Lavrov found the difference between NATO and the Union State in “polite people”

Foreign Minister Lavrov explained the differences between NATO and the Union State with a phrase about polite people. NATO has a habit of “inviting” other countries to join its allies, but this is not Russia's method – “we are polite people,” Lavrov emphasized

Sergei Lavrov

Russia does not have the habit of “inviting” other countries become allies, as happens in the West, but Russia has a special procedure that allows constructive consideration of relevant applications. This was announced at the annual press conference by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, broadcast by RBC.


“We don't have that habit” invite someone <…> We have a procedure according to which, if someone applies, we, of course, consider [such an appeal], and consider it constructively,— the head of the Foreign Ministry answered the question about the possibility of joining Kazakhstan to the Union State.

According to him, the habit of “inviting” exists among Western states, in particular among NATO countries. “This is not our method. We are polite people, — noted Lavrov.

According to the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, in the coming months, NATO may build up forces near the Russian borders under the pretext of a possible threat of “invasion”; to Ukraine.

He noted that Russia has run out of patience, so she raised the issue of not expanding the alliance to the east right now. Lavrov recalled that since the 1990s, the block has “thrown into the trash” all promises about non-expansion to the east and non-deployment of significant forces in the territories of new participants.

The Russian Foreign Minister also said that NATO artificially lures new members. “In particular, quite interesting statements have recently been made that the Scandinavian countries <…> would be welcome»,— Lavrov gave an example.

NATO includes 30 countries. Among the Scandinavian states in the bloc are Norway and Denmark. Sweden and Finland are partners in the alliance but are not members of it. In early January, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced that the country retains the possibility of applying for membership in NATO.

Ukraine and Georgia have repeatedly declared their desire to join the North Atlantic Alliance.

Since the fall of 2021, there have been reports in the Western media about a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia denied all accusations. The Kremlin noted that the movement of troops across the country— it is her internal affair. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in turn, drew attention to the increased activity of NATO near the Russian borders. He demanded legal guarantees for the non-expansion of the alliance to the east.

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent proposals on security guarantees to the US and NATO. They contained a clause on the non-expansion of the alliance to the east, in particular on the obligation not to accept Ukraine into the bloc. Negotiations on them with Washington and NATO took place on January 10 and 12, the next day the discussion took place at the OSCE site. The parties failed to agree on the clause on Ukraine.

Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone else


German authorities say NATO will not allow blackmail from Moscow

German Defense Minister Lambrecht said that NATO will not allow blackmail from Russia Russia does not have the right to veto in matters relating exclusively to NATO, German Defense Minister stressed .ru/v6_top_pics/media/img/7/57/756421642501577.jpg” alt=”German authorities said that NATO will not allow blackmail from Moscow” />


NATO will not allow blackmail from Moscow and will not agree to a Russian veto against expansion. This was stated by German Defense Minister Christina Lambrecht, reports Reuters.

“These red lines should be clear in all upcoming negotiations. But between these red lines and military conflict, there are many opportunities that we must use, — she emphasized.

Next week, German Defense Minister plans to meet with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Berlin.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier that Moscow raised the issue of not expanding the bloc to the east right now because it ran out of patience, because since the 1990s, NATO has “thrown into the trash” all promises about non-expansion and non-deployment of significant forces in the territories of new participants.

Since the fall of 2021, reports have appeared in the Western media about a possible “invasion”; Russia to Ukraine. Moscow denied all accusations. President Vladimir Putin pointed to increased NATO activity near Russia's borders and demanded legal guarantees for the alliance's non-expansion to the east.

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent proposals on security guarantees to the US and NATO. They contained a clause on the non-expansion of the alliance to the east, including the obligation not to accept Ukraine into the bloc. Negotiations on them with Washington and NATO took place on January 10 and 12, but the parties failed to agree on the point on Ukraine. Russia on security guarantees that provide for the non-expansion of the bloc to the east. Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist said that Moscow defied international law by demanding that Ukraine not be admitted to the North Atlantic Alliance.

Subscribe to Instagram RBC Get news faster than anyone


“We are polite”: what Lavrov said about the negotiations with NATO, the CSTO and Ukraine

Russia does not lure other states into its allies, as NATO does, because “we are polite,” the Russian Foreign Minister said. Sergei Lavrov answered journalists' questions for more than three hours – in the RBC video .jpg” alt=””We are polite”: what Lavrov said about the negotiations with NATO, the CSTO and Ukraine” />


Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone


Satanovsky: Russia will turn off NATO if the bloc does not shrink

Photo: Gennady Cherkasov

If NATO refuses to comply with Russia's demands for security guarantees and does not return to the 1997 borders, Moscow may use unilateral military measures.

This was announced on the air of Vesti FM by political scientist and orientalist Yevgeny Satanovsky. In his opinion, Washington is in a disadvantageous position in which it is dangerous to try to “talk teeth.”

“That is why it is said that we will not wait forever. For example, the systems located at the facilities of the North Atlantic Alliance will simply stop working. This can not be with the current technical equipment of the Russian Federation? It can easily!”, – said the expert.

For attempting direct military pressure on Russia, NATO may pay even more. Moscow may respond to the calls of some countries to “bombard it with missiles.” Satanovsky stressed that American ships with missiles and submarines will simply not enter the Black Sea and will not be able to hit Russia from there.

“Why should they enter there if there is Crimea from the north with all the systems, and from south – Khmeimim and Tartus bases with appropriate equipment? Who said that in the current situation, American ships with Aegis missiles, and submarines, whether Ohio or not, will be able to comfortably settle down in the Black Sea and attack Russia from there? They won’t enter there, and that’s it,” the expert emphasized.

Evgeny Satanovsky also raised the issue that NATO had not promised not to expand to the East at one time.

“It turns out that there is a printout – it is in the library of Congress – of Baker's conversations with Gorbachev on the topic that NATO “will not move one inch” to the east, ”the expert said.

Earlier, the political scientist promised that everyone who wanted a new will receive it in 2022. He cited a well-known saying – be afraid that your wishes will come true.


The likely reaction of Russia to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO is revealed

Already today, NATO from Estonia can reach St. Petersburg with rocket artillery

The decision on membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO has already been made. This was announced on Friday in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica by Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He clarified that the problem is only in terms. They have not yet been determined and depend on how quickly these countries can bring their armed forces up to NATO standards.


What might these timeframes be? What threatens us if Ukraine and Georgia are still accepted into NATO? And what might Russia's response be? To these questions «MK» answered the leading Russian military expert, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission, editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine; Retired Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky.

– «NATO Standards» such a limitless concept that the Alliance can include countries and armies that absolutely do not meet any standards, the expert says. – Here the decision is made according to the situation that is beneficial specifically for the United States and NATO. 

Did when the Baltic countries – the former Soviet republics joined NATO, did they meet at least some of its standards? Of course not. The same applies to the countries of Eastern Europe – the former members of the Warsaw Pact, for example, Bulgaria, Romania. They, too, were inconsistent with the military structure, decision-making processes, and command and control of NATO. Not to mention equipment and weapons – they entered the bloc with old Soviet weapons. That is, when it was beneficial for the United States, nothing stopped them from accepting these countries into NATO. So all the talk about standards and alignment with Alliance structures is it's all just a figure of speech. 

Murakhovsky refused to openly comment on specific military and military-technical measures that Russia could take if Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, because, according to him, the situation here largely depends on Moscow's political decisions. At the same time, he clarified that the “remote threat” already exists on the borders of Russia.

– From the center of St. Petersburg to Estonia, 180 km. And now Estonia, along with other countries, is buying the MLRS and HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems from the United States, which calmly cover the entire St. Petersburg. There are generally less than 70 km to Pskov. And when we talk about the fact that such countries as Ukraine and Georgia are appearing in NATO, then for us this simply poses a new direct threat. In addition to all those strike weapons and missile systems that already worry us today, a ground military group will be present at our borders. The enemy will be practically in the same place where he stood in the 17th century when he threatened Smolensk, Moscow.

