Draft settlement treaty -
11 June 2022 [ last edited 22 June 2022 0915 UTC]
Tipping point in the
Ukraine conflict Russia's leadership
outstanding - avoids loss There
won't be nuclear war Russia's conflict
resolution measures There will be no mediators
The issue of
rockets Roadmap to verification
This is a follow up article to the article I wrote on 19th of
February 2022, 5 days before the launch of the Russian special
military operation in Ukraine. It was called 'Mutually
Assured Destruction - the Prelude to Mutually Assured Security'.
At the time, I didn't think Russia would move into the Donesk. I
"The current lead that Russia has in missile and
defensive systems might persuade the US to agree to verifiable
arms control, but this is the work of years.
In the meantime, the West provokes Russia relentlessly, across all
dimensions of life. This is dangerous. It is time for nations to
comply with their obligations under the UN Charter. A mechanism
must be found accelerate a move to universal security and the
peace dividend it brings.
And Russia has done this, in a stunning and unexpected move, a
move missed by the entire media."
I was referring to an article I published on the same day 'Blindsided
by Peace?' The "stunning and unexpected move" was the December
2021 presentation to the US and to NATO of new draft Security
Treaties. One was written for NATO as an organization, and the other
for the United States. I note "The provisions are short and the
language uncompromising. They secure Russia's security while at the
same time securing European security."
Well, the USA didn't sign, and neither did NATO. I now suspect the
Russians had intelligence that an assault against the breakaway
republics and on into Russia's Crimea was planned, and was maybe
only months from being launched. I now suspect the Americans knew
that Russia suspected something was in the offing, even if the exact
date wasn't known. As the Russian President Vladimir Putin commented
in 2015 "Over 50 years ago the streets of Leningrad taught me a rule
of thumb - if a fight is inevitable - you have to hit first".
"Embassy employees are being evacuated and Anglo-Saxons
are urged to leave Ukraine as soon as possible. Some food for
thought: what if the Anglo-Saxons are preparing something of their
own and this is why they are evacuating their staff? We see their
No matter how many more months the conflict in Ukraine goes on,
Russia has 'won'. Or rather, nearly achieved it's initial objectives
of helping the Lughansk and Donesk Republics to push out the
Ukrainian armed forces - many of the units there were manned with
white supremacist nationalists, espousing Nazi ideas. To the extent
these extremists are captured, killed or pushed out, then
de-nazification - another Russian objective - is achieved, at least
in the new Republics.
Sergey Lavrov 10
point is near
The tipping point is near. The West (who are the armers and
instigators of the conflict) will have to tell the Ukrainian
government to come to terms. A signed peace treaty will be required.
It is now a matter of historic record that the signature of Western
politicians on agreements is worthless, and the more so the
signature of Ukrainian politicians. So will Russia ignore the
Ukrainian capitulation and their plea for a peace treaty? After all,
it could grind on and capture as much Ukrainian territory as it
wanted, as long as it was willing to pay for it in 'blood and
treasure' - as the saying goes.
I don't know what Russia will do. I do know what Russia wants for
itself, and for others, because it has publicly stated it. I do know
it wants normal relations with Ukraine, because it has said so. And
the Russians almost never lie.
"Even some seemingly respectable media outlets write
about an “operation” that we are supposedly preparing with the aim
of seizing Kiev and other Ukrainian cities or that some “coup” is
being prepared with a view to putting a puppet regime in power in
the Ukrainian capital."
We can guess an operation was being planned 2 weeks before the
launch. But not to 'seize' Kiev. Not to 'seize' (note that word)
'other Ukrainian cities. Not to place a puppet regime in power.
Sergey Lavrov 10
We are left with the stated aim - liberation of the 2 Republics.
Kiev won't be taken. Lviv won't be taken. What of other Ukrainian
Question: [...] Does Russia intend to demand that
Kiev additionally recognise independence of the Kherson Region and
part of the Zaporozhye Region currently controlled by the Russian
forces, or their accession to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: This question will be answered by the people
living in the liberated territories. They are saying that they
want to choose their future on their own. We fully respect this
Sergey Lavrov 6 June
Time and again the Russian government has stated that the future of
other areas will be decided by the people who live there themselves.
