Category Archives: NATO

Rights monitor blocked

Russia has blocked the website of the OVD-Info rights monitor, which tracks opposition protests and also provides legal support to victims of political persecution, saying it promoted terrorism and extremism, amid an unprecedented official crackdown on dissent.

The Roskomnadzor media regulator confirmed Saturday that it had blocked OVD-Info's website because the Moscow region court had ruled that the group's activities were aimed at promoting "terrorism and extremism" in Russia.

Troops withdrawn

Russia announced Saturday that more than 10,000 troops had finished month-long drills near Ukraine, amid Western accusations that Moscow was plotting an invasion of its ex-Soviet neighbor.

The Defense Ministry said in a statement that the drills for Southern Military District forces had taken place in a host of southern regions including Rostov, Krasnodar and Crimea, the latter of which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.

NATO sit-down

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg has sought a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council next month and contacted Moscow to secure its attendance, an alliance spokesman said Sunday.

"We are in touch with Russia" about the Jan. 12 meeting, the first proposed by Stoltenberg since Moscow made its sweeping security demands, said the NATO spokesman, who asked not be identified.

Russias Foreign Ministry said it wasconsidering NATOS proposal to meet on Jan. 12.

Gas games

Russian energy giant Gazprom has rejected accusations that Moscow is limiting gas deliveries to Europe via the Yamal-Europe pipeline and denounced Germany's resale of gas to Poland amid soaring prices.

The pipeline was operating in reverse mode this week, public data showed, sending gas from Germany to Poland as European gas prices ticked up.

Chechen crackdown

Six Chechen opposition activists critical of regional head Ramzan Kadyrovs leadership have reported dozens of their relatives beingdetained or kidnapped over the weekend.

Committee Against Torture lawyer Abubakar Yangulbaev estimated on Instagram that at least 41 of his relatives were detained by unidentified men wearing black uniforms, with their passports and phones seized.

Christmas message

A projection on the facade of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Saturday wished Uncle Sam a Merry Christmas and listed a series of Russian achievements since the Soviet collapse 30 years ago to proclaim that Great Russia is reborn.

The projection included references to Russias annexation of Crimea and the Sochi Olympics in 2014, the FIFA World Cup in 2018, as well as Russias first floating nuclear power station the Akademik Lomonosov.

AFP contributed reporting.

Visit link:
News From Russia: What You Missed Over the Weekend - The Moscow Times

Most Ukrainians support Ukraine's accession to the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance.

That's according to a survey conducted by the Razumkov Centre's sociological service from November 24 to December 1, Ukrinform reports.

The poll found that if a referendum on Ukraine's accession to the EU were held in the near future, 69% of respondents would take part in the vote. Some 56% of all respondents (or 78% of participants in the referendum) would vote for their country's accession to the EU, whereas 26% and 18%, respectively, would vote against it.

If a referendum on Ukraine's accession to NATO were held in the near future, 67% of respondents would take part in the vote. Some 48% of all respondents (or 70% of participants in the referendum) would vote for Ukraine's joining the military alliance, and 33% and 24.5%, respectively, would vote against this.

A total of 2,005 respondents over the age of 18 from all regions of Ukraine, except for Crimea and occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, were interviewed face-to-face. The poll's margin of error (excluding the design effect) does not exceed 2.3% with a probability of 0.95.

op

Read the rest here:
Most Ukrainians back Ukraine's accession to EU, NATO - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

Here's What You Need to Know:Although the reason NATO was first created back in 1949 was to defend the U.S. and Europe against a Soviet onslaught, the transatlantic organization is still pertinent, albeit with a twist. There is no lack of threats, from a resurgent Russia to arising Chinato the ever-present danger of terrorism.

In March, NATO released its annual defense expenditure report. The 29-country alliance requires every member-state to spend at least 2% percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense each year.

Although the number appears insignificant at first sight, in reality, most countries have historically failed to hit it, a point that has spurred controversy and division withinNATO.

In 2020, NATO as a whole spent approximately $1,028 trillion on defense, with the U.S. making most of this number with its $717 billion defense budget. In 2019, the Transatlantic alliance had spent just over a trillion dollars ($1,001 trillion), with the US again making up most of it with its then $702 billion budget.

Between 2019 and 2020, NATO member-states increased their defense spending in real terms by 3.9% despite the economic impact of the Coronavirus pandemic.

