Confusion, wariness, surprise, uncertainty – this is the first reaction of the West to the publicly announced peace initiatives of Russia.
Despite the significance and unprecedentedness of the proposals, many Western (especially European) mass media took a long pause, clearly experiencing difficulties in determining the tone of coverage of this event. As noted by the German political scientist Alexander Rahr, not a single European media outlet has so far dared to publish in more or less complete form the draft agreements proposed by Moscow.
And according to the comments that follow from Kremlinologists of all stripes, one can feel that they are surprised and shocked by the very language and publicity of the Kremlin’s proposals. Over the past 30 years, the West has clearly grown out of the habit of being spoken to so openly, clearly, and at the same time quite harshly.
Apparently, the main problem for the commentators there is how to present to their public the proposals of Russia, the implementation of which will definitely lead to de-escalation and real disarmament, pushing the world away from the abyss of nuclear war. To call a spade a spade means to move away from the narrative that is familiar to the audience, which consists in implanting the idea of Russia’s natural aggressiveness. That is why peace initiatives should by no means be called peace initiatives. Judging by the first awkward comments from foreign media outlets, they found a way out in the words “demands” and “ultimatum”: in this way, even Russia’s peace proposals can be presented to their readers as blackmail and a threat.
For example, the German state news agency DW brings the news about this under the headline “Russia Demands NATO to Leave Eastern Europe.”
If the Germans had carefully examined the draft treaty proposed by our Foreign Ministry, they would have noticed that almost all the proposals put forward boil down to the idea of not leaving NATO from somewhere, but not expanding it.
Judging by the reaction from the former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, he also did not understand (and most likely pretended not to understand): we basically propose to fix the situation at the current level, without moving the military infrastructure dangerously close to each other. In response, the American diplomat put forward his proposals: withdraw Russian troops from Transnistria, withdraw the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, “return Crimea to Ukraine” and so on.
Responding in the spirit of McFaul, we could, of course, suggest that America close all of its overseas bases and that the North Atlantic Alliance dissolve itself. But an experienced politician seriously believes that this is exactly how, bringing any idea to the point of absurdity, and negotiations should be conducted. Yes, this is now the level of Western diplomacy – all that remains is to sympathize with the Russian diplomatic corps, which has to deal with people from this school.
Based on the first reaction of Western journalists and analysts, we can conclude that, before a more detailed study and response to Russian initiatives, the tactic has been chosen to completely conceal the obligations that we undertake, and to present projects as unsubstantiated ultimatums in order to provoke the rejection of the Western philistine. For example, the Axios website writes about our proposals in the following way: “Experts characterize the requirements of Russia as maximalistic and hardly acceptable”. And then follows a listing of the obligations that must be assumed exclusively by the United States and NATO.
Another diplomat Stephen Pifer, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, interprets the draft agreements in exactly the same way:
“The Moscow draft NATO-Russia and US-Russia treaties are full of demands that, as the Kremlin must understand, are unacceptable to the West.”
And we read this in the overwhelming majority of comments by analysts who are considered the main “experts on Russia” in the West. Imagine the angry reaction of an American reader who, based on this information, comes to the conclusion that these Russians are again trying to put a pistol to his temple without offering anything in return.
But both draft treaties – both with NATO and separately with the United States – just presuppose mutual obligations and guarantees. It is clear that behind the scenes of the talks our diplomats are explaining in more detail to their colleagues exactly what steps Moscow will take if the West rejects our peace initiatives. In public, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Alexander Grushko explained it this way:
“Then we will also switch to this regime of creating counter-threats. Then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions, why we placed such systems there”.
For those who in the West do not understand the diplomatic language, we can recommend that they simply carefully read the text of the proposed documents and pay attention to the fact that Russia is not simply demanding that the West refrain from further escalating the situation, as foreign media are trying to present now. Russia itself assumes a number of obligations.
