This document is in six sections.
- The first is a preamble. It is from ColonelCassad and is a machine translation. This would form a necessary overview and is a description of the current situation.
- The second is Russian Deputy FM Ryabkov’s special video briefing in Moscow and contains some incisive Q&A
- The third is a short press release
- The fourth is a proposed draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees
- The fifth is a cohesive complement to the draft treaty and is an agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
- The sixth is Jen Psaki’s initial response as reported by RT
We await the Saker’s Analysis in the next few days.
Preamble
The Russian Foreign Ministry presented a draft Russia-NATO agreement, which in fact sets forth in writing the security guarantees desired by Russia, which in fact is what was not done when Gorbachev liquidated the Soviet bloc.
Thus, the following text presents Russia’s vision of the current state of Russian-NATO relations and the vector of their desired correction in a way that would be beneficial for Russia.
Bilateral relations between Russia and foreign countries and regional organizations
Russian-NATO relations are in a protracted crisis. The decisions of the 2018 NATO summit in Brussels confirmed the line of military-political “containment” of Russia. The long-term course of building up NATO’s coalition capabilities to create troop groupings and further improve military infrastructure near our borders has continued.
The military presence and the bloc’s forced development of military infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states is consistently increasing. The number and intensity of military exercises of the alliance and its member countries have increased significantly, for which additional contingents of troops and heavy military equipment of NATO countries are being transferred to the regions bordering Russia.
Sweden, Finland and other partner countries are more and more actively involved in the military activities of the alliance. Advanced command and staff units are being formed, the decision was made to create new joint commands of the coalition forces – in Norfolk (USA) to ensure safety of transport corridors in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions, in Ulm (Germany) on the management, planning and logistics for the organization of military transport in Europe. Pentagon plans for forward storage of military equipment in the CEE and Baltic states have been announced. Groups of ships patrolling the waters of the Baltic Sea were strengthened. The number of visits and duration of stay in the Black Sea of naval ships of non-Black Sea alliance countries, primarily of the USA, has increased. NATO Navy continues to patrol the air space of the Baltic Sea with increased strength, and “interception” sorties are carried out even when there have been no violations from the Russian side. The missile defense complex in Romania is deployed. A similar facility is planned to be commissioned in 2020 in Poland. Of particular concern are the plans for permanent deployment of U.S. troops there and the recent agreements to increase the American contingent, which jeopardize the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, one of the few remaining documents meant to ensure military stability in Europe.
Gradually but systematically, the effective European security architecture and the norms of international law are being destroyed. The abandonment of key agreements that ensure military restraint, with the tacit agreement of most members of the alliance – the situation around the New START treaty is a vivid example here – is fraught with the development of a new arms race, a throwback to the principles of the confrontation era.
Of course, such NATO military preparations cannot remain without our adequate response.
The continuing dragging of the Balkan countries into NATO and the desire to “drive” them into the bloc at any cost confirms the invariability of the course taken to recklessly expand its geopolitical space. Disregard of legal norms and opinion of a considerable part of the population in closing the issue of state name of Northern Macedonia, forcing Bosnia and Herzegovina to join NATO, creating “Kosovo army” with connivance of the “Force for Kosovo” only aggravate already existing contradictions and seriously destabilize the situation in the region.
The unilateral decision of NATO to suspend practical cooperation with Russia on military and civilian lines also remains in force. At the same time, NATO countries do not show readiness to discuss Russian proposals on de-escalation of tensions and prevention of military incidents, handed to them at the May 31, 2018 Russia-NATO Council meeting. These proposals include resuming dialogue on the military line (starting with expert consultations) to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern to Russia and our partners; taking measures to reduce military activity along the line of direct contact between Russia and NATO (the Baltics, There has been no reaction from NATO so far.
All these actions are fraught with long-term destabilizing consequences for both regional and entire Euro-Atlantic security.
Despite the unfriendly steps taken against us, Russia has no intention of getting drawn into the senseless confrontation imposed on us.
We continue to firmly believe in the strategic commonality of aims with all the States and organizations of the Euro-Atlantic region to maintain peace and stability and to counter common threats to security – international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking and piracy. We remain convinced that there is no real alternative to mutually beneficial and broad pan-European security co-operation on the solid basis of international law.