To compile its expenditure list, NATO uses data that everyNATO member-stateregularly sends about current and future defense expenditure and other economic and demographic information from the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission (DG-ECFIN), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In each member-states defense expenditure, there are four subcategories (Personnel, Operations and Maintenance, Infrastructure, and Major Equipment).

The following countries make up the top-five in total defense expenditure in terms of their gross domestic product:

-The United States (3.73%)

-Greece (2.68%)

-Estonia (2.33%)

-The United Kingdom (2.32%)

-Poland (2.31%)

These five countries bring up the rear:

-North Macedonia/FYROM (1.27%)

-Spain (1.17%)

-Slovenia (1.10%)

-Belgium (1.07%)

-Luxembourg (0.57%)

France comes ninth with 2.04%, Germany eighteenth with 1.56%, and Italy twenty-second with 1.39%.

NATO, however, cautions that its data might converge from those publicized by national authorities because of some differences between NATOs and national definitions of what amounts to defense expenditure. For example, when calculating equipment expenditure (i.e., buying new aircraft or ships), NATO includes in that number sums dedicated to research and development for new major equipment. Similarly, when calculating personnel expenditure, NATO accounts for pensions and payroll.

In a joint press conference with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Jans Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO, said that NATO is still very relevant and has to deal with the constant threat of terrorism, cyberattacks, the rise of China, Russias destabilizing activities across the globe, and the security implications of nuclear weapons proliferation, and climate change.

Theres no way to hide that over the last few years weve had some difficult discussions within our Alliance, and we have seen some differences. But if anything I think those differences and difficult discussions have just demonstrated the importance of having strong institutions, Jens Stoltenberg, NATOs Secretary-General, said in apress conference.

Because I said a lot about the importance of adapting, and also, not only strengthening our military capabilities but also resilience, cyber, all the other issues. So the main thing is that as long as we stand together, we can deal with both the rise of China, and assertive and aggressive Russia, thats exactly the reason why we have NATO, added Stoltenberg.

Stoltenbergcitedthe results of a poll about the publics perception of NATO. According to the Secretary-General, if a vote was held on whether their country should remain in NATO, 62% of NATO citizens would vote remain, while 79% believe in strong ties between North America and Europe.

Every so often, pundits and politicians question the utility of and the need for NATO. They question the transatlantic defense organizations contribution, often arguing that its an anachronism that should have ended alongside the Soviet Union, the very enemy it was created to fight.

Although the reason NATO was first created back in 1949 was to defend the U.S. and Europe against a Soviet onslaught, the transatlantic organization is still pertinent, albeit with a twist. There is no lack of threats, from a resurgent Russia to arising Chinato the ever-present danger of terrorism. To address these threats, the organization needs to constantly evolve and ensure that every member-state is on the same page, admittedly a tough proposition when 29 countries are involved.

This articlefirst appearedat Sandboxx in April 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Read more from the original source:
Which NATO Members Spend the Most on Defense? No. 2 May Surprise You - The National Interest

Vladimir Putin has said he will consider a military response if Russia feels threatened by Nato, in a sign that he is not ready to de-escalate tensions over a potential invasion of Ukraine.

In a combative speech on Tuesday, Putin who has demanded security guarantees from Nato told his top military commanders that the west was to blame for the rising tensions. It came against a backdrop of a Russian buildup of tanks and artillery for what could constitute an invasion force within weeks.

The Russian president has railed against Nato enlargement since the fall of the Soviet Union and accused the west of turning Ukraine against Russia. After a revolution installed a pro-western government in 2014, Moscow annexed Crimea and sparked a conflict in east Ukraine that has left more than 14,000 dead. It has bristled at growing military cooperation between Ukraine and Nato countries.

What the United States is doing in Ukraine is at our doorstep, he said of Washingtons support for Kyiv. And they should understand that we have nowhere further to retreat to. Under [US] protection, they are arming and urging on extremists from a neighbouring country at Russia. Against Crimea, for instance. Do they think well just watch idly?

Putin did not specifically refer to the possibility of an offensive operation in Ukraine and Russian diplomats have previously suggested a response could employ other measures, such as moving intermediate-range missiles within striking distance of European targets. That would be a punishment, Moscow claims, for the USs unilateral withdrawal from a missile treaty in 2018.

By massing troops at Ukraines borders, however, Russia has made it clear that an attack is on the table.

If our western counterparts continue a clearly aggressive line, we will undertake proportionate military-technical countermeasures and will respond firmly to unfriendly steps, Putin said in televised remarks. Id like to stress that we are fully entitled to do that.

