed that Moscow would turn a blind eye to US actions in other countries of the world.

At the same time, reports began to appear in the American expert community that said that the United States should stop trying to remake Russia, and cooperate with it on a mutually beneficial basis. One of them was prepared by a group of American political scientists led by former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, later head of .

In contrast, they offered to recognize that US interests are not always identical to those of Russia, and also warned Obama to avoid turning the US into a tool for blackmailing Moscow by the post-Soviet states.

Today, this report looks almost like a fantasy novel, but then the parties were really ready to move on to more cooperation.

However, this did not happen - tactical interaction gave way to new contradictions. If the spy scandal of 2010 with the arrest of "sleeping" Russian intelligence officers could be survived, then the events in Libya gave impetus to a significant deterioration in relations. After Russia refrained from vetoing a no-fly zone in Libya, the US decided to use the opportunity to launch an air strike on the country. Washington's goal was to help the radical rebels who fought against the Libyan leader.

Vladimir Putin, then prime minister of Russia, called the US actions a "crusade". Obama himself later described the Libyan operation as the "biggest mistake" of his presidency.

In his latest book, From Cold War to Hot Peace, McFaul notes that after the 2012 elections, Vladimir Putin changed Russia's foreign policy vector.

He writes that when he was appointed ambassador to Russia in 2011, "the situation hung." Putin has already announced his return to the presidency, and McFaul himself notes that the Russian leader "had little enthusiasm" for a "reset." “I became an ambassador to promote the reset and instead I presided over its demise,” the diplomat wrote.

Some experts on the American side believe that the “reset” ended immediately after Putin returned to the presidency, others that it was influenced by the case of Edward Snowden, who arrived in Russia in 2013. The situation with forced Obama to cancel his visit to Moscow, although after that the parties were able to agree on the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria - perhaps the last "forgive" the "reset" policy.

The idea of ​​a "reset" would later be criticized a lot on both sides of the Atlantic, recalling unfulfilled hopes and inflated expectations.

Many will remember both the incorrect inscription on the button and the fact that Hillary Clinton, unloved by many in Russia, pressed it. However, later the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation will say that the "reset" "had positive results." True, at the same time, in 2014, he said that he did not expect a new “reset”. Although the fact that a new "reset" is possible, said in 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: "Well, it depends on what we get for it."

Her predictions were not destined to come true: Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, who promised his own "reset" - to get along with Russia and Putin, for which he himself would be called a "Russian agent."

At the same time, relations became worse than ever, reaching in ten years the very “overload” that the button warned about. Now lovers of “rebooting” relationships will have to wait at least until the 2020 elections. There is a possibility that a new president will appear in the United States, and, perhaps, new ideas will be offered if the president of the United States is re-elected. Perhaps this will do and . The main thing is to check that everything is written correctly.