Russia’s position remains unchanged – our country is ready to develop relations with NATO on the basis of equal rights in order to strengthen comprehensive security in the Euro-Atlantic region. The depth and content of such relations will depend on the alliance’s reciprocal readiness to take Russia’s legitimate interests into account.
The video is forwarded to start playing at the start point at 21:47
Press release on Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO
During the December 15, 2021 meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry, the US party received a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees and an agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
The US party was given detailed explanations regarding the logic of the Russian approach, as well as the relevant arguments. We hope that, the United States will enter into serious talks with Russia in the near future regarding this matter, which has critical importance for maintaining peace and stability, using the Russian draft treaty and agreement as a starting point.
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES
Unofficial translation
Draft
The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,
guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,
recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,
supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,
recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,
considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,
bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,
seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,
reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,
reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:
shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;
shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.
Article 2
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Article 5
The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.
The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.
Article 6
The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.
Article 7
The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.
The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.
Article 8
The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.
Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
| For the United States of America | For the Russian Federation |
AGREEMENT ON MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND MEMBER STATES OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Unofficial translation
Draft
The Russian Federation and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hereinafter referred to as the Parties,
reaffirming their aspiration to improve relations and deepen mutual understanding,
acknowledging that an effective response to contemporary challenges and threats to security in our interdependent world requires joint efforts of all the Parties,
determined to prevent dangerous military activity and therefore reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces,
noting that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral cooperation, more political and military stability, predictability, and transparency,
reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the Rome Declaration “Russia-NATO Relations: a New Quality” signed by the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO member States in 2002,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties.
The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties.
The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities.
Article 2
In order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council.
The Parties shall regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges, inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure transparency and predictability of military activities.
Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties.
Article 3
The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region).
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Article 7
The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.
In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Article 8
This Agreement shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations
of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 9
This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its deposit.
Each Party to this Agreement may withdraw from it by giving appropriate notice to the Depositary. This Agreement shall terminate for such Party [30] days after receipt of such notice by the Depositary.
This Agreement has been drawn up in Russian, English and French, all texts being equally authentic, and shall be deposited in the archive of the Depositary, which is the Government of …
Done in [the city of …] this [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX].
White House responds to Russian security proposals
“We have seen the Russian proposals. We are discussing them with our European allies and partners,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told journalists onboard Air Force One on Friday when asked about the Russian documents.
She added that the US won’t accept the idea of stopping NATO expansion in Europe, despite what Russia wants.
“We will not compromise the key principles on which European security is built, including that all countries have the right to decide their own future and form policy free from outside interference,” she said.
Moscow sees the expansion of NATO towards its border as a critical threat to its national security, based on the bloc’s confrontational stance toward Russia.
A verbal promise not to move the organisation to the east was given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during negotiations on the reunification of Germany. Those assurances were memory-holed after the dissolution of the USSR. In 2017, declassified US documents backed up Moscow’s version of events.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, meanwhile, said that the potential dialog should include the alliance’s concerns and Ukraine’s point of view.
Bad move – that will encourage those fools in Kiev even more to try to retake the Donbas by force – and will trigger big troubles for Europe – US regime really wants to sacrifice Europe to distract from their shit at home.
The Biden administration is considering redirecting helicopters and other military equipment once allocated for now-defunct Afghan military to Ukraine
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-considers-sending-ukraine-military-equipment-once-bound-for-afghanistan-11639757332?mod=e2twp
war is coming
On the contrary, this is a wise move. Russia presented proposals to both the US and NATO for military deescalation. This is a fact, which will become a historical fact. And yes, these Russian proposals will not be accepted, especially since the neocons placed Biden in the White House for political and military aggression, not for any peaceful settlements. Ukraine, the proxy fighter, will be sacrificed after provoking a war in the Donbass., where the intent is to bring Russia into a war and declare it an aggressor. The US is hoping to isolate Russia, turning the EU away from it. It wont work. Russia is in Europe, while the US is on the other side of the Atlantic.
Except the war seems to be fought with (guerilla money) dollars meant to be used to destabilize the region of interest, and then defended with military maneuvers to make sure the dollars reach their intended targets.
De-dollarization includes making the use of the dollar trade punishable by law in the regions of destabilizations.
