Russia’s Response to the US & NATO Further Articulated Its Security Requests
For the time being at least, diplomacy still remains a viable means for resolving the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe…Speculation admittedly abounds in such circumstances so the public might never be privy to exactly what ends up going on behind closed doors, but hopefully a resolution to this crisis will be forthcoming.
The Russian Foreign Ministry released its promised response to the US and NATO’s reply to Moscow’s security guarantee requests from late December. It further articulated the Kremlin’s position on these very sensitive subjects, which importantly counteracts many of the US-led West’s manipulative talking points from over the past few months. Particularly, Russia called the US out for deliberately omitting any mention of not ensuring one’s security at anyone else’s expense. This, after all, is what truly lies at the core of the undeclared US–provoked missile crisis in Europe. It envelops everything from Ukraine to NATO expansion and especially the US’ regional strike weapon deployments.
Moscow’s response also reiterated some of the specific requests that the US-led West must comply with in order to respect the Kremlin’s national security red lines. These include returning to the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty and the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, both of which would restore strategic stability to the continent. Another request includes legal guarantees that NATO won’t expand any further east as well as the US removing its nuclear weapons and related infrastructure from Europe. As for the subject of Ukraine, the Kremlin insists that it has no so-called “invasion” plans, considers Crimea a closed case, and demands that Kiev implement the UNSC-backed Minsk Accords.
While it remains to be seen what the US and NATO will do, it’s nevertheless a positive signal that Secretary of State Antony Blinken requested a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov sometime next week. The West, it should be remembered, did indeed blink at the last moment by calling off the false flag provocation that it was compellingly plotting in Donbass. The calculations behind this decision remain unclear but they might have had to do with realizing after President Putin’s meetings on Monday with Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu that he remains committed to diplomacy, sanctioning Russia would push it closer to China, and the EU didn’t support more sanctions.
Whatever the thought process was, it’s clear that no so-called “Russian invasion of Ukraine” commenced on Wednesday unlike what the US had publicly predicted. This means that the US decided not to provoke Russia into militarily defending its national security red lines that would have been crossed in such a scenario. For the time being at least, diplomacy still remains a viable means for resolving the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe. Statements from Ukrainian officials such as President Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ambassador to the UK Vadim Pristaiko, and the ruling party’s parliamentary faction leader David Arakhamia also suggest that Kiev is becoming more pragmatic.
The first lamented that the goal of joining NATO wasn’t approved by a referendum prior to entering into his country’s constitution and said that he doesn’t need foreign forces on his territory, the second said that Ukraine might finally grant some level of autonomy to Donbass in accordance with the Minsk Accords (which German Chancellor Olaf Scholz earlier revealed that Zelensky assured him he would do), and the third slammed Western media for what he described as their “hybrid war” on his country (or what Lavrov referred to as “information terrorism”) that cost it several billion dollars a month thus far. These three public statements imply that Ukraine is trying to de-escalate the crisis to a certain extent.
That said, the past day also regrettably saw Kiev shelling Donbass and thus putting the world on edge with worry that Ukraine might actually end up provoking a third round of civil war hostilities there that could eventually lead to Russia militarily defending its national security red lines if they’re crossed throughout the course of that potential conflict. Considering the statements cited in the preceding paragraph, it might very well be the case that Zelensky doesn’t have full control of his military and that leading officials within it have “gone rogue”, whether on their own prerogative or at their American patrons’ request. In any case, those latest developments are very disturbing.
Be that as it is, diplomacy is still ongoing and it’s possible that the US might reach some sort of pragmatic series of mutual compromises with Russia for restoring strategic stability to Europe. The sensitivity of the situation means that not everything that they might agree to will be publicized and one, the other, or both of them might even send purposely misleading signals to the media about this or that in an attempt to “save face” if they end up compromising on something serious, whatever it may be. Speculation admittedly abounds in such circumstances so the public might never be privy to exactly what ends up going on behind closed doors, but hopefully a resolution to this crisis will be forthcoming.
