now browsing by tag
The Chinese edition of NetEase called Venezuela and Cuba countries that it could be very beneficial for Russia to restore close military ties with The United States of America.
The authors of the publication write that Latin America is sometimes called the “backyard of the United States”, and American intelligence agencies have repeatedly tried to overthrow the Venezuelan and Cuban regimes.
According to the version voiced in the publication , Cuba and Venezuela could ask Russia to place weapons on their territory.
Demonstrated after negotiations with Russia on security guarantees, the unity of Western countries may not be so strong in reality. As the Wall Street Journal notes, while publicly the United States and its allies are united in rejecting Russia's demands to rule out NATO expansion, behind the scenes, some allies, especially those close to Russia, have raised concerns about several of the ideas voiced by officials during the talks. USA. This was told by the diplomats of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We are talking primarily about the proposal of a mutual reduction in the scale of military exercises. Therefore, representatives of some European countries asked the US to provide more clarity regarding this proposal. They also ask for an explanation of the essence of the US proposal to restore the restriction on medium-range missiles.
At the same time, US and NATO representatives said that they had not yet put forward such specific proposals, but simply expressed ideas about positions that may be subject to negotiation.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reassured, noting that there would be many more consultations between the allies before any proposals or deals were made.
“If something is turned into concrete proposals, and even more so into concrete agreements, then this will be discussed in detail with the allies,” he said in an interview.
At the same time, some allies are concerned that NATO, having rejected the main demands of Russia, may make some concessions in order not to completely anger Moscow.
Photo: Natalia Gubernatorova
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia intends to raise security issues in the most concrete way and consider scenarios for further actions.
“Of course, in the context of the current situation, of course, Russia is thinking about how to ensure its own security,” Peskov said.
He recalled that the United States , according to Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, there are 18 scenarios for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“We are also considering different scenarios. We believe that in fact there should be much fewer of them, because the formulation of the question is extremely correct in our country. The question asked is extremely direct and extremely concretely formulated,” Peskov noted.
He also said that Estonia's requests for accommodation on its territory, the NATO rapid reaction forces prove “the justification of Russia's concern” and the fact that Russia is not “inflaming tensions.”
Media: the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation is ahead of the United States in arms sales
Demand for American weapons is declining due to the increased quality of Russian military products, Rai Al Youm analysts say.
According to the authors of the article, the United States can no longer maintain leadership in the world the arms market due to the technical imperfection of their fighters. At the same time, Russia has gone far ahead in creating S-400 and S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems, which can intercept and destroy most types of combat aircraft.
“The United States will need at least 20 years to develop a new generation of “F” class fighters, – RIA Novosti quotes excerpts from the material.
Analysts add that Russia needs only a few years to modernize its missile arsenal. In their opinion, the future of the military-industrial complex lies with supersonic missiles, which the Russian Federation is actively developing.
Earlier, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia is in first place in the world in terms of new weapons. According to him, the laser, hypersonic, kinetic and other weapons produced in the country have no analogues.
NYT: Russian diplomats in talks 'hint' about deploying missiles off US coast According to the NYT, in Geneva, Russian officials hinted at a readiness to deploy “certain weapons systems in unspecified locations” off US coasts in case of failure to comply with security guarantees
Intercontinental ballistic missile of strategic missile system “Avangard”
Russia's representatives, in a series of consultations with the US and NATO in Europe this week, conceded that if the West fails to meet its demands for security guarantees, the country could deploy nuclear weapons close to US borders. This is reported by The New York Times.
According to the newspaper, this is not about direct statements, but about “hints” to deploy nuclear missiles near the coast of the United States, which would reduce the time of approach to the target to five minutes.
RBC sent a request to the press center of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
As the newspaper writes, in negotiations with the United States in Geneva, Russia insisted that it had no plans to invade Ukraine. However, according to the article, the Russian side has hinted that it may take other steps. According to the NYT, a senior Russian diplomat admitted that “Moscow is ready to place some weapons systems in unspecified places.”
The publication notes that this coincides with the assumptions of American intelligence that Russia may consider the possibility of deploying new nuclear weapons— tactical nuclear weapons or hypersonic missiles.
At the same time, the newspaper does not rule out that we can talk about “intimidation”; from Russia.
The WSJ recalled President Vladimir Putin's November statement at the Russia Calling! forum. Then he said that at the beginning of 2022, the Zircon sea-based hypersonic missile would enter the country's armed forces. Her flight time “to those who give orders” to NATO would be five minutes, he said. According to the head of state, such weapons in the country began to be created in response to threats from the alliance.
The Pentagon previously called the tests of “Zircon” a threat and a “destabilizing factor”, since this weapon system, according to the US military, can carry a nuclear charge.
At the end of December, Putin said that Russia's response in the event that NATO countries refuse to consider proposals for security guarantees can be “very different”, it depends on the proposals of military experts. On January 13, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview with RTVI, allowed the deployment of Russian troops in Cuba or in Venezuela. According to him, the decision depends on “the actions of American colleagues,” although Moscow does not want such a development of the situation. “If Russia were moving in this direction, we would decisively deal with this,” — US presidential adviser Jake Sullivan said in response.
Negotiations between Russia and the United States on security guarantees were held in Geneva on January 9–10, and on January 12 a meeting of the Russia— Council took place in Brussels; NATO.
All parties rated the meetings as businesslike and useful. At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, following the results of the talks, declared that NATO was completely incapable of negotiating. US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman called unacceptable some of Russia's proposals regarding refusal to admit Ukraine and Georgia to NATO and move the alliance eastward.
Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone
Russia has three ways to influence the US. One of them is a nuclear warning strike on a test site in Nevada. You can even use missiles strategically.
This proposal was made on the air of the National Course YouTube channel by State Duma deputy from United Russia Yevgeny Fedorov.
“This is a training ground where the US military is located , there are no civilians there, and if you warn two or three days in advance, then it’s quite a good action to demonstrate the seriousness of intentions, ”the deputy expressed his opinion.
Fedorov noted that Russia can afford such actions and has on they are right.
“A missile that hits Nevada may be a blank, but in principle it could be a nuclear explosion, because the test site is nuclear, it is adapted for explosions,” the politician said.
He also suggested conducting demonstration flights over cities and “strike” bombs on American biological weapons laboratories. According to the deputy, this will make ordinary Americans feel that the threat of a Russian retaliatory strike against US aggression is not a bluff. When the citizens of the United States understand this, they will put pressure on their politicians.
Read also: Russia's Surprise Response to US Sanctions Released.
Ambassador Antonov: Russia and the United States did not discuss the situation in Ukraine at the talks in Geneva It was only mentioned during the Russia-NATO Council meeting in Brussels as a secondary issue, Ambassador said
Russia and the United States did not discuss the situation in Ukraine during the talks in Geneva, Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said, his words are quoted on the page of the Russian diplomatic mission on Facebook.
“This issue was not on the agenda of Russian-American negotiations in Geneva, but was only mentioned as a secondary topic in consultations with NATO in Brussels»— he said.
Russia is trying to obtain security guarantees from NATO, primarily concerning the refusal to move the alliance to the east. On January 10, 12 and 13, Russia held talks with the United States and its allies in NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). However, no compromise was reached.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia cannot veto Ukraine's entry into the alliance.
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia needs “precisely legal, legal guarantees,” since the West has not fulfilled its verbal obligations: NATO will not move east.
