A year has passed since a Russian document outlining proposals (demands) for long-term guarantees of European security was handed to Brussels and Washington
Source: REUTERS
It was the starting point of a major politico-military crisis that defines the world situation today.
Was the Russian ultimatum (and that is how it was formulated) designed to be rejected, or did it still involve negotiations? Vladimir Putin probably reasoned along the following lines: after so many years of ignoring our wishes and convictions, let’s give it one last chance. Let’s put forward the maximum set of demands, everything that has been said before, but at once and in a concentrated way, and see. If they realise that this time it is extremely serious and for the last time, and go for a real discussion, we are ready. If they start to get reeled in again, that’s it. Let’s cut to the chase. The response from the West was not satisfactory and the operation began. Theoretically there was a chance to avoid it, practically by that time apparently not. The logic behind the need for the operation was outlined in Putin’s big article in the summer of 2021. That is, the security demands were made when the internal readiness for action was already in place.
A year has passed since a Russian document outlining proposals (demands) for long-term guarantees of European security was delivered to Brussels and Washington. This was the starting point of a major politico-military crisis that defines the world situation today.
Was the Russian ultimatum (and that is how it was formulated) designed to be rejected, or did it still involve negotiations? Vladimir Putin probably reasoned along the following lines: after so many years of ignoring our wishes and convictions, let’s give it one last chance. Let’s put forward the maximum set of demands, everything that has been said before, but at once and in a concentrated way, and see. If they realise that this time it is extremely serious and for the last time, and go for a real discussion, we are ready. If they start to get reeled in again, that’s it. Let’s cut to the chase. The response from the West was not satisfactory and the operation began. Theoretically there was a chance to avoid it, practically by that time apparently not. The logic behind the need for the operation was outlined in Putin’s big article in the summer of 2021. That is, the security requirements were put forward when the internal readiness for action had already been formed.
The scale of the consequences leads many to return to the question, was what was happening inevitable? The “we had no choice” argument at the highest level is problematic because it effectively means that Russia’s previous policies were flawed. A policy which leads to no alternative solution, i.e. forcing one to act in a certain way and no other way, cannot be considered successful. So an analysis of the long period since the early 2000s will at some point be an important lesson for the future. Was there an urgent need to make demands and initiate a SWAp at that point in time? Based on what we know now (probably not everything), there was room for manoeuvre and an opportunity to prepare better. Strategically, a clash over Ukraine was probably inevitable, but the specific circumstances and timetable may have been different.
Is anyone in the West biting their elbows right now? Ultimatum proposals can only be accepted by the great powers, and even more so by the superpowers, as a result of a military defeat. So there is, I think, no chance for acceptance. I have to say that the consultations that took place in January 2022 showed that the US is ready to make some concessions on specific issues of military security. Larger than the ones they had mentioned before the demands were made. However, this was very little compared to the overall set. Most importantly, NATO and the United States categorically refused to discuss the political aspect: a formal rejection of NATO enlargement. For them, this is unacceptable because NATO enlargement is the basis of the entire international security philosophy as it is understood in the West since the end of the Cold War.
But beyond that – in the West there is a complete absence (disappearance) of reflection on the pre-history of events. The former view that Russia had no political, economic or moral right to demand anything has become an axiom and a basis for policy. And it seems to bring some relief – there is no need to pretend any more.
How should the outcome for our country be assessed after one year, based literally on what was said in the document? The main outcome is that the politico-military situation has changed radically. Consequently, Russia’s dissatisfaction with the previous state of affairs has been partially satisfied. As it was, it will no longer be. NATO will not take further enlargement lightly, believing that nothing will happen in response. Admittedly, this does not exclude a conscious expansion for declared anti-Russian purposes, if there is enough determination. Determination is inversely proportional to Russia’s military achievements.
The returned situation of open confrontation is familiar and similar to what Moscow is used to. Although the balance of power will be determined anew, the past year has dispelled many illusions and forced many questions to be posed anew. In the broadest sense, the question of the security system will arise again sooner or later. But firstly, it will not be soon, and secondly, the situation will be so different that the proposals of December 2021 will be of purely historical value.
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel