Russian foreign minister Lavrov's persuasive response — to the United States' dismissive reply to Russia's security concerns

31 January 2022

Regarding Ukraine

Two days ago, I wrote that:

No country on this planet, in recent decades, has intentionally subverted genuine diplomacy more than ours.

The US Imperium's word is not worth boiled-away piss in a strong wind.

Russia finally appears to have accepted this principle as true.

Last week, the world's most capable foreign minister pointed . . .

. . . to the United States' perennial lie-telling about the Ukraine situation.

Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said the following — in response to US dismissal of Russian concerns about Ukraine eventually joining NATO — my additions in bracketed italics:

[T]he [American and NATO] responses offer grounds for serious talks only on matters of secondary importance.

There is no positive response to the main issue, which is our clear stand on the continued NATO enlargement towards the east and the deployment of strike weapons that can pose a threat to the territory of the Russian Federation, which we consider unacceptable.

This stand did not appear out of the blue. As you may know, the issue of NATO’s non-enlargement or enlargement, however you put it, has a long history.

In . . . 1990, when Germany was reunified and the issue of European security was raised, they solemnly promised that NATO would not expand even an inch eastward beyond the Oder River.

These facts are well known and have been included in many memoirs by British, US and German officials.

[N]ow that we have cited the promises made not in word but in the form of documents signed by the leaders of all OSCE [see what that is, here] states, including the US President (the 1999 Istanbul Declaration and the 2010 Astana Declaration), our Western partners have to find a way out of a very serious situation.

The point is that both declarations set out the participating states’ commitment to the principle of indivisible security and their pledge to honour it without fail.

This principle was formulated very clearly. It includes two interconnected approaches.

The first is the freedom of states to choose military alliances. The second is the obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.

In other words, the freedom to choose security arrangements is conditioned by the pledge to respect the security interests of any other OSCE state, including the Russian Federation.

It is indicative that now, when we propose coordinating legally binding security guarantees in the Euro-Atlantic region, our Western colleagues respond by urging us to respect the coordinated principles of security guarantees in that region.

After saying this, they add that this means that NATO has a right to expand, and nobody can prohibit it from considering any country’s request for joining the alliance.

The principle according to which no state may strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states is being deliberately ignored.

Our Western partners make no mention of the Istanbul or the Astana declarations during the ongoing discussions on European security.

They are keeping away from this matter. We cannot accept this.

They explained their failure to honour the non-enlargement promises in the 1990s by the absence of written obligations, but such promises were given in writing later. They have been reaffirmed within the OSCE framework several times, including at the top level.

We will now focus on getting clarity regarding this hypocritical position of our Western partners.

During my talks with Antony Blinken in Geneva, I asked him to explain why they regard the obligations made within the OSCE as a menu from which they are free to choose the dishes that taste good to them, and why they are disregarding or talking round their pledge to honour the interests of other countries.

Mr Blinken did not reply to my question. He only shrugged his shoulders, and that’s it.

Secretary of State Blinken's reaction . . .

. . . sounds typical of our American side, doesn't it?

Which usually goes like this:

Take it or leave it, bud.

We're in holy charge.

We'll kill or sanction your ass — if you disagree.

This is, not surprisingly, how major wars begin.

Are there US-agreed-to writings that . . .

. . . implicitly uphold the Russian security position with regard to NATO staying out of Ukraine?

Apparently so.

Verbatim, down to exactly the constraints that Minister Lavrov claims.

The OSCE documents (that Lavrov refers to) exist

In the above-quoted press response, Minister Lavrov referenced these two agreements as the Istanbul and Astana "declarations".

Those are listed on the OSCE website on a page entitled "CSCE/OSCE key documents" as:

The Istanbul Charter for European Security

and

The Astana Commemorative Declaration: Towards a Security Community.

Let's take a gander at . . .

. . . what both US-signed agreements have to say.

Page 3 of 1999's Istanbul Charter for European Security affirms that:

8. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality.

Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.

Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere

of influence.

9. We will build our relations in conformity with the concept of common and comprehensive security, guided by equal partnership, solidarity and transparency.

The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. We will address the human, economic, political and military dimensions of security as an integral whole.

© 1999 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Istanbul Summit 1999: Istanbul Document 1999, osce.org (November 1999) (at page 3) (illustriously signed by US president, William J. Clinton — on page 15)

Hmm.

Not exactly what our American leadership publicly admits to, is it?

Pages 1 and 2 of the 2010 Astana Commemorative Declaration commit to the same principles:

3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security.

We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including

treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality.

Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.

of influence.

We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States.

We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation.

We regard these commitments as our common achievement, and therefore consider them to be matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States.

© 2010 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Second day of the Astana Summit Meeting: Astana Commemorative Declaration towards a Security Community, ocse.org (03 December 2010) (at pages 1 and 2)

The moral? — If a constantly aggressing nation (like ours) never keeps its word . . .

. . . tanks and missiles may comprise the only rational response to it.

Being nationally loutish poses potential drawbacks for our serf-like populace, however.

Yes, that means you and me.

It is arguably time for We the Rabble to pay attention to:

(a) what our Government cretins in Washington DC do every day — so as to escalate potentials for blowing up the world

and

(b) the perpetually lying and self-profiting ways that they do it.

Don't say that I didn't warn you.

PeteFree.com

Russian foreign minister Lavrov's persuasive response — to the United States' dismissive reply to Russia's security concerns