The Russia-NATO agreement: what are the disadvantages of Moscow's position

The year 2021 ended with a prudent attempt by Russia to negotiate with the United States in order to prevent military conflicts and military tensions on the contact lines along our borders. America has not yet formally responded, but has already made it clear that the "Russian red lines" do not suit it.

What does the US want and what does Russia want?

Putting aside empty diplomatic chatter and endless mutual wrangling, the essence of the situation is as follows.

Financial and industrial groups and the largest US concerns, which have a colossal influence on the American state, were afraid of competitive challenges from the Chinese, primarily state, capital, which has spread its networks around the world and is actively conquering markets. In turn, the ruling strata of America were afraid of the growing influence of the Chinese political model and interest in it, because it has become a real working alternative to Western democracy. The internal contradictions of the American and, more broadly, the entire Western society have exacerbated these fears. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the post-war turn of the West's policy against the USSR, then the "Atlantists" were also frightened by the growth of the authority and influence of the USSR and its socialist model. The decision on the part of the United States was followed by almost the same - the declaration of a cold war, however, now it is more difficult to lower the "iron curtain"; instead, an information war is being waged for "Western values" against "authoritarianism."

The behavior of the United States has made even more frenzied by the fact that its global hegemony is fading away, it turns out to be unable to maintain the level of influence it won in the 1990s and 2000s on regional and world political processes. Allies are spreading, neutrals are not listening, opponents are less and less afraid of American economic and military might.

The key direction of the aggressive strategy of the United States against China is Russia, since it has a long border with the Middle Kingdom and extensive economic communication. Russia largely feeds China with natural resources, which it lacks.

Initially, the United States tried to change power in Russia with direct attacks, but this tactic did not work, so America turned to attempts to change the foreign policy of the current government. Exercising all-round economic, political, diplomatic and military pressure on Russia, the United States is trying to persuade the Russian leadership to cooperate against China through negotiations, at least to neutrality in the Cold War. Russia communicates politely, but does not give in. The United States is increasing pressure, preparing an escalation in the Donbas and trying to provoke another armed conflict. In this situation, Russia publicly puts forward its conditions in the form of an agreement with the United States and NATO. It is clear that the same conditions earlier V.V. Putin voiced Biden in closed talks. The meaning of this move is to "squeeze" the informational American leadership, to show everyone that it is incapable of negotiating and is in an aggressive mood. On the other hand, this is a message to the Chinese comrades that Russia is capable of maneuvering between the two giants.

In China, the Global Times (formally an independent publication, but expressing Beijing's official position in a freer, often provocative form) published the opinion of Yang Jin, a junior researcher at the Institute for Russian, Eastern Europe and Central Asia Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who reasoned menacingly:

If NATO dares to deploy anti-missile or other strategic weapons in Ukraine, Moscow will launch a targeted strike to destroy them. This is how Russia deals with provocations that cross its red line.

China, of course, wants to see Russia in an even tougher confrontation with the United States. However, the Russian leadership is not thinking about the global prospects of a multipolar world, but about how to defend itself against attacks and mitigate the consequences of growing international tension.

Disadvantages of Russia's position

The Russian Foreign Ministry is confident that the position of our country is absolutely defensive, non-aggressive, impenetrable logical, reasonable and fair. V.V. Putin said:

We have made it clear and clear that NATO's further eastward movement is unacceptable. Well, what is incomprehensible here? Are we placing missiles near the US borders? No. It was the United States that came to our house with its missiles. On the threshold of our house are already.

Everything is so, and, indeed, the reasoning of the Russian leadership is much more logical, reasonable and fair than the desire of the United States to surround and put pressure on Russia. However, they also have some flaws.

Lavrov and Putin often talk about NATO's threat to Russia's security. But from the side of a neutral observer it is completely unclear how one can threaten the security of a power that has in its arsenal the weapon of guaranteed fatal destruction of any aggressor. We are a nuclear power capable of destroying nearly the entire planet. How can the entry of some countries into NATO seriously threaten us?