All one has to do is make the declaration (which is ignored by the western press), and then follow up on the declaration, (which then is parroted by the press as Russian aggression).
This is the standard nato expansion protocol.
I would like Russia to take a tough stance. Politically, militarily and economically. They should stop any business with 3B+P+U. Actively fight Russian citizens who work for foreign intelligence services and receive money from them. They should process more Russian mineral resources domestically. Hopefully there will be no war.
“The US “will not compromise” on NATO expansion, the White House reiterated on Friday”
It is one thing if that fool Stoltenberg is busy shooting his mouth off about NATO, but if the White House echoes his comments, then I see little hope to avoid Russian military intervention. Perhaps having NATO forces crushed by Russia is the only message the neocon fools in Washington can understand?
The whole Western model of development has been based on expansion. That is the essence of imperialism and capitalism. It’s been like that for the past 500 years.
It has been addicted to war or manipulation. It’s absurd for the US to demand Ukrainian sovereignty when it staged a coup there. There are many examples of this, including the many false flag events that precipitated its wars.
Russia asking that the West, through NATO to be in stasis is like asking a heroin addict to stop taking more and more to get its necessary high.
This action by Russia, along with its leaving SWIFT, will be the equivalent of ‘cold turkey’, taking away the West’s very mode of existence, making such a treaty an existential threat, which will have dire consequences both for people living in the West and its dollar financial system. From the West’s point of view, it’s a declaration of war.
That’s just (Removed insult,MOD)…Expansion-Empire was not unique to Capitalism-Western Europe…..You obviously have no clue about Mezo-America…..They weren’t gentle lotus eaters…
Take a look at today’s video by Andrei Martyanov on the Russian Ultimatum before you declare from your armchair and keyboard that Russia is not strong, has to be more aggressive, looks weak.
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2021/12/we-havent-done-fridays-beautiful-souls.html#disqus_thread
Quick comment: I assume the idea of not installing nuclear weapons outside the national borders of the parties (Article 5 of the Treaty) does not include the weapons of the third of the nuclear triad: submarines in international waters, as long as those submarines are not in international waters in proximity to the national borders of the other parties, i.e., no US nuclear subs in the Black Sea, or Russian nuclear subs near the Atlantic coast of the US.
I think that is what Article 5 meant, but it was poorly worded, with the phrase “from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party” tacked on the end instead of earlier in the proposition. Because obviously neither the US nor Russia is going to limit nuclear submarines to their own national waters. That might actually be a good idea, but it’s not going to happen, and I assume both sides know it.
Regarding Article 7 of the TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES, I believe Russia is referring to the B61 nuclear gravity bombs that the US has forward-based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. Hans Kristensen of the FAS estimates there are a total of 100 weapons, see his Oct 2021 article https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/10/steadfastnoon2021/
The US violates the spirit of the NonProliferation Treaty by creating a military arrangement to train and equip these NATO member states with nuclear weapons, which are kept at military bases in those nations. Under Article I of the NPT, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Russia is reminding the US of this fact.
There is the right time for action and there is the right time for talk. Unfortunately, all these years Russia was mostly doing nothing, not even properly talking. There have been quite a few opportunities to change the trajectory of the descent in to such an unrecoverable political position. Today, does Russia really think that something will come out of this proposal at this particular juncture? Not even an unconditional capitulation would be acceptable to the “partners”, let alone a fair peace treaty. There is no one in the West who would dare to disccus signing the document without being labeled as a coward and a traitor. The lost opportunities won’t be back, and the time for any meaningful conversation has passed. Just imagine would Russia be willing to sign similar agreement if its troops were deployed all over Mexico, Cuba and Canada?
@Srecko
Your argument is weak and equates Russia with US/WEST/NATO behavior.
Who is encroaching on whom?
Who left the INF and Open Skies treaties and tries to establish their rules instead of the treaties?
Who is arming the Ukraine and paying them to wage an ethnic cleansing war?
Who encourages the Poles to threaten Kaliningrad?
Who attempts to move cruise missile launchers right up to Russian borders with flight time of less than 5 minutes?
Who continues to attempt to destabilize Belarus?
Russia knows war. Russia wants no war. Russia will not wage a “small war” just to suit the need of the West to brand Russia an aggressor.