Parts of his speech on Tuesday appeared tailored to give Russia a justification to launch a new military campaign in Ukraine, something it could be ready for as soon as next month.

Russias defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said an unnamed private US military company had acquired chemical weapons and was planning to launch a provocation in the east Ukrainian cities of Avdiivka and Krasny Liman. Russias military previously made similar claims in Syria, although the predicted attacks often did not take place.

Putin repeated demands that the west make legal guarantees to ensure Russias security, but said he would have difficulty trusting the US to abide by a treaty.

We need long-term legally binding guarantees, he told military commanders. You and I know well that even they, legal guarantees, cannot be trusted because the United States easily withdraws from all international agreements it loses interest in for one reason or another giving no explanations whatsoever. He pointed specifically to missile defence treaties and the Treaty on Open Skies, which the US left in November 2020.

Putin railed at Natos expansion and accused western powers of supporting terrorists and separatists in Chechnya, where Moscow fought a brutal series of wars in the 1990s and 2000s.

The speech points to a broad reassessment of Russias post-Soviet history, in which Putin views Washington and its allies as taking advantage of the countrys weakness.

Russia put forward a highly contentious list of security guarantees last week that it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine, including many elements that have already been ruled out.

The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Natos eastern flank, in effect returning Nato forces to where they were stationed in 1997, before an eastward expansion.

Putin did offer some hope of talks but said Russia needed an immediate answer to its proposals.

There are some signals that our partners are ready to work on this, he said. But theres a danger that they will attempt to stall, dumping our proposals into a swamp, and use this pause to do what they want.

Both Russian and western analysts have said the Kremlin is unlikely to receive the concessions it desires, making a conflict more likely. In that case, Moscow may use the dismissal of its draft treaty as an excuse for launching a military operation in Ukraine.

Whats happening now, this tension in Europe, is their fault, Putin said. At every step Russia has been forced to respond, the situation has got worse and worse and worse And now were in a situation where we must make a decision. We cant allow the situation Ive described to develop any further.

See original here:
Putin warns of possible military response over aggressive Nato - The Guardian

MOSCOW, December 25. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has refuted claims made by the US and a number of Western countries that the issue of NATO eastward non-expansion wont be discussed at talks on security guarantees.

"In the US and a number of Western countries, statements were made that during the upcoming discussions of the Russian proposal on developing legal security guarantees the issue of NATO non-expansion wont be considered. With regards to this, we are emphasizing: it is precisely NATO non-expansion and the nonappearance of weapon systems threatening our security near Russian borders that are the main, key issues at the upcoming talks with the US and NATO. This should be clearly understood by those who still have not figured out the essence of the Russian position," the diplomats commentary made public on Saturday said.

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry published the draft agreements between Russia and the US on security guarantees and the measures of ensuring the security of Russia and NATO member states. These drafts were submitted to the Americans at a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on December 15.

Link:
Diplomat refutes claims that NATO non-expansion wont be discussed at talks - TASS

For NATO, the world's longest-lasting military and political alliance, 2021 was the year when it withdrew from Afghanistan after two decades, and when its relations with Russia have been at the lowest point since the Cold War.

The inauguration of new US President Joe Biden, ending former President Donald Trump's term in January was seen as a positive development by the alliance, especially for the relationship between the US and its European allies.

Transatlantic relations were expected to warm up after Trump's desire to keep his distance from Europe's security and European countries desire to increase their defense spending.

So, right after Biden took office, he made statements about the US commitment to NATO and gave warm messages during meetings with the leaders of European countries.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan

The first NATO meeting after the change of administration in the US was held in February with the meeting of defense ministers. The most important issue on the agenda was Afghanistan. NATO discussed whether to withdraw from Afghanistan, without a decision at the end of the meeting.

On March 23, the foreign ministers of NATO countries held a meeting, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attending for the first time and expressing commitment to keep the transatlantic ties strong.

The meeting of the ministers, who once again discussed the withdrawal from Afghanistan, did not yield any results. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that they will act in consultation and decide together.

On April 14, the NATO decision on the date of withdrawal from Afghanistan was announced. The US said the process of leaving from Afghanistan would begin as of May 1 to be completed by Sept. 11. NATO also stated that they will act in unity when leaving the country they have been in for 20 years.

After the US decision to withdraw, uncertainty continued for a while. The reason for this was the pessimistic picture drawn in intelligence reports after NATO's departure, and the uncertainty over whether any force would be substituted for the NATO mission. While some NATO members declared that they would abide by the US decision in withdrawal, some countries remained silent for a while.