Let’s say that the flight time to central Russia is reduced, but does this cancel the guarantee of a retaliatory strike? No, then what is it about? What are we worried about?

This moment looks the weakest in the position of Russia, and the West is actively playing on this in the information field. Western media write that Russia is surrounded by tens of thousands of NATO soldiers, are they capable of capturing the largest country in the world? Western media talk about the hypocrisy of Russia, which allegedly fears that a weak Ukraine will attack it. Of course, there is a lot of straining in this criticism, there is some speculation, but nevertheless it has a right to exist.

In fact, no matter what the Foreign Ministry and the President say, of course, this is not about direct threats to our security, but about the notorious spheres of influence. The Russian leadership protects the interests of the state in the regions of Russia's presence - in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This is precisely where the demand for NATO's eastward expansion stems from, and not at all because of security threats. And the problem is that the Russian state does not speak about this directly, because it contradicts international law and the UN Charter. But this is just a fact of real life: large and strong countries influence and put pressure on small and weak ones, trying to persuade them to follow the channel of their foreign policy. But no one admits it.

From this follows the second weakness of the position of Russia, which is inherent, however, and the position of our opponents. This is a contradiction between the recognition of the sovereignty of weak countries and their lack of "subjectivity." For example, Russia recognizes the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, recognizes Donbass as part of Ukraine, but everyone understands perfectly well that a pro-American puppet government is sitting in Kiev, and the LPR is separate, formally independent states. The Russian leadership does not recognize the LPNR and does not include Donbass in the federation at the will of its people, not because it respects the sovereignty of Ukraine and the letter of the UN Charter, but because it is afraid of the West's reaction. This is our weakness, and it is normal that we are weak in something, the problem is that we ourselves do not recognize it, but pretend that we honor some international norms and rules.

The independence and sovereignty of this or that country does not arise from the UN Charter and the recognition of the "international community", but from the real economic and political power of the country, expressed through production, technological, military, personnel potential and the will of the leadership. If a country does not have a normal industry, agriculture, capable armed forces and a strong-willed leadership, no one will reckon with it, no matter what is written in international law. Modern diplomacy generally suffers from this duplicity, when in words everyone is equal and respects everyone, but in reality the right of the strong prevails.

It would be great if at least one country in the world renounced diplomatic idealism and began to speak directly to the point. The position of Russia is more just and defensive than the position of the West, so why are we playing these games and dancing curtsies with "partners"? Even this official term - "partners" - why is it needed? The United States considers Russia to be almost an enemy, and we continue to play false peacefulness. By the way, the post-Stalinist USSR did exactly the same thing, it also constantly followed the path of "defusing the international situation", but it only happened in words. Isn't it better to look at things realistically?
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mantrid Machina Offline Mantrid Machina
    Mantrid Machina (Mantrid Machina) 30 December 2021 08: 02
    The author completely overlooks an essential detail: the deployment of missile defense systems along the border of the Russian Federation along with offensive weapons. NATO's offensive armament along the Russian border reduces flight time, while the deployment of missile defense systems also makes it possible to shoot down Russian ICBMs on the ascending trajectory. This is completely unacceptable, there is no parity. The Russian Federation has only strategic naval and air-based nuclear weapons, and mobile complexes may have time to shoot
    1. Shirokoborodov Offline Shirokoborodov
      Shirokoborodov (Anatoly) 30 December 2021 13: 04
      These are all well-known arguments, but they do not change the essence. The inevitability of a fatal retaliatory strike does not disappear anywhere, which means that the parity does not change. The Russian Federation is fighting for spheres of influence in Eastern Europe under the guise of this argumentation.
  2. Blast Offline Blast
    Blast (Vladimir) 30 December 2021 09: 25
    This is not a weakness, but a warning of a military response. Expression of readiness to resolve issues with the help of military force, where is the "weakness"? Are the US and NATO ready for a real military confrontation in Europe? Russia decided to raise the stakes and ensure its security and sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space, this is natural. Such statements are not made without a real assessment of the capabilities of the armed forces of the parties. So the time has come ... and someone will have to "move" ...
    1. ctckfqrb Offline ctckfqrb
      ctckfqrb (Evgeny Korolev) 1 January 2022 21: 13
      Well, who will have to move? to us, of course.
  3. Bakht Online Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 December 2021 09: 31
    Several weak points in the article.
    ABM systems have already been written about. This means zeroing out Russian ICBMs. In addition to bases in Romania and Poland, there are also bases in Turkey. The same ABM bases are being created in Alaska. In addition, they are based on the Aegis system, which is installed on almost a hundred US ships around the entire territory of Russia.
    Second point. Besides the fact that Russia is feeding China with resources, it is feeding Europe with the same resources in the same way. Which in Europe is much less than in China. Any conflict in Donbass will bring Russia and China closer together. And it will leave Europe without resources. No resources whatsoever. That is why the United States entered into negotiations with Russia.
    Third point. For some reason, the author believes that the West is not a threat to Russia. The West does not consider Russia "almost an enemy." The West regards Russia as its enemy. This has been said clearly and clearly many times. This must be understood quite clearly.
    The West's problem is the crisis of capitalism. Comprehensive and general. Capitalism develops and can only exist in expanding markets. Expanding demand and capture of new sales markets. But now there is a rise in developing countries. China, India, Brazil. These markets fall outside the Western sphere of influence. The influence of the dollar in the world monetary system is falling. This means that inflation, which was previously scattered around the world, is being transferred to the States. The traditional way out of the crisis for the capitalist system is war. But in the current realities, war can destroy everyone.
    Zugzwang situation. It is impossible to agree to Russia's proposals on points of principle. You cannot reject them either. Russia is ready for war. From the point of view of Russia, to endure the situation of such a policy is like death. And she cannot retreat. China looks "from the tree, like a wise monkey." The absence of an agreement between the West and Russia makes the Russia-China bond stronger.
    From any point of view, I do not expect a breakthrough in the January 12 talks. Everything will go according to the classics of the genre "everyone said his own thing and did not listen to the interlocutor."
    And one more point in the proposals of Russia. That gets little attention. Europe dropped out of the negotiation process. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the EU's participation in the negotiations does not make sense. Russia negotiates directly with the owner. That is, with the States. Members who have lost their subjectivity are not counted. These are the EU countries and Ukraine as well. Russia has recorded the real fact of the current world order. There are only three centers of power: the United States, Russia and China. The rest are just geopolitical objects.
  4. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 30 December 2021 09: 39
    The growth of the PRC's economy automatically reduces the share of the United States in world GDP, and, accordingly, its political influence.
    Naturally, this causes resistance from the United States and provokes an internal split, which is at least difficult to overcome under the conditions of the existing model of capitalism.
    In the United States, the EU, the Russian Federation and the capitalist model as a whole, the intraclass contradictions of the leading groups of big business create centrifugal forces, which for the time being have been contained due to colonial expansion and the summit of “democracies” is nothing more than a screen for the external expansion of transnational monopoly capital.
    Part of the loot from external expansion big business unfastened for the maintenance of the proletarians of the metropolis. Thus, the so-called. The “golden billion” raised on the robbery of other state institutions and peoples.
    In the PRC, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Communist Party, like an iron hoop on a wooden barrel, tightens and strengthens all its components and does not allow them to fall apart. Therefore, the main goal of the United States in the confrontation with the PRC is the Communist Party, weakening which the state will also collapse.
  5. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 30 December 2021 10: 18
    If a country does not have a normal industry, agriculture, capable armed forces and a strong-willed leadership, no one will reckon with it, no matter what is written in international law.