Naturally, we are not ready to look at everything that happens indifferently. Our retaliatory measures on this score are not yet pronounced aloud and are not submitted for general discussion. But I will say this: we will focus on an asymmetrical response that will create a threat directly to the United States itself, and not to some kind of Ukraine.


Putin is preparing to ram NATO: bluffing is no longer an option

Relations with the West are approaching the “X hour”

We can only dream of peace – this seems to be the main informal slogan of 2022. As soon as the crisis in Kazakhstan faded into the background, two horror stories from the last weeks of last year took its place – the Omicron strain threatening to increase the number of new cases of covid to astronomical values ​​​​and the prospect of a sharp escalation of confrontation with the West.

But here is the fundamental difference between these three crises. The rampage of “Omicron” is a natural element, the future scope of which a person can only guess. The process of an avalanche-like collapse of power in Kazakhstan also began unexpectedly for most of the leadership of the republic. But in the approach of our relations with the West to the “hour X” there is not a single gram of surprise. So far, everything is going exactly according to the schedule developed in the Kremlin.


There is such an English catchphrase – go through the motions. It means performing all the required actions and movements, but without any hope that they will give the desired result. The January talks between Moscow and the West at three venues (the Ryabkov-Sherman dialogue in Geneva, the dialogue with NATO, and the dialogue at the OSCE platform) are exactly go through the motions on our part. There is a thinly concealed impatience in many statements by Russian officials. Like, have you talked? We talked. Did not work out? Did not work out. Wonderful! We didn't expect anything else. Let’s move on, therefore, to what might actually work—Putin’s notorious “Plan B.”

I will make a reservation right away: this plan has not yet been put into action. We are in the middle of another delay. Russian diplomacy is waiting for a precise written response from the United States to its proposals, where everything will be set out point by point: what is accepted (yes, for the sake of diversity, it could theoretically be), what is rejected out of hand, and what can be a subject for further discussion. But this delay seems to be purely technical. Having taken the position before the start of negotiations “either all our demands are accepted, or go through the woods” and “no delay”, Moscow clearly showed in advance that it does not count on a “good agreement”.

“Our patience has run out. We are very patient, you know that we harness for a long time. We harnessed for a very long time, now it's time for us to go. We are waiting for the coachman on that wagon to answer us specifically on our proposals, ”Sergey Lavrov said today at a press conference. Translated from the diplomatic: give us your piece of paper as soon as possible! We can't bear to do the real thing, and not this endless transfusion of yours from empty to empty.

The expectation of this “real thing” has indeed become painful for a long time. It is impossible to constantly be in a state of permanent uncertainty and suspension. But at the same time, I'm waiting for “real things” without any joyful anticipation. The constant declaration of the thesis “our cause is just” is not enough to achieve success in politics (it does not matter – in international or domestic). Success requires resources, allies, and a plan that can work. Official Moscow behaves as if it has all this. But what exactly is this belief based on?

With allies in Europe, we are now very tight. At the press conference, Lavrov made a number of other interesting statements: “The US and NATO are hindering the attempts of the European Union to achieve autonomy in security matters.” I agree, they interfere. But aren't we helping the US and NATO in this task? Didn't we “lose our patience” too quickly?

Back in the early autumn of last year, there was no question of any fateful confrontation with the West over NATO expansion. But suddenly everything on our side changed in the most radical way. Now the question is put like this: either pan or gone. In my opinion, such a decisive and not fully understood plot twist – why did our patience run out right now, and not six years ago? contributes to our isolation in Europe.

If a diver ascends from a great depth too quickly, he may experience decompression. Now, it seems to me, we are witnessing a political decompression. During the past butts with NATO over military infrastructure in the old world in the 70s and 80s, the USSR had such a strong ally as a powerful anti-war movement in countries that were and still are US allies. Now nothing of the kind is observed. Public opinion in Europe is consolidated on anti-Russian positions. And I believe that we have made a very significant contribution to this consolidation. In terms of pushing Sweden and Finland towards the North Atlantic Alliance, Moscow has done no less than Washington.

Who else can be seen among our reliable allies? Belarus? Well, well, the very phrase “Lukashenko is a reliable ally” contains a deep internal contradiction. Kazakhstan? Now ranting about “understanding the importance of allied relations with the Russian Federation,” the new Minister of Information of the republic, Askar Umarov, is in itself an answer to the question of how deep these relations are. And these countries are not of that caliber, with all my deepest respect for them.

The only potential serious partner of Russia in terms of confrontation with the West is China. By announcing Putin's talks in Beijing as early as early February, Lavrov made a bid for a very serious intrigue. But so far, there are no signs that Russia and China are conducting a multi-move with the West, acting “in concert”, there is no evidence. Instead, we still see a “flight in parallel courses”, coupled with a constant expression of mutual respect, respect and moral support.

Of course, in a sense, it's good that we do not see what kind of cards are in the hands of Putin. Who is forewarned is forearmed. Who warned – he disarmed. But here’s what I personally miss so much is the confidence that we really have strong trump cards in our hands that can ensure the achievement of Moscow’s strategic goals. GDP has raised the stakes in the game so much that bluffing is no longer an option.


Oslo told Russia about NATO exercises amid security talks

Norway has notified Russia of a NATO exercise following security talks In addition to the Norwegian military, forces from 28 NATO and partner countries will take part in the exercises. The maneuvers will take place in the spring in Norway. The notification came two days after Russia-NATO talks on security guarantees alt=”Oslo told Russia about NATO exercises amid security talks” />

Norway has notified the command of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy about the Cold Response-2022 military exercises in the North Sea and on the territory of the kingdom, the press service of the fleet reported. In addition to the Norwegian military, the forces of other NATO member countries will take part in them.

The maneuvers will take place in March and April. They will be attended by about 40 thousand Norwegian military, as well as about 28 countries that are members of NATO and partner countries of the alliance.

Lieutenant General Yngve Odlo, Commander of the Operational Command of the Armed Forces of Norway, informed the Commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral Alexander Moiseev, about the exercise. Odlo assured that the military forces of his country “strictly adhere to the Vienna Document on Confidence and Security Building Measures, adopted at the OSCE Forum in 2011, and stand for the transparency of major military exercises.”

Moiseev, in turn, thanked Norwegian Lieutenant General and wished safe maneuvers, the press service of the Northern Fleet noted.

Cold Response exercises have been held in Norway since 2006.

On January 12, in Brussels, for the first time in 2.5 years, a meeting of the Council of Russia— NATO. During the meeting, the parties discussed Russia's demands for security guarantees and NATO's non-expansion to the east.

After the talks, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia could not veto Ukraine's entry into the bloc. He stressed that all members of the alliance are unanimous in this opinion. Deputy head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Grushko, who represented Russia, in turn said that the expansion of NATO “does not erase the dividing lines, but transfers them.” towards expansion. He noted that it is in the common interest to maintain the regional configuration that exists today.

Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia must ensure de-escalation in the framework of the Ukrainian conflict, but assured that NATO is ready to sit down at the negotiating table now. Grushko noted that first Kiev must fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements.

Subscribe to RBC FB Get news faster than anyone else


NATO commented on the possible deployment of Russian missiles in Cuba

Photo: Alexander Astafiev

Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Robert Bauer commented on reports that Russia could deploy missiles in Cuba and in Venezuela as a response to the US and the alliance's refusal to agree with Moscow on security guarantees.

Bauer noted that Cuba and Venezuela are not NATO territory. At the same time, he stressed that a number of NATO allied states would be “concerned by such a development of events.”

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov, in an interview with RTVI, in response to a question about Russian missiles in Cuba and Venezuela, answered : “I don't want to confirm anything, (…) or rule it out.”


Political scientist considers negotiations between Russia and NATO to be ineffectual for Ukraine


The head of the Ukrainian think tank, political scientist Andrey Zolotarev expressed his disappointment with the concluded talks between Russia and NATO. According to the expert, this summit did not bring any positive results for Ukraine.

Zolotarev reproached the Alliance for simply “ playing for time '' in it, giving Ukraine promises to join NATO.