December 17, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the draft treaties with the United States on security assurances; and agreements on security arrangements with NATO. They relate, in particular, to guarantees that the alliance will not move further to the east, the concentration of strike offensive weapons systems near the borders, the accession to the alliance of states that were previously part of the USSR, including Ukraine, the conduct of any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, as well as other states of Eastern Europe. , Transcaucasia and Central Asia.
After unsuccessful negotiations with the US and NATO, Russia requested a written response to its proposals.
Follow RBC on Twitter Get news faster than anyone
The MP spoke about the scenarios of the United States in the event of an “invasion” of the Russian Federation into Ukraine
Photo: Gennady Cherkasov
The United States, with statements about the preparation of 18 scenarios in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, clogs the information space to whip up hysteria. This was stated by a member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Dmitry Belik.
According to the deputy, the statements of US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland are “baseless statements and provocations.” He added that the Russian Federation is not going to attack Ukraine, “no matter how much the United States wants it,” writes RT.
The parliamentarian added that this informational pressure is “repeated many times over.” However, “threats of sanctions will not be able to affect our country,” as the Russian Federation has already learned to “handle it well.”
Earlier on Saturday, US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said that the US administration had prepared 18 various scenarios of action in case there is a “Russian invasion of Ukraine”. She declined to give details. At the same time, she noted that Washington and its allies are ready to respond to any aggressive move by Moscow.
The State Department announced the readiness of the United States and NATO for a new meeting with Russia
US State Department: Washington and NATO are ready for a new meeting with Russia On January 10-13, three rounds of negotiations on security guarantees were held. Russia considered them fruitless and does not consider it necessary to hold new consultations in the near future. The US and NATO expressed their readiness to continue the dialogue
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (left) and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken (right)
The United States and NATO are ready to meet again with the Russian side to continue the dialogue, they say in a State Department statement following telephone conversations between Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Blinken and Stoltenberg discussed “the next steps after the meeting of the Council of Russia— NATO”, which took place on January 12. The State Department statement emphasizes that Washington and its allies in the North Atlantic Alliance are committed to a diplomatic way of resolving the situation. The parties called on Russia to “immediately take measures to de-escalate the ongoing aggression against Ukraine.”
From January 10 to 13, three rounds of talks between Russia and the United States, NATO and the OSCE on Moscow's proposed security guarantees took place. The consultations ended without concrete results, the Russian side assessed them as unsuccessful.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov earlier said in an interview with RTVI that he sees no reason to sit down again at the negotiating table in the coming days, pointing to “a dead end or difference in approaches sides.
Last December, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent draft strategic security treaties to the US and NATO. In particular, Moscow suggested that the alliance refuse to expand to the east and include Ukraine in its composition, as well as to deploy military bases on the territory of the countries of the former USSR.
On January 10, talks between Russia and the United States took place in Geneva. They lasted almost eight hours. The day before, Ryabkov and US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman held preliminary consultations as part of negotiations on the situation in Ukraine and strategic security treaties.
On January 12, a meeting of the Russia— NATO in Brussels. Ryabkov said that the consultations failed to agree on the non-expansion of the alliance to the east, and Russia considers this topic to be key for its national security. Earlier, Stoltenberg stated that NATO excludes the possibility of a compromise with Moscow on the issue of Ukraine's membership.
On January 13, the discussion of security guarantees continued in Vienna at the OSCE site. Russia's representative to the organization, Alexander Lukashevich, following the talks, said that to get an “adequate response” from the partners Moscow's proposals failed.
Subscribe to Instagram RBC Get news faster than anyone else
Researchers at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in Bethesda have identified two previously unknown antibodies that can neutralize the omicron strain of coronavirus. Their article was published on the website medRxiv.
The study says that we are talking about antibodies called NE12 and NA8. They were isolated using a new technique developed by scientists led by Patricia Farci from NIAD. It allows you to quickly isolate and multiply antibodies to COVID-19 from the blood of patients and evaluate their effectiveness.
Based on this method, the researchers extracted DNA strands from the immune cells of 12 patients and placed their key regions in the bacteriophage genome. Subsequently, fragments of antibodies began to appear in its protein shell. Scientists have prepared several hundred of these viruses and tested their ability to combine with fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 shell. As a result, they found the NE12 and NA8 antibodies, which effectively neutralized the Omicron particles. According to scientists, they are also able to cope with the variants of the coronavirus “delta”, “alpha”; and “beta”.
Study participants conducted experiments on hamsters, which proved that the molecules they isolated were superior to all existing preparations based on monoclonal antibodies approved by the World Health Organization (WHO). Scientists believe that NE12 and NA8 will create new drugs for coronavirus. According to scientists, they will be able to protect patients from severe forms of the disease.
Earlier, the head of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Murashko, said that the risk of re-infection with coronavirus with an omicron strain increases five times.
A spokesman for Peskov said that there were no proposals for a summit with the United States and Ukraine. .jpg” alt=”The Kremlin said it had not received proposals for a summit with the US and Ukraine” />
Moscow has not yet received proposals for a summit of the presidents of Russia, the US and Ukraine from the American side, RIA reported News» press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov.
“So far, nothing has been received,”— said Peskov.
Earlier, the head of the office of the Ukrainian president, Andriy Yermak, said that the leader of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, invited his American counterpart Joe Biden to hold a trilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Zelensky, the meeting can be organized in the format of a videoconference. Yermak noted that Washington “expressed deep interest” in to this initiative.
Zelensky spoke with Biden by phone on January 2. The leaders discussed the situation in eastern Ukraine. During the talks, Biden assured his Ukrainian counterpart that the United States and its allies would take decisive action in the event of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Subscribe to RBC FB Get news faster than anyone else
From new bases under the US nose to artificial tsunami near California
After the completion of the main negotiations between Russia and the US, NATO and the OSCE, it became clear to everyone that the situation had reached a dead end. As expected, the West did not accept our proposals. The NATO Secretary General hints at the reality of membership of Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden and Finland in NATO. Political scientists and military experts spoke about how Russia should behave in such a situation and how events could develop.
Photo: Gennady Cherkasov
The editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, in his Telegram channel, proposed to start by placing special forces bases in Nicaragua and Cuba, along with mixed air squadrons. In Cuban Cienfuegos, in his opinion, it would be worthwhile to place a naval base capable of receiving warships and submarines armed with Caliber and Zircon cruise missiles. True, Korotchenko did not specify how ready Cuba is for such an option.
Aleksey Kiryatsev, an expert at the Ukrainian Center for Analytics and Security, believes that “the Kremlin is preparing another conflict that could be a blow to the image of the United States as a world leader, and NATO as an organization capable of ensuring peace in Europe.” Namely… set fire to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Like, for this, President Putin is purposefully pumping weapons into Serbia.
Apparently, the Ukrainian expert “forgot” who in 1999 fired on Belgrade with cruise missiles and cluster bombs and who was then categorically against this operation.
Chairman of the Presidium of the All-Russian Organization “Officers of Russia”, Hero of the Russian Federation, Major General Sergei Lipova believes that the security of our borders is under threat. We allegedly tried to negotiate peacefully, but this did not lead to anything. The Western powers, in his opinion, took into account only their own interests for too long and became insolent, so “the time has come for Russia to defend its principles.”
“Our task is to prevent the provocation of conflicts on our borders. Now it all depends on how far the West is ready to go in its provocations,” he told MK.
