... the positions of the two states on a number of important issues. In particular, it emphasizes the negative attitude towards NATO expansion and destabilizing activities of external forces in the regions of the common neighborhood
[1]
. Equally important ... ... during the visit thereby contributing to Russia’s reorientation of economic ties from Europe towards China later led to the accusations against China that Beijing had been informed by Russians about the coming conflict, and China supported the Special Military ...
... In Asia, there is no alliance of powers for which the struggle with Russia would mostly determine foreign policy, and the United States, although actively present in the region, does not have organisational and spatial resources there comparable to NATO.
Under these conditions, the region neighbouring southern Russia presents the most room for foreign policy manoeuvring. This includes relations with the states of the Middle East and those which belong to the “southern belt” of former Soviet ...
... Western Europe fully acknowledged their inability to create an international order that did not centre on the violence of a privileged group. This became, probably, the biggest historical drama since the end of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, since it meant the impossibility, at least at the present time, of turning away from the path of resolving interstate contradictions with violence. Therefore, the NATO attack on Yugoslavia turned out to be, in fact, the completion of the “end of history” that was proclaimed by some Western publicists in the late 1980s, and with the right reasons was supported by other countries of the world. The events of 1999 ...
... Russia, and the special military operation is aimed at eliminating this threat; while NATO sees the eastward expansion as a guarantee of security in Europe, and that if Russia wins in Ukraine, Europe will be the next target of its strikes, and therefore NATO must support Ukraine, keeping Russia out of Ukraine.
Whatever the special features of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, like all wars it has caused enormous suffering on both sides, with hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians killed and wounded, cities and houses reduced to rubble, the accumulation of hundreds of years of hard work destroyed, and the creation of lasting and even indelible hatreds between peoples. The continuation ...
... of the Kiev regime patrons, who continue pumping billions of dollars in order to drag out the conflict, bringing misery to thousands of people. They insist that there are no alternatives to the meaningless and one-sided “Copenhagen format” and “Zelensky ... ... understanding Russia's key demands - the denazification and demilitarization of Ukrainian thugs as well as rejection of Russophobia and NATO plans of Kiev - Washington and its satellites are only making things worse. They funnel weapons to their puppets, calling ...
... Germany, has lost sovereignty over its foreign policy, even formally. France struggled for a while, but since the mid-1970s the country has gradually moved towards abandoning its independent role in world politics. The finale was the country's return to NATO military structures 15 years ago, after which French defence planning was also integrated into a system led by the United States.
As a result, by the end of the 2000s all the prerequisites have been formed in order to completely forget any dreams ...
... bilateral and multilateral basis. Now the situation is completely opposite – a mighty cold wind is raging over the Baltic Sea and the countries adjacent to it. First of all, there was consolidation of the positions of the West – after Finland joined NATO and Sweden applied to join, all countries in the region, except Russia, became members of the two most influential Western associations – NATO and the EU.
Russia does not have such acute contradictions with Sweden and Finland as it does with Ukraine,...
... almost open nuclear game, but in different forms and with different objectives. Both Russia and the United States are well aware of the presence of the nuclear weapons factor in this conflict. Russia's main objective is to deter the United States and NATO from directly intervening in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The U.S., on the other hand, tends to believe that Russia will not or dare not use nuclear weapons and can therefore boldly provide military support to Ukraine. Both sides are at loggerheads,...
... militarily neutral country enjoying the trade, investment, and logistical benefits of its position between Russia and the European Union was dismissed by Washington as “giving the Kremlin a veto right” over its neighbor’s security status. Instead, NATO’s unrestrained expansion was upheld as almost a sacred principle. This led to an outcome that many had predicted: Moscow’s pushback.
Rather than reaching for a compromise settlement via the Minsk accords, the West and its Ukrainian protégés ...
... Russia issued ultimatums on long-term security guarantees, threatening
“military and technical measures”
in case of refusal. The nature of these measures was revealed with the launch of the military operation on Ukrainian territory which shocked ... ... with Russia about its concerns; the opposite was the case.
One could argue that the comparison is flawed because the US and its NATO allies are not directly threatened by the Ukraine conflict, whereas nuclear escalation is another matter entirely. But this ...