< p> “Promises to accept Ukraine into NATO are akin to the expression“ either the shah dies or the donkey dies, ”he said.

The issue of a peaceful settlement of the situation in Donbass did not become clear during the discussion, Zolotarev said. .


Baltic states start talks on increasing NATO contingent

The Baltic countries, amid the aggravation of the situation around Ukraine and the negotiations between Russia and the United States, are asking Brussels to increase the military presence of the alliance in the region. To date, only a few battalions are deployed there

Kaya Kallas

The Baltic countries are negotiating an increase in the number of NATO contingents on their territory in connection with the threat from Russia. Estonian Prime Minister Kaya Kallas said this, according to Reuters.

“ Of course, we are discussing with our allies the issue of increasing their presence here as a deterrent. If you look at the map, the Baltic states & mdash; this is a NATO peninsula, and therefore we have concerns '', & mdash; she said.


In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro on January 10, Callas also said that the Baltic countries are seeking an increase in their military presence from NATO and specifically the United States. “ In 2014, after the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the allies decided to deploy an international contingent in our country. Since then, there has been a battalion of British, French and Danish servicemen in Estonia, and in Latvia & mdash; another, under Canadian command. Our goal is & mdash; to strengthen this contingent, and the recent events on the border of Ukraine, of course, cannot but force us to redouble efforts in this regard, '', & mdash; she explained. According to Callas, the “ most powerful deterrent '' the appearance of US troops in the Baltics could become.

Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg did not rule out the possibility of increasing the military presence in the countries of NATO's eastern flank. “ If Russia once again uses force against Ukraine and continues the 'invasion' to Ukraine, then we must seriously consider the need to further increase our presence in the eastern part of the alliance '', & mdash; quoted by Reuters in Brussels.

An agency source among NATO diplomats confirmed to Reuters that NATO defense ministers could discuss additional deployments in the Baltic states at a scheduled meeting in mid-February.

In 2016, NATO members agreed to deploy four multinational combined battalions in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. In addition, fighters from NATO countries are present in the Baltic countries on a rotational basis, which protect the airspace in this region. The air forces of NATO countries have been protecting the airspace of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since 2004. They are deployed at three military airfields, one in each state.

Subscribe to VK RBK Receive news faster than anyone


Russia and NATO discussed the resumption of the missions in Moscow and Brussels

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg announced his readiness to resume the work of missions in Moscow and Brussels Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, following the meeting of the Russia-NATO Council, expressed his readiness to restore the work of missions, since the alliance “believes in dialogue”

Jens Stoltenberg

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia and NATO discussed the restoration of the missions in Moscow and Brussels, RBC correspondent reports.

“ We have made it clear that we are ready to restore the NATO representation in Moscow, as well as the Russian mission to NATO, because we believe in dialogue, '' & mdash; he said.

Last October, Reuters and Sky News reported on NATO's decision to expel eight members of a Russian mission to the alliance. As the TV channel specified, the bloc will also abolish the posts of two more Russian diplomats. This decision was due to “ hostile actions '' Moscow. According to NATO, the deported officers worked for Russian intelligence. Thus, the composition of the country's permanent mission to the alliance should be reduced by half: out of 20 people, ten will remain in Brussels.

In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced the suspension of the work of its permanent mission to NATO. The activities of the military mission and the information bureau of the alliance also cease. We decided to keep in touch with NATO through the ambassador in Belgium.

Meeting of the Russia-NATO Council Russia & mdash; NATO in Brussels & mdash; the second of the three security summits. On January 13, the OSCE will hold talks in Vienna.

Stoltenberg also noted at the end of the meeting that the allies in the alliance are unanimous that Russia cannot prohibit Ukraine from joining NATO. Earlier, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman at a meeting of the Russia & mdash; NATO reiterated that every country has the right to choose its own path. She wrote about this on Twitter.

“ Today at a meeting of the Council of Russia & mdash; NATO, I reaffirmed the basic principles of the international system and European security: each state has the sovereign right to choose its own path '', & mdash; She noted.

On January 10, the first talks between Russia and the United States on the security guarantees sought by Moscow took place in Geneva. They were held in a closed format and lasted almost eight hours.

The main topics were Russia's demands to abandon NATO's eastward movement and Western concerns over the concentration of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine.

Subscribe to Instagram RBC Get news faster than anyone


NATO denies Russia the right to veto Ukraine’s accession to the alliance

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg: Russia cannot veto Ukraine's accession to NATO At the meeting in Brussels, NATO's position remained unchanged: third countries will not decide who can join the bloc and who cannot. The guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will not join NATO were one of the main requirements of Moscow

NATO allies agree that Russia cannot veto Ukraine's entry into the alliance, and are ready to support Kiev. About this after negotiations with the Russian delegation in the framework of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels.

“ All members agree on the key principle: that every state has the right to choose its own path … The Allies also agree that only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies can decide when Ukraine is ready to become a NATO member, '' & mdash ; Stoltenberg said.

He clarified that Russia cannot veto Ukraine's accession to NATO.

The talks with the Russian delegation, which lasted about four hours, Stoltenberg called it difficult, but useful.

“ We had a frank and open discussion on a wide range of issues, of course, with a focus on tensions in and around Ukraine. But the meeting was helpful & raquo;, & mdash; said the NATO Secretary General.

This meeting of the Council of Russia & mdash; NATO is the second in a series of security assurance talks. The first was held in Geneva between the delegations of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, the third is expected on January 13 within the OSCE.

After the talks in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who heads the Russian delegation, reiterated that Russia was opposed to NATO's eastward movement. According to him, Moscow does not trust the alliance and insists on “ reinforced concrete, legally significant guarantees '' rather than promises that neither Ukraine nor Georgia will join the bloc. The diplomat called it a matter of Russia's national security.

US First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, representing the American side, in turn reiterated that the United States “ will not allow anyone to close the door of NATO to another country. ''

Responding to concerns The West on the 'invasion' Russia to Ukraine, Ryabkov once again ruled out the possibility of aggression against a neighboring state.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia needs “ exactly legal, legal guarantees '', since the West has not fulfilled its verbal obligations. As an example, he cited “ verbal assurances given '' the fact that NATO will not move east, nevertheless, according to him, the opposite was done.

On December 17, the Foreign Ministry released draft agreements with the United States on security guarantees and agreements on security measures with NATO.

They focus on guarantees of NATO's refusal to move further to the east, concentrate offensive weapons systems near the borders, join the alliance of states that were previously part of the USSR, including Ukraine, and conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, as well as other states of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia.

Putin pointed out several times that if the US and NATO missile systems appear in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be reduced to seven & mdash; ten minutes, and in the case of hypersonic weapons & mdash; up to five.

Secretary General of the alliance Jens Stoltenberg, in turn, ruled out that the bloc ever made promises not to move east.

Subscribe to RBC Instagram Get news faster of all


The point on which Russia and NATO are able to agree has been named

Expectations from the meeting in Brussels are disclosed

A meeting of the Russia-NATO Council has begun in Brussels at the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance. The negotiations were based on the proposals of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which were formalized in the form of a draft agreement and officially presented on December 17 last year. The document expresses Moscow's ideas and vision on issues of interaction with the alliance, as well as stability and security on the European continent. The expert expressed expectations for the consultation.

Photo: AP

The Russian delegation at the meeting of the Russia & ndash; NATO Council (NRC) was made up by an interdepartmental commission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense. The diplomatic service is represented by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.

During the dialogue, the parties gathered to discuss issues related to European security, risk reduction and arms control, as well as the refusal to further expand NATO at the expense of the former Soviet republics. As early as Thursday, January 13, consultations will be held at the Vienna platform of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

“ Russia insists in the draft agreement on security guarantees that NATO does not expand further to the East , – comments Nikolai Topornin, Associate Professor of the Department of European Law, MGIMO … – & nbsp; First of all, this means non-inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the alliance. Further, it is proposed that NATO does not deploy any serious military contingents near the Russian borders and does not conduct full-scale military exercises that are far beyond the usual framework.