But political scientist Yury Baranchik in his Telegram channel suggested using weapons based on new physical principles – climatic, seismic, causing an earthquake or an artificial tsunami somewhere off the coast of California. That's when, he believes, everyone will immediately get worried and begin to agree on security issues.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Russia has run out of patience because of the actions of the West alt=”Lavrov called the United States a 'coachman on that wagon' that should give an answer” />
Russia has run out of patience with the West's actions and is waiting for concrete answers to its proposals for security guarantees , Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference. The broadcast was hosted by RBC.
“Our patience has come to an end. We are very patient. You know what we harness for a long time, right? We harnessed for a very long time, and now it's time for us to go. Here we are waiting for the driver on that wagon to answer us specifically on our proposals, — the minister said.
The fact that Russia is waiting for a written response from the United States and NATO following the results of the talks on security guarantees was previously reported in the Kremlin. The American delegation promised to give it next week, Interfax sources said. and TASS.
According to press secretary Dmitry Peskov, the negotiations were unsuccessful. The parties did not come to a common opinion on the issues of security guarantees for Russia. US Representative Wendy Sherman said a number of Russia's proposed security assurance requirements are unfeasible and unacceptable.
A series of talks with the US and NATO on security assurances took place this week. On January 10 and 12, meetings were held with representatives of Washington and the alliance, the next day the discussion took place at the OSCE site.
Subscribe to RBC FB Get news faster than anyone
Sullivan: intelligence assumes that Russia will “fabricate” a pretext for the invasion of Ukraine Such information, according to the assistant to the President of the United States, has intelligence. They admitted that Russia would try to “fabricate” a pretext for invading Ukraine, accusing Kiev of preparing an attack on its troops
US intelligence has evidence that Russia intends to “fake” pretext for “invasion” to Ukraine, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said during a briefing.
“Our intelligence community is processing data that Russia is working to fabricate a pretext for an invasion, including sabotage and information operations, accusing Ukraine of preparing an attack on Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, — he said, pointing out that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken spoke about it. Sullivan recalled that the US “saw it in 2014.” He also noted that the United States would be ready to voice data on the Russian “scenario” against Ukraine in the next 24 hours.
According to him, the threat of “invasion” Russia into Ukraine “remains high”, although US intelligence has not yet come to a definite opinion about Moscow's intentions.
Sullivan noted that in the event of Russian military aggression against Ukraine, Washington is ready to strengthen the defense of its allies in Eastern Europe. “We have been clear both to Russia and publicly about several other options, and these include changes in military forces and capabilities that the US and NATO will deploy to the allies on the eastern flank in order to strengthen and strengthen the reliability of the allies’ defenses on their territory,” ; he explained.
In addition, the United States will “substantially strengthen” the support they are now providing to Ukraine, the assistant to the President of the United States warned.
At the same time, he stressed that Washington is in favor of a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian issue, however, if Moscow decides to go the other way, the United States will “respond accordingly”.
Earlier, the media wrote that the United States would provide $200 million in military assistance to Ukraine, which the administration of President Joe Biden approved secretly. It has such powers over a state that is “in danger.” As part of its support for Ukraine, Washington will give it a radar system and maritime equipment, Politico wrote. CNN, in turn, reported that the new aid package provides for the sending of the same defensive equipment as before, including small arms, ammunition, protected radio stations, medical equipment.
In addition, the United States reported that it was studying the option of sending military to the countries of Eastern Europe, if relations between Russia and Ukraine escalate even more, up to a military confrontation.
The Russian authorities have repeatedly denied the intention to invade the territory of Ukraine. Moscow claims. that she has no “aggressive plans”; in relation to other states and emphasizes that the movement of troops on its territory does not pose a threat.
Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone else
Security talks in Europe are likely to continue. Most experts were sure in advance that the US and NATO would not immediately accept the radical conditions put forward by Moscow. But both sides have a bargaining field
It was hardly worth hoping that the Russian security proposals would be fully accepted by the West, but Moscow is interested in continuing negotiations, experts interviewed by RBC assessed the situation.
“Someone could hardly seriously hope that the Russian proposals will be accepted. It's like asking NATO to dissolve itself. You can, of course, put the question this way, but there are not very many reasons to believe that this demand [on non-expansion of NATO to the east] will be accepted, — Andrey Kortunov, CEO of the Russian International Affairs Council, told RBC.
In the expert's opinion, the question now is whether the Russian side will be ready to start from those issues on which it has been possible to achieve some kind of rapprochement of positions. “These, of course, are not issues as big as the refusal to move NATO to the east and return to the situation of 1997, but nevertheless these are significant issues for both sides,” — he points out.
According to Kortunov, negotiations can be held on a moratorium on the deployment of a new generation of medium-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe by Russia and the United States, on the restoration of the work of the Russia — NATO, including the military dimension of this council, the issue of creating a buffer zone, a corridor along the line of contact with NATO, on the start of new negotiations on arms and armed forces control in Europe, similar to the CFE treaty.
Kortunov admits that the Russian side is disappointed that the main proposals were not accepted, but, he recalls, most experts, including Russian ones, proceeded from the fact that these proposals could not be accepted in full, at least for now .
“As far as one can judge from the totality of statements by Russian officials, Moscow is interested in continuing negotiations,” — Andrey Baklitsky, senior researcher at the Institute for International Studies at MGIMO of the Russian Foreign Ministry, told RBC.
After the European tour, the US delegation will return to Washington, and it is expected that a document with American proposals will be sent to Moscow, and further work will be based on it, the expert explained.
Negotiations on Russia's demands for security in Europe, the main of which was the rejection of further NATO expansion, were held in three stages: on January 10 with a US delegation in Geneva, on January 12 with a NATO delegation in Brussels, and on January 13 with an OSCE delegation there.
All sides rated the meetings as businesslike and useful, but each of them stated that their opponents' demands were unacceptable. Following the talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that NATO was completely incapable of negotiating. The Kremlin stressed that they would wait for the written proposals of the United States following the negotiations.
NATO assured that they would not change their open door policy, while emphasizing that the issue of Ukraine's entry into the bloc was on the agenda in the near future not worth it. At the same time, the bloc expressed its readiness to discuss missile issues, as well as arms control and their deployment in Europe.
Subscribe to RBC FB Get news faster than anyone
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia “will not buckle” under Western sanctions The Deputy Foreign Minister said that the West had responded with a virtual refusal to Russian proposals on security guarantees and non-expansion of NATO. Russia, according to Sergei Ryabkov, “has nowhere to retreat”
Moscow has no reason for a new round of negotiations with Washington on security guarantees in the near future. This was stated by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in an interview with RTVI TV channel.
“ I don't see any reason to sit down in the coming days (at the negotiating table. & mdash; RBK ), to meet again and start these very discussions, '' & mdash; Ryabkov said.
The main problem, he said, was that the United States and NATO “ under no guise, for any reason '' do not agree to Russia's demands not to expand the alliance and return its borders to the 1997 borders, as well as to provide “ legally binding guarantees that the relevant systems will not be located in the immediate vicinity of our borders. ''
He specified, that the United States and its allies actually responded with “ no '' in response to key Russian proposals for security guarantees; and want to discuss only those issues that interest them. “ And where they tell us 'yes, let's discuss further,' we, in turn, note that for all the importance and seriousness of these particular subjects, they are secondary to the same non-expansion of NATO. This is, to a certain extent, a dead end or a difference in approaches '', & mdash; noted the Deputy Minister.
He stressed that at the talks, Russia's opponents expressed their readiness to discuss those topics that are convenient for them. “ For us, this is not an option, because we are interested in the opposite. We need first of all what I said, and the rest goes in addition, '', & mdash; Ryabkov said.