On April 29, NATO announced that the Resolute Support Mission forces in Afghanistan had begun to withdraw from the country. By August, with the rapid withdrawal of US forces, the Taliban soon gained dominance in the country.

NATO pointed to the inadequacy of Afghan political leaders in the Taliban's unexpected rapid takeover of Afghanistan.

Historical decline in relations with Russia

Another major issue on NATO's agenda in 2021 was relations with Russia. While NATO reacted to the arrest of Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny at the beginning of the year, Russia's military activity on the Ukrainian border at the beginning of April alarmed NATO.

NATO urged Russia, which sent tens of thousands of soldiers and military equipment to the Ukrainian border and the Crimea, to immediately end its military buildup. NATO reported that this was Russia's largest military build-up in the region since the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.

Ukraine sought NATO support in the face of Russian fortifications. NATO reaffirmed its strong support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

At the NATO summit held in Brussels on June 14, it was stated that Russia was a "direct threat" and that relations would be maintained through both deterrence and defense and dialogue.

While NATO-Russia relations were at the lowest level since the Cold War period, NATO canceled the accreditation of eight members of the Russian mission, saying they were "undeclared Russian intelligence officers." Russia suspended mission to NATO and shut liaison office in Moscow in a tit-for-tat move

In November, Russian military activity on the Ukrainian border came to the fore once again. Relations became even more strained after the US intelligence reports included the information that Russia had increased its fortifications on the border. NATO increased its presence in air, land, and sea on the alliance's eastern flank.

At the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting on Nov. 30, the message was given to Russia that "if Moscow attacks Ukraine, it will have serious repercussions and serious consequences." In such a case, Russia would also face harsh economic and political sanctions by western countries.

On Dec.15, Russia made a series of offers to the US and NATO for having security guarantees, including NATO not expanding eastward and not including former Soviet Union countries such as Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance.

See more here:
Afghan withdrawal, Russia tensions placed on NATO agenda in 2021 - The Nation

MOSCOW -- Russia on Friday published draft security demands that NATO deny membership to Ukraine and other former Soviet countries and roll back the alliance's military deployments in Central and Eastern Europe bold ultimatums that are almost certain to be rejected by the U.S. and its allies.

The proposals, which were submitted to the U.S. and its allies earlier this week, also call for a ban on sending U.S. and Russian warships and aircraft to areas from where they can strike each others territory, along with a halt to NATO military drills near Russia.

The demand for a written guarantee that Ukraine won't be offered membership already has been rejected by the West, which said Moscow doesn't have a say in NATO's enlargement.

NATOs secretary-general emphasized Friday that any security talks with Moscow would need to take into account NATO concerns and involve Ukraine and other partners. The White House similarly said its discussing the proposals with U.S. allies and partners, but noted that all countries have the right to determine their future without outside interference.

The publication of the demands contained in a proposed Russia-U.S. security treaty and a security agreement between Moscow and NATO comes amid soaring tensions over a Russian troop buildup near Ukraine that has raised fears of an invasion. Moscow has denied it has plans to attack its neighbor but wants legal guarantees precluding NATO expansion and deploying weapons there.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russias relations with the U.S. and NATO have approached a dangerous point, noting that alliance deployments and drills near Russia have raised unacceptable threats to its security.

Moscow wants the U.S. to start talks immediately on the proposals in Geneva, he told reporters.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance had received the Russian documents, and noted that any dialogue with Moscow would also need to address NATOs concerns about Russias actions, be based on core principles and documents of European security, and take place in consultation with NATOs European partners, such as Ukraine.

He added that the 30 NATO countries have made clear that should Russia take concrete steps to reduce tensions, we are prepared to work on strengthening confidence building measures.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the administration is ready to discuss Moscows concerns about NATO in talks with Russian officials, but emphasized that Washington is committed to the principle of nothing about you without you in shaping policy that impacts European allies.

Were approaching the broader question of diplomacy with Russia from the point of view that ... meaningful progress at the negotiating table, of course, will have to take place in a context of de-escalation rather than escalation, Sullivan said at the event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that its very difficult to see agreements getting consummated if were continuing to see an escalatory cycle.

While U.S. intelligence has determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made plans for a potential further invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Sullivan said the U.S. still does not know whether he has decided to move forward.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki noted that strategic security talks with Moscow go back decades, saying that theres no reason we cant do that moving forward to reduce instability, but were going to do that in partnership and coordination with our European allies and partners.