Therefore, there will be a referendum. How will it be worded? We
will have to wait to see. How long before conditions to hold it are
Talk to someone who has power.
"Where Macgregor sits is the head of the table"
This quote from the book 'Rob Roy' by Sir Walter Scott. It embodies
the reality that outstanding leaders are almost instinctively
recognised by all who exercise power, whether they admit it or not.
Such leaders command true respect (not the respect that comes from
fear) because they have earned respect. Not by dramatic actions, but
by effecting popular outcomes, by being consistent over time, by
being honest, calm, by not turning away and blaming others when
things unexpectedly go badly, by being patient and far sighted. Such
a rare person knows the all the dimensions of power - diplomatic,
military, informational, economic.
like any other country, is concerned with one thing - the comfort
and happiness of its people.
"Our greatest concern and the main task is
to increase people’s incomes. This is our priority, our
number one task, and we are not going to resolve
it by simple linear methods. To do this, we must ensure
the growth of the economy and a change
of its infrastructure.
This is a long-term goal.
We are not going to use populist methods.
It is based on qualitative economic growth that we
intend to resolve major social tasks - including
an increase in the incomes
of the Russian people and the demographic
problem, which is our second most important task.
It implies a package of social issues: healthcare,
education and support for families with children.
To resolve all these tasks, we have mapped out certain
national development goals...Therefore, we should resolve
the two main problems ‒ improve demography
and increase people’s incomes, raise their quality
of life on this serious economic foundation
I have just mentioned. This is what we are going to do
in the near future"
Vladimir Putin 14
Russia signed into law a document outlining national goals and
strategic objectives on 7th May
2018. They covered 12 areas, and in many cases, listed very
specific key indicators of success which had to be met by 2024. The
areas covered will be familiar to you, because most countries have
similar desires for their people :
All this is expensive, both in money and effort. A huge amount of
money has been sunk into it. If you were the Russian government,
would you risk destruction of all your hard won progress?
- deal with the flow-on effects of the demographic mismatch of
an aging population and low birth rate
- improved and affordable healthcare
- a more highly educated population
- better housing and urban environment
- protection of the natural environment and clamp down on
- safe and high-quality motorways
- improve labour productivity and employment support
- support research in order to compete in modern economies
- support the digital economy
- support and preserve Russia's culture
- support for small and medium-sized businesses and
- encourage international cooperation and increase exports
How could Russian development be destroyed, anyway? There
are 4 obvious possibilities:
- nuclear missile strike
- conventional war
- biological war
- economic war
We can dismiss nuclear
strikes - even by the Americans. The Russian and American Presidents
have signed a declaration that a nuclear war cannot be won, and must
not be fought. Both are bound by chains of terror. I have fully
covered this matter in my article 'The
Time Has Come'. Russia's nuclear strike policy was very
clearly explained by the Russian President in 2018, and is
appended to my article. Nothing more need be said.
"The end, ways, and means, they lack that, to be able to
go back to the pre-2014.
The second point that I would make is, you know, as you look at
the DIME—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—we’re
woefully lacking on the diplomatic piece of this. If you notice,
there’s no diplomacy going on at all to trying to get to some type
of negotiations. And I don’t think that we can lead that, given
where Putin thinks about us.
But if you sit back and think about those that could possibly be a
part of this negotiation team, you know, you have the—two of them
are in—that I’m going to list are in NATO. One is President Orbán
out of Hungary. Perhaps he can help out in the negotiation effort.
The other one is President Erdoğan of Turkey. Longtime friends of
President Putin, although some view that relationship as
transactional. I don’t know. Let’s put it to the test and see."