If the US and NATO want war, start it. Use a proxy if you will. Russia already clearly stated that the proxies, NATO and the authors of the war (meaning US policy deciders) all will be targeted and destroyed as if they were at the front. The rear is going to be destroyed along with the attackers.
The path for the West is war or retreat. Russia has issued an ultimatum, not talking points.
“The path for the West is war or retreat. Russia has issued an ultimatum, not talking points.”
Correct, and I don’t believe the Russians expect a positive response from the empire. Looks like war is inevitable, maybe before spring as the empire is more used to warm weather fighting.
Not taking Odessa, call it flinch, or blink, the enemy is not stupid. They were emboldened, and please no blah blah about cauldrons and enemies killed the Controllers care little for the fodder lost, old population control method that dates back centuries if not longer.
Ildib, Syria, another frozen festering front. Not much different than the Ukraine.
More decisive moves on both these fronts (crystal ball) may, or may not, have given the Western controllers pause for thought….did it? The aggression proceeds apace against Russia.
Lets wait and see how well Russia’s Security Demands make the controllers sit up and pay attention….. which may take a while as they will be ensconced in their secure poler bunkers……feeling a bit like fodder at the moment.
“down in the basement, mixing up the cement”
Cheers M
Srećko
What are you talking about ? “Russia was mostly doing nothing” ? Really ?
Russia rebuilt it’s military and infrastructure and established close bilateral relationships with China. Putin brought Russia to the world stage, to the utter astonishment of both the US and NATO, who were hoping the country would break up so it could be plundered. What we have today is a reaction to Russia’s revival.
Western neocons are desperate to provoke Russia into a war, so it could be isolated. This especially applies to US neocons, who are now facing a heap of internal problems, like secession, financial and economic troubles, the inability to repay the gigantic domestic and foreign debts, the printing of the dollar backed by nothing, race troubles, increase in crime, etc. They would just love to have a war in order to divert the public’s attention from domestic troubles. It won’t work. How many people in the US would care if war broke out in the Donbass ? Would this solve the troubles they are facing domestically ? I think not. Finally, it was the US who terminated international agreements, not Russia. How can Russia achieve anything politically and diplomatically with aggressive opponents ? It can only show a strong hand, while at the same time making proposals, as it is doing. What you wrote cannot be accepted.
Well, if RUS is serious about striking the command centers from which attack orders originate, then we might see serious destruction in and near western capitols, including Langley, Brussels, Ramstein, and DC. The average US tv viewer would certainly take notice of that. The question remains, however; would enough of the sleepy US tv tribe see such targeting by RUS as a bad thing? Maybe not.
You are right!
This document will be interpreted as yet another sign of Russian weakens and desperation. It has already been called an ultimatum in the West and no one will ever dare to take it seriously. It comes late about 30 or so years, but…eh… at that time the “modern” and “pragmatic” Russia was busy helping the “partners” to finish all their unfinished business like in the Balkans and remove its own interests from around the world.
What is the strategic leverage that the surrounded Russia has today? Just like the Russian “red lines” that no one cares about, this proposal takes away a lot and do not add any weight to the Russian political standing. If Russia does have any leverage apparently it is unable to show it and use it. At one point, when all credibility has been lost, nothing that Russia does or say will work any more. Unfortunately, we are almost there.
Jen Psaki: ““We will not compromise the key principles on which European security is built, including that all countries have the right to decide their own future and form policy free from outside interference,” she said.”
Wow, they can lie straight out and believe it…the believing it is the sad part.
The west won’t accept any security guarantees. They already said so. This is wishful thinking showing how weak Russia is as it has to beg for a document, any document, any sign of respect.
But there is no respect for Russia on the West. The west respects only brute force and power.
It is amazing that Putin and his circle didn’t know this.
“It is amazing that Putin and his circle didn’t know this.”
It is amazing that you believe you understand something about the collective West’s attitude & approach to Russia that Putin & the Kremlin do not understand. Perhaps you should offer your services as an advisor – for premium top dollar. Putin & the Kremlin know full well how the West/NATO will react to their every initiative & suggestion, but they must be certain to be seen to be avoiding war every step of the way, the Russian population would never forgive them for recklessly allowing the West to provoke them into a foolish action that was not grounded in a defence against attack. The Russian population has to know that it has a responsible government, they have to know if war comes, that it is due to nothing that Putin or the Kremlin as a whole did or did not do. The West/NATO for its part will receive offers to deescalate, yes they will reject them, & when they are defeated in an eventual war there will be hell to pay for all those who led the utterly imbecilic West into this nightmare.
