Today George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures commented on what is variously being called a “treaty proposal”, “ultimatum”, and “manifesto”. After articulating a number of the points about Russian interests I have been making here, he delves into the proposal in earnest:
The document is targeted at NATO. The key clause is Article 5: “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.â€
In other words, Russia is demanding the right to limit the deployment of U.S. troops in NATO countries if the Russians feel threatened by that deployment. The immediate effect would be that, while Poland could build its strength, the U.S. would have to withdraw from Poland if Russia felt threatened, which it says it does. Of course, if the Russian Federation reintegrated former Soviet territories within its political system, which I think is a possibility, then Russia would be freed from Article 5.
There are other clauses that guarantee the United States will reject the document. It is therefore an interesting question why the Russians crafted it. It may be designed as a negotiating platform, but it is too skewed to the Russian interest to be a workable platform for Washington. Another possibility is that it is for domestic Russian consumption, showing that Russia speaks to the U.S. as a powerful equal to be respected. Or it might be that after the Americans’ initial response to Russian threats – that their banking system would be hurt – the Russians read the U.S. as unwilling to respond in Ukraine.
The key from my point of view is that no one wants a war in Ukraine because it would be long and bloody, and the geographic advantage would go to Russia. A proposal on the table, regardless of how preposterous, can give cautious nations an opportunity to capitulate while appearing to prefer a diplomatic course to irrational military responses. Much of Europe is unwilling to fight for Ukrainian independence. The United States, concerned with the free spread of Russian power through military force, might choose an intervention. This proposal might well be seen in Europe as a “basis of discussion,†limiting American options.
Maybe it’s an opening gambit in negotiations; maybe it’s an ultimatum intended to panic the United States. Mr. Friedman’s view is that President Putin had nothing to lose from the proposal and, possibly, something to gain.
I’m not as convinced of Russia’s military superiority to the U. S. as some but I do remain puzzled. I don’t understand what the U. S. interest in Ukraine is. I also hope that American diplomats start accepting that Russia has national interests it is unwilling to cede. You may not think they’re legitimate but the Russians definitely believe they are.
Our, or better the neocon’s, opinion of what constitutes Russia’s interests are irrelevant. Only Russia’s opinion matters. They have pretty much laid out what they consider their redlines, and we should take them at their word.
Whatever you call the Russian proposals, they clearly want some sort of negotiated treaty that recognizes their interests. At least some of their proposals will prove to be negotiable, and we should do that. Simply to brush them off will move us much closer to war.
We are closer to war with USSR/Russia than at any time since 1945, and that includes the Berlin crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our leaders are sleep walking us into a conflagration.
My point is that the American diplomatic position seems to be to reject the very notion that other countries might dare to have interests.
We agree on that. The arrogance of the American elite is stupefying.
Russia does have absolute conventional superiority in the Ukraine, the Baltics, and maybe Poland. But they are not going to march through the Fulda Gap and capture Cherbourg.
However, that might be changing. Russia has stolen a technological march on the US across the board. We are playing catchup in missiles, radars, and modern subs. Moreover, their ship building capacity is very, very much larger than ours. We have virtually no commercial ship building capacity, and their military yards turn out more ships than we do, even in tonnage.
The idea that Russia’s economy is small is ludicrous. Comparing the numbers of stuff produced, Russia’s economy is much larger than Germany’s, perhaps two to three times as large.
That matches my observation that Russia is a regional superpower, made a global superpower by virtue of its nuclear arsenal.
“That matches my observation that Russia is a regional superpower, made a global superpower by virtue of its nuclear arsenal.”
A rather nice, short synopsis. Fascinating that HRC’s political dirty trick (now obvious to even the most dimwitted or partisan) – aided and abetted by institutions like the FBI, media, contemptable politicians – caused Russia to be considered as the devil itself.
Meanwhile, the current president and his son are serial influence peddlers in cahoots with the real threat to the country: China. With nary a peep from the parties I cited. You simply can’t make this shit up.