At the same time, the diplomat noted, “ Americans want & lt; & hellip; & gt; let off steam from the Russian position, relieve pressure, relieve tension '' and, under the guise of this, “ continue the same process of geopolitical, military development of more and more territories, approaching further and further to Moscow. ''
“ We have nowhere to retreat. We already see that other measures, other methods will be applied in relation to opponents in the future, if they do not ultimately take into account our requirements and our needs, '' & mdash; added by the deputy minister.
The diplomat said that Russia will not bend under the pressure of possible new US sanctions and will find alternatives to its existence. “ We will find alternatives … Russia has never buckled under pressure, never succumbed to threats and blackmail, '' & mdash; Ryabkov said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an interview with Channel One; called the results of the talks on security guarantees a reflection of “ serious confrontations in the world arena, an attempt by the West to assert its dominance. ''
Negotiations between Russia and the United States on security guarantees were held in Geneva on January 9 & ndash; January 10, January 12 in Brussels meeting of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO, which discussed, in particular, the non-expansion of the alliance to the east.
On the eve it became known that American senators proposed, in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, to impose sanctions against the Russian leadership, the national debt, the banking sector and Nord Stream -2 & raquo ;.
Subscribe to FB RBC Receive news faster than anyone
The main results of the debate in Geneva have been named
On Monday, January 10, consultations between Russia and the United States on security guarantees were held in Geneva. The discussion between the officials of the two countries lasted for about 7.5 hours. According to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the negotiations were difficult, and no progress was made on NATO's non-expansion. The head of the American delegation, Wendy Sherman, noted that Washington “ will not allow anyone to close the door to the alliance for another country. '' The results of the meeting were assessed by experts. & nbsp;
“ The main questions are suspended, and we do not see that on the American side there is an understanding of the imperativeness of their solution in a way that suits us, '' & mdash; said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, adding that other results of the consultations will become clear later this week.
According to Ryabkov, progress on NATO's non-expansion has not been achieved.
“ The conversation was difficult, long, very professional, deep, specific, without attempts to embellish anything, to bypass any sharp corners, & mdash; & nbsp; emphasized the diplomat. & ndash; We got the impression that the American side took the Russian proposals very seriously and carried out their in-depth study. ''
According to the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, the non-entry of Ukraine and Georgia into the North Atlantic Alliance & mdash; the issue of national security for Russia: “For us, this is absolutely necessary”; mdash; make sure that Ukraine will never become a NATO member. At the NATO Madrid summit, we would like the formula adopted by the 2008 Bucharest summit to be withdrawn and replaced with the following: “ Ukraine and Georgia will never become members of the North Atlantic Alliance. We are tired of conducting empty talk & nbsp; from half-promises, from misinterpretation, which often happened in negotiations behind closed doors & hellip; We need reinforced concrete, legally significant guarantees, not promises, but guarantees, with the words 'must', 'must', never become NATO members.
In turn, the head of the American delegation, Wendy Sherman, said that Washington “ will not allow anyone to close the door to NATO for another country. '' and will not discuss issues related to other countries without their participation. At the same time, she noted that the United States is ready to discuss with Russia on the deployment of missiles and the establishment of mutual restrictions on the scale of military exercises with an increase in their transparency. In addition, & nbsp; Sherman clarified that the parties exchanged ideas on medium and shorter-range missiles, but reaching agreements will require a lot of work.
“ We will see the end result of the Russian-American meeting only after the completion of the 'double marathon', & mdash; & nbsp; comments on MK ' German political scientist Alexander Rahr. & ndash; Now there are long negotiations in Geneva, on January 12 in Brussels a meeting of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO, and the next day & mdash; consultations at the Vienna site of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Then at the end of the week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will give a big press conference, which will sum up all the necessary results. The Americans will also give their comments at the end of all three meetings. Then we will find out how successfully or unsuccessfully they passed, and whether Moscow's demands were met.
At the same time, it is good that this marathon has begun at all. The parties listen to each other's arguments, there is no so-called 'slamming doors' policy, as it has been over the past years. Both Washington and Moscow are aware of the seriousness of the situation. There is a lot at stake. ' Russia will no longer recognize NATO's expansion into the post-Soviet space. By the way, President Putin spoke about this back in 2007 at the Munich Security Conference. Then he was not heard. Now the West cannot but listen to Russia.
“ But at the same time, America does not want to give up its positions and lose its geopolitical gain after the collapse of the USSR, after which virtually all of Europe, except Russia and Belarus, is oriented towards cooperation with Washington, '' continues Alexander Rahr. & ndash; Therefore, the situation is really daunting, but there are ways out of it. And just about them it will be possible to thoroughly discuss at the upcoming meetings in Brussels and Geneva. & Nbsp;
The minimum success of consultations between the Russian Federation and the United States can be said if the parties begin serious negotiations on nuclear disarmament and mutual non-deployment of intermediate and shorter-range missiles in each other's reach. That would be, from my point of view, a tremendous success. Then the ice would certainly break.
By detente, the countries could come to interpenetration and adjust the framework conditions for European security. The maximum idea is as follows: the parties will decide that it is necessary to seriously change the security architecture of Europe, include Russia, which has long felt isolated, and start working on the concept of a common space “ from Lisbon to Vladivostok '', which already took place at the beginning. 2000s.
There are forces in the West that understand the rationale behind the need for the parties to meet halfway. Meanwhile, the forces of “ triumphalism '' dominate today. the end of the cold war, a younger generation of politicians who no longer remember the horrors of the hot and 'cold' wars. From their point of view, Russia & ndash; a weak state that needs to be punished from time to time, which cannot do anything on its own, so it needs to accept the conditions of the West.
Russia, in turn, believes that the West is weaker. Therefore, a negative outcome should be expected in the event that in the Russian Federation and the United States will prevail forces that are ready to go to confrontation whenever possible. If the parties are determined to reach compromises, it will be good for everyone. '' If there is progress, negotiations with NATO, in principle, do not make much sense. It is much more difficult to talk to Western European members of the North Atlantic Alliance if there is no agreement with Washington.
“ I would not expect that at the end of the negotiations any important agreements will be reached, & mdash; & nbsp; says the MK expert. & ndash; However, even the fact that there is a discussion of the problem is already a good indicator in the current conditions of Russian-American relations. Meanwhile, the United States will definitely not be able to fulfill the Russian Federation's demand not to expand NATO into the post-Soviet space. It will certainly hurt their prestige. This will mean that Washington, having given some guarantees, made concessions. Moreover, for about 30 years, the United States said that the Russian Federation has no right and will not influence the policy of the alliance, so its opinion in these matters will be taken into account as the last resort. & Nbsp;
However, some These are measures on arms control, issues of regulating the number of incidents in the air and at sea in Eastern Europe. They are not so painful for both sides. However, something fundamental, strategic and long-term is unlikely to be discussed.
You need to understand that the most important meaning of such negotiations is & ndash; it is an opportunity to exchange views, direct dialogue between countries. When the parties communicate directly, they develop a perception of the opponent, a sense of trust in each other arises. This has happened repeatedly in relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, in particular, during the period of Soviet-American relations. Therefore, it is always necessary to communicate, even if it seems that the problems cannot be solved. The presence of direct contact and some kind of minimal disposition can play into the hands at any time. ''
CNN: US Secretly Approves $ 200 Million Additional Military Aid to Ukraine On December 11, NBC reported that Washington had frozen a $ 200 million aid package to Kiev. At the same time, the United States expressed its readiness to provide the country with an expanded aid package in the event of Russian aggression
The US administration has approved an additional $ 200 million in military aid to Ukraine, CNN correspondent Kylie Atwood reported, citing four sources.