> Perhaps you should offer your services as an advisor – for premium top dollar.
Maybe. They are in a position of Stalin in June 1941. ignoring what was happening.
Sim!
A impressão que temos no Brasil assistindo de longe os acontecimentos é exatamente essa…
Vladimir Putin é muito respeitado e admirado no Brasil.
Mas a impressão que temos é que a demência dos EUA levará o Mundo à Guerra.
E que os acontecimentos são muito parecidos com os de 1941.
Esperamos que Shoigu e todos os russos estejam realmente preparados para todos os ataques dos EUA.
Os EUA são o Império do Mal!
Glória Eterna à Eterna Rússia!
And my mom wants to know why things wont remain the same as they’ve always been, probably been talking to this fellow on the doctor couch.
Indeed, it should have been made, should have been drafted,…presented and proposed.
But in the end: so what?
in the 70ties, when the vietnamese-american negotiations in Paris kept going and Kissinger had to justify them to domestic opinion he said: ‘Yes, it should be reckoned that the Chinese have their legitimate security concerns as well”.
Do the ruskies have them as well at their southwestern borders?
“The west respects only brute force and power. “
Perhaps you should read the Saker’s blog comments in respect of Ukraine throughout the period from Mid February to March 2014 which includes assertions akin to – “The Russians need to attack, otherwise the Americans will think they are weak.”.
Perhaps the ensuing history will illustrate that “some do not assign the significance to others that others seek to assign to themselves” which many opponents still do not deem to be “plausible belief”.
If so, perhaps your assertion should read – The west relies on force, power, and projection ?
The ignorance and hubris of these people is broadcast loudly for all to see and hear and it makes one wonder are they really this stupid, is it loud braying like a donkey showing its teeth as a threat? As others have said the wording in this legal document is not a proposal, Russia is not asking pretty please. This is an ultimatum. This document gives Russia the legal right in front of the world to defend itself, Russian people and its interests. Andriy Martyanov has stated it it in a way that even the psychotic imbeciles of the empire would be able to understand if they took the time to read or listen. Weak countries do not give ultimatums.
“This is an ultimatum.”
That is how some interpet the draft documents as a function of their immersion in binary thinking- Mr Bush’s you either are with us or with the enemy re the war on terriers refers since it might not include other breeds.
The documents form part of a notice of intent which also includes but is not limited to, the updated nuclear strategies of the Russian Federation rendering Mr. Stolenberg’s illusions of the possibilities and possible outcomes of saying no, ultra vires.
What makes anyone think the US would honor the agreement, even if it is reached?
What if they break it (like they always did and will do!) and attack Russia nevertheless?
Who is going to make them “pay” for breaching it – the Hague tribunal???
This is just ludicrous. Legal security guarantees from the US???….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
A joke beyond all jokes.
Russia will not enter the nervousness trap, the neocons are nervous because their empire is falling like a house of cards, I wonder if in the cold war the Americans used that arrogant lexicon, in the era of computer science and social networks we can know how brainless are these Atlanticist politicians
The British media are clever in de-protesting and creating war scenarios. Isn’t it that the British empire wants a self-destruction of the 3 great powers (USA, Russia, China) to continue dominating the financial world like 300 years ago?
Let’s not forget that Lyndon Larouche once said that the United States was dominated by global British private banking (Rothschild)
That would explain why Britain always ended up driving the United States into wars from England.
I still see a pyramidal power in that aspect, that would also explain the Kennedy assassination.
The conference between Putin, Xi and Klaus Schwab seems to have a deep and unknown background.
We can only speculate that China and Russia said “no” to the “great reset” and this upset the Red Shield family.
Klaus Schwab and His work “The fourth industrial revolution” was already visualized by the prospective science of
Alvin Toffler in the 80s.
Neo industrial and financial feudalism.
Saludos !
Here we are, the Last initiative before war. I’m sad, really. I don’fear the death, no what’sad are the vain efforts of the goodwilling people which face insane mediocrity..