Moreover, the idea is expressed that the North Atlantic Alliance should return to the agreements that were reached in the 90s – even before its large-scale expansion at the expense of the countries of Eastern Europe took place. There are also minor issues related to transparency, the non-deployment of additional intermediate and shorter-range missiles, as well as the non-deployment of new NATO and US military bases. & Nbsp;

In this case, is it worth counting on the conclusion of at least minimal agreements? The fact is that the document of the Russian Federation has already been widely discussed not only in the United States, but also in the European Union. The EU said that agreements cannot be reached without the participation of leading European states. In principle, the Americans also insisted on this.

However, with regard to the issue of non-expansion of NATO, the main demand of Russia, here all as one in the West declared: no third party can dictate to the alliance who to accept and who not. It has a so-called “ open door policy '', which assumes that all states that agree with the NATO charter and fall under its criteria can become members of it in the future, by the decision of the participating countries. This is the main position, and on it I do not see even the smallest changes. '' & Nbsp; & nbsp;

According to the expert, Georgia and Ukraine at the moment are unlikely to count on the fact that they will be able to join NATO. However, this can happen in 10-20 years. In any case, Kiev is persistently moving towards this: it is carrying out appropriate reforms, interacting with the alliance, accepting its weapons and military concepts, and gradually rebuilding its army in an American-European manner. It can be assumed that in the near future Ukraine can succeed in this direction. Then the question of its acceptance will really arise.

“The position of the Russian leadership here is principled,” Nikolai Topornin continues. – & nbsp; Russia does not want to see Ukraine in the NATO camp. But, if you look, we have neighbors from among the former Soviet republics, the same Estonia and Latvia, which have long been members of the alliance, and Russia has not experienced any upheavals in this regard. She did not demand that these countries leave NATO. & Nbsp;

Although, frankly, from Narva (the most eastern part of Estonia) to St. Petersburg is less than 300 km. That is, for any missile this is a flight time of 3 to 5 minutes, which is much more dangerous than if, for example, some launchers were deployed in Ukraine.

This is an example of the fact that we are quite calm we can coexist with NATO countries and not experience any particular threat. We worked great with them in the 1990s and 2000s, conducted joint exercises and even made joint plans to integrate military forces for greater strategic stability in Europe. After 2014, the ships dispersed at sea, and the situation became extremely conflict. ''

The positions of the parties do not coincide here, the expert emphasized. Therefore, it will not be possible to reach agreements on NATO enlargement. However, there are more opportunities to achieve greater stability in terms of non-deployment of intermediate and shorter-range missiles.

“ At one time, the Americans torpedoed the INF Treaty, withdrew from it, but it is extremely necessary for both European countries and Russia, '' Nikolai Topornin noted. – & nbsp; I think that there is a ground for closer interaction. However, these issues can only be resolved if there is goodwill on both sides.

I see the potential for agreements. But this will require meticulous work at the level of experts, specialists from the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, NATO structures, which will obviously take at least several months.

In any case, the NATO-Russia Council has not met since 2019 of the year. Previously, there were always contacts between the parties. Recently, our relationship has dropped to zero. We had to close the Russian representation to the alliance in Brussels, and the NATO information office suspended its work in Moscow.

Therefore, the current consultations revive the hope that a new communication channel will be established and the dialogue will become more constructive. I'm not sure any compromise will be found today. Rather, it will be an introductory meeting with more clarifying accents in their positions on issues of military-strategic stability in Europe. ''


“The unreal nature of the proposal.” How the USSR and Russia were not allowed into NATO

Plot World history with Andrey Sidorchik

The problems in relations between Russia and the West could be resolved if they were not on opposite sides of the barricades, but within the same bloc. Such thoughts are not often heard in NATO countries today, but there are still supporters of such a position.

“ Maybe NATO really should open its doors to everyone, including Russia? ''

Retired Norwegian General Robert Mood in an article published by Aftenposten, suggested changing the current approaches to relations with Moscow. According to the general, in the three decades that have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has not been accepted in the West as a full partner. Moreover, we are talking not only about diplomacy, but also about the attitude towards Russians in general.

“ I also don't remember seeing at least one film or TV series where the Russians would be positive, and the Western characters & mdash; negative. Western culture is promoting the US and Western Europeans as something undeniably good. And at the same time cultivates the image of Russia and Russians as something unambiguously evil, vile and primitive. We distort reality, portraying it as the main villain, and the United States and the West – & mdash; impeccable defenders of democracy '', & mdash; quotes the words of the Norwegian general of Radio Sputnik.

According to Mod, it is necessary to act differently: “ Maybe NATO really should focus more on defense and open the door to everyone, including Russia, urging its members to abandon bases and nuclear weapons outside their own territory? Unless we start thinking differently, we are likely to quickly lead to even greater conflicts and wars in both the short and long term. ''

The idea of ​​our country's membership in NATO is by no means the know-how of a Norwegian general. For the first time this topic was discussed 70 years ago, and on the initiative of the Soviet Union.

“ To keep the Soviet Union out, Americans & mdash; inside, and the Germans & mdash; in a subordinate position & raquo;

Immediately after the end of the Second World War, Western countries, primarily the United States and Great Britain, set out to reduce the influence of the USSR in the world. Speech by Winston Churchill in Fulton, which actually proclaimed the beginning of the Cold War, was the prologue to action.

March 17, 1948 five Western European states & mdash; Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France entered into the so-called Brussels Pact, the key provision of which was the creation of “ collective self-defense ''. Germany was considered as a possible aggressor in the event of the return to power of the militarists, however, first of all, the USSR was considered as an enemy.

On April 4, 1949, 12 countries, among which were the signatories of the Brussels Pact, the USA, Canada, as well as Denmark, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Iceland, signed the North Atlantic Treaty. Its anti-Soviet essence was not hidden, neither then, nor now.

First NATO Secretary General Ismay Hastings formulated the purpose of the organization's existence rather succinctly: “ To keep the Soviet Union outside, Americans ''; inside, and the Germans & mdash; in a subordinate position. ''

During NATO's 65th anniversary celebrations, then NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rassmussen stated: “Sixty-five years ago this month, NATO was created in a dangerous world. As the shadow of the USSR thickened over Europe, 12 countries on both sides of the Atlantic have banded together to defend their security and core values: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. ''

do we join NATO? ''

Indeed, it was the noblest association: yesterday's allies of the USSR in the fight against Nazism (USA, Great Britain, Canada), together with those who were allied with the Third Reich (Italy), as well as those whose independence was paid for with the blood of Soviet soldiers (Norway ), were preparing to put an end to the “ dangerous Bolsheviks. '' With a country that not only made the greatest contribution to the victory over fascism, but also suffered heavy losses in this struggle, incomparable with the losses of other European states.

At the same time, the North Atlantic Alliance was not a response to similar actions of the USSR & mdash; There was no pro-Soviet military bloc in Europe at that time.

At the same time, Western diplomats in conversations with Soviet colleagues insisted: NATO is exclusively defensive in nature and thinks only about “ protecting the world. ''

When Turkey was included in NATO in 1952, again declaring the peaceful nature of the organization, Joseph Stalin in his usual ironic tone, he remarked: “ Shouldn't we join NATO then? ''

The legend of Soviet diplomacy Andrei Gromyko has publicly declared more than once: “ If this pact was directed against the revival of German aggression, the USSR itself would have joined NATO. ''

Soviet note and Western response

Gromyko became the ideological inspirer of the Soviet Union's attempt to join NATO, which took place in 1954.

On March 31, 1954, the USSR government sent an official note asking for admission to the North Atlantic Alliance. The document said: “ The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would cease to be a closed military grouping of states, it would be open for the accession of other European countries, which, along with the creation of an effective system of collective security in Europe, would be of great importance for strengthening global peace. ''

The West's response was overwhelming: “The unreal nature of the proposal is not worthy of discussion.” However, the United States was ready to consider such a possibility in the event that the USSR abandoned its bases in the Far East, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Germany and Austria, and Moscow signed a number of arms limitation treaties on Western terms. At the same time, the “ collective West '' He was not going to undertake any obligations.