Stephen Twitty, former Deputy Commander of the United States
European Command (2018–2020), May
Russia was always
going to win the NATO proxy war. Why? because Russia has advanced
standoff missiles, superior electronic suppression, superior air
defense, superior aircraft, superior training in urban warfare (in
Syria) - the list goes on. If NATO didn't know that, then they are
Russia does full spectrum conflict resolution (except it doesn't do
much propaganda work). It know power comes from diplomacy
backstopped by military competence (in all its many dimensions), and
from a robust and self-reliant domestic economy. Its military
responses are very carefully calibrated, constantly re-assessed and
adjusted. Russia will not win 'at any cost'. It will create a
military-economic-human nexus where the opposing party cannot but
come to terms.
Biological warfare we can dismiss. When a new instance of a pathogen
arises it's genome will be pulled apart and examined, the consensus
origin found, it's genetic differences examined for structure and
placement on and between chromosomes or RNA, and conclusions drawn.
An attack on Russia with biological weapons will draw an immediate
nuclear or hypersonic kinetic-energy response.
Economic warfare will eventually fail. It will cause quite a bit of
pain for a year or two, but it has no chance of succeeding. What's
more, it damages those who made the attack. I have covered this in
detail in 'The
West's Apartheid International Trading System'.
Russia doesn't need and doesn't want armed conflict - Russia has
always wanted peace
Ukraine will come to terms because it is
reaching a tipping point, where the things that anyone cares about
are being lost or have become uncertain and insecure. Healthcare,
housing, education, a good job, a stable and reasonably comfortable
life, certainty, stability, freedom from fear - this is what people
must have. At a certain point they demand peace.
Russia will provide peace on reasonable terms. Russia still sees
Ukraine as part of the Slavic orbit, a kindred people. There are
deep roots between the two countries. It will never set out to
humiliate Ukraine, or try to bleed it dry. Russia thinks long term -
very long term. But the terms will be set without US or European
Russia will not deal with 'mediators'.
"This is the gist of the EU’s mediation. Some process
started in the Balkans after Kosovo proclaimed “independence”
unilaterally and without any referendum. The UN General Assembly
invited the EU to mediate between Pristina and Belgrade and its
effort was rather successful: in 2013, the agreement was reached
on establishing the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo.
In 2014, when a coup was staged in Ukraine and the
“counterterrorism” forces launched an operation against Donbass
and Russians in Ukraine, the EU also acted as a mediator. This led
to the signing of the Minsk agreements that established certain
rules, just as with regard to the Serbian municipalities in
EU 'mediators' have failed twice now. They are useless, There will
be no mediators. Nor will matters be dealt with President to
President. They will be dealt with between competent officials, and
only when everything is worked out in greatest detail will any
agreement be signed by some official. There will probably be a photo
opportunity, where whoever is in charge in Ukraine is treated with
the usual courtesy by the President of Russia. But that's it.
The EU made a solemn promise to support a special status for
northern Kosovo and eastern Ukraine. The status did not imply any
complicated things: to let people speak their native tongue
(Serbians were supposed to be allowed to speak Serbian and
Russians in Ukraine to speak Russian), teach children in schools
in their native tongue, use it in daily life and have a certain
autonomy as regards law-enforcement and economic ties with
neighbouring regions (northern Kosovo with Serbia and eastern
Ukraine with Russia). Identical agreements were made, which urged
respect for national minorities in full conformity with
international European conventions on the rights of these groups.
The EU announced that it had succeeded in both cases.
But it shamefully failed in both cases and had to admit it later
on by saying it could not persuade Kiev to fulfil the Minsk
agreements or make Pristina abide by its agreements with Belgrade.