A very formal way of saying … ‘we will not invade Ukraine [Article 1] as long as you don’t try to turn Ukraine into a missile base [the rest of the articles]’. Most reasonable people would be able to see the logic in it but we are not reasonable.
Note how Jen Psaki tells two lies.
1. ‘the US won’t accept the idea of stopping NATO expansion in Europe’
– Russia is only asking that NATO deny membership to former Republics of the Soviet Union. Our proposal does not cover all of Europe.
2. ‘all countries have the right to decide their own future …’
– NATO membership is not a right. The U.S. has gleefully added and then removed Russia from global organizations such as the G7,8,9 whatever. It is granted by existing members. This is not an issue of sovereignty for the country that wants to join.
In my opinion the ultimatums were issued as a last chance to avoid the coming war and I now have no doubts that war is coming and it ain’t gonna be pretty. All the screams and pontifications emanating from SehSha in general and Foggy Bottom and Langley in particular are beginning to sound more and more like whistling in the dark as you walk past the graveyard but TPTB in both locations and most of SehSha in general have to know that Mat Rossiya is no pushover and the ultimatums were given as a last gasp to stop the coming war. So be it.
The ultimatums are, in my opinion, almost impossible for SehSha to either agree to or implement but on the other hand I’m willing to bet that there’s many a nervous look over the shoulder amongst those really ‘in the know’ in the circles of power in SehSha (США, pronounced as in Rossiya) because they know how dangerous the situation has become. Their knee jerk reaction is to scoff at them and denigrate them, but reality is reality and those who have the ‘inside track’ of informations know very well that war with Rossiya is not possible to win by any stretch of the imagination.
On the other hand, how many declining and disintegrating ’empires’ have quietly expired with nary a whimper? There is no reason what so ever to assume, or in reality even consider, that SehSha will agree to the non negotiable ultimatums and do as prudence would lead to and at least talk about them although Rossiya has made it very plain that the list in the ultimatum is not a point by point shopping list or negotiable in any way. Rossiya means what she said and what she proposed and for SehSha not to agree will be fatal in the hopefully long term but quite possibly in the short term as well.
We’ll know in a week or perhaps as long as shortly after New Year what SehSha will do. I don’t have many allusions as to what the answer will be but I also have no doubts that the first ‘answer’ will be ‘OH HELL NO!’. As the ultimatums become ‘common knowledge’ throughout SehSha and knowledgeable folks do their research from something besides ‘main stream’ media, it’s slightly possible that a groundswell of opinion might persuade the political class to at least discuss and negotiate. I know, I’m kidding myself, but hope dies last.
Auslander
Author
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056 Never the Last One: a Novel of Spetznaz, opens your eyes to the Russian world not described in American news or fiction.
An Incident On Simonka paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696160715 NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
“……..in SehSha (США, pronounced as in Rossiya)”
You’ve given me an idea brother Auslander – in Serbian it is Sjedinjenih Americkih Drzava (United American States, that is United States of America) which when abbreviated becomes SAD. Superb. SAD. Very very SAD. I’ll use that from now on.
Srbalj
Excellent! It fits for sure! I never learned a word of your language when I was there quite some years ago, didn’t have the time and our CO pulled us out faster than we were sent in.
I totally agree with Auslander (can’t reply as the reply button is gone???)
The doc definitely has a “last chance” vibe about it. On the optimistic side: there does seem to be a lot of infighting in the West, (Biden flip- flopping, vaccine mandates cancelled then re instated the re-cancelled etc) lets hope enough people wake up and stop (or at least slow) the push to war..
Naturally the Russian initiative did not come as a surprise to the USA or NATO. This would have been very unprofessional.
The USA in order to survive as a viable state must give up its desire to be the world hegemon. The withdrawal will take time and every step back will be accompanied by save facing propaganda.
Isn’t it interesting that presently Western media are mute on the subject? New narratives need to be spun. We will see less and less Russia is bad reporting on Western system media.
Saker
All this stuff is excellent, but I feel it is probably a little too Russia centric in its analysis. I feel that the role of China in the scheme of things cannot be ignored, nor indeed Iran and even Venezuela. Once you do this then we are talking world war, not European/Atlantic war.
Certainly some US allies (puppy dogs) like Australia are focused heavily of China as the main threat.