Calling things by their proper names, the USSR offered a surrender, akin to the one that Mikhail Gorbachev later went on , and then continued Boris Yeltsin … But the Soviet leaders of the 1950s, despite their many shortcomings, were not idiots.

On May 9, 1955, West Germany was admitted to NATO. That is, in violation of all previous agreements of the member countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, they made the country that initiated the Second World War a member of the military bloc.

Five days after the admission of West Germany to NATO, Moscow made a retaliatory move & mdash; The USSR and the socialist countries created the Warsaw Pact Organization for Peace and Security in Europe. The Soviet alliance, whatever one may say, was only a response to the actions of the West.

Yeltsin's big goal

The collapse of the socialist bloc and the USSR gave birth to a new reality. In which, in December 1991, Russian President Yeltsin sent an appeal to NATO, announcing joining the North Atlantic Alliance as one of the goals of his foreign policy.

In Russia in the early 1990s, the idea of ​​NATO membership was indeed discussed, but the general background was negative. And there was no clear answer to the question & mdash; if the Cold War is over, why do you need a bloc that was previously conceived against the communist Soviet Union?

Today, from the published correspondence of Western diplomats, it becomes clear & mdash; both the United States and Europe understood perfectly well that any NATO expansion to the East would be perceived by Moscow extremely negatively. All the main Russian political forces saw this as hostile actions towards Russia, and Washington was well aware of this.

Agreeing to Russia's NATO membership could have changed the entire history of international relations, but the West found it more logical to act as the victor in the Cold War. & mdash; that is, ignoring Moscow's opinion on this issue altogether.

“ Maybe look at the option that Russia will join NATO ''

Today it's hard to believe, but his career as President Vladimir Putin started out as a politician with a very pro-Western outlook.

While still acting. head of state, in early 2000 in an interview with BBC he said he was considering Russia's membership in NATO: “Why not? I do not exclude this possibility & mdash; in the event that Russia's interests are taken into account, if it becomes a full-fledged partner. ''

The same topic was discussed at the talks with US President Bill Clinton … In 2017, Putin recalled it this way: “During the discussion, I said:“ Maybe look at the option that Russia will join NATO. ” Clinton replied: & bdquo; I don't mind & ldquo ;. But the entire delegation was very nervous. ” One could even say that he went against the opinion of the majority of Russians, believing that relations with the West were extremely important for the future of Russia.

“ We have a fair right to ask frankly & mdash; Who is this enlargement against? ''

In 2004, the so-called 'fifth NATO enlargement' took place. The block included not only the former socialist countries, but also the former republics of the USSR & mdash; Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

No one was going to take Russia's opinion and interests into account, getting off with general words about “ partnership ''.

In his famous Munich speech in 2007, Putin bitterly stated: “The process of NATO enlargement has nothing to do with modernizing the alliance itself or ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary & mdash; this is a serious provoking factor that lowers the level of mutual trust. And we have a fair right to ask frankly & mdash; Who is this expansion against? And what happened to the assurances given by Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are these statements now? … Now they are trying to impose on us new dividing lines and walls & mdash; even virtual, but still dividing, cutting our common continent. Really, it will take many years and decades again, a change of several generations of politicians, to & bdquo; make out & ldquo; and & bdquo; dismantle & ldquo; are these new walls? ''

The speech of the President of Russia was considered aggressive in the West. But Putin just called a spade a spade, having ceased to pretend that our country is satisfied with such a situation.

The West responded in 2008 with the Georgian attack on South Ossetia & mdash; an attack carried out by an army trained with the help of NATO instructors and equipped with weapons from the Alliance countries. The attack on Tskhinvali was the first open military challenge to Russia. And this challenge was accepted.

The conciliatory idea of ​​the Norwegian general is unrealistic for just one reason – & mdash; The North Atlantic Alliance, created against the USSR, has always seen an enemy in Russia as well. The enemy, which is so necessary for both politicians and merchants, because the image of a “ threat '' so easy to play in elections and when receiving budgets.


Ryabkov in Geneva threatened NATO with a military response

Photo: Still from video

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia could give a military response to NATO's deployment of medium and short-range in Europe.

At a press conference following talks with the United States on security guarantees in Geneva, the Deputy Minister noted that such a development of events would certainly harm the security of the United States and its European allies.

< p> On the whole, Ryabkov noted that “playing with fire” is not in Washington's interests. According to him, radical changes are needed in relations between the Russian Federation, the United States, and NATO. The Russian delegation arrived in Geneva so that “all this does not come to an impasse.” “We need radical changes in the very outline of our relations,” the deputy minister added.

Ryabkov also pointed out that the United States, refusing to expand NATO, underestimates the seriousness of the situation.


The State Department said that Ukraine should have a chance to join NATO

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Kiev should have a chance of joining NATO. As US State Department spokesman Ned Price clarified, the White House's position on this issue has not changed.

NATO adheres to an open door policy, which means that any state that seeks to join the alliance should have such an opportunity. Ukraine is our partner with whom we maintain constant contact. The US position on this issue remains unchanged, it is in line with NATO's open door policy, “Price explained at a briefing.

Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who heads the Russian delegation in Geneva, said that the Western military bloc, refusing on the whole, Ryabkov noted that “playing with fire” is not in Washington's interests.

Read more : The expert assessed the progress of the Russian-American talks on security


Russian intelligentsia calls for surrender: Russia must join NATO

“The annexation of Crimea, to our shame, was really supported by the majority of the population”

Biden has not yet sent troops, and the self-named Russian intelligentsia is already swearing allegiance to the master and calling for surrender. Participants in the Congress of the Intelligentsia (an informal union of the most unwilling non-residents and the brightest of the fair-faced like Gozman) made a statement: Russia must join NATO.


Wait a minute, a savvy reader will say, isn't Putin proposing the same thing to Clinton? Yes. Only it was 2000. China had not yet declared itself in full voice, the West was expecting that Russia would fall apart after the Soviet Union, and it could not be reckoned with, the world was completely unipolar, and the world evil – Islamic terrorism – was common. Well, judging by the context, it was more a light trolling on Putin's part than a serious proposal.

More than 20 years have passed. China has become a new center of power, Russia has not collapsed, in fact, single-handedly crushed the world evil during the Syrian campaign and forced to reckon with itself. The world is no longer unipolar. Would a Western gentleman like that? And what is not to the liking of the master should not please the loyal vassals either. In this case, “our intelligentsia”. In quotes – because, firstly, not ours, and secondly, intelligent people do not lie and have self-respect. Here it is disgusting to read this statement, and even more so to quote, but you have to.

In the first part, introductory, the “intelligentsia” explains to us why “the future of Russia is in jeopardy.” Because, it turns out, Russia is stifling freedom wherever its troops can reach – now in Kazakhstan. Further more. “Our representatives speak to the world in the language of courtyard hooligans. We are on the verge of a big war – we have been waging small wars in recent years. ” They don't lie here – their representatives are doing just that. Or am I confusing something, and it was Putin who called Biden a murderer, and this is Russia, not the United States, invaded 22 countries over the past 20 years and is still continuing hostilities in 12 countries of the world (according to the French, Atlantico “)? In short, since Russia has opposed itself to the entire civilized world, and has only “vassal-dependent archaic dictatorships” as friends, the prospect is “the transformation of our country into a province of China”. This is an important point – the “intellectuals” show the master that they also do not like China. Still, there are evil communists in China who do not like the “intelligentsia”, but love those who know how to work. Why, in the minds of the “intelligentsia”, China will turn Russia into a province, and the West – not into a province, but into a partner, ask them. And even better – among the inhabitants of the “young European” countries. You can hear a lot of interesting things. Especially from the people of Yugoslavia. Is there no such country anymore?