There is something in common as regards the EU’s treatment of
different areas in our common geopolitical space, its goals, its
competence and its ability to make deals...I have repeatedly
emphasised the main geopolitical conclusion from this situation: it
is now impossible to agree with Europe
on anything and be sure that they will deliver on their
Sergey Lavrov 6 June
borders and security borders - 2 different things
"Vladimir Putin has commented on the situation that
emerged in connection with the arrival of the new weapons. I can
only add that the longer-range arms you supply, the farther
will we push from our border the line where the neo-Nazis will
be able to threaten the Russian Federation...let me
reiterate the following. The West has decided to supply
weapons that, in all evidence, are capable of reaching not only
the border areas of the Russian Federation but also its more
remote points. Politicians and legislators in Ukraine itself are
laughing at the Americans, who said they believed Vladimir
Zelensky’s promise not to shell Russia. ...I will stress once
again: the longer-range are the systems supplied to the Kiev
regime, the farther will we push the Nazis from the line from
which threats emanate for the Russian population of Ukraine
and the Russian Federation. "
Sergey Lavrov 6 June
What is "the line" Sergey Lavrov refers to? It is the point at which
shells and rockets can reach not just Russia, but also "the Russian
population of Ukraine". Where, then is the 'Russian
population' of Ukraine located? According to wikipedia,
quoting a 2004 study, the percent of Russian language speakers by
region (oblast) is:
This data is out of date, and populations will have shifted a great
deal in the last 18 years. Many Ukrainians in the east have fled to
Russia. Many families are made up of both Ukrainian speaking and
Russian speaking people. And language spoken is not the sole
determinant of how people identify themselves. Some Ukrainians may
want to 'vote Russia', so to speak, for economic advantage. Some
'Russians' may identify with Ukraine for many reasons, from family
ties, business, to ideological views.
Kherson, just above Crimea, had about 25%
of people who spoke Russia as their native language in 2001, and in
a 2005 survey 46% of Khersonians thought Russian should have the
status as a second state language in Ukraine. This is lower than the
Oblasts that surround Kherson, yet Russia announced on June 22 2022
that a referendum on accession of Kherson region to Russia will be
held next autumn. Not a referendum on regional autonomy within
Ukraine, but merge with Russia. Kherson is a land bridge to Crimea
and so is of enormous strategic importance to Russia. The oblast is
receiving 'Russification' already. It would suit Russian strategic
objectives for the Oblast to be determined to be essentially
This means Russia can play the great 'definition game'. Russia can
use any criterion that suits it's political objectives to decide for
the population just where 'Russian Ukraine' ends and "Ukrainian
One thing is certain - the longer the range of weapons supplied to
Ukraine by NATO, the wider the 'demilitarized' zone has to be. So
NATO effectively is causing a wider and wider band of Russian
de-weaponisation bounding the Donbass. Once under Russian control,
the demilitarised zones may well decide for themselves to become a
part of an expanded Donbass, or even express a desire to join
Russia, especially is Russia guarantees their security. Which would
mean the people there can focus on economic matters, without the
waste of money on military equipment.
But Russia is very sensitive to the problems of badly defined
boundaries. The Russian President has spent endless hours mediating
boundary disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. When the Soviet
Union dissolved itself it didn't fully define some borders. Even
today, around 450 kilometres of the 970-kilometre Tajik-Kyrgyz
border remain undemarcated,
and remain a source of constant disputes.
But the 'military border' simply cannot be finally set until
the political border is set. (Albeit when Ukraine comes to terms, a
temporary border may have to be set while the political borders are
finalised. At the moment, let's set aside the possibility of the
total breakup of Ukraine).
The political Border
Let's consider precedent. Russia used a popular referendum
(involving outside monitoring groups) to determine if Crimea was to
join Russia or not. Russia was dissatisfied that a referendum was not
used (by the EU) in determining whether Kosovo would become an
autonomous region or not. But Crimea was strongly pro-Russia, and
these other Ukrainian regions are much less easily defined one way
or the other.
The choices on a referendum probably have to allow for four states:
These options determine the political boundaries. Now we can guess
at where the military line will be. Again we can look at precedent.
There was a demilitarised zone around Lughansk and Donetsk,
monitored by the OSCE. Large caliber artillery had to be pulled back
a proscribed distance from the 'line of contact'. (This did not stop
the Nazis killing 14,000 people by shelling, mortars and sniping in
the breakaway regions over the course of 8 years. That was then. It
will be different this time)
- remain with Ukraine
- autonomous region of Ukraine
- independent state
- merge with Russian federation
Obviously, this will be status quo less Lughansk and Donesk Oblasts.
