Western policy in Russia undermines international relations principles
PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin detailed policy- setting statements at the expanded meetings of the foreign and defence ministries’ collegiums, as well as at his annual news conference on December 23, 2021.
The situation has not improved. Conflict potential is building up, and our Western colleagues have largely shaped this trend.
Their policy consists of undermining the architecture of international relations based on the UN Charter, as well as replacing international law with their own “rules” and imposing them on others to build a new world order.
All kinds of international formats have been emerging on matters which have long been on the agenda of universal UN agencies.
These are narrow formats of like-minded countries who are cast as trail-blazers dictating “much-needed” new approaches to all others.
Those refusing to join these initiatives are labelled as reactionary countries seeking to impose a revisionist agenda in international affairs.
However, it is the West that currently promotes a revisionist agenda. It is the West that seeks to revise the UN Charter.
Russia and other nations who are our allies and strategic partners have been standing up for the UN Charter, its principles, purposes and structure to defend them from revisionist aspirations.
The most notorious project of this kind was the Summit for Democracy on December 9-10, 2021. The way Washington prepared this meeting, held it and announced its “outcomes” is a telling example of the policy line adopted by our American colleagues to bring ideology back into international relations (while we got rid of ideology in international affairs not that long ago) and draw new dividing lines.
The United States and NATO openly declared their goal of containing the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. Attempts to artificially expand NATO and draw Ukraine into it continue unabated.
In December 2021, we sent two documents to the United States and NATO countries, and we also made them public: a draft treaty between Russia and the United States on security guarantees and a Russia-NATO agreement on security measures.
It is a package proposal aimed at precluding absolutely any further eastward movement of NATO and the deployment of threatening weapon systems near Russian borders.
Frankly, everyone knows that reaching an agreement depends on the United States. Whatever they are telling us about the need to consult with their allies and involve all OSCE members in the talks, those are excuses and attempts to drag out the process.
Russia’s position presented to the Americans and NATO is based solely on a balance of interests. These documents are aimed at ensuring security in Europe as a whole and in each country, including the Russian Federation.
The position of the United States and its allies is that they want to secure dominance in Europe and create military footholds around the Russian Federation and irritants for us along our borders.
When Russia and NATO were establishing relations, when they signed the Founding Act and reached a decision to establish the Russia-NATO Council – Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance reached some political agreements in the process, which had to do with how we would behave in terms of the configuration of armed forces and weapons going forward – no one had to be consulted. It never occurred to anyone. Neither with the OSCE, nor with the European Union, which now gets bitter whenever it feels left out (as conveyed by Josep Borrell). This is a whole new topic for discussion.
The Western reaction has consisted primarily of a categorical rejection of ending NATO’s open door policy. But Russia is not bound by any agreements within NATO.
We, the Americans, Europeans, NATO members, and neutral states, are firmly bound by agreements and political commitments within the OSCE framework.
In this context, OSCE provides us with a legal framework solely because in the 1990s, an agreement was reached to the effect that undermining indivisible European security and strengthening one’s own security at the expense of others is unacceptable.
Those documents (in particular, the Charter for European Security signed at the highest level in 1999 in Istanbul) contain three components. Everyone shared them and signed off on them.
The first of them, which the West loves talking about now, is the right to freely choose how to ensure one’s own security, including treaties of alliance. After all, these documents say that each state has the right to be neutral.
This should not be forgotten, either. Then follows a paragraph that is an inalienable part of this compromise, notably, the agreement binding each state to respect the rights of other countries and not to bolster its own security at the expense of the security of others.
There is a special stipulation that no single state, group of countries or organisation can be primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region and cannot view any part of it as a sphere of its influence.
We clearly outlined [our requirements] and provided detailed arguments on the need to focus on stopping the expansion of one block of countries at the expense of the interests of other states on the European continent.
I would like to point out that we need legally binding guarantees.
Our Western partners never honoured the political commitments they made in the 1990s, not to mention their verbal promises. It appears that they are not going to do this now either.
We clearly explained why this approach is counterproductive and why a lopsided interpretation of the political promises on NATO’s non-expansion and indivisible security is unacceptable. We will continue working to prepare for any eventuality.
During the five waves of expansion, NATO has come right to our borders. When we formalised our relations with NATO in 1997, Poland was the only candidate for accession.
Look at how the situation has changed since then. Moreover, all these territories are being actively militarised.
Our proposals are aimed at reducing military confrontations and de-escalating general tensions in Europe, whereas the West is doing the opposite.
NATO is building up its ground troops and aviation on the territories directly adjacent to Ukraine. Exercises in the Black Sea have grown in scale and frequency many times over in recent time.
We have heard blustering statements of late to the effect that if Russia does not obey Western demands on what to do with its own troops on its own territory (which is an absurd demand in its own right) the West will intensify the activities of NATO’s rapid reaction and special operation forces around our borders in the next two or three months.
Replying to your question, I will say that much has changed. The real configuration of weapons, military hardware and troops in Europe has changed.
◆