If we compare Grushko’s words with these obligations, then we can draw a simple conclusion: in the event of a refusal by the United States and NATO of our peace initiatives, Russia receives full moral right (we already have a legal right) to use the territory of other states to create those very “counter-threats” in response to new threats to the defense system. Moreover, Russian missiles and nuclear weapons may end up outside the country.
And this may be not only Belarus, which has already expressed its readiness to place them on its territory. The locations of the bases for Russia’s nuclear and missile infrastructure can unpleasantly – and even very unpleasantly – surprise Washington. It is no coincidence that Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov drew direct parallels between the current and Caribbean crises.
This is what numerous Kremlinologists in the West are unable to understand or are afraid to realize. For some reason, they associate all potential threats from Russia (the very “counter-threats” that Grushko spoke of) exclusively with the “Russian invasion of Ukraine.” That is, they themselves have invented an imaginary “invasion”, but they themselves now believe that Moscow’s “ultimatum” is to set conditions for refusing to attack Ukraine.
Chief British Kremlinologist Edward Lucas, for example, describing his fears about the seizure of the entire Azov coast by Russia in The Times, admits:
“My biggest fear is that the fight (and, perhaps, some kind of nuclear saber-rattling) will end with a new treaty on the model of the Yalta agreement with Stalin in 1945”.
As a result, Samuel Charap, a “Russia specialist” from the research (read: intelligence) corporation RAND, laments in the pages of The New York Times:
“Diplomacy involves compromise and flexibility. This usually entails a rejection of public ultimatums. Essentially, this is not diplomacy. This is the opposite of diplomacy”.
Oh, it’s a pity that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg did not read these words about a compromise before making a fiery speech in which he repeated several times in a row that the alliance does not accept any compromises on the possibility of Ukraine not joining it. Judging by Charap’s logic, NATO and diplomacy are incompatible. Or, according to American analysts, only Russia should show compromises and flexibility?
But we repeat, these analysts clearly did not carefully read the text of the documents proposed by Moscow and did not understand that if the West did not accept them, we would have free hands to make non-standard moves that would not necessarily be limited to the Eastern Hemisphere.
One can imagine what would have started in America and in the same Western media that accuse us of being “inflexible” if it came to the deployment of Russian nuclear systems somewhere much closer to the United States. It is now NATO leaders who are telling Russia that in the 21st century, talking about “spheres of influence” is unacceptable. And the same Grushko recalls how, during the negotiations on limiting missile defense systems, the Americans included in their “list of wishes” an item that Russia should remove our training brigade from Cuba.
“As if this training brigade could land somewhere in Florida, conquer the United States and so on,” the deputy minister said in an interview with Vladimir Solovyov.
If the Americans were so worried about our instructors in Cuba, it can be assumed how they would sing if the idea of placing more than just a Russian training base somewhere in Central America appeared. It is then that they will remember about their “spheres of influence”, and about the slogan “America for Americans”, and about the unacceptability of the emergence of Russian military infrastructure “in the backyard of the United States.”
And, we will remind, this is how their government officials spoke about Latin America at the height of the crisis in Venezuela. And the same Kremlinologists echoed them, demanding not to let Russia into the American “backyard”. So much for the inadmissibility of “spheres of influence” in the 21st century.
The most alarming thing in the comments of the “experts on Russia” is the lack of awareness of the criticality of the moment, that dangerous line, to which we have all approached, not without their efforts. Intoxicated by the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago and having lost their sense of proportion in this regard, they cannot understand that a world based on a counterbalance of threats and counter-threats is much less stable than in the absence of such. But even more dangerous is a world in which only one side is constantly escalating threats, without any checks and balances in response. This situation is fraught with sad consequences for humanity.
That is why Russia proposes to move away from this line and honestly warns what counterbalances it will build if the West refuses Moscow’s peace initiatives. The West must finally understand that a new Yalta agreement is better than an endless buildup of threats and counter-threats, which could lead to a disastrous result for all of us.
Vladimir Kornilov, RIA