Posting these documents in a sequence of how they happened will assist in understanding one clear fact. Russia has not stepped back one inch despite the flurry of so-called megaphone diplomacy tried at the UN in the last few days. Neither has Russia changed her plans and strategy to bring the question of indivisible security to the forefront.
-
Text of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mr. Sergey Lavrov`s written message on Indivisibility of Security addressed to the Heads of Foreign / External Affairs Ministers / Secretaries of the US, Canada and several European countries.
-
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
-
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question following his telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Moscow, February 1, 2022
1 February 2022 20:56
Text of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mr. Sergey Lavrov`s written message on Indivisibility of Security addressed to the Heads of Foreign / External Affairs Ministers / Secretaries of the US, Canada and several European countries.
You are well aware that Russia is seriously concerned about increasing politico-military tensions in the immediate vicinity of its western borders. With a view to avoiding any further escalation, the Russian side presented on 15 December 2021 the drafts of two interconnected international legal documents – a 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 Organization.
The U.S. and NATO responses to our proposals received on 26 January 2022 demonstrate serious differences in the understanding of the principle of equal and indivisible security that is fundamental to the entire European security architecture. We believe it is necessary to immediately clarify this issue, as it will determine the prospects for future dialogue.
The Charter for European Security signed at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999 formulated key rights and obligations of the OSCE participating States with respect to indivisibility of security. It underscored the right of each participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements including treaties of alliances, as they evolve, as well as the right of each State to neutrality. The same paragraph of the Charter directly conditions those rights on the obligation of each State not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other States. It says further that no State, group of States or Organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.
At the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our nations approved a declaration that reaffirmed this comprehensive package of interconnected obligations.
However, the Western countries continue to pick up out of it only those elements that suit them, and namely – the right of States to be free to choose alliances for ensuring exclusively their own security. The words ‘as they evolve’ are shamefacedly omitted, because this provision was also an integral part of the understanding of ‘indivisible security’, and specifically in the sense that military alliances must abandon their initial deterrence function and integrate into the all-European architecture based on collective approaches, rather than as narrow groups. The principle of indivisible security is selectively interpreted as a justification for the ongoing course toward irresponsible expansion of NATO.
It is revealing that Western representatives, while expressing their readiness to engage in dialogue on the European security architecture, deliberately avoid making reference to the Charter for European Security and the Astana Declaration in their comments. They mention only earlier OSCE documents, particularly often – the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe that does not contain the increasingly ‘inconvenient’ obligation not to strengthen own security at the expense of the security of other States. Western capitals also attempt to ignore a key OSCE document – the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which clearly says that the States will choose their security arrangements, including membership in alliances, ‘bearing in mind the legitimate security concerns of other States’.
It will not work that way. The very essence of the agreements on indivisible security is that either there is security for all or there is no security for anyone. The Istanbul Charter provides that each OSCE participating State has equal right to security, and not only NATO countries that interpret this right as an exceptional privilege of membership in the ‘exclusive’ North Atlantic club.
I will not comment on other NATO guidelines and actions that reflect the aspiration of the ‘defensive’ bloc to military supremacy and the use of force bypassing the prerogatives of the U.N. Security Council. Suffice it to say that such actions contravene the fundamental all-European obligations including the commitments under the aforementioned documents to maintain only such military capabilities that are commensurate with individual or collective security needs, taking into account the obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security interests of other States.
Discussing the present situation in Europe, our colleagues from the United States, NATO and the European Union make constant appeals for ‘de-escalation’ and call on Russia to ‘choose a path of diplomacy’. We want to remind: we have been moving along that path for decades. The key milestones, such as the documents of the Istanbul and Astana summits, are exactly the direct result of diplomacy. The very fact that the West now tries to revise to its benefit these diplomatic achievements of the leaders of all OSCE countries raises serious concern. The situation demands a frank clarification of positions.
We want to receive a clear answer to the question how our partners understand their obligation not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of other States on the basis of the commitment to the principle of indivisible security. How specifically does your Government intend to fulfil this obligation in practical terms in the current circumstances? If you renege on this obligation, we ask you to clearly state that.
Without having full clarity on this key issue related to the interconnection of rights and obligations approved at the highest level, it is impossible to ensure the balance of interests embodied in the instruments of the Istanbul and Astana summits. Your response will help to better understand the extent of the ability of our partners to remain faithful to their commitments, as well as the prospects for common progress toward decreasing tensions and strengthening European security.