We will not compromise the key principles on which European security is built, including that all countries have the right to decide their own future and foreign policy free from the outside interference," Psaki said.

Moscows draft also calls for efforts to reduce the risk of incidents involving Russia and NATO warships and aircraft, primarily in the Baltic and the Black seas, increase the transparency of military drills and other confidence-building measures.

A senior U.S. official said some of the Russian proposals are part of an arms control agenda between Moscow and Washington, while some other issues, such as transparency and deconfliction, concern all 57 members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, including Ukraine and Georgia.

The official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity in order to talk about the proposals, said the U.S. is looking at how to engage every country whose interests are affected in prospective talks on European security issues and will respond to Moscow sometime next week with concrete proposals after consulting with the allies.

President Vladimir Putin raised the demand for security guarantees in last weeks video call with U.S. President Joe Biden. During the conversation, Biden voiced concern about a buildup of Russian troops near Ukraine and warned him that Russia would face severe consequences if Moscow attacked its neighbor.

Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and shortly after cast its support behind a separatist rebellion in the country's east. More than seven years of fighting has killed over 14,000 people and devastated Ukraines industrial heartland, known as the Donbas.

The Russian demands would oblige Washington and its allies to pledge to halt NATO's eastward expansion to include other ex-Soviet republics and rescind a 2008 promise of membership to Ukraine and Georgia. The alliance already has firmly rejected that demand from Moscow.

Moscow's documents also would preclude the U.S. and other NATO allies from conducting any military activities in Ukraine, other countries of Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus and in Central Asia.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry commented on Moscows proposals by emphasizing that its up to the alliance and Ukraine to discuss NATO membership prospects and its military cooperation with other countries.

The Russian aggression and the current Russian escalation along the Ukrainian border and on the occupied territories is now the main problem for the Euro-Atlantic security, said its spokesman Oleg Nikolenko.

The Russian proposal also ups the ante by putting a new demand to roll back NATO military deployments in Central and Eastern Europe, stating that the parties agree not to send any troops to areas where they hadn't been present in 1997 before NATO's eastward expansion started except for exceptional situations of mutual consent.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999, followed in 2004 by Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In the following years, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia also became members, bringing NATO membership to 30 nations.

The draft proposals contain a ban on the deployment of U.S. and Russian warships and aircraft to areas where they can strike targets on the territory of the other party.

Moscow has long complained about patrol flights by U.S. strategic bombers near Russia's borders and the deployment of U.S. and NATO warships to the Black Sea, describing them as destabilizing and provocative.

Russia's draft envisages a pledge not to station intermediate-range missiles in areas where they can strike the other partys territory, a clause that follows the U.S. and Russian withdrawal from a Cold War-era pact banning such weapons.

The Russian draft also calls for a ban on the deployment of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons on the territory of other countries a repeat of Moscow's longtime push for the U.S. to withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe.

Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, noted that the publication of the Russian demands signals that the Kremlin considers their acceptance by the West unlikely.

This logically means that Russia will have to assure its security single-handedly" using military-technical means, he said on Twitter.

Cook reported from Brussels. Darlene Superville, Ellen Knickmeyer and Aamer Madhani in Washington and Yuras Karmanau in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed.

Go here to read the rest:
Russia sets out tough demands for security pact with NATO ...

KYIV, Ukraine Russia demanded on Friday that the United States and its allies halt all military activity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in a sweeping proposal that would establish a Cold War-like security arrangement, posing a challenge to diplomatic efforts to defuse Russias growing military threat to Ukraine.

The Russian proposal immediately dismissed by NATO officials came in the form of a draft treaty suggesting NATO should offer written guarantees that it would not expand farther east toward Russia and halt all military activities in the former Soviet republics, a vast swath of now-independent states extending from Eastern Europe to Central Asia.

The proposals codified a series of demands floated in various forms in recent weeks by Russian officials, including by President Vladimir V. Putin in a video call with President Biden. They represent in startling clarity goals long sought by Mr. Putin, who analysts say is growing increasingly concerned that Ukraine is drifting irretrievably into a Western orbit, posing a grave threat to Russian security.

The demands also reinforced the notion that Mr. Putin seemed willing to take ever-greater risks to force the West to take Russian security concerns seriously and to address historical grievances largely ignored for decades.

Russias deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, laid out details about the proposal in public for the first time on Friday in a video news conference in Moscow, amid a Russian troop buildup near Ukraines border that Western officials have interpreted as a threat of an invasion.