A line will be drawn at a distance from the Lughansk and Donesk
Oblast borders that is a little beyond the point of the range of the
longest range weapon that Ukraine or the 2 Republics have. A similar
maritime line will have to be drawn offshore the Black Sea. To
simplify matters, all large weapons, even of shorter range, might be
prohibited from the line up to the borders of Russia and the 2
republics. All we need do is look at the text of the Minsk 2 agreement.
It is all there. Of course the language will be changed, from
'Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine' to the Republics of Donetsk
and Luhansk respectively. The monitoring of military lines will
likely be done by Russian and Eurasian Economic Union military or
military police. Once the situation has calmed down, normal
electronic monitoring methods by the Republics (requiring Russian
satellite assistance) should suffice.
Minsk 2 clause 4 is no longer relevant, and the principles of
preventing reprisals of Russians in other parts of Ukraine is
mentioned in clause 5 ("...a law that forbids persecution and
punishment of persons"). This will have to be passed in the
Ukrainian Rada before Russian occupation forces leave areas where
there is a significant risk of persecution of Russians. Of course,
the Europeans, who worked so assiduously to cause this disaster,
will be charged through the OSCE with making sure the population
remains safe and any criminals are found and punished. And the OSCE
will have to implement suppression of Nazi ideology and ensure the
freedom of information and expression, protection of minorities and
human rights - that is their job.
Clause 8 is no longer relevant; part of clause 9 will be kept to
ensure no control is handed back to Ukraine until the constitutional
changes to de-nazify (rather than decentralise, as stated in the
Minsk 2 Agreement) are passed in the Rada.
Clause 10 is needed to de-militarise Ukraine (expelling all foreign
forces), and this too will have to be embedded in the constitution
to prevent NATO or any other similar grouping placing itself in the
"President Putin has said many times, both in January
and early February, that Russia will not tolerate a model
of European security that relies on NATO as the dominant
force. Especially when it's right on our doorstep.
We've repeatedly said that we want to find an alternative solution
- a solution that would reliably address security concerns of
Ukraine, the nations of Europe, and, naturally, Russia. And that's
the direction we should take.
President Zelensky said that he was interested in security
guarantees for Ukraine. I see this as a positive development. Our
negotiators are ready to discuss these guarantees..."
Sergey Lavrov 2
Clauses preventing Ukraine ever developing or hosting nuclear
weapons will be required, and also the terms will have to include
wording to recognise that nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable
existential threat to Russia and the existence of which on Ukrainian
territory will result in a military response. This allows Russia to
attack Ukraine at any time that they renege on this key part.
"The head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service
(SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, has stated that the SVR
had obtained intelligence showing that Ukraine was working on
building its own nuclear weapons."
- Sputnik News 03 March 2022
But we have to pay attention the 'all inclusive' nature of Sergey
Lavrov's statement. The Russian government has previously commented
that Ukraine is not really the main problem for Russia. Clearly,
Russian and European mutual indivisible security is. And this must
include 'detaching' USA, as it has embedded itself into it's
European host's tissues very deeply.
regions of Ukraine
Those regions such as Odessa that might vote for autonomy might as
well sign up to a Minsk 2 - style agreement. After all, Minsk 2 was
hammered out to suit all parties, and hammered out in not dissimilar
circumstances. These agreements would likely be agreed by the United
Nations. Although this is hardly essential, it allows the West to
save face a little. The only change needed may be to embed
de-nazification in the Ukrainian constitution.
The model here is the Treaty of Friendship Co-operation and Mutual
Assistance. Such treaties were signed between Russia and the two
Republics. The mutual assistance provision triggered Russia to come
to the Republics aid, push Ukraine from their territories, and end
Ukrainian shells and rockets being fired into Lughansk and Donetsk.
I haven't found a copy of the treaty on the web at this time. All we
do know is that clause 4 and 5 allow for military assistance to be
given to the Republics.
The United States has put
trade restrictions on the 2 Republics, and you can be sure
that any Ukrainian Oblast that goes down the path to independent
state will experience the same blockade. However, it may not be much
different to what Odessa, for example, is already experiencing.
