On February 17, 2022, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia handed the Ambassador of the United States of America to Russia, John Sullivan, Russia's reaction to the previously received the American response to the Russian draft agreement between the Russian Federation and the USA on security guarantees.
In Russia's reaction to the US response to its previously written proposals, it is said that "the nature of the Russian proposals" to negotiate the entire package was "ignored", but that "convenient" topics were deliberately chosen that ensure the advantage of the US and its allies. This approach, as well as the accompanying rhetoric of American officials, "increase legitimate doubts that Washington is truly committed to improving the European security situation," says the letter, the content of which was published by the TASS agency.
It is particularly emphasized that the USA did not react to the Russian proposal to withdraw nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders, and that in the future they will not be stationed outside the national territory.
It goes on to say that the US only mentions "strategic dialogue on non-strategic nuclear weapons", and does not take into account the problem of deployment of such weapons and other factors affecting security.
It is noted that on the territory of some non-nuclear states NATO keeps American nuclear weapons capable of hitting targets on the territory of Russia. The Russians demand the elimination of the infrastructure for the rapid deployment of such weapons in Europe, as well as the termination of the NATO practice of involving non-nuclear NATO member states in training and exercises in the handling of these weapons. Without eliminating this irritating problem, a discussion on the topic of non-strategic nuclear weapons is not possible, states the Russian response.
Still: The US reiterates its "strong support" for NATO's "open door" policy. But that, the Kremlin claims, is in contradiction with the basic obligations assumed within the CSCE/OSCE framework, primarily with the determination "not to strengthen security at the expense of the security of others." This policy is not in accordance with the guidelines of the alliance itself, which, after the meeting of NATO foreign affairs ministers on June 6 and 7, 1991 in Copenhagen, undertook to "not take unilateral advantage of the changed situation in Europe", to "not endanger legitimate interests" of other states, not to strive for their "isolation" or "implementation of new lines of division".
The Russian letter says that increasing US and NATO military activity near Russia's borders is "alarming," while Russia's "red lines" and essential security interests, as well as Russia's sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored. The ultimate "requests for the withdrawal of troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions," are unacceptable and undermine the prospects of reaching real agreements.
The Russian side says that there is no planned "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, which the US and its allies have been talking about on an official level since last fall. Statements about Russia's "responsibility for the escalation" are interpreted by Moscow as an attempt to exert pressure and devalue Russia's demand for security guarantees.
Russia also rejects the accusations in the American response that it "occupied Crimea", explaining that in 2014 a coup d'état took place in Kiev, the initiators of which, with the support of the USA and its allies, set out to create a nationalist state that encroaches on the rights of the Russian population, and that in such a situation Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia. It is argued that the decision of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to return to the Russian Federation was made by free will in exercising the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. No force or threat of force was used. It is emphasized that the issue of Crimea's membership is closed.
Russia warns that there is a real threat that the regime in Kiev, upon possible admission to NATO, could try to "take back" Crimea by force, thus drawing, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the USA and its allies into a direct armed conflict with Russia with all the consequences which arise from it.
Russia also rejects the US thesis that it "ignited the conflict in Donbass" and reiterates that the reasons for the outbreak of that conflict are of a domestic, Ukrainian nature. The solution is possible only by applying the Minsk agreement and a series of measures whose sequence and responsibility for implementation are clearly defined and unanimously confirmed by Resolution 2202 of the UN Security Council, which was also signed by the USA, France and Great Britain. In paragraph 2 of this resolution, Kyiv, Donetsk and Lugansk are listed as parties. None of these documents mention Russia's responsibility for the conflict in Donbass. Russia, together with the OSCE, plays the role of a mediator in the main negotiation format - the contact group - and together with Berlin and Paris - in the Normandy format, which formulates recommendations to the parties to the conflict and monitors their implementation, the Russian document says.
It is repeated that in the absence of the willingness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding security guarantees, Russia will be forced to respond, including the implementation of military-technical measures, but it is not specified what kind.
MM/TASS
Read daily news, analysis, commentary and interviews at www.vreme.com