We look forward to your prompt reply. It should not take long as the point is to clarify the understanding on the basis of which Your President/Prime Minister signed the corresponding obligations.
We also expect that the response to this letter will be given in the national capacity, as the aforementioned commitments were undertaken by each of our States individually and not within any bloc or in the name thereof.
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
On February 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the latter’s initiative.
They continued their exchange of views on providing legally binding security guarantees to Russia in the context of the written response of the US and NATO to the initial drafts of the international legal agreements. Foreign Minister Lavrov emphasised the imperative character of our demands that all OSCE countries faithfully abide by the commitment not to enhance their security at the expense of the security of others, including NATO’s non-expansion and non-deployment of offensive weapons near Russian borders.
Opportunities to continue working on security guarantees were discussed in light of the current proposals under consideration.
During the discussion of Ukraine, Sergey Lavrov called on his counterpart to use US influence on the Ukrainian authorities to compel them to fully implement the Minsk Agreements instead of ratcheting up the aggressive rhetoric and loading up the Armed Forces of Ukraine with various types of weapons.
During the discussion of the bilateral agenda, Mr Lavrov spoke about Washington’s unacceptable policy of restricting the activities of Russian diplomatic missions in the United States. The officials agreed to step up the search for ways to remove these “irritants.”
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question following his telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Moscow, February 1, 2022
Question: Has Moscow responded to the Americans’ written materials that were sent following Russia’s proposals on security guarantees? What was the gist of your telephone conversation today with Antony Blinken? What contacts are planned for the future in this context?
Sergey Lavrov: Today, we heard from the US Department of State that they have allegedly received a response from Moscow to the document that the Americans sent in reply to our initial proposals on security guarantees in Europe.
This is a misunderstanding. We started studying the US response when we received it about a week ago. It was clear from the start that the Americans prefer to focus on discussing important albeit secondary issues. They asked if it was possible to agree on the non-deployment of offensive weapons on a reciprocal basis, including medium- and shorter-range missiles that had been covered once by the INF Treaty which the US destroyed. They mentioned transparency in holding exercises, measures for avoiding unforeseen incidents between combat aircraft and ships and other confidence-building measures.
As for the key issue that prompted us to send our initiatives to the United States and NATO, their response was negative. I am referring to our demands for honest implementation of the agreements on the indivisibility of security, which were reached in the OSCE framework in Istanbul in 1999 and in Astana in 2010. These agreements not only envisage the freedom to choose alliances but also make this freedom dependent on the need to avoid any steps that would enhance security at the expense of the security of others. We saw that the US and NATO response to our key question was extremely negative. They focus only on the freedom to choose alliances and completely ignore the condition that was approved at the highest level, notably, that it is unacceptable to encroach on the security of other states in the process.
We are also concerned over the position of other NATO countries, for instance, France. Its defence minister said not so long ago that they insist on the need to ensure security based on the documents that preceded the adoption of the Istanbul Charter and the Astana Declaration. The minister cited a document of the 1990 OSCE summit in Paris, which did not contain a demand not to enhance security at the expense of others. In other words, our Western colleagues are trying to consign to oblivion rather than simply ignore a key principle of international law accepted in the Euro-Atlantic space. To prevent this from happening, when we received Washington’s response to our initial proposals, I described in detail everything we are talking about now in a separate message and sent it to all foreign ministers of the OSCE states and some other countries to familiarise them with our position.
Today, I reaffirmed to Secretary of State Antony Blinken that we won’t allow this issue to be dragged out. We will insist on honest conversations and explanations of why the West does not want to honour its commitments at all, or only selectively when it benefits them. Mr Blinken agreed that this is a subject for another conversation. We will see how it goes. At present, we are completing the interdepartmental work on US proposals on other issues. We will report on them to our President.
Someone leaked the US rsponse to Russia’s non-ultimatum, published today in Spain in El Pais.
Yes, I saw that.
It’s seems they want to re-establish diplomatic relations at NATO hq.
But apart from that it was the usual Orwellian doublespeak about Russia being aggressive, and how NATO is such a peace loving organisation..
All these statements have no influence and no echo in Western mind.
They are useless. They just make impression of weak, lamenting Russia.
Talking about justice has no sense when talking to hyenas.
You are underestimating the Russians. They follow “their” script to the letter. Securing clear and/or written responses, taking all legal and logistical steps, going through key events without disrupting the Olympics, making final agreements with President Xi, etc, etc.
