On security guarantees

(from the briefing by Russian Foreign Ministry
Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, December 15, 2022)

In connection with the anniversary (December 15, 2021) of the transfer to the American side of the draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on security guarantees and a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I would like to remind you of some facts.

Last December, Russia put forward a proposal to conclude legally binding agreements with the United States and NATO on security guarantees for our country. It included the following key elements: no further NATO expansion, non-deployment of offensive weapons near Russia’s borders, and redeployment of the Alliance's military infrastructure to where it was stationed in 1997. The corresponding draft documents were made available to Washington and Brussels. We also proposed reaffirming the principle of indivisible security where no country should take measures aimed at ensuring its own security to the detriment of others.

However, the discussion failed before it started. In response to our call for a comprehensive and creative approach to the current situation with all the potential that we had at that time, the Westerners kept repeating that each country had the right to choose alliances, meaning that Ukraine had the right to join NATO. NATO ignored all components of the compromise-based formula of indivisible security. Washington and Brussels rejected our draft agreements. As you may be aware, before that, for a couple of decades, we watched this security system being dismantled. Its architecture no longer served its purpose. However, this was not what really mattered. Over and over again, the US-led collective West has violated its own commitments assumed under bilateral or international agreements in spite of oral and written assurances in the form of binding legal agreements or “words of honour.” Everything that was built before in the wake of WWII and the geopolitical changes that took place in the late 1980s was destroyed and turned into dust. We saw it and put it on record. We raised these questions. In the end, we suggested that we start building a new security architecture. We did that one year ago, on December 15, 2021.

NATO member states chose not to seize the very real opportunity to defuse tensions. Their arrogant and cynical refusal, including in violation of international law, to discuss our initiative on security guarantees has become a determining factor behind the escalation of the situation in Europe and catalysed the current escalation of international tension. Instead of sitting down for talks and taking stock of the issues to be dealt with, the West issued the “start” command and Kiev started shelling Donbass.

We saw it all and we knew what this will lead to. Only the person who deliberately turned away from the situation could not notice what was going on. For those who could not see things for what they were and had illusions about who we were dealing with and what was going through the minds of Western architects of pseudo-security, Angela Merkel gave an interview to Die Zeit, where she dotted all the i’s. I don’t think this is the last confession we have heard from the Westerners. You know perfectly well that those who have committed an illegal act are drawn to the scene of the crime, or, one way or another and for various reasons (some are driven by fear, others by conscience) eventually talk about how it actually happened or what prompted them to do what they did. This is not the only confession. There will be more.

Further developments made it clear that the United States was not at all interested in dialogue on international and especially European security. It was doing all it could to prevent its resumption. NATO continued its course of pumping Ukraine with weapons and conducting accelerated militarisation of its territory. In effect, it was purposefully steering the situation towards a hot conflict phase. There was a host of irresponsible steps and statements to the effect that it was necessary to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and that Ukraine must win the war to be accepted in NATO with “the laurels of the winner.” But something went wrong in their camp. It was a mess. They said openly that the Kiev regime still had a long way to go to join the EU and NATO. So it was told to continue the dirty work allocated to it by Brussels.

At its June summit in Madrid, NATO made a controversial decision to accept Finland and Sweden and reaffirmed the decision of the 2008 Bucharest summit on Ukraine and Georgia’s would-be membership of the alliance. Apparently, Ukraine would be accepted when it completed the criminal work allocated for it by its Western curators.

Since the start of the special military operation, we have been regularly accused of rejecting dialogue. This is not cynicism but distorted logic. Who is rejecting dialogue? We started with dialogue exactly a year ago. We drafted our proposals and put them on the negotiating table. We sent a delegation headed by our top professionals, deputy foreign ministers who held several dozen successful talks on different issues. Despite everything, we did everything in our power to reach out and deal with global security by pooling our efforts. Now they are saying we rejected this dialogue. How interesting. We repeatedly expressed our principled readiness for a conversation at all levels if the other side came to realise that it was necessary to respect Russia’s interests. Thus, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “if our Western counterparts realise their mistakes and express their readiness to return to discussing the documents we proposed in December 2021, this will be a positive factor. I doubt that they will find the strength or reason to do this though, but if it happens, we will be ready to return to dialogue.”