The demands went far beyond the current conflict between Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. And most were directed not at Ukraine, which is threatened by the troop buildup, but at the United States and Ukraines other Western allies.

They included a request for a NATO commitment that it would not offer membership to Ukraine specifically. But NATO officials emphasized that NATO countries will not rule out future membership for any Eastern European countries, including Ukraine.

The proposal highlighted starkly differing views in the United States and Russia on the military tensions over Ukraine. Russia has insisted that the West has been fomenting the crisis by instilling anti-Russia sentiment in Ukraine, and by providing weapons. Mr. Ryabkov cast the confrontation in Ukraine as a critical threat to Russias security.

The United States and European allies, in contrast, say Russia provoked the security crisis by recently deploying tens of thousands of troops near Ukraines border.

NATO officials said on Friday that Russias proposals were unacceptable in their demands for veto power over now-independent countries. They emphasized their openness to a diplomatic dialogue on Russias security concerns, but said that any discussion would also include NATOs security concerns about Russian missile deployments, satellite tests and disinformation efforts.

The officials also suggested that if Russia did make a major new military incursion into Ukraine, as it seems to be planning, NATO would strongly consider moving more troops into allied countries bordering Ukraine, like Poland and the Baltic countries, because the strategic depth against Russia that Ukraine now provides would be damaged or lost.

Jake Sullivan, President Bidens national security adviser, said in Washington on Friday that while the Russians had a list of security concerns, so did the United States and its European allies, and that Washington was willing to negotiate on that basis.

Weve had a dialogue with Russia on European security issues for the last 20 years, Mr. Sullivan told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. We had it with the Soviet Union for decades before that.

That process has sometimes produced progress, sometimes produced deadlock, he said, noting that the United States planned to put on the table our concern with Russian activities that we believe harm our interests and values.

Its very difficult to see agreements getting consummated, he added, if were continuing to see an escalatory cycle.

He declined to say if the United States was willing to provide Ukraine with more powerful defensive weapons, saying a $450 million arms and security package is already in place. He said the pipeline was already so full there is a question of absorptive capacity.

The Russian proposal took the form of two draft treaties, one with NATO and the other with the United States.

Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization accept the obligation to exclude farther expansion of NATO to Ukraine and other states, the text suggested. In demanding the written guarantee from NATO, Mr. Putin and other Russian officials have reached into early post-Cold War history, describing what they see as a betrayal by the West in 1990.

They assert that NATO expanded to the east despite a spoken assurance from James Baker, then the secretary of state, to the Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, that it would not.

The agreement was never put in writing and Mr. Baker said later that Russian officials misinterpreted his comment, which applied only to the territory of the former East Germany. Mr. Gorbachev has, in interviews, confirmed that spoken assurance came in discussions only of East Germany.

The new Russian proposal surfaced other historical grievances.

It demanded that NATO withdraw military infrastructure placed in Eastern European states after 1997, the date of an accord signed between Russia and NATO that Moscow wants now as a starting point for a new security treaty.

The Russian Foreign Ministry had earlier demanded that NATO officially abrogate a 2008 promise, known as the Bucharest Declaration, that Ukraine and Georgia would be welcomed into the alliance. The NATO chief invoked that declaration after the meeting with Ukraines president, Volodymyr Zelensky, on Thursday, saying the offer still stands.

Russia is also insisting that NATO countries do not deploy offensive weapons in states neighboring Russia, including countries not in the alliance a reference to Ukraine. And the proposal suggested a ban on military exercises at strengths of more than a brigade in a zone along both sides of Russias western border, an issue that would address the current military buildup near Ukraine.

Analysts expressed concerns about the Russian demands, saying they appeared to set up any talks between Russia and the West on these security guarantees for failure, possibly paving the way for a war in Ukraine.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

But they might also represent an opening position, with Russia willing to later compromise in talks. That the demands were put forth by the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Ryabkov, and not by his boss, Sergey V. Lavrov, or by Mr. Putin himself, left wiggle room, analysts said.

There is a lot of shadow boxing going on, on all sides, and its not clear how this ends, said Samuel Greene, a professor of Russian politics at Kings College in London. This whole situation is ambiguous by design.

Analysts pointed out that Mr. Putin had tried to extract similar concessions from President Trump but failed.

Mr. Greene said Russia may now see an opening to renegotiate the post-Soviet security landscape while Ukraine is still weak but likely to become stronger, Western nations are distracted by the pandemic and other problems and the U.S. is more concerned with the Chinese threat to Taiwan.