“[US President Joe] Biden’s administration secretly approved an additional $ 200 million of military aid to Ukraine at the end of December  & raquo;, & mdash; tweeted Atwood.
It is not specified what exactly is included in the new package of measures.
On December 11, NBC, citing sources, reported that the United States had prepared a package of military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $ 200 million, but suspended the process of its delivery in order to provide an opportunity for a diplomatic settlement of the situation between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, the American administration considered other measures of military assistance, including their expanded package, in the event of a Russian invasion.
Biden, during a video conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 7, announced that Washington would increase military assistance to Kiev in the event of a Russian invasion.
In December, the State Border Service of Ukraine announced that the United States would allocate $ 20 million to strengthen the borders with Russia and Belarus.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said in early January that NATO would strengthen its positions in countries bordering on Russia if it attacks Ukraine. The United States allowed the dispatch of military personnel to Eastern European countries in the event of an aggravation of the situation.
At the end of last year, some Western media outlets, based on data on the accumulation of Russian military equipment and troops on the border, wrote that Russia was preparing to attack Ukraine. The American authorities have repeatedly warned Moscow about possible tough sanctions in the event of military aggression against Ukraine. The Russian side, in turn, has repeatedly denied information about the impending attack.
In talks with Biden, Putin said that NATO was “ making dangerous attempts to conquer Ukrainian territory. '' The Russian leader said that the country is interested in obtaining “ reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding NATO expansion eastward. ''
In December, the Foreign Ministry sent proposals on security guarantees to the United States and the alliance. These proposals were discussed by the Russian and American sides in Geneva on January 9 – 10, 2022. On January 12, Russia will discuss this issue at a meeting with NATO representatives in Brussels, and on the 13th – & mdash; at the OSCE meeting.
Subscribe to Instagram RBC Receive news faster than anyone
Security talks have come to an end between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and US Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman. The Geneva meeting lasted almost eight hours. Ryabkov described the conversation as complex and specific.
Wendy Sherman and Sergei Ryabkov
Negotiations on security treaties between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and US Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman have ended in Geneva. This was reported by the correspondent of RBC.
Negotiations during the meeting on January 10 lasted almost eight hours. They began at about 11:00 Moscow time and ended at seven in the evening.
On the eve of Ryabkovi Sherman held preliminary consultations within the framework of negotiations between Russia and the United States on the situation in Ukraine and strategic security treaties.
“ Amazing. The conversation was difficult, but businesslike. I think that tomorrow we will not waste our time '', & mdash; described Ryabkov's first conversation.
The meeting lasted over two hours. It was held at the residence of the Permanent Representative of the United States to the Conference on Disarmament. Sherman, after a conversation with Ryabkov, stressed that she would be committed to the principles of the sovereignty of European states and would not discuss the security of European allies without them.
The main day of negotiations between the United States and Russia & mdash; January 10, January 12 will be held a meeting of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO in Brussels, and on January 13 & mdash; negotiations between representatives of Russia and the OSCE in Vienna. Ryabkov stated that he was not going to deviate from his position. According to the diplomat, the American side should agree to a compromise.
The diplomats are discussing on the basis of Russian draft strategic security treaties. The Foreign Ministry dispatched them to the US and NATO in mid-December. The projects contain a proposal to abandon the expansion of the alliance to the east and the inclusion of Ukraine in its members. The projects also imply a ban on the deployment of military bases on the territory of the former USSR.
Subscribe to RBC's Instagram Get news faster than anyone
The Foreign Ministry announced that there are no attempts to “get around sharp corners” in negotiations with the United States
Ryabkov: The United States has seriously approached the Russian proposals on security guarantees The United States has taken seriously the proposals on security guarantees put forward by Russia, but Washington's objections were raised by the topic of non-expansion of NATO, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov said after the talks in Geneva
Sergey Ryabkov (left)
The negotiations between the representatives of Russia and the United States on security guarantees, which took place in Geneva, were complex and professional, without attempts to embellish anything and “ get around some sharp corners. '' Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced this at a briefing following the conversation, the broadcast was hosted by RBK.
“ We got the impression that the American side very seriously approached the Russian proposals [on security guarantees], carried out their in-depth study. We, in turn, presented in the most detailed way the logic of our proposals “,” Ryabkov said.
Answering RBC's question about whether there were points of the Russian proposals that the United States categorically refused to discuss, Ryabkov said that the topic of NATO's non-expansion caused very serious objections from Washington. The Russian side has repeatedly emphasized that the non-expansion of the alliance and the absence of NATO missiles near the country's borders & mdash; “it's an absolute imperative.” “ There is an underestimation of the seriousness of what is happening on the American side, '' & mdash; he thinks.
At the same time, Ryabkov added, the talks in Geneva were useful, since the parties “ for the first time were able to talk on issues that were previously invisibly present, but behind the scenes. ''
Russia will decide on further steps based on the results meetings with NATO officials on January 12 and an OSCE meeting the next day, he added. The deputy foreign minister admitted that a balance of interests between Russia and NATO that would suit everyone could be found.
According to the deputy minister, Washington made claims about the concentration of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine, which did not come as a surprise to Moscow. Russia at the talks assured that it has no and cannot have any intentions to attack Ukraine, he added.
First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman took part in consultations with Russia on security guarantees in Europe from the United States, the conversation lasted almost eight hours. The day before, preliminary consultations were held in Geneva in the format of a dinner.
Russia sent the US and NATO draft agreements on security guarantees in mid-December 2021. Among other things, they contain clauses on non-expansion of NATO to the east, non-joining the alliance of the countries of the former USSR and a ban on military activities on the territory of Ukraine. Speaking about the need for such guarantees, President Vladimir Putin pointed out that “ Western colleagues did not fulfill their respective oral obligations. ''
Subscribe to VK RBK Receive news the fastest
Ryabkov: Russia and the US at the Geneva talks failed to agree on NATO's non-expansion Russia and the United States at the Geneva talks failed to achieve progress on an issue that Moscow considers key to national security – NATO's non-expansion, Ryabkov said. He admitted that the balance can still be found
Wendy Sherman and Sergei Ryabkov
At the consultations in Geneva on security guarantees for Russia and the United States, it was not possible to agree on the non-expansion of NATO to the east, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said after the talks. The broadcast was conducted by RBK.
According to the Deputy Minister, no progress has been made on this issue. The topic of non-expansion of NATO and obtaining legal guarantees in this regard has caused serious objections from the United States.
Ryabkov called this topic key for Russia's national security, as well as the non-deployment of NATO strike assets near the country's borders. According to the diplomat, these are demands from which the Russian side cannot back down.
The deputy foreign minister admitted that Russia had taken a tough stance in the negotiations. “ But those who claim that Russia has taken the path of putting forward some ultimatums are absolutely wrong, '' & mdash; he added. According to him, Moscow does not threaten the consequences if its demands are not met (while President Vladimir Putin admitted that there could be “ all sorts of different '' responses from Russia in case of refusal). Ryabkov did not rule out that a balance of interests between Russia and the alliance could be found.
Clauses on non-expansion of NATO to the east, non-joining the alliance of the countries of the former USSR and a ban on military activity on the territory of Ukraine are contained in the draft treaty on security guarantees , which Russia sent to the alliance and the United States in mid-December 2021. As Ryabkov stressed, Russia needs “ iron, legal obligations, not promises, but guarantees '' the fact that Ukraine and Georgia will not become NATO members.