In due time they will activate their response.
Be patient you will see…
Apparently the “west” is making all the PR barking to provoke a kinetic answer from Russia before the winter olympics.
The visit among clowns to ensure Russia that the neonazis will fight till the last blood drop (of Ukranians, of course) sending 3000 cannon foder “soldiers/mercenaries to shameless countries west of Russia, the spoke lyier of the ex-white house blaming game, etc are just laughable, to say the least.
And also apparently, Mr. Lavrov doing time with his superv style, with the same pourpose.
If the “west” does not go full crazy with a fals flag, also apparently, we all have to be patient and wait till the end of the olympics to witnes the wisest moves prepared to put the “west” in the place they belong to.
Apparently is the word in fashion.
Agree. Russia is making an excruciating effort to patiently make its position on indivisible security crystal clear. At the same time Russia is maneuvering its air, sea, and ground forces world-wide to be in exactly the right position at the right time. We all know that NATO countries have a front row seat to the show and understand intimately the consequences of a wrong move on their part.
Nevertheless, tension continues to build and soon some group in Ukraine with NATO support will make a wrong move and then Russia will unleash its shock therapy. The result will be to decisively break off several NATO countries stunned by the display. This fault line is already evident but it will accelerate and then split wide open after which NATO is finished.
And what else do you want Russia to do? Start a war at the time of Olympics?
Perhaps the Ukronazis and Anglozionists would go for that option probably during the Olympics, and definitely Russians maybe anticipating such a move.
Otherwise, any escalation on the Russian side would probably come in March
Fair enough but it is a fact that Russia’s demands for “security guarantees” have been dismissed out of hand by the US and NATO. The Russians said their demands were not a menu to choose from and they also said they would not get bogged down in endless negotiations. Unfortunately the Russians continue to engage in negotiations with the US even though their core demands have been rejected.
As usual America will tie Russia down in negotiating while watering down the essence of Russia’s demands. The military development of Ukrainian territory against Russia will continue and the polite Mr Lavrov will keep on warning of unspecified “grave consequences”. It is clear that Russia has no realistic means of subduing the Ukrainian government or at least imposing favourable conditions in Ukraine not to talk of compelling the Americans to back off.
By not acting to back up their warnings, Russia is further entrenching the perception that Russian warnings are not to be taken seriously. The Russian leadership’s abundance of caution is preparing the grounds for Russia’s humiliation. I understand that many here will disagree with my assessment and I respect their opinions but this is how I see it. I apologise if I have offended anyone.
judo : the way of the willow : teaches that while other tree branches break with the weight of snow, the willow bends and lets the snow fall to the ground.
then through jigoro kano analisys and obervation of action reaction it became a martial art.
there should be a teaching video available in the internetz of putin himself talking about those concepts.
the past half dozen years have shown clear evolution and it doesnt seem to be the case that they dont know waht they are doing.
have a little faith.
How does one oppose the Beast?
Well, you can’t oppose the Beast if your fundamental orientation in this world is social and cultural filth and disease…
And this is exactly what happened to anti-war leftists…who these days want to mass murder Slavic Christian Russians. And don’t ever ever forget that this was the cancerous Christopher Hitchen’s new target for demonizing had he not died from cancer. The counter cultural anti-war left of the 1960’s-1990’s became the pro-war left of today.The late George Kennan sensed this was coming….somewhat inchoately…and wrote a book about what the anti-war left would evolve into….
God Almighty in Heaven commands you to ferociously resist the Beast…..
@war for Blair mountain
Which leftist? The liberals in the US which are more conservative and right leaning than real leftist? Good try. Don’t come applying general term a limited to American naive politico. Authentic leftist around the world stand with Russia.
I love when it’s the right wing camp who continuously invokes God name, only believes certain groups deserve it.
Explains why Christianity fizzle to 30000 plus sects in the West.
Believing in God doesn’t mean being a doormat….
Your first paragraph I agree with…I think I do…
I don’t recognize Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity as Christianity…Both are Christian Heresies-like the Gnostics….
well , mr mountinious blair,I can be fairly described as a left and anti-war and I have nt the least will to mass murder any slavics or russians.
Even less turn out a pro war left of nowadays.
But feel that the global south and the new Eastern de facto alliance should take all steps necessary to make America shrink to their limits and back down. Some of the necessary steps may not be peaceful. Is that clear enough?
