What Sense Is There in Negotiating with the US about Anything at All?

Basic proposals for security guarantees are under discussion in Russia, the EU and the United States. Two draft agreements, one with the U.S. and one with NATO, are kind of a medley consisting of a nonaggression pact, collective security system and arrangements to partition spheres of influence.

We Want To Decide

In spite of the harsh text and tone of the drafted proposals, Moscow explicitly denies that this is some kind of ultimatum, but more like a most explicit marking of positions in an effort to resolve problems that have accumulated over the decades in relations with the collective West. Problems that, without resolution, will only worsen and could lead to extremely unpleasant consequences — for Russia, America and the entire world.

“We want to solve problems with diplomatic and political means, but have legal guarantees which are at least transparent, understandable and clearly outlined. That’s the logic of the proposals we outlined on paper and sent to Brussels and Washington, and we’re hoping to receive a clear, thorough answer to them,” Vladimir Putin said. He added, “There must be legally binding arrangements, not spoken assurances,” since “we know well the price of such spoken assurances.”

As an example, Putin pointed to promises by Western leaders to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into the east. These promises culminated in admitting Eastern European states into the alliance (including former Soviet Union republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and attempts to drag in other states (Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia).

The draft agreement with NATO renounces NATO expansion in principle, but Russia is especially interested in keeping the alliance out of the former Soviet Union, if only so the missile strike range from NATO’s borders to the Kremlin doesn’t shrink from its current 600 kilometers to 450 kilometers (approximately 373 miles to 280n miles), the time for making decisions about a retaliatory strike doesn’t shrink, and the possibility of mistakenly starting a nuclear war doesn’t grow.

Let’s remember that the principle of a guaranteed second strike is the foundation of nuclear deterrence and the basis of the entire modern system of international security. Moscow wants a legally binding arrangement from the United States to preserve this policy.

This Manipulation Is Getting Old

Here, of course, it’s possible to argue that receiving legal guarantees from the U.S. in no way guarantees Washington will abide by the agreement’s terms. Putin spoke of this, too. “Long-term legally binding guarantees are necessary, but we know them well … this can’t be trusted, these legal guarantees, because the United States readily exits all international treaties that, for one reason or another, become uninteresting to it,” he explained.

Further, in the words of the Russian leader, the U.S. not only rejects international law, but manipulates it. “When international law and the United Nations charter bothers the U.S., it declares them outdated, unnecessary, but when something lines up with U.S. interests, they immediately invoke the norms of international law, the U.N. charter, international humanitarian law and so on. This manipulation is getting old,” Putin summed up.

The Russian leader could have provided a number of examples, beginning with the U.S. exit from a range of agreements critical for strategic stability (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) and not only withdrawing from the agreements, but distorting the purpose of the agreements that were reached. Take for example, agreements for a no-fly zone in Libya, which the U.S. came to interpret as permission for missile and bombing strikes against the forces of Libya’s then-President Moammar Gadhafi.

Given this, is there sense in negotiating with the U.S. about anything at all? There is.

First, the absence of agreement provokes war, which nobody needs. Second, any agreement will be observed by any side, as long as it’s advantageous, right until the moment that withdrawing from the agreement is not a big problem. In all likelihood, Russia will emphasize this point. Extending an olive branch to the U.S. with one hand, but holding a nuclear-missile sword with hypersonic capability enhancement in the other, reinforced by a willingness to use it to defend Russia.

With Europe, It’s Possible To Discuss, but not Decide

They see the given dilemma in the West, and they’re discussing how to respond. True, not everyone is discussing — some are simply reacting.

For example, take Europe and NATO’s bureaucratic structures. Looking at the pronouncements, the main emotion is outrage. First, outrage that Russia is trying to direct NATO countries as to how they will live; and which countries NATO should accept or refuse as members. Second — and this sentiment most likely comes from Europe’s leaders — dissatisfaction that Moscow refuses to hold a dialogue about European security with European countries.

In fact, Russia isn’t refusing — and has never refused. For many years, Moscow tried to solve European security problems with Europe. Take, for example, as part of the Normandy Format talks to tackle the ongoing Ukrainian civil war and to generally transform this nation from a semi-thuggish “black hole” territory into a space of cooperation on the Russian-European border.

Even now, the Russian leader is discussing proposals put forward with the Germany, the leading EU country.

So in the course of talks with Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, Putin “informed” him “about Russian proposals regarding long-term, legally based security guarantees precluding any further NATO advancement to the east, and also the placement of offensive weapons systems in nations bordering Russia. In this context, detailed analyses have been issued regarding the draft treaty proposals between Russia and the U.S. for security guarantees and agreements for measures which provided for Russia’s and NATO member-states’ security. These were submitted to Western partners, including Germany.”*

The only problem is that all these Russian proposals can be discussed with Europe, but not decided. European leaders aren’t sovereign and can’t (or don’t want to) make these sorts of decisions without Washington’s approval. This is precisely why Moscow has proposed settling matters of European security with those who make the decisions — that is, with the United States.

Constructive and with Deadlines

The Americans also understand the current situation. And if the media are outraged about an “ultimatum,” then the Biden administration, as we can see from a number of signals, views Russian proposals not as inflexible demands so much as Russia setting its position at the start of the negotiations process. This is why Washington has agreed to discuss the Russian proposals and is already preparing to advance its own positions in response. “Any dialogue must be based on reciprocity and address our concerns about Russia’s actions, and take place in full coordination with our European Allies and partners,” the White House said in a statement.

Nevertheless, the Americans say negotiations will occur behind closed doors. “We don’t see any advantage to conducting these negotiations in public, and that’s true both for the conversations that we’re having with our allies and partners; it’s also true for the conversations we will have collectively with Russia,” said Karen Donfried, the assistant secretary to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs in the State Department, who recently visited Moscow and Kyiv.

For its part, Russia is not demanding that the talks take place in public.

The draft agreements proposed by the Kremlin contain points which are so subtle and complex, they’d be best discussed behind closed doors, and without restrictions. For example, that very point about NATO’ not expanding to the east — currently it’s tricky to formulate an agreement about this that, on one hand, will lock in a waiver of expansion, and on the other, will not create the impression that Russia controls the North Atlantic alliance. Finding the necessary formulation requires quiet concentration.

Moscow is satisfied with the United States’ willingness to begin work but is demanding it be constructive. “There are several signals that the partners are seemingly ready to work on this. But there’s also the danger an attempt will be made to sweet talk, to throw our proposals in a ditch, while they, using this pause, do as they wish. Just so it’s clear to everyone: we understand this, and this turn of events, this scenario, of course, wouldn’t work for us. We’re hoping for constructive and meaningful talks with a visible, final result, one with certain deadlines that will provide equal security for all,” Putin said.

*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quoted remark was made by a source that could not be independently verified.