On Wednesday, January 12, Russia will continue to discuss this issue at a meeting with NATO representatives in Brussels, and the next day & mdash; at the OSCE meeting.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said earlier that the alliance has never made commitments not to expand eastward. He also ruled out the possibility of a compromise with Russia on Ukraine's membership in the bloc.
Subscribe to FB RBC Get news faster than anyone
The political scientist spoke about the possible reaction of Russia to the reluctance of the United States to negotiate
“The appearance of a missile base in Cuba is unlikely”
In Geneva, negotiations between Russia and the United States began on security guarantees for our country. A meeting of the Russia-NATO Council is scheduled for January 12. I would like to hope for a positive outcome of the meetings, however, in light of the tough position of the parties, the success of the negotiations is questionable. What will Moscow do if its proposals are rejected? MK asked Vasily Kashin, Deputy Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics, to answer this question.
– Our military-technical response will consist, as an option, in the deployment of new types of weapons in the European part of Russia. Perhaps in Belarus. A revision of doctrinal attitudes can be expected. For example, the large-scale deployment of ground-based medium-range missiles that could reach many European capitals. After the destruction on the initiative of the United States of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, Russia may, for example, create a similar ballistic missile with a hypersonic maneuvering warhead.
The second option is to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, deploy additional nuclear groups in European part of the country.
– Arms deliveries are going on anyway. It hardly makes sense to sell them weapons specifically in response to events in Europe. The deterioration of relations with NATO will naturally affect our military cooperation with China, but not so much.
– The situation is similar with Iran. Regardless of the development of events in the dialogue with NATO, Russia strives to maintain military-technical cooperation with Iran. The problem here is that Iran has little money and is under even more severe sanctions than Russia. There will be problems with financial calculations. Plus, he has a complex system for making such decisions, which is why contracts are often delayed. For example, in the “zero” years, negotiations on the supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems went on for more than seven years.
– In Syria, we are just trying to avoid various incidents that could lead to the death of American servicemen. Such incidents are extremely dangerous. Do not forget that retaliatory actions may follow. In addition, our military presence in the Middle East is much smaller than the American one. And it has nothing to do with the problems in Europe.
– It is far from the fact that the Cubans will want this. And there is no guarantee that this base will make a lot of sense, unless we deploy a large military group there. This is ten thousand people at least. A separate base with several missiles is unlikely to influence anything. Will we pull a serious option? I doubt it.
– This issue has been raised by our side several times, but I have not heard it raised within the framework of security guarantees. You can revise them, but together with the existing requirements, this will most likely lead to the failure of the negotiations.
The factor that complicated the negotiations between the Russian Federation and the United States in Geneva was named
“Kazakhstan can replace Ukraine in Russian-American relations”
Russian-American consultations on security guarantees have started in Geneva. The central issue is the draft treaty that Russia sent to the United States and its allies in mid-December. It includes provisions on reducing the number of military exercises, mutual non-deployment of medium and shorter-range missiles in each other's reach and refusing to further expand NATO at the expense of the post-Soviet republics. The political scientist told how the events in Kazakhstan will affect the negotiation process.
The meeting of the Russian Federation and the United States in Geneva is held in a closed format. The Russian delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin, and the American delegation by the United States First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman.
The sides held preliminary talks in the format of a working dinner the day before. The deputy head of the Russian foreign policy department noted that the conversation was difficult, but businesslike.
Even before the start of the negotiation process, the United States emphasized that some of Russia's proposals were unacceptable to them. Moscow, in turn, stated that the project was not of an ultimatum nature, however, the country would not agree to unilateral concessions, especially under pressure. Nevertheless, Ryabkov did not rule out that consultations with the American side would be limited to one meeting and there would be no point in continuing them. However, according to him, this threatens a new round of confrontation.
As a reminder, the talks on security guarantees will be held in three stages: on January 12, two days after the meeting in Geneva, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council will take place in Brussels, and the next day – consultations at the Vienna platform of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
“Today we can say with complete confidence that the situation in Kazakhstan and, in particular, the introduction of Russian troops into the territory of this country, influenced the consultations between the Russian Federation and the United States on security guarantees in the most negative way,” the chief researcher of the Institute comments on MK. USA and Canada RAS Vladimir Vasiliev. – Although the American delegation does not directly link these factors, the shadow of Kazakhstani events will constantly hang over the negotiating table in Geneva, Brussels and Vienna.
The United States, judging by its preliminary reaction, has not yet reached far-reaching conclusions about this situation. And she is becoming more and more unpredictable every day. The Americans still need to figure out what is happening in Kazakhstan and understand what steps to take when the wave of violence subsides. ”
According to the expert, the Kazakh factor is of a double nature for Washington. On the one hand, even before the New Year, Russia declared that if it did not receive advising guarantees from the United States and NATO regarding its security, it would act quite decisively. And in the West, in this case, they understood, given the concentration of troops around the Ukrainian border, that the Russian Federation could use force at any moment.
“Unexpectedly, the situation in Kazakhstan showed that Moscow, in order to ensure its vital national interests, can in fact use forceful methods and that this, of course, must be reckoned with,” the political scientist continues. “Therefore, today Kazakhstan in Russian-American relations can, in a sense, replace Ukraine. The United States understands that it must be extremely careful and careful with Russia, and that its claims were not born out of nowhere.
On the other hand, the Russian side has long and consistently denied that it could use force against Ukraine. This, of course, was not believed in Washington. Many American analysts have repeatedly noted that such a step can only complicate the prospects for the conclusion of guarantees, the prospects for which have become rather dim in recent years.
Moreover, the West understands very well that the guarantees it can give are not a panacea for the fact that Russia will not use forceful methods, believing that in case of any changes in the situation on the world stage, it can rely on a legal document, and not on its own.
In any case, Kazakhstan has changed the prospects for the current round of negotiations, which began on January 10 and will end by the end of the week. And today the main discussion rests on yet another serious problem, which is related to the intentions and goals of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Until the end of the year, it was clear that the talks between Moscow and Washington would focus exclusively on security elements. That is to say, the form corresponded to the content, and the documents that were sent to the USA and NATO were self-contained. However, today in America they do not quite understand what exactly the Russian leader wants.
According to most Western analysts, the whole idea of these negotiations is connected with Putin's desire to leave a significant mark on history. Today, these agreements are his attempt to remain in the memory of Russians and the chronicles of the Russian Federation as a great political figure. This is the strategic plan of the Russian leader and determines the policy of 2014 in relation to Crimea, and now in relation to Kazakhstan.
And in this regard, the Western powers found themselves at a crossroads. They do not understand whether it is now necessary to meet Putin halfway, because this will only strengthen his prestige both inside the country and abroad.
And Kazakhstan has just shown that the Russian leader has strategic goals. It is about strengthening Russia's influence in the post-Soviet space. And the West, of course, would not like to help Putin in this.
Since the negotiations are partly linked to Putin's goals regarding his political future and place in history, the United States is in some kind of confusion. They do not know how to behave in these matters. Whether it is necessary to counteract or to turn a blind eye to it. In any case, this adds uncertainty to the situation. The West has not yet figured out the strategy of the Russian leader's behavior, which is undoubtedly a factor paralyzing the effectiveness of the Geneva talks. ”
Foreign Ministry declared unacceptable conditions of the United States for the work of the Russia-NATO Council
The Foreign Ministry declared the US unacceptable conditions for the resumption of the work of the Russia-NATO Council Washington insists on the agenda that suits it, with an emphasis on “de-escalation” and “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, but this is unacceptable for Moscow, the Foreign Ministry stressed
Situation in Donbass
The US wants to resume the work of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO on conditions unacceptable for Moscow. This was stated by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in an interview with RIA Novosti. before meeting with the American delegation in Geneva.