But now the “supplicatory” part begins. With bows and assurances of loyalty: “Gentlemen! These days you make decisions that will determine the fate of the world for many years to come. You are rightly concerned about the threats that emanate today from the actions of the leaders of our country, and are looking for ways to counter … “They are very, very ashamed of Crimea:” The annexation of Crimea, to our shame, was really supported by the majority of the population. ” But now everything is different: “the base of support for the aggressive steps of our government is shrinking.” The people, in other words, are stupid, but we are good, for the European way. In short, “in the long term, Russia should not be an enemy of NATO, but its full-fledged member, which would change the balance of power on the planet in favor of the values ​​enshrined in the basic documents of the UN and the Council of Europe.”

You know, what does all this smell like? Not even betrayal. Burned flesh. Burnt alive by Russian people in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa. Not a single Congress of the intelligentsia then hinted at the values ​​from the basic documents of the UN and the Council of Europe. And he did not shed a tear. You should always remember this when dealing with the “Russian intelligentsia”.


“The issue of Ukraine’s non-entry into NATO can be resolved in a completely different way.”

The expert assessed the progress of the Russian-American negotiations on security

“We got the impression that the American side took the Russian proposals very seriously and carried out their in-depth study,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov following the Russian-American consultations on security guarantees held in Geneva on Monday. However, this is perhaps the only uniquely positive characterization of the ended meeting that he gave out. We asked the MGIMO professor, retired SVR colonel Andrei Bezrukov to evaluate its results.

Photo: AP

– I think there is no particular reason for either pessimism or optimism. Well, perhaps such limited optimism. In fact, the course of what happened today was determined at the meeting between Biden and Putin. If some things had not been agreed – I am not talking about fundamental things – then today's meeting, in principle, would not have taken place. The meeting was working. Its participants, as was expected, exchanged information. We came, perhaps, to some technical solutions – what to do next, how to continue these negotiations.

Two more meetings will now take place (on January 12, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council will take place in Brussels, and on January 13 – negotiations between representatives of Russia and the OSCE in Vienna – MK). Purely formal, because on those sites – Russia-NATO and the OSCE – it is basically impossible to solve anything. Then they will go and report on the results of these negotiations. And then decisions will be made on what to do with it.

So we parted now, in general, with zero information load. Everything that was said was already clear before this meeting. But the good news is that none of those who could arrange some kind of nasty in order to disrupt these negotiations did nothing.

– Oh sure. And I think that some fundamental decisions have already been made. At least – on certain issues. Otherwise, people simply would not have met in Geneva.

– This can be guessed by the decisions that have not yet been made. The same Sherman (US Deputy Secretary of State – “MK”) stated that the Americans could not give guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. But this was understandable. But she did not comment on the rest of the Russian demands. This means that we can move forward on these issues. As for Ukraine, this issue can be resolved in a completely different way. Let me fantasize: if it is impossible to adopt some binding documents on the non-entry of Ukraine into NATO at the NATO level, then it is possible, for example, to adopt amendments to the country's constitution – that they themselves will never ask for it. This is done with one call from the White House to Zelensky.

– I don't even want to think about it. Why fantasize that it is impossible even to predict? But the American side is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. Otherwise, Biden simply would not have sat down at the negotiating table.


Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine refused to consider NATO membership as a topic of negotiations with Russia


Ukraine's NATO membership cannot be discussed with Russia, says Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Ukraine Olga Stefanishina.

According to her, the main position of Ukraine is that Kiev has the sovereign right to choose “its own mechanisms for ensuring security and joining unions.” Thus, according to her, “Russia cannot set conditions related to the issue of Ukraine's possible membership in NATO.” This is the position of Kiev.

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO member states support Ukraine's right to self-defense, sovereignty and territorial integrity. According to him, the North Atlantic Alliance is helping Kiev to approach NATO membership by implementing reforms.

Earlier, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry called the demands of Russian President Vladimir Putin on security guarantees illegitimate. Thus, according to Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, the times of the Cold War are over, as are the division of regions into spheres of influence.

On January 10, negotiations between Russia and the United States began in Geneva. The main topic is the proposals on security guarantees that Moscow put forward in mid-December last year. Washington assured that it is ready for dialogue, but does not rule out a negative scenario.


The USA lists the most “useless” countries in NATO

According to Cato Institute senior researcher Ted Galen Carpenter, the North Atlantic Alliance includes a number of countries that are absolutely useless for the military bloc … He published his reasoning on this issue in the National Interest.

The columnist notes that the defense of these countries is a heavy burden on Washington, and can also drag the United States into disadvantageous conflicts. This situation, he explained, arose due to the fact that in the 1990s the American leadership extremely indiscriminately accepted the republics of Eastern Europe into the union.

The author is sure that the defense and economic potential of Albania, Slovenia, Montenegro and North Macedonia is extremely small, therefore their presence in NATO cannot increase the total power of the alliance.

In the article, Carpenter notes, that by expanding its zones of influence to the Russian borders, NATO is making a mistake. Thus, he calls the inclusion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the bloc in 2004 as an extremely dangerous step. Now these Baltic states are constantly quarreling with Belarus, Moscow's main ally in the region.

The White House under George W. Bush recklessly tried to include Georgia and Ukraine in the alliance, but the firm position of Paris and Berlin prevented the American authorities from granting these post-Soviet republics NATO membership. But Carpenter complains that Washington is not giving up its attempts to integrate Kiev and Tbilisi into the body of the Western military bloc.

The observer came to the conclusion that the West does not learn from its mistakes, again driving itself into a very dangerous position, which could lead to large-scale conflict.


Members of the Russian Intelligentsia Congress called for NATO membership

“Otherwise we'll turn into a province of China”

Members of the Congress of the intelligentsia of Russia supported joining NATO, since the Russian Federation is an integral part of the Western world, its natural ally.

Members of Congress, including Anatoly Chubais's father-in-law, director Andrei Smirnov, politician Leonid Gozman, publicist Andrei Piontkovsky and many others, are convinced that Russia needs to be not an enemy of NATO, but a full-fledged member of this military bloc.

Russia's entry into the alliance, they believe, would change the balance of power on the planet in favor of the values ​​enshrined in the basic documents of the UN and the Council of Europe.

Members of Congress recalled that our country had such an opportunity in the 90s, but the country's leadership did not take advantage of this opportunity. Now they look with hope at the upcoming talks between Russia and NATO, hoping that Moscow will be included in the Western alliance.

“We want our country today and in the future to be worthy of its great culture, its best achievements and dinners. Our common victory over the world's evil in the Second World War. We want Russia not to be an enemy of European civilization, but to be an integral part of it, ”the statement, which was published on the Echo of Moscow website, underlines.


Sohu: Putin separated the Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation, which caused panic in NATO


Order No. 374, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, is an ordinary internal Russian document. At first glance, it should not cause a public, let alone international, resonance. The document says that the Russian Northern Fleet is becoming an independent military-administrative unit.

However, according to military analysts from the Chinese newspaper Sohu, the order caused panic in the NATO command. They decided that the decree was a response to the bloc's attempts to deprive Moscow of strategic space and tighten the hostile ring around it.

“Western countries are trying to suppress Russia in various aspects of the economy, and also put military pressure on it,” expert opinion PolitRussia publication.

Analysts believe that the Northern Fleet is the largest and most efficient operational-tactical formation of the Russian Navy. Its separation as an independent unit strengthens its position and makes it even more powerful. Moreover, NATO forces in these latitudes are rather limited.

“The Russian Federation is going to strengthen the Northern Fleet with several new advanced nuclear submarines of the Borey class. The commissioning of these submarines will expand the country's capabilities in the north, “the Chinese experts said.

The alliance understands very well the threat it poses. If Russia continues to strengthen its military potential in the region, it will not be possible to contain it in the Arctic.

See also: Tencent: Pentagon panicked after Putin said about military cooperation with China


The United States may exclude the Baltic countries from NATO for the sake of a deal with the Russian Federation

According to The National Interest, American analyst David Pine suggested that the US authorities may be ready to exclude the Baltic states from NATO for a strategic deal with Russia.


Pine is confident that the United States at all times pursues exclusively its own national interests. And the Baltic republics are not included in this list.

“ Washington … is ready to exclude Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the alliance … .

