“What are they saying?” The West does not know how to respond to Russia
https://ria.ru/20211221/zapad-1764597961.html
“What are they saying?” The West does not know how to respond to Russia
“What are they saying?” The West does not know what to say to Russia – RIA Novosti, 12/21/2021
“What are they saying?” The West does not know how to respond to Russia
Confusion, wariness, surprise, uncertainty – this is the first reaction of the West to the publicly announced peace initiatives of Russia. Despite the importance … RIA Novosti, 12/21/2021
2021-12-21T08: 00
2021-12-21T08: 00
2021-12-21T08: 05
authors
South Ossetia
Alexander Grushko
alexander rar
NATO
Latin America
Vladimir Soloviev (TV presenter)
Russia
/ html / head / meta[@name=”og:title”]/@content
/ html / head / meta[@name=”og:description”]/@content
https://cdnn21.img.ria.ru/images/07e5/02/09/1596702134_0:54:3223:1867_1920x0_80_0_0_5bda4e44ef49241d7cb598767dd3fd07.jpg
Confusion, wariness, surprise, uncertainty – this is the first reaction of the West to the publicly announced peace initiatives of Russia. Despite the significance and unprecedentedness of the proposals, many Western (especially European) mass media took a long pause, clearly experiencing difficulties in determining the tone of coverage of this event. According to the German political scientist Alexander Rahr, not a single European media outlet has so far dared to publish in more or less complete form the draft agreements proposed by Moscow. the Kremlin’s proposals. Over the past 30 years, the West has clearly grown out of the habit of being spoken to so openly, clearly and at the same time quite harshly. towards de-escalation and real disarmament, moves the world away from the abyss of nuclear war. To call a spade a spade means to move away from the narrative that is familiar to the audience, which consists in implanting the idea of Russia’s natural aggressiveness. That is why peace initiatives should by no means be called peace initiatives. Judging by the first awkward comments of foreign media outlets, they found a way out in the words “demands” and “ultimatum”. demands NATO to leave Eastern Europe. “We would have noticed that almost all the proposals put forward boil down to the idea of not leaving NATO, from somewhere, and its non-expansion. I also did not understand (and most likely pretended not to understand): we are basically we propose to fix the situation at the current level, the military infrastructure has not been advanced at a dangerously close distance from a friend. In response, the American diplomat put forward his proposals: withdraw American troops from Transnistria, withdraw the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, “return Crimea to Ukraine,” and so on. the alliance should dissolve itself. But an experienced politician seriously believes that this is exactly how, bringing any idea to the point of absurdity, and negotiations should be conducted. Yes, this is now the level of diplomacy – we can only sympathize with the Russian diplomatic corps. unsubstantiated ultimatums in order to provoke the rejection of the western layman.For example, the Axios website writes about our proposals: “Russia’s demands are characterized as maximalist and hardly acceptable.” And then follows a listing of the obligations that must be assumed exclusively by the United States and NATO. , as the Kremlin should understand, are unacceptable to the West. “And we read similar that these Russians are again trying to put a pistol to his temple, without offering anything in return. But both draft agreements – both with NATO and separately with the United States – just presuppose mutual obligations and guarantees. to his colleagues, what steps Moscow will take if the West rejects our peace initiatives. ”In public, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko explained it this way:“ Then we will also switch to this regime of creating counter-threats. The West does not understand the diplomatic language. just carefully read the text of the proposed documents and pay attention to the fact that Russia is not easy It requires the West to further further escalate the situation, as the foreign media are trying to present now. Russia itself assumes a number of obligations. territories of other states to create those very “counter-threats” in response to new threats to the defense system. Moreover, Russian missiles and nuclear weapons may end up outside the country. And it may be not only Belarus, which has already expressed its readiness to link them on its territory. The sites of the bases for Russia’s nuclear and missile infrastructure are unpleasant – and even very unpleasant – to surprise Washington. It is no coincidence that Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov drew direct parallels between the present and the Caribbean. For some reason, they associate all potential threats from Russia (the very “counter-threats” that Grushko spoke of) exclusively with “Russian oppression against Ukraine.” That is, they themselves have invented an imaginary “invasion”, they themselves now believe that Moscow’s “ultimatum” is to set conditions for refusing to attack Ukraine. Chief British Kremlinologist Edward Lucas, for example, in the pages of The Times, describing his fears about the seizure of the entire Azov coast, admits: “My great fear is that the fight” will end with a new treaty with nuclear weapons. Modeled on the Yalta agreement with Stalin in 1945. “As a result,” Russia specialist “from the research (read: intelligence) corporation RAND Samuel Charap laments in the pages of The New York Times:” Diplomacy implies compromise and flexibility. In fact, this is the lack of diplomacy. accepts no compromise on the possibility of non-alignment with it. Judging by Charap’s logic, NATO and diplomacy are incompatible. But we repeat, these analysts clearly did not carefully read the text of the documents proposed by Moscow and did not understand that if the West did not accept them, we would have free hands to make non-standard moves that would not necessarily be limited to the Eastern Hemisphere. It is now NATO leaders who are telling Russia that in the 21st century, talking about “spheres of influence” is unacceptable. And the same Grushko recalls how during the period of restriction of restrictions, so that the Americans included in their “list of their wishes” the clause that Russia should remove our training brigade from Cuba. “As if this training brigade could land somewhere in Florida, conquer the United States, and so on,” the deputy minister said in an interview with Vladimir Solovyov. locating somewhere in Central America not just a Russian training base. It is then that they will remember about their “spheres of influence,” and the slogan “America for the Americans,” and the unacceptability of the Russian military infrastructure “in the backyard of the United States.” And, we will remind, this is how their government officials in Latin America spoke at the height of the crisis in Venezuela. And the same Kremlinologists echoed them, demanding not to let Russia into the American “backyard”. So much for the inadmissibility of “spheres of influence” in the 21st century. The most alarming thing in the comments of “experts on Russia” is the lack of awareness of the criticality of the moment, that dangerous line to which we have all approached, not without their efforts. Intoxicated by the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago. But even more dangerous is a world in which only one side is escalating threats. This situation is fraught with sad consequences for humanity. That is why Russia proposes to move away from this line and honestly warns what counterbalances it will build if the West rejects Moscow’s peaceful initiatives. In the end, the West must understand that a new Yalta agreement is better than an endless buildup and counter-threats, which could lead to a disastrous result for all of us.
https://ria.ru/20211217/bezopasnost-1764226189.html
https://ria.ru/20211220/ultimatum-1764453150.html
https://radiosputnik.ria.ru/20211219/nato-1764431808.html
https://ria.ru/20211219/nato-1764425743.html
https://ria.ru/20211220/bezopasnost-1764585798.html
https://ria.ru/20211218/garantii-1764402470.html
South Ossetia
Latin America
Russia
RIA News
7 495 645-6601
FSUE MIA “Russia Today”
https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/
2021
Vladimir Kornilov
https://cdnn21.img.ria.ru/images/150952/34/1509523493_245-0:1576:1331_100x100_80_0_0_160e34718e1b8077f7b50055b16d4238.jpg
Vladimir Kornilov
https://cdnn21.img.ria.ru/images/150952/34/1509523493_245-0:1576:1331_100x100_80_0_0_160e34718e1b8077f7b50055b16d4238.jpg
news
ru-RU
https://ria.ru/docs/about/copyright.html
https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/
RIA News
7 495 645-6601
FSUE MIA “Russia Today”
https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/
RIA News
7 495 645-6601
FSUE MIA “Russia Today”
https: //xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/awards/
Vladimir Kornilov
https://cdnn21.img.ria.ru/images/150952/34/1509523493_245-0:1576:1331_100x100_80_0_0_160e34718e1b8077f7b50055b16d4238.jpg
authors, south ossetia, alexander grushko, alexander rar, nato, latin america, vladimir soloviev (TV presenter), russia