Augusto
In 1870s-1930’s America Conservatism meant something completely different than it days today….Back in the day it meant great suspicion of Corporate Power and Corporate Oligarch Foreign Policy…Writer Bill Kauffman wrote a book about this:‘America First….Reviewed favorably by Leftist the late Gore Vidal…
And you can also read Conservative General Smedley Butler’s anti-war Classic:War is a Racket….which all the cannon fodder in the US have a Divine Edict to read…
Thanks for posting these answers from Lavrov.
First response, he said: ‘At the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our nations approved a declaration that reaffirmed this comprehensive package of interconnected obligations.’
In 2010, there was already major problem between US and Russia. The obligations were not treated at the same level: ‘free to choose’ versus ‘security concerns’. Normally, Russia shoulnd’t have signed the Astana agreement when the other party doesn’t see the meaning of obligations the same way.
Also, how do you respect the security concerns of each party in the context of the disintegration of the Warsaw pact, dissolved in July 1991 ? The countries of the Warsaw pact should have stayed neutral after 1991.
Russia realized that in December 2021 ? Come on… difficult to believe.
The leaked by Spain US reply to Rossiya. Makes for an interesting read.
https://elpais.com/infografias/2022/02/respuesta_otan/respuesta_otan_eeuu.pdf
Auslander
Author http://rhauslander.com/
Yes, interesting reading.
In it, NATO is asking Russia to remove its permanent troops in Crimea, as well as other regions. They say that NATO is respecting the clause of no-permanent troops in Eastern europe, and Russia is not in Crimea, which they consider part of Ukraine.
In general, NATO is a defensive organism… In these documents, you won’t find the 2014 coup that was done by the WEST.
They mentioned the Minsk agreements. It is unbelievable that there was no deadlines in the Minks2 agreements, or the original agreement. No-one is referring to any deadline there might be. Today, the Ukrainian foreign minister said that he will never implement the political aspects of the Minsk 2 agreement. Is that clear enough ?
Enough talking…
blah blah talk talk, just a great big fuck you to Russia. NO the empire of death destruction and choas is not cowed that easily. If they can’t force the ukie nazi’s to commit suicide I think the CIA/MOSSAD are reaching for the B team in Syria. A repository for shit in north east Syria spilled its contents, will they start to attack Russian forces or is it justification to stuff more US troops in Iraq and Syria, maybe bolshevick Israhell payback to Russia for stopping their attacks. The borg is single minded, they will never stop until they are punched really hard in the face breaking their nose and knocking their teeth down their throat.
Couldn’t make it past the 4th page. Sickening
It is not surprising that the degenerate anti-war left over time converged in the limit to something that is openly pro-war leftism today…step by step…snap shot by snap shot…converging to the image of the Beast…Behold the abnormal..gortesque montrosity…the spawn of the Beast….you know, something out of the toilets of Comet Pizza…..
Um problema grave de análise na política americana, que está também ocorrendo no Brasil: identificar os bilionários que custeiam ou são os proprietários dos meios de comunicação e da Big Tech como integrando a esquerda, só porque eles empurram o identitarismo e suas ideologias acessórias…
Essa percepção está inequivocamente errada.
Toda a estrutura de comunicação foi concebida para induzir esse erro.
Esquerda é a parcela política que afirma que o produto do trabalho humano numa dada sociedade deve ser distribuído de forma mais equitativa possível entre os integrantes dessa sociedade.
A direita, por seu turno, defende que o produto do trabalho humano numa dada sociedade deve ser distribuído de forma desigual, privilegiando os detentores do capital, em detrimento dos trabalhadores.
A dicotomia direita e esquerda, portanto, não equivale à dicotomia conservador ou liberal, no que concerne aos costumes.
——-
Machine translation:
A serious problem of analysis in American politics, which is also occurring in Brazil: identifying the billionaires who fund or own the media and Big Tech as part of the left, just because they push identity and its accessory ideologies…
This perception is unequivocally wrong.
The entire communication structure was designed to induce this error.
Left is the political party that claims that the product of human labor in a given society should be distributed as equitably as possible among the members of that society.
The right, in turn, argues that the product of human labor in a given society should be unequally distributed, privileging the holders of capital, to the detriment of workers.
The right and left dichotomy, therefore, is not equivalent to the conservative or liberal dichotomy, as far as customs are concerned.
When future Historians write the History of this time period, they will write erudite books with massive documentation-documenting the crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton….Barack Obama….Joe Biden…Kamala Harris…..Anthony Blinken…and Victoria Nuland.