He recalled that in the security agreement proposed by Russia there is a clause that the States will undertake & nbsp; themselves to prevent further NATO expansion to the & nbsp; east and & nbsp; refuse to & nbsp; join the states of the former USSR.

& quot; This can be interpreted as the exception of Estonia, Latvia and & nbsp; Lithuania & quot;, & nbsp; – explained Pine.


Finnish Prime Minister allowed the country to join NATO

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said that the country has the right to join NATO

Sanna Marin

Finland retains the opportunity to apply for NATO membership. This was stated by the Prime Minister of the country Sanna Marin, reports the Yle TV channel.

“ We retain the opportunity to apply to join NATO. We must cherish and preserve this freedom of choice because it concerns the right of each country to make its own security decisions, '' & mdash; She stressed.

According to Marin, Finland will intensify defense cooperation with the EU.

Earlier in his New Year's address, the President of Finland, Sauli Niinistoz, said that Russia’s demands for security guarantees from the US and NATO worries Europe because they contradict the established order of ensuring European security.

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent the US and NATO proposals on security guarantees, which provide for the non-expansion of the alliance to the east and the non-deployment of weapons at the Russian borders. Russian President Vladimir Putin also demanded that Washington and the North Atlantic Alliance provide legally binding security guarantees.

In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the bloc would not compromise on Ukraine's accession. He recalled Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, according to which the alliance can invite other European countries to join NATO.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said that the United States is preparing its own security proposals.

Negotiations on security guarantees will be held on January 10. Russia will be represented by the first deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov, and the American side – & mdash; First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. On January 12, a meeting of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO, and January 13 & mdash; negotiations between representatives of Russia and the OSCE.

Subscribe to Twitter RBC Receive news faster than anyone


Political scientist Kashin assessed the likelihood of war between Russia and NATO

“The Alliance will definitely not defend Ukraine”

“If only there was no war” is a spell that many are now repeating. Whether the new year 2022 can bring war and whether there is a likelihood of a conflict between NATO and Russia – we asked political scientist Vasily Kashin about this.


– In 2022, this is extremely unlikely. Hypothetically, such a possibility exists, of course, but I don’t think it will happen exactly next year. The United States still has a clear military superiority. At the moment, it is the strongest superpower in the world. But the main problem for Americans is that their military forces are scattered throughout the world. They are simultaneously forced to contain Russia, China, Iran and still participate in many conflicts in other countries. The United States no longer has enough strength for all this.

– This is just a common misconception. Although China has an advantage in certain types of weapons, it will only be able to catch up with the United States in overall military power by 2050. According to the calculations of the Chinese themselves, they will have to catch up with their rivals in 2035.

– No, not necessarily. If, for example, there is a local conflict in the western part of the Pacific Ocean, everything will depend on the level of combat readiness of American troops at that moment, on the actions of other countries, including Russia, and on how quickly the United States can react. China's advantage is that the overwhelming majority of its armed forces are located in only one theater of operations – the Pacific Ocean. Within the framework of a local conflict, China has a chance of victory, but if an aggravation occurs before a full-scale war, then the advantage will be on the side of the United States. But in this situation, the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides is a serious limitation.

– No, such a development of events does not correspond to the plans of either side. On the contrary, the Americans are trying to reduce tensions in this region in order to be able to transfer their forces to the Pacific Ocean to contain China. Of course, the United States is not ready to make concessions to Iran, but there are no signs of an impending conflict.

– Armenia has no chances to resist Azerbaijan. Even before the 2020 conflict, it was a militarily weaker state compared to its neighbor, and after most of the armed forces of Armenia were defeated, there can be no question of any revenge. Local skirmishes may periodically occur on the border, but the Armenians have neither the strength nor the ability to resist Azerbaijan.

As for Iran, intervention in the war on the side of Armenia means an inevitable conflict with Turkey, and this is simply not in the interests of Tehran, which has super-tense relations with Israel and tense relations with the United States. In addition, Iran is not a strong ally for Armenia to rely on.

– I think this is extremely unlikely. Both sides are actively trying to find a compromise. But even if you can't find him, no one will definitely fight. As for the weapons. The United States, I repeat, is the strongest military power with the most powerful naval forces in the world. In this regard, we cannot even compete with them, since, unlike the United States, Russia has not re-equipped its Navy on a significant scale. In addition, the United States has an advantage in the air force.

On the other hand, the Russian army has significant combat experience. We have superiority in certain types of weapons – hypersonic complexes “Dagger”, “Zircon”, “Sarmat”, “Avangard”.

Do not forget that Russia, like the United States, is a nuclear power, so a full-scale war will inevitably take many lives on both sides. In this case, we will come to the threat of the termination of the existence of the whole world in its present form. So, I think, negotiations will take place and positions will be agreed to prevent such a huge risk.

As for local clashes, it depends on the number of our and enemy troops in the region at a particular time. Russia will have superiority in the Black Sea, the eastern part of the Baltic, Belarus, and possibly eastern Ukraine. But in general, the enemy, of course, has more opportunities to strike at us.

– I hope that local clashes will not occur either. In an extreme case, various events may occur in Ukraine, but NATO will definitely not defend it. There is also a chance of provocation, like the situation with the British destroyer “Defender” in the Black World, which will end with gunfire and, perhaps, the sinking of one ship. But even this will not entail a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.


Finnish President considers Russia’s demands on NATO contrary to order

President of Finland Niinistö: Russia’s demands on NATO worries Europe The demands of Russia on NATO and the United States for security are incompatible with the existing order of ensuring European security, Niinistö said. According to him, the principle of full equality of states must be observed by all

Sauli Niinistö

Russia's demand for security guarantees from the US and NATO worries Europe, this contradicts the established order of ensuring European security. This was stated by the President of Finland Sauli Niinistö in the New Year's address to the residents of the country.

Earlier, in December, Russia asked the United States and NATO to provide written and legally binding guarantees not to expand the North Atlantic Alliance to the east and not to deploy weapons near Russian borders.

“ The December ultimatum to Russia worries Europe. It is incompatible with the established order of ensuring European security. The past has no place in the 2020s. Full equality of all states & mdash; a fundamental principle that must be followed by everyone ', & mdash; said the president.

According to Niinistö, after the meeting of the leaders of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva last summer, Europe, which remained an “ observer '', had hope of starting a dialogue between the two countries. p>

According to him, the only ways to resolve differences are restraint, responsibility and dialogue.

The Finnish President said that the situation around European security is rapidly heating up. “ The conflict on the borders of Ukraine is on the verge of aggravation. & lt; … & gt; The situation changed rapidly. Until last summer, prior to Biden's trip to Europe, concern seemed to be centered mainly around China, '' & mdash; added Niinistö.

Vladimir Putin announced Russia's demand for security guarantees from NATO and the United States in early December. In particular, the Russian side proposed not to admit the former republics of the USSR into NATO, but to sign an agreement with the United States on renouncing the deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territories.

In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance would not agree to compromise on Ukraine's accession. The US replied that they were preparing their proposals on security and confirmed that the first part of the talks on the issue raised by Putin would take place on January 10, Russia will be represented by First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, and the American – & mdash; First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman.

Follow RBC on Twitter Get the news faster than anyone


USA and NATO declared readiness for dialogue with Russia

Stoltenberg and Blinken discussed contacts with Moscow and “containment of aggression” against Kiev The North Atlantic Alliance is ready for dialogue with Moscow in the framework of the Russia-NATO Council and “is united on the issue of deterring further aggression against Ukraine,” Blinken and Stoltenberg said

Anthony Blinken and Jens Stoltenberg

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken discussed with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian border, in particular, “ the importance of de-escalating significant Russian military power in and around Ukraine. '' Stoltenberg wrote about this on Twitter.

“ NATO is a united front. We are ready for dialogue within the NATO Council & mdash; Russia, which will take place on January 12, & raquo;, & mdash; he added.