The 'Mother of all
Russia, I believe, wants a treaty that finally ends the NATO threat.
It wants security in Europe for everyone - but not at any given
"The thing is that for twenty years, both you, the
British, and the Americans, and all other NATO countries were
urged to do what all of you subscribed to in 1999: no country
shall strengthen its security at the expense of the security of
others. Why can’t you do that? Why is it that the
commitments signed by your prime minister, the presidents and
prime ministers of all other OSCE countries proved to be
lies?...You moved closer to our borders on five occasions (a defensive
alliance!). The Warsaw Treaty and the USSR are no more. Who are
you defending yourselves against? Five times you decided all on
your own where your lines of defence would be. What’s that? This
smacks of megalomania."
Sergey Lavrov 6 June
Security for all Europe is what the two treaties Russia presented in
December 2021 were designed to achieve. I have covered them in my
article ' 'Blindsided
by Peace?' . If Ukraine is allowed to join the European
Union, Russia's Europe-relevant treaty (the NATO treaty) would then
bind Ukraine. If NATO signs it. It may not.
Europe will eventually sign, there is no other sane choice.
But US will never 'allow' it, and therefore NATO will have be
dissolved first. Once NATO no longer exists, the way is open
for the 2008
Security Treaty to be brought back into the light.
"Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to
conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single
Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen
their security at the expense of the security of others. However,
our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that
Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities."
This will take some time. But I doubt Russia or Ukraine can wait
that long. A Russia-Ukraine settlement will have to come now. It
will have to include relevant parts of Minsk 2, it will have to
include the additional elements I have outlined above.
President Putin, February
Breakup of Ukraine
"When at last they [Ukraine] have the grace to suggest
resuming the diplomatic process (something, as I understand, the
Europeans are insisting they should do, but the Anglo-Saxons
[English] do not permit them), we will see what situation has
emerged on the ground.
There are liberated areas there. The
majority of the population cannot so much as think of
returning under the control of the neo-Nazi authorities or the
authorities that are in every way conniving at neo-Nazism....
Today I don’t see any possibility for Ukraine to make any
proposals, and we are not going to suggest anything either. We
have made our proposals long ago. The ball is now in their court.
I don’t believe that Kiev will be allowed to resume talks.
Sergey Lavrov 23
It is not impossible that the 'dark blue' Russian speaking Oblasts
might decide to join Russia, for all sorts of regions - with perhaps
a better economic future being the major one. The 'bright green'
regions already have an agreement with Poland that gives Poland a
high degree of control of those irredeemably white supremicist and
pro-Nazi Oblasts. The poles are members of the European Union
(and NATO) and if the bright greens vote to join Poland, their
anti-European prejudices will be Poland's to deal with. Why would
Russia care? How far could this go? What other post world war 2
'adjustments would be unravelled? John Helmer makes this
Crimea is Russian territory, whether the west recognises it or not.
This is the reality.
"And what if the war ends in the US and NATO alliance retreat
to Lvov; after which the Polish government will notify NATO HQ
it is reviving its treaty claim to the Galician territory of
the Ukraine; ...Berlin will then inform Brussels it requires
the return of the ancient Danzig Corridor and Breslau, Polish
territories currently called Gdansk, Wroclaw, and the Ziemie
Odzyskane; and the Hungarian government will follow suit with
the announcement of the recovery of historical Kárpátalja
(Transcarpathia), the Zarkarpatska oblast of the Ukraine?
These were the spoils of the World War II settlement between
the US and the Soviet Union in 1945-46. The territorial
reversion claims aren’t new. What is new is that the
US and the NATO alliance, plus the Galician regime
still ruling between Kiev and Lvov, also in Ottawa, have
aimed to change the terms of the post-war settlement by
continuing the war eastward on to the territory of Russia
itself, all the way to regime change in Moscow.