“ They want to restore the activities of the NATO Russia Council, but on their own terms, on the agenda that suits them, with an emphasis on the so-called de-escalation, the so-called Russian aggression in Ukraine, '' & mdash; he specified.
Ryabkov also noted that the US approaches to the dialogue with Russia on security guarantees announced before the Geneva meeting did not come as a surprise to Moscow.
According to him, Moscow initially understood that Washington's line was to “ submerge '' Russian ideas and proposals into the 'technological environment from the point of view of diplomacy' that has developed over the past decades.
He suggested that the United States would prefer to 'merge everything' in the OSCE, where Russia has repeatedly raised these issues with minimal results.
The day before, the Russian and American delegations held talks on security guarantees. Russia was represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin, USA & mdash; Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Chief of Operations at the Joint Staff, Lieutenant General James Mingus.
Ryabkov called the two-hour talks “ amazing. '' According to him, the conversation was difficult, but businesslike.
The main day of the talks between Russia and the United States in Geneva is scheduled for January 10. On January 12, a meeting of the Council Russia & mdash; NATO in Brussels, 13 January & mdash; talks between representatives of Russia and the OSCE in Vienna.
The Russian Foreign Ministry on December 17 sent the US and NATO a draft treaty on the security of Russia and the countries & mdash; members of the North Atlantic Alliance. The Russian side proposed to abandon the creation of military bases in the former USSR countries and a ban on military activities on the territory of Ukraine.
Among other proposals & mdash; mutual renunciation of the deployment of armed forces and weapons in areas where such deployment would be perceived by the other side as a threat. There is also a clause in the document about the impossibility of unleashing a nuclear war.
Subscribe to Twitter RBK Get news faster than anyone
The Foreign Ministry called the dialogue with the United States uncomfortable because of the “eyes and ears” of their partners
Washington is uncomfortable with conducting a dialogue with Moscow, including on security guarantees, since it feels “ eyes and ears '' behind it; their Russophobic partners in NATO. About this in an interview with RIA Novosti said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.
“ They are uncomfortable with bilateral dialogue with us, because they feel behind them the eyes and ears of the most anti-Russian group in NATO, '' & mdash; he said.
The material is being supplemented
Subscribe to RBC's Instagram Get news faster than anyone
According to the Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov, several thousand jihadists took part in mass protests in Kazakhstan, where they tried undermine the country's constitutional order.
The diplomat added on his Facebook page that radicals professing a misanthropic ideology had attacked Kazakhstan. Thousands of jihadists and looters tried to undermine the constitutional order by using weapons against civilians.
Antonov explained that this situation arose due to the fact that Washington withdrew its military contingent from Afghanistan, as a result of which the region became rapidly spread extremist ideas and trends.
“What can you talk about with people who decapitate police officers ?! Any negotiations with terrorists only encourage them to commit even more serious crimes. I am sure that Washington is well aware of this, but they do not want to give up double standards, “he said.
Ryabkov described the negotiations with the United States with the phrase “amazing, the conversation was difficult.”
“America has never been able to eliminate the terrorist threat”
The French news site Atlantico has criticized the policies that the US has pursued in recent decades under the banner of countering the terrorist threat. In fact, this threat has only intensified, thanks in part to the erroneous US policy.
An analytical article, published on January 9, argues, for example, that the American counter-terrorism strategy not only failed to achieve its original goals, but also did much more harm to world security than real benefit. “The world we live in today has become much more dangerous compared to 2001,” the article says. “The United States is unwilling to change its counterterrorism strategy even after the number of terrorist groups in the world has doubled since the start of the struggle. terrorism “.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when planes hijacked by terrorists rammed skyscrapers in New York, the United States decided to start a war on terror in order to destroy terrorist groups around the world once and for all.
George W. Bush, who was then president USA, did not doubt the victory: “The outcome of this war is already a foregone conclusion.” Did he suspect that twenty years later, the consequences would be so disastrous? The flight of American troops from Afghanistan last year perfectly reflects the futility of the US global war on terrorism, in which millions of human lives were lost and entire countries plunged into chaos, the article says.
“Despite the sacrifices made, America has never been able to eliminate the terrorist threat,” says Atlantico. “On the contrary, the danger has increased significantly.” The publication recalled that in 2021, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced the publication of an annual report in which American analysts assessed the long-term US struggle against terrorism. If in 2001 there were 32 terrorist groups in the world, then in 2021, after the victory of the Russian-banned terrorist organization Taliban in Afghanistan, their number increased to 69.
In 2001, the US Congress granted the American president unlimited powers military intervention. The Resolution on the Use of Military Force was adopted on September 18, 2001. The French publication called the American resolution a disastrous Pandora's box, with the help of which America was able to unleash more and more wars, many of which were not even associated with the September 11 attacks.
“For 20 years, this document has been used to justify counter-terrorism operations in almost 22 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Kosovo. For almost a year, the administration of the current US President Joe Biden has made repeated attempts to rationalize this military strategy, the French edition writes. “As a result, the number of (US Air Force) airstrikes has really decreased, but the American army continues to fight in 12 countries, and the Biden administration has completely ignored the painful lesson of Afghanistan.” in constant war, hiding what is happening from the American public and the media. To put an end to this, it is necessary to repeal the Resolution on the Use of Military Force, as well as to revise the American policy of countering terrorism. Otherwise, Atlantico believes, US actions to eradicate the terrorist threat around the world will continue to do more harm than good.
Yuri Zhdanov: “Americans still think in terms of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years”
Recently, five states possessing atomic weapons issued a statement on the prevention of nuclear war. But has the question of the survival of mankind been finally removed? How many such agreements and the same “withdrawals” were there? President of the Russian section of the International Police Association, Lieutenant General, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Lawyer of Russia Yuri Zhdanov spoke about many meanings and underpinnings of modern American politics.
– Leaders of Russia, Britain, the United States, China and France, the five countries that officially possess nuclear weapons, issued a joint statement on January 3 to prevent nuclear war and an arms race … “We declare that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed,” the statement reads.
I clap at this statement. And I really hope that all the postulates written here will be sacredly observed for at least ten years. God willing – and further. For example, states that possess nuclear weapons are obliged to prevent their use. And their commitment to the ultimate goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers have also pledged to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to work within the framework of international agreements and conventions. Let me remind you that the document was adopted at the initiative of Russia. This was stated by the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova. She said that he was preparing for the opening of the conference on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in New York, scheduled for January 4. Although the start of the conference was postponed, the leaders of the five powers decided to publish the text.
– Confused by the double play on the part of some partners. Undoubtedly, the agreement to prevent nuclear war in the modern world is an outstanding achievement. But, alas, this does not mean the victory of the new “policy of detente”. Global contradictions between the great powers in the modern world, a high level of conflict, confrontation, up to the military, not only have not gone anywhere, but are becoming a permanent attribute of international relations in the XXI century.
– Everything is old, only the scenery changes. Judge for yourself. Almost simultaneously with the preparation of this landmark announcement, the US Congressional Research Service report “Renewing Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense” was being prepared. It was presented shortly before the general announcement of the five official nuclear powers – December 21, 2021. And there are no peacemaking thoughts at all.