And the Democratic Party’s monumentally evil crime is the slaughter of Orthodox Christian Slavic Human Beings….and it was all justified in the name of The Blessings of Diversity!!!-the malodorous ideology of the Global Homosexual Pederast US Empire…
By the way, I could have substituted Syria above…same rancid creatures from Hell who attempted to extermination the Nation of Syria…..and the Nation of Iran…
War is a f………g racket….
Its all in their heads.
“British diplomacy is “absolutely worthless” – Russian deputy UN ambassador (Sky News video)
Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky claims recent years have shown British diplomacy to be “absolutely worthless.”
Polyansky added Moscow has “absolutely no trust” in UK & US intelligence data that claims 130,000+ troops are stationed on the Ukrainian border, likening it to the intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.
“The hysteria doesn’t stop, it’s absolutely happening in the heads of Western politicians and not really on the ground,” Polyansky continued.”
@ John on February 02, 2022 · at 8:15 am EST/EDT
“Someone leaked the US rsponse to Russia’s non-ultimatum, published today in Spain in El Pais.”
“Someone” meaning the CIA, “El Pais” is a well-known mouthpiece for the CIA in Spain. The “leak” was orchestrated to show the “determination” of the US/NATO in confronting Russia’s “aggressiveness” and “hostility” toward Ukraine. It was not coincidence the “leak” came out the day after Lavrov’s “written message on Indivisibility of Security” to heads of state, and the phone conversation with Blinken, another way of saying, “we already answered you.”
As for all of those who are painting a picture of defeated Russia, you are flatly and absolutely wrong, have no understanding of political diplomacy, and your warmongering only wants to see Russia waging war, killing the orcs, and ride victorious into the sunset. That is Hollywood, Clint Eastwood bullshit.
This is reality.
Russia’s display of naval, air and land power has the US/NATO shitting in their pants, not knowing what Russia’s real intentions are. The dress rehearsal for full and open war that is still taking place, in the middle of winter, moving land forces east to west, deploying naval forces all over the world, assessing the logistics and strength of enemy forces, is priceless.
Russia decided to show the “Great Western Wall” slithering worms, they are not a “gas station masquerading as a country,” as stupid McCain quipped while declaring “We are all Ukrainians!” piling up on his earlier “We are all Georgians!” He was everything but a US Senator.
Russia is now able to project political, diplomatic, and military power, and their request for a new security arrangement between Russia and the West is an expression of that power. Lavrov clearly stated Russia does not want war but is ready for any military adventures/provocations the West might initiate. If Russia is able to achieve its goals without a conflict, which is their intention, it will be good for humanity, even though deep down we are all hoping the West makes a move and, as Andrei Martyanov states it happens every hundred years or so, “get their asses handed to” by Russia.
Cool off, hot-headed ones, Russia’s Great Game is just beginning.
Lone Wolf
404 delenda est!
Unquestionably, those documents are masterpieces that already belong in world contemporary history books.
They are indeed true masterpieces that display
a most pertinent historical perspective on international relations and law,
extreme lucidity on past agreements reached,
methodical critical analyses re: national commitments, rights and responsibilities,
steady «esprit de suite»,
in a nutshell outstanding professional diplomacy.
What a contrast with the confused, amateurish, above all disingenuous, when not plainly devious imperial approach!
Before making its crucial moves (coming… in due course…), Russia is now carefully, painstakingly writing tomorrow’s history, occupying in so doing both the political and moral high grounds.
There’s much for the West to learn and remember from this exemplary Russian exercise…
Mr. Sergei Lavrov must go straight to the point about NATO expansion to include Ukraine and weapons being brought to Ukraine by the US, UK and other vassals of the US. Mr. Lavrov must firmly insist on this and not circumabulating with Minsk Accord.
From Lavrov’s letter, the bolded portion is the meat of the issue:
“We want to receive a clear answer to the question how our partners understand their obligation not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of other States on the basis of the commitment to the principle of indivisible security. How specifically does your Government intend to fulfil this obligation in practical terms in the current circumstances? If you renege on this obligation, we ask you to clearly state that.”
What Russia wants to know essentially is if the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals are intent on breaking the OSCE treaties that are at issue? Judging by Orban’s talk yesterday, Hungary will split the NATO reply since it will adhere to its OSCE commitments.
