In my analysis of President Putin's speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club on 27 October, I argued that “Putin is raising the stakes, arguing that “the power of common sense” and that “the West will have to start a dialogue on an equal footing about a common future for us all.”
- “Humankind is at a fork in the road: either keep accumulating problems and eventually get crushed under their weight, or work together to find solutions – even imperfect ones, as long as they work – that can make our world a more stable and safer place,” Putin said.
"[We are] ready to talk with the West about reducing tensions, but only if there are realistic proposals based on an equal approach”, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed.According to Kremlin, Lavrov was referring to the documents that were submitted to both Brussels and Washington on 17 December 2021 demanding "security guarantees". In my article “NATO’s defining moment is now or never” I outlined the Russian demands and their potential repercussions.
“Having created the tension and achieved the attention he demands, President Putin has called for negotiations on a legally binding agreement that will rule out any further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapons systems posing a threat to Russia near its territory.
December 10, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation elaborated on the demands. On December 13, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov argued that the Paris Charter which " fully recognizes the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements”, must be balanced by the phrase “that this must not be done at the expense of the security of other states”. He warned all countries opposing Russia’s right to veto NATO membership decisions will face grave consequences.
December 17, Russia published both a draft treaty between the USA and the Russian Federation “on security guarantees”, as well as a draft agreement on “measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”.
The geostrategic implications of the demands go far beyond Ukraine. Like the hybrid war, it affects both NATO and the EU.
NATO is being asked to refrain from any further enlargement. This has bearings on all countries aspiring to become NATO members. While Ukraine and Georgia are the most obvious victims, the ultimatum also encompasses Sweden and Finland […].
Russia wants to regulate NATOs force posture in all countries which joined the Alliance after 1997 (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Having started wars in Europe, Russia wants to limit the Alliance's ability to forward deploy units in response to its aggressive foreign policy.
By demanding the USA to refrain from flying heavy bombers or deploying surface warships, including in the framework of the Alliance, in areas “where they can attack targets in the territory” of Russia, they call on NATO in principle to refrain from operating in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea and the Arctic, as well as the airspace over Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.
The USA is being told to withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe and eliminate all existing infrastructure on the continent.
Seeking security guarantees on the “basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns” the treaty includes a badly concealed warning. Russia having a nuclear doctrine allowing for the right to use nuclear weapons to end conventional military conflicts uses the treaty to raise the stakes through “escalate to de-escalate”. It warns the USA that a “direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons” while stressing that “… a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”.
Neither the treaty nor the agreement, however, prevented Russia from expanding westward. Asking NATO to “withdraw” its forward presence from former USSR countries (NATO members after 1997), it is paradoxical to realise that Russia itself is occupying and/or waging war against former USSR countries in direct contradiction to the agreement. […]
Neither the treaty nor the agreement refrains Russia from continuing its hybrid war against the West, trying to destabilise the EU member countries and weakening the transatlantic link. Since it cannot possibly stop something, it claims it is not doing, we must expect Russia to continue “business as normal”.
Worse still, Russia demands a change to one of the key principles of the Paris Charter and the recognition of "the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements”. Redesigning the international security architecture introduces the idea that Russia has a sphere of influence and an acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbours do, or do not do. It introduces the ridiculous notion that the national interests of great powers trump the rights of the smaller, sovereign, and independent nations. This includes all of the European countries.
Even the geography itself is distorted. The term “Russian borders” does not refer to the present state borders. On November 18, President Putin referred to NATO anti-missile defence systems deployed “right next to our borders in Romania and Poland.” Since Russia does not have any borders with the states mentioned, the statement indicates that Putin already regards Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus as a part of Russia.”
Russia’s decision to step away from the grain agreement was, therefore, predictable and in line with its strategy. It is raising the stakes at a global scale, only to reiterate demands it has already made (on 17 December). The Ukrainian attack against the Black Sea Fleet has no more relevance to Russia’s decision than its counter-offensive in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, its attack on the Kerch Bridge, or the sinking of the Russian flagship Moskva. Russia picked the former as an excuse to further increase its pressure on Western decisions and policymakers. One needs to bear in mind that the grain deal became a necessity because of Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine on land, from the air, and by sea. IBF Warlike Operations Areas were designated for the Sea of Azov (north of latitude 46°N), the Northern Black Sea Region, and all ports in Ukraine. Due to the actions of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, NATO assessed the threat of collateral damage or direct hits on civilian shipping in the War Risk Area of the Black Sea area as HIGH. The threat of GPS jamming, AIS spoofing, communications jamming, electronic interference, and cyber-attacks in the area was also considered HIGH. NATO did not exclude the risk of harassment and diversion of shipping in the area.Simultaneously, Russia accuses the West of what it itself is doing, claiming that the US, NATO, and the EU are waging an information war, economic war, war of proxy, and total war against Russia. Their sanctions are portrayed as an act of aggression.
Russia's defense ministry said that Ukraine attacked the Black Sea Fleet near Sevastopol with 16 drones early on Saturday and alleged that the ships targeted were involved in ensuring the grain corridor out of Ukraine's Black Sea ports. In reality, the grain agreement came in place to protect maritime shipping from the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