Putting forward impossible demands was intended to complicate diplomacy over the Russian buildup on the Ukrainian border, said Samuel Charap, a Russian security analyst at the RAND Corporation. Diplomacy requires compromise and flexibility, he said. It usually entails avoiding public ultimatums. Basically, this is not diplomacy. Its the opposite of diplomacy.

Mr. Ryabkov, the Russian diplomat, said Moscow was open to reasonable compromises. But he also suggested the Kremlin has assessed the United States power as waning and that a new accord is justified.

Analysts say that negotiating such wide-ranging new security accommodations would most likely take many months, if they can be accomplished at all. Mr. Putin may have to decide at an earlier moment whether to go ahead with an invasion because the troops garrisoned now at temporary sites near the Ukrainian border cannot remain there indefinitely.

Ukrainian officials have suggested that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August helped precipitate the crisis by signaling waning American resolve for overseas commitments, which emboldened the Kremlin.

The Biden administration has vowed to remain engaged in the international arena and said it intended to repair relationships strained under President Trump. American officials have consistently said they are committed to supporting Ukrainian sovereignty.

Mr. Putin has come close to openly acknowledging that he is using military force to coerce the West to negotiate, though his spokesman has denied this. Mr. Putin has said Western countries were realizing Russia was serious about defending red lines related to NATO forces near its borders.

Our recent warnings have indeed been heard and are having a certain effect, he told a gathering of Russian diplomats in November. Tensions have risen.

Andrew E. Kramer reported from Kyiv, Ukraine, and Steven Erlanger reported from Brussels. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.

Here is the original post:
Russia Lays Out Demands for a Sweeping New Security Deal With ...

Russia maintains the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and the most powerful conventional military forces in Europe. Russian military units currently are deployed uninvited and unwanted in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. As Russias massing of military power near Ukraine prompted a crisis, President Vladimir Putin has demanded legally-binding security guarantees for Russia.

On December 17, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs took the unusual step of publishing draft U.S.-Russia and NATO-Russia agreements that encapsulate Moscows desired guarantees. The substance of the drafts and the way the Russians publicized them do not suggest a serious negotiating bid.

If the Kremlin is serious about negotiating and deescalates the situation near Ukraine, the West could engage on some elements of the drafts. Many, however, will go nowhere as Moscow surely knew.

Russias draft Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would require that NATO members commit to no further enlargement of the alliance, including in particular to Ukraine. There is little enthusiasm within NATO now for putting Ukraine on a membership track, as Putin and other Russian officials undoubtedly understand. However, the alliance will not reverse its long-standing open door policy. That would require consensus, and few allies, let alone all 30, would agree that Russia can dictate NATO policy in this way.

This suggests that a middle ground of not now but not never might offer a way to kick this thorny can down the road. That is, if Moscow wishes to defuse the situation.

Another article in the Russian draft would require that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997. That month, NATO committed not to permanently station substantial combat forces in new members and said it had no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory. From 1997 to 2014, NATO deployed virtually no troops or equipment in new member states.

That changed following Russias seizure of Crimea. NATO now deploys, on a rotating basis, relatively small multinational battlegroups in the Baltic states and Poland. It is difficult to see NATO agreeing to withdraw them absent a significant change in Russias military posture. However, the draft treaty would impose no requirements for redeployment of Russian forces.

Such provisions will prove non-starters with the alliance. Others might get a more positive reception. These include language on consultative mechanisms, such as the NATO-Russia Council, and the establishment of a hotline between NATO and Russia. Indeed, NATO has proposed NATO-Russia Council meetings, though Moscow suspended diplomatic relations with NATO in October.

The draft treaty also would bar deployment of intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other sides territory. Of course, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty banned all U.S. and Russian intermediate-range missiles. However, Russias deployment of the intermediate-range 9M729 cruise missile in violation of the treaty led to its collapse.

This idea sounds like Putins 2019 proposal for a moratorium on deploying intermediate-range missiles in Europe. While NATO turned that aside, it might be worth a second look, provided that Russia affirmed that it would apply to the 9M729 and had appropriate verification measures.

The draft treatys proposed bar on any NATO military activity in Ukraine, eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia is an overreach, but some measures to limit military exercises and activities on a reciprocal basis might be possible. There is a history of such provisions, for example, the Vienna Documents confidence- and security-building measures.