What many/most fail to realize (at least I’ve failed to read anyone saying as much) is that the OSCE Security Treaties are very similar in their construction to the UN Charter since they’re designed to impede unilateral action by any one nation or group of nations. Indivisible Security doesn’t give any nation the right to impinge on the security of another nation, essentially giving that nation veto power over another nation’s choice. Clearly as Lavrov states, it appears a slew of nations weren’t aware of what they were committing themselves to or they are lying when they say so. As with the UN Charter, there’s only one possible interpretation of what’s written in the agreement–a nation cannot interfere in the sovereign affairs of another nation–period–just as no nation can ensure its security at the cost of another nation’s security. I’d wager third graders would understand both.
“Clearly as Lavrov states, it appears a slew of nations weren’t aware of what they were committing themselves to or they are lying when they say so”?
***
I believe that at this stage, the crux of the matter for Russia is indeed only to get each of those nations to individually state, officially and in writing, for the whole world to know, where it now stands on its commitments and whether or not it today reneges on its obligations.
“We also expect that the response to this letter will be given in the national capacity, as the aforementioned commitments were undertaken by each of our States individually and not within any bloc or in the name thereof.”
Considering closely each nation’s response (“committed or not committed? reliable or unreliable? respectable or not?” — “where do YOU stand?”) Russia will then be entitled to deal with each and everyone of those nations accordingly. That request, I believe, is a most powerful move on the part of Russia! It likely announces, very subtly yet most assertively, potentially very radical and unprecedented Russian political, military and security initiatives… Better, a comprehensive reorientation of Russia’s foreign policies and attitudes towards each element of said “bloc” of nations, meant to likely mark the very end of an all too long era of deceptive “partnerships”….
Year of the Tiger!
Look, we need to get to point A, a final resolution. However, the Americans will work backwards from point H to C, completely ignoring primary concerns, B & A. In a word Obfuscation, in reality Complete Contempt for any resolution. Many people here called this exact outcome prior to America’s response.
As Putin is way smarter than them/us I expect he himself would have drafted the expected American response even before they put pen to paper.
Talking is Over, going through the motions of back and forth diplomatic double speak, futile.
Expect illegal US military flights/excursions in Syria to experience navigational issues.
Russia has followed up with a letter to individual countries adhering to NATO, notably the Scandinavian strongholds of US/NATO.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1796679/?lang=en
This news is also reported and commented by the Norway based Independent Barents Observer.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2022/02/lavrov-asks-nordic-neighbors-about-security-guarantees
NATO member Norway is in fact a US occupied country, while Finland and Sweden have trilateral security agreements with the USA and are solliciting NATO membership.
antony blinken’s father, Donald M was born on November 11, 1925, in New York City, the son of Maurice Blinken and his wife, Ethel Horowitz. Blinken and his brothers Alan and Robert were born to a father originally from Kyiv (now part of Ukraine) and a mother also of Jewish heritage.
Shouldn’t antony have recused himself when dealing with Russia about ukraine, since he is obviously biased?
Hello,
Reading how things unfold, I suspect that the whole point of Russia was, from the beginning,
– to put the Istanbul and Astana texts in full light when time comes,
– so the whole world to see how the West betrayed it blatantly and tries to ghost it now,
– and then with Russia firmly at the helm, to go from there, facts and deeds revealed.
As a basic citizen, I didn’t know those two binding texts, Istanbul and Astana, and I suspect most people, at least in the West, didn’t have a clue either. And before the last days, Russia had never said a word about it, as far as I know. They just insisted on the western oral promise not to go east in the 1990s, knowing that the cynical West – cynical and proud of it – couldn’t resist to make a joke of Russia with this.
US and NATO have made such a noise about all the “non-ultimatum” to belittle Russia again, and for the whole world to see. They called for the attention they get now. And then Russia pounds those binding texts again and again in the face of the West. West was so proud of themselves, they bit it all, the bait, the hook, the plunger, and then the line.
Hard to play it self righteous and to say “wasn’t me” with such a bright public light pointed to the hand in the cookie jar. Us in the West, won’t hear much about it, but the rest of the world now fully knows : the sheriff in town is crooked, and probably is also cooked.
Hope to breathe freely again might not be so far, because it won’t just be words and texts from Russia’s part, a plan of acts and facts is very likely to come, enforced by their new strong moral stand : we did it right and we are standing. The honorless West is every day less impressive, and the blows don’t stop.
Let’s see how right or wrong this point of view is.
Please, MM Putin and Lavrov, would you ? I like it so much when I am right.