    Everyone understands everything. Putin needs to raise his authority, the United States understands this and plays along. In reality, Putin continues to "trade in the Motherland." This is the main thing for the USA! I already wrote, but I will repeat:

    In July 2020, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation developed a plan to reduce the number of companies with state participation until 2025. Annually more than 100 state-controlled legal entities must pass into private hands. In 2020, there are 1465 state-owned companies in Russia. According to the document, in 2021 their number will decrease to 1319, in 2022 - to 1187, in 2023 - to 1068. As a result, by 2025, 961 enterprises with state participation should remain in the country.
  6. was-witek Offline was-witek
    was-witek (Victor) 30 December 2021 11: 32
    The author is very poorly versed in military issues, an absolute dilettante, it would be time for him to study the "material part" more thoroughly ...
    1. Shirokoborodov Offline Shirokoborodov
      Shirokoborodov (Anatoly) 30 December 2021 13: 13
      If you study history, you will know that "military assessments" and "military analytics" in peacetime are ALWAYS completely out of touch with reality. When a real war begins, it turns out that neither the generals nor the experts at all understood anything about the situation. This is the case with missile defense systems, with military bases and other things. Any politician will ask two simple questions: Is Russia's retaliation guaranteed? are NATO armed forces capable of capturing Smolensk? If the answers are "yes", "no", then the parity does not change. It's just that people, especially young people, really like to talk about military aspects, military equipment, etc., so the point is missed.
      1. Bakht Online Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 December 2021 14: 51
        Yes, the military is often wrong. So are the politicians. Two classic examples:

        You will be back home before the fall leaves

        - Kaiser Wilhelm

        We will fight with little blood on foreign territory

        - Soviet military doctrine of the 30s.

        The political will of the Russian leadership is expressed in the conditions put forward by the United States. That is why the meeting is being held. That is, the US political leadership has realized that Moscow will not confine itself to concerns.
        Missile defense systems seriously violate the parity of retaliation. Therefore, the Russian Armed Forces are simply OBLIGED to neutralize them BEFORE the hot phase of the conflict.
        As for Smolensk, a counter question can also be asked - are the RF Armed Forces capable of capturing Warsaw?
  7. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
    Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 31 December 2021 01: 52
    Our country has vast borders and is surrounded by a large number of neighboring states. This leads to two main problems:
    1. The need to determine an attack in time and defend against it, in the general case, must be ensured on a huge front, in terms of length and coverage of geographical and climatic regions, in any of its places.
    2. The need to maintain friendly good-neighborly relations with a large number of neighboring states located in various geopolitical regional systems - in order to avoid the appearance of bridgeheads on the borders of an attack by a potential enemy.
    The deployment by the United States and NATO of an increasing number of bases and weapons on our borders triggers several parallel processes that mutually reinforce each other.
    These processes are directed primarily against our decision-making system on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which is the key for the enemy to defeat us.
    1. Bases at the borders lead to a reduction in the time for making a decision and choosing an operational option for responding to a strike
    2. The number of bases leads to an exponential increase in the number of options for possible enemy operations that require analysis
    3. A combination of several options becomes possible, which further increases the amount of information that requires real-time analysis
    4. The use of breakthrough points remote from each other requires a quick transfer of forces to repel an attack, which is hampered by the length and inaccessibility of individual sections and adds new options for breakthrough operations.
    5. Neighboring countries, by means of their political and military analysts, continuously evaluate the actions and real possibilities of Russia's survival. In the event of an unfavorable prognosis, they move into the enemy's sphere of influence, and new bases and attack bridgeheads appear on their territory. Which makes the situation even worse.
    This is not a complete list of interrelated factors.
    These processes are already in full swing.
    The possibility of a timely retaliatory strike is not a guarantee at all, but only a technical result, which is ensured by the available means.
    At a certain level of intensity and ingenuity of threats, it can no longer be ensured. No way.
    Quantity turns into quality.
    The country to which revolvers are directed from all sides will not be able to live, and therefore has no future.
    We have come to this limit. Tightly
  8. Boris the Imperialist (Boris Kuzmin) 4 January 2022 02: 36
    Before starting negotiations, Russia lost the negotiations. If the United States exemplifies all the points of Russia's requirements and puts forward its own requirements, similar to the Russian ones, unacceptable for Russia. Such as: 1. Remove nuclear weapons from the territory of Russia and troops from the western borders of Russia to the Bering Strait. 2. To exclude from the composition of Russia the territories that were not part of Russia before 1991. etc.