The draft Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees also contains unacceptable provisions. Washington likely will not agree to a requirement that the two countries not implement security measures that could undermine core security interests of the other Party. Moscow has shown it has a very broad definition of what it thinks could undermine its security. Likewise, it is unrealistic to ask the United States to prevent further NATO enlargement; Washington will not agree to close the open door, and even if it were to do so, it could not persuade all 29 other allies to agree to change the policy.

While interest could develop in the draft NATO-Russia agreements provision on intermediate-range missiles, there will be no interest in the draft U.S.-Russia treaty provision which would effectively ban U.S. intermediate-range missiles from Europe while leaving Russia free to deploy such missiles against NATO countries. The provision limiting the ability of heavy bombers and surface warships to operate in and over international waters will find no fans in Washington or, for that matter, in the Russian military.

Discussion on other provisions regarding military activities might be possible. It is unreasonable for Moscow to seek a veto over Kyivs foreign policy direction. However, the concern expressed by Putin earlier in December and then repeated about U.S. offensive missiles in Ukraine able to strike Moscow in a matter of minutes poses a different question. That concern could prove easy to address, as there is no indication that Washington has ever considered it. Other such Russian concerns might also be addressed, along with U.S. (and NATO) concerns about certain Russian military activities.

The draft provision requiring that all nuclear weapons be deployed on national territory should go into another forum. Biden administration officials hope to begin a negotiation with Russia that would cover all U.S. and Russian nuclear arms. That is the proper place for this issue. Whether a requirement that all nuclear weapons be based on national territory would prove acceptable to Washington would depend on the overall agreement and consultations with allies.

The unacceptable provisions in the two draft agreements, their quick publication by the Russian government, and the peremptory terms used by Russian officials to describe Moscows demands raise concern that the Kremlin may want rejection. With large forces near Ukraine, Moscow could then cite that as another pretext for military action against its neighbor.

If, on the other hand, these draft agreements represent an opening bid, and the Russians seek a serious exchange that also addresses the security concerns of the other parties, some draft provisions could offer a basis for discussion and negotiation. The North Atlantic Council stated last week that NATO is ready for meaningful dialogue with Russia. U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan reiterated that point: Weve had dialogue with Russia on European security issues for the last 20 years That has sometimes produced progress, sometimes produced deadlock. But we are fundamentally prepared for dialogue.

A deescalation of the situation near Ukraine would help greatly. U.S. and NATO officials will not want to engage as long as Russia hangs a military threat over Kyiv. Another question is the format. Washington and Moscow can have bilateral discussions, but negotiations have to include all affected parties, including Ukraine. The United States and Russia cannot cut a deal over the heads of the Europeans and Ukrainians. As Sullivan said, nothing about you without you.

The sides should come to the table prepared to address the others legitimate security concerns. Agreeing on the meaning of legitimate will consume long hours. For example, it is unlikely that the United States (or NATO) will compromise on the principle to which Moscow has agreed as a signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act that states have a right to choose their own foreign policy course. The question of military activities in the NATO-Russia region is a different issue, and NATO has already shown its readiness to undertake commitments in that regard.

These discussions and any negotiation will be long, complex, and arduous. That is the kind of work that diplomats do. Getting started down that path, however, will require very different signals than those the West and Ukraine have seen from Moscow the past several weeks.

View original post here:
Russias draft agreements with NATO and the United States: Intended for rejection? - Brookings Institution

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Prime Minister of Romania, Nicolae Ciuc, to NATO headquarters on Tuesday (21 December). The Secretary General congratulated Mr. Ciuc for his appointment as Prime Minister. He praised Romanias contributions to the Alliance, including for playing an essential role in the Black Sea region. Mr. Stoltenberg also welcomed Romanias efforts to help build stability in the Western Balkans, and its support to NATOs partners, including to Moldova and Ukraine.

The two leaders discussed Russias military build-up in and around Ukraine. The Secretary General underlined that, despite international calls for transparency and de-escalation, the build-up continues. He said: We have made clear that any further aggression against Ukraine would carry a very high price. We will also continue to support our close partner Ukraine, politically and practically. And we stand up for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and we stand also for Ukraines right to choose its own path.

The Secretary General also said that NATO remains ready for meaningful dialogue with Russia and expressed his intention to call a new meeting of NATO-Russia Council early next year. He added that any dialogue would need to be based on the core principles of European security and that it would need to take place in consultation with NATO's European partners, including Ukraine.

Follow this link:
NATO Secretary General discusses situation in and around Ukraine with the Prime Minister of Romania - NATO HQ