– Yes, and at the same time, their forced love of peace is not at all based on universal love for mankind, but exclusively on the geopolitical situation that is problematic for them. And this is understandable. Last year, the logic of the United States once again emerged: we are afraid of everyone, but we do not want to fight, and indeed we cannot and do not know how – remember the flight from Afghanistan. But at the same time we do not trust anyone, not even the so-called allies. However, I still really want to be in charge in the whole world, to skim the cream off the world economy, and at the same time not be very badly beaten, because it hurts and ashamed.
– The fact of the matter is that only in a democratic one. I would like to be in charge of everything. Therefore, the report says that renewed competition among the great powers has led to renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in discussions on US defense. At the same time, it is emphasized that Russia's confirmation of its status as a major world power included, among other things, repeated references by Russian officials to Russia's nuclear potential and Russia's status as a major nuclear power. This is a shame!
Americans still think in terms of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years. And they cannot believe and accept that we woke up after the perestroika fainting. But now they have a new headache – China. They state that at present, China's nuclear capabilities are still much more modest than those of Russia. But China is reportedly improving and rapidly building up its nuclear forces as part of an overall effort to modernize its military.
The heightened focus in US defense and security discussions on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is taking place at a time. when the US Department of Defense is just beginning to develop a multi-year plan for how to spend tens of billions of dollars to modernize the US strategic nuclear deterrent.
– I believe that the signing of the document by the United States on January 3, 2022 is largely due to this very factor – there is nowhere to go, they are losing at a pace for several moves.
– Yes, the Americans are very puzzled. For example, there are currently plans for the United States to acquire a new class of ballistic missile submarines and the next generation long-range bomber.
The Trump administration also invited China to become the third participant, along with the United States and Russia, in negotiations on future nuclear arms restrictions. Beijing reportedly refused to join such negotiations unless the United States agrees to reduce its nuclear forces to a much lower level in China.
China has never been overly gullible and naive. Let me remind you that on November 16 last year, after a virtual meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Biden, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that “the leaders of the two countries agreed that we will strive to continue discussing strategic issues.” A November 17, 2021 press release said: “The United States and China will seek arms control negotiations, not formal negotiations.” China has forced itself to be respected.
Now American analysts believe that the era of international relations after the Cold War has given way to a fundamentally different situation of competition between the great powers with China and Russia.
The Biden Administration's Interim National Security Strategy Guidelines say – this is March 2021 – that “we face a world of growing nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry.”
“The report to Congress noted that“ Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in efforts to test US forces and prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world. Regional players such as Iran and North Korea continue to exploit game-changing capabilities and technologies while threatening US allies and partners and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries with fragile governance, as well as influential non-state actors that have the potential to violate America's interests. Terrorism and violent extremism, both domestically and internationally, remain serious threats. ”
Here are more quotes from the report to the Congress:
“Defending America means setting clear priorities for our defense budget. Above all, we will continue to invest in the people who serve in our volunteer forces and their families. We will maintain combat readiness and ensure that the US military remains the most trained and equipped force in the world.
In the face of strategic challenges from an increasingly assertive China and a destabilizing Russia, we will assess the appropriate structure, capabilities and size of forces, and, working with Congress, shift the focus from unnecessary legacy platforms and weapons systems to freeing up resources for investment in advanced technology and capabilities. that will determine our military and national security advantages in the future. We streamline the development, testing, acquisition, deployment, and protection of these technologies.
We will ensure that we have a skilled workforce to acquire, integrate and operate them. And we will establish an ethical and regulatory framework to ensure that these technologies are used responsibly.
We will retain Special Operations Forces qualifications to focus on crisis response and priority counterterrorism and unconventional warfare missions. And we will develop capabilities to better compete and contain gray zone activities.
We will prioritize defense investments in climate resilience and clean energy. ”
– Yes, but at the same time we do not climb to other continents. But in the report to Congress, the dominant motive is the military policy towards Eurasia: “From the point of view of the general strategy and geopolitics of the United States, it can be noted that most of the people, resources and economic activity in the world are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, especially in Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of geography, US policymakers over the past several decades have chosen to pursue the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia as a key element of the US national strategy.
The goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia is the main reason why the US military is structured using force elements that allow it to deploy from the United States, traverse vast expanses of ocean and airspace, and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival in Eurasia. or through the waters and airspace surrounding Eurasia.
Force elements associated with this objective include, among others, the Air Force with a significant number of long-range bombers, long-range observation aircraft, long-range air transport aircraft, tanker tankers, and a fleet with a significant number of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. ”
– The new US operational concepts are focused on the more complete integration of military capabilities in several areas. For example, land, air, sea, space, electromagnetic field, information and cyberspace. Of course, with the use of the US armed forces. Many US Department of Defense detection programs, exercises, and warfare experiments have been initiated, accelerated, scaled up, given higher priority, or justified by the renewed emphasis on high-tech warfare.
Weapon acquisition programs that may be associated with training for high-level warfare include procurement programs for advanced aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and next-generation long-range bomber, high-performance combat ships such as the ” Virginia and the DDG-51 class destroyer Aegis, long-range ground attack and anti-ship weapons, new types of weapons such as lasers, new C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, reconnaissance, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities, military space capabilities, capabilities electronic warfare, military cyber capabilities, hypersonic weapons, as well as the military use of robotics and autonomous unmanned vehicles, quantum technologies and artificial intelligence.
– This is the essence of the new unfolding arms race. There are enough smart heads everywhere, it is important who will be the first to put ideas into practice. Rather, when it comes to weapons, death. One cannot but agree with American analysts that “success no longer belongs to the country that is the first to develop a new technology, but rather to the one that better integrates it and adapts it into its own way of struggle.”
– Tellingly, the sanctions and the Russian import substitution strategy have demonstrated this very well. Therefore, American analysts are now grappling with many issues of vital importance to them. To what extent are Chinese or Russian components, subcomponents, materials, or software included in the equipment of the United States Department of Defense? How well does the Pentagon understand this problem? What consequences can this problem have for the reliability and maintainability of the US military systems, especially during the war? What actions is the US Department of Defense taking or planning to take to ensure the security of the supply chain, especially with regard to Chinese or Russian components and materials?
– The authors of the report to the US Congress conclude that the currently fashionable term “Cold War 2.0” is quite acceptable to indicate the situation that characterizes the modern world order. We have to admit that we live in a situation where, proclaiming the impossibility of a nuclear war, we continue to build up all types of weapons and increase mobilization readiness for this war.
In addition, until now, in the military doctrines of all leading nuclear powers contains the principle of the admissibility of the first use of nuclear weapons in the presence of a threat of military attack. This means that Article 4 of the UN Charter on the non-use of not only force, but also the threat of force does not work …
Defense Ministers of Great Britain and the United States discussed the situation on the border of Russia and Ukraine
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace and his American counterpart Lloyd Austin discussed the Russian-attributed military build-up on the border yesterday with Ukraine. This was reported in the Pentagon's press service.
The press secretary of the department, John Kirby, noted that the ministers during the conversation touched upon topics that “cause concern”, namely, “the build-up of Russian forces on the Ukrainian borders.”/p>
“Austin and Wallace reaffirmed their unwavering support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Among other things, they pledged to continue close coordination on these issues, “Kirby specified.
Recall that recently Western countries have been claiming a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. Earlier, the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov said that such information is empty and unfounded.