That is what Russia says it is fighting now to defend itself
against. As Russian officials have been hinting in recent
days, the foreign and defence ministries and the intelligence
services are currently discussing in the Kremlin Security
Council whether Russia’s long-term security on its western
front may be best served by terms of a Ukrainian settlement in
which the German, Polish, and Hungarian territorial claims are
John Helmer The US war in Europe isn't hot enough - dropping
the climate bomb on Russia 8
But the problem of security in Europe does not go away, regardless
The issue of rockets
There is the enduring issue of rockets. As Ukraine (or Poland, or
Romania, or Lithuania, of Finland, or Sweden, or Moldova) is
'donated' bigger, faster, and more sophisticated rockets (or builds
them) the deployment distance from the Russian, Donetsk and Lughansk
borders will have to increase. In reality, it is not about distance,
it is about time from launch to arrive at the target. Russia needs
time to alert the layers of defense. So the faster the rockets
go, the further back they must be placed to allow that reaction
Ukraine (in particular) is the second largest country in Europe, and
that raises the issue that rockets may be concealed. If Russia had
to create a patrolled 'demilitarised zone', as they have in Syria,
then it would have to be so wide that patrolling in the hope of
finding hidden rockets would be impractical.
At some point in technical development rockets will be too fast to
be deployed anywhere in Ukraine or adjacent countries. The
issue is not so much Ukraine - a treaty can be signed prohibiting
weapons over a given caliber/reach - as rockets deployed in Europe.
Whether NATO, a European army, or some British/Polish cobbled
together alignment. And as Russia develops rockets faster than mach
20 (which they already have) Russia's rockets (in a reciprocal
agreement) may have to be deployed thousands of kilometers away on
Russia's East Coast. This is an absurd situation, and an agreement
will have to be reached with Europe on limiting the range of
rockets. This will require dialogue and verification.
"We can see that we are dealing with proactive and
talented people, but within the elite, there are also many people
who have excessive faith in their exceptionalism and supremacy
over the rest of the world.
Of course, it is their right to think what they want. But can
they count? Probably they can.
So let them calculate the range and speed of our future arms
systems. This is all we are asking: just do the maths first and
take decisions that create additional serious threats to our
country afterwards. It goes without saying that these decisions
will prompt Russia to respond in order to ensure its security in a
reliable and unconditional manner.
I have already said this, and I will repeat that we are ready
to engage in disarmament talks, but we will not knock on a
locked door anymore.
We will wait until our partners are ready and become aware
of the need for dialogue on this matter."
Vladimir Putin, February 20, 2019
There are some mutual grievances and differences in approaches to
resolving issues but that is no excuse for starting a
confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis that occurred in the
1960s...If someone wants it, let them have it. I said today what would happen."
Vladimir Putin, February
20, 2019 at a media briefing
Well, the West has destroyed all diplomatic relations with Russia.
They have destroyed all treaties that limit the range of rockets in
Europe. They have dug themselves into an impressively deep hole.
Their diplomacy, when it comes to Russia, is simply incompetent, in
the literal sense.
Roadmap to verification
As Scott Ritter points out in his new
book 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika' we have been
here before, we have overcome practical difficulties, and we have
achieved arms limitations - to everyone's benefit. We know we can do
it because it has been done before.
When Trump arbitrarily pulled out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces
Treaty, it was clear he wanted to cut another 'deal' that dealt with
Russia's hypersonics. Biden has walked right to the very edge of the
precipice by running with the aggressive NATO plan, organising and
inciting the Ukraine conflict, funding and fanning race hatred,
continuing the biggest propaganda program in human history, and
imposing an economic blockade on Russia of unparalleled malice -
designed to cause as much damage to the Russian people as the
effects of war.
America has reached the outer limits of it's malignancy. One step
further is destruction.
It is being shown to it's place. And that is not at the head of the
of articles on security
me assure you, dear friends, that we are objectively assessing
our potentialities: our intellectual, territorial, economic
and military potential.
I am referring to our current options, our overall
Consolidating this country and looking at what is
happening in the world, in other countries
I would like to tell those who are still waiting
for Russia’s strength to gradually wane, the only
thing we are worried about is catching a cold at your
Vladimir Putin 22