Blinken said that together with Stoltenberg he calls on Russia to negotiate with the United States on strategic stability, as well as with the North Atlantic Alliance and the OSCE. According to him, NATO is ready for a dialogue with Moscow, but “ is united on the issue of deterring further aggression against Ukraine. ''

Reports that Russia was building up its military power on the border with Ukraine began to appear in Western media, including The Washington Post and Politico, in the fall. The publications referred to intelligence data and satellite images. The Associated Press reported that Russia plans to start hostilities in Ukraine in early 2022, sending 175,000 troops there. The Kremlin rejected this information, called it baseless and said that Russia does not threaten anyone. President Vladimir Putin said that it was NATO that was making 'dangerous attempts to conquer Ukrainian territory.'

than Russia will not put up with. Putin also said that the United States came with missiles to “ our doorstep. '' Clauses on non-expansion of NATO to the east, non-accession to the alliance of the countries of the former USSR and a ban on military activities on the territory of Ukraine are contained in the draft security guarantee treaty that Russia sent to the alliance and the United States in mid-December.

The draft agreements will be discussed at the talks between Russia and the United States in Geneva on January 10. The White House said that the American side may agree with some of Russia's proposals, but not those concerning NATO.

Meeting of the Russia Council & mdash; NATO will take place on January 12 in Brussels. Stoltenberg ruled out a compromise on Ukraine's entry into the alliance. A meeting between Russia and the OSCE is scheduled for January 13.

Subscribe to RBC's Instagram Get news faster than anyone


Savchenko predicted countless humiliations on the part of NATO for Ukraine

Photo: Social networks

Former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Nadezhda Savchenko believes that humiliating prospects await her country if it joins NATO. According to her, she was in Iraq and knows how the system of coalition forces and the North Atlantic alliance itself works.

Savchenko claims that when joining NATO, Ukrainian pilots will “sweep the airfield and collect bull-calves.” At the same time, American pilots will fly at Ukrainian airfields.

On the air of the Nash TV channel she warned Kiev against joining the alliance. The politician cited the example of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which were left only with infantry battalions. And the Baltic countries, according to her, were not given full protection, and the same will happen with Ukraine.

The ex-parliamentarian is sure that in the event of a conflict, the Russian army will be able to stop only on the border with Germany or France. This means the senselessness of NATO membership.

Meanwhile, British journalist Ryan Cooper, in his article for The Week, argues that the West will not help Ukraine in the event of a Russian attack. According to him, the United States and NATO have always treated Ukraine with disdain. Instead of help, they gave empty promises.

Moreover, in the United States, according to the author, an internal crisis and confusion reigns, aggravated by the coronavirus pandemic. And Europe needs Russian gas to overcome the energy crisis and survive the cold winter.


Bolton names NATO’s worst mistakes with Russia

Former adviser to the US president caught the alliance in systemic miscalculations

Former national security adviser to ex-US President Donald Trump John Bolton said that NATO made a big mistake in relations with Russia, failing to define clear boundaries of expansion. He wrote about this in his column for the 19fortyfive edition.


Bolton noted that NATO was in a hurry to include the former Soviet republics in its orbit: the alliance, in his opinion, first had to determine the boundaries of expansion.

In fact, the politician believes, the West has created a “gray zone” of states in which ambiguity remains , which, according to him, Russia is using today.

“Today we and the countries of the” gray zone “, for example Ukraine, are paying for this,” Bolton said.

He also named failure of the joint work of NATO and the European Union. According to him, Europe thinks about itself “too much”, attributing to itself merits in the peaceful settlement of conflicts during the Cold War, although they were resolved at the expense of NATO.

Because of this, the actions of the alliance and the EU are currently are out of sync, and they cannot act against Moscow as a united front.

At the same time, Bolton believes that Moscow does not experience such difficulties and is successfully cooperating with such players as Beijing.


Possible scenario of negotiations between Russia and NATO revealed

“The Cold War will not go away even in the most optimistic scenario”

Russia has confirmed that consultations with the United States on security guarantees may take place as early as January 10th. During the meeting, the issue of Ukraine and arms control will be discussed. Earlier, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance Jens Stoltenberg announced the decision to convene a meeting of the NATO-Russian Council on January 12. The experts told what to expect from these negotiations.

Photo: AP

Representatives of the Russian Federation and the United States on January 10, within the framework of a dialogue on strategic security, will hold talks on the situation around Ukraine, security in Europe, as well as on arms control, AFP reports with reference to a spokesman for the White House National Security Council. “The United States looks forward to dialogue with Russia,” the source said.

Moreover, according to the representative of the National Security Council, on January 12, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council may take place, and already on January 13 – negotiations between representatives of the Russian Federation and the OSCE.

“When we sit down at the negotiating table, Russia can express its concerns, and we will state ours, including about the activities of the Russian Federation, “- said the representative of the US National Security Council. At the same time, any agreements with Moscow will take into account the interests of Kiev, the American official stressed.

“These will be very difficult negotiations,” comments on MK Alexei Makarkin, First Vice President of the Center for Political Technologies, Professor at the Higher School of Economics … – The main point on them is the issue of guarantees of NATO's non-expansion to Ukraine and Georgia. Russia here has put forward a demand that the results of the 2008 Bucharest summit be canceled. In turn, this is unacceptable for the North Atlantic Alliance, since here we are talking about legal fixation. Other issues – including missiles, exercises, and so on – can be discussed.

Now, in fact, a new version of the Cold War is underway. If we look at its old version (40-50 years ago), then the issues of missiles were actively discussed there. Then these topics passed into the technical phase – in some ways the parties agreed, in others they did not. In principle, this was considered quite possible. At the same time, earlier the question of admitting new members to NATO was not relevant (at least in the area of ​​the Soviet border), because the red lines following the results of the Second World War had already been drawn.

Therefore, a rather unusual situation is now emerging for the Cold War. Here it will be very difficult for the parties to find some mutually acceptable option. Because, on the one hand, Russia does not trust oral promises. In addition, time is passing quickly – even if we take a realistic time frame that within the next 10 years neither Ukraine nor Georgia will be admitted to NATO. And, probably, the realization of this fact is one of the incentives for Russia to initiate these negotiations.

On the other hand, the West also has two key points. First, NATO does not want to allow Russia to influence its internal decisions. Secondly, in this case, Georgia and Ukraine may be disappointed in the alliance, which NATO would not like to admit either. ”

According to the expert, there are two possible options in this situation. One of them is that the parties will still manage to come to an agreement, moreover, on a wider range of issues or even on a big compromise between Russia and the West. Moreover, some other questions may be connected, not only those that were originally stated.

“The pessimistic scenario is that it will not be possible to reach an agreement,” continues Alexey Makarkin. – The parties will try to shift the responsibility for the failure onto each other. And in this case, the negotiations will be short-lived, since Moscow is interested in setting some informal terms. If it fails to do this, then there will be a new stage in the arms race and the possible deployment of missiles in sensitive territories for one side or the other.

Meanwhile, if the negotiations fail, the level of mistrust will be extremely high. Moreover, even with the most optimistic scenario, the “cold war” will not go away. However, it will accept a certain framework that can be regulated. Within this framework, confidence in countries can be increased. Another option is the Cold War, in which there is no framework or trust. “

Sergei Kislitsyn, head of the Center for Strategic Planning Studies, IMEMO RAN, is skeptical about the upcoming negotiations.

“Russia is trying to get guarantees that NATO will not expand, which, of course, the alliance will never guarantee,” the political scientist noted. – The heads of NATO member states and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about this. Accordingly, this is where the sides run into. And they don't really have any other interaction. There is also no interaction through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Her work has been suspended, she can only meet on some urgent matters.

In fact, we have nothing but confrontation. One way or another, there are no grounds for any kind of trusting interaction now.

Arms control is a completely different story. There is a dialogue here between Russia and the United States. However, it is very pragmatic and tied to dry issues of security. Now we should expect some changes in this system largely due to the strengthening of other subjects of international relations, in particular China. It may be recalled that the administration of former US President Donald Trump just wanted to drag China into the arms control system.

As for Ukraine, it is an important factor for American foreign policy, since the tension in relations between Moscow and Kiev allows Washington to use this as an incentive to increase NATO's intra-bloc discipline. ”