... steps
, with constant testing of how far one can go on the path of involvement in the war but without exposing oneself to unacceptable risks. So far, the conflict continues to escalate, and the growing likelihood of attacks by Russian armed forces on NATO countries puts the United States in front of a very difficult choice whether to ensure its own security at the cost of refusing assistance, which the allies count on, or to be fully involved in the conflict, but that will lead to the death of most of humanity, including the United States themselves.
Elena Karnaukhova: I would like to touch upon ...
... order was complete. The takeover of Crimea and support for separatism in Donbass did not presage a policy of reconquering Eastern Europe, as many in the West feared, but it clearly set Ukraine and other former Soviet republics off limits to any future NATO enlargement. The security buffer was back. If the use of force in Ukraine, from the Kremlin’s standpoint, was essentially defensive, Russia’s intervention in Syria in 2015 was a risky gambit to decide geopolitical outcomes in the Middle East — a famously treacherous ...
... so-called MAD: Mutually assured destruction…
Yes. So, these treaties were supplemented by further ones like SALT 1, 2 and 3, and, in 1987, the
INF Treaty
. We were also proposing further agreements, both bilaterally with the US and in our dialogue with NATO.
Unfortunately, after the abrogation of the INF treaty, this backsliding continued. And the fact that the current US administration chose to kill the INF treaty sets a very dangerous precedent.
The US wouldn’t say they decided to kill it. What ...
... infrastructural capabilities of countries outside the alliance are rearranged to transfer our forces and assets to our borders. The destructive military activity of the alliance is accompanied by a line for scrapping the cornerstone agreements in the field of security - the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Founding NATO-Russia Act, the START Treaty are destroyed.
The OSCE potential, which we considered as a core role in building a “common European home,” still cannot reach its “design capacity” due to the unhealthy atmosphere established in the Euro-Atlantic ...
... seen as a potential threat to the very foundations of Russian statehood, and as a foreign power that has no interest in supporting that statehood, even in return for Russian loyalty. That is why the deployment of American proxy forces in the shape of NATO are seen as a threat when they move ever closer to Russian borders without any security assurances being offered to Moscow.
Meanwhile, Washington never had any intention of offering Moscow any such assurances. It believed that sooner or later, Moscow would become a U.S. satellite in any case; it also wanted to preserve a certain ...
... The roadmaps that were supposed to have developed into cooperation in several areas never turned into full-fledged detailed documents. The Russia–Europe summits held twice a year gradually became pompous and insignificant events. And a full-fledged security dialogue was never developed because of NATO’s reluctance to accept the new realities in Europe and the world. The American viewpoint on the need to expand NATO and turn it into a military power so that it could carry out its plans to establish a unipolar world in the Western mould under ...
... evolved primarily on the anti-Russian grounds: it can be seen from the bilateral agenda, from the increasing cooperation within NATO, from active military exercises with the participation of Polish and American military close to Russian borders.
Washington,... ... itself is probably more important than its derivatives. The relations between the two countries revolve almost entirely around security problems despite Poland’s clear desire to expand the range of cooperation issues. Moreover, many issues are approached ...
Program Director Ivan Timofeev delivered a report at a workshop on Russia's role in the Euro-Atlantic security held by the City Council of Turku, Finland, and sponsored by the Alexander Institute of the University of Helsinki and the Atlantic Council of Finland.
The participants included members of the City Council, Russian and Finnish diplomats, as well ...
... momentous. We can see a good sign in the dialog on cyber security launched by presidents of Russia and the United States on the sidelines of the G8 summit. Engagement of other NATO states may as well lay the ground for a new dimension of the Euro-Atlantic security. The Russia-NATO Council is definitely a major factor in Moscow's partnership with NATO. The Council is not perfect; it has its limitations and defects. But it provides a forum for continuous and systemic communication. Changes can be initiated by enthusiasts but ...
