A US State Department official said Tuesday that bilateral talks between the US and Russia to discuss Moscow’s security proposals could begin in January.
“We will decide on a date together with Russia, and we believe that that will take place in January,” Karen Donfried, the assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, told reporters.
Russia submitted its proposals to the US last week amid heightened tensions surrounding Ukraine. Moscow is seeking several guarantees, including one that NATO won’t expand further eastward. Russia is also looking for mutual agreements on the deployment of military assets in areas each side deems a threat and the deployment of nuclear weapons in the region.
Donfried said the US was ready to negotiate the proposals, although she said some were “unacceptable” without specifying further. “There are some things we’re prepared to work on, and we do believe there is merit in having discussion,” she said. “There are other things in those documents that the Russians know will be unacceptable.”
Also on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his call for the security guarantees and blamed the US and NATO for “tensions that are building up in Europe.”
Putin stressed the importance of Russia’s demand that the US and NATO don’t deploy missiles to Ukraine that could strike Moscow. “For us, it is the most serious challenge — a challenge to our security,” he said. Putin added that Russia wants “long-term, legally binding guarantees” instead of verbal assurances.
Putin also said if the Western powers don’t negotiate the security guarantees and continue expanding eastward, Russia would respond with “appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures.”
The US is always pleased to make agreements; but, this prescinds from the problem of her faithlessness. As at the same time she “reserves the right” to betray commitments.
Even monetary “guarantees” are meaningless as the US has no problem forfeiting common wealth, …and in any event “reserves the right” to print money ad libitum.
It does however lay down a marker for History, … and, in the event of defeat, prosecution.
Was about to post something similar.
Russia should know by now the US will drag out “negotiations” as long as possible, bully, threaten, insult and kvetch.
If, by some miracle, you can manage to get the US to agree to something, they will break the agreement before the ink is dry and blame you for it.
So, unless these talks somehow distract the US from planning some new atrocity, they are a waste of time.
I hate to admit it but… That sounds like a fair assessment…
I would at least hope for an agreement, at the very least to ease tensions, which make me very nervous…
Yup. Standard US delaying tactics. Just about the time the talks are supposed to commence, there will be a war between Ukraine and Russia – and then the talks disappear. Putin knows this, which is why the proposals were made in the first place – to get ahead of the blame game. He also knows he’s going to have to go to those “military-technical measures” as a result.
Donfried said the US was ready to negotiate the proposals, although she said some were “unacceptable” without specifying further. “There are some things we’re prepared to work on, and we do believe there is merit in having discussion,” she said. “There are other things in those documents that the Russians know will be unacceptable.”
Yes, those “unacceptable” things that were acceptable, and promised, 30 years ago.
Excellent point.
No one in their wildest dreams would have thought of having US troops in Baltic nations or bombing Yugoslavia while the Soviet Union was around.
The things NATO has done since the fall of the Soviet Union were unthinkable before that.
https://journal-neo.org/2021/12/22/the-us-is-gaining-a-foothold-in-uzbekistan/
The Uzbeks have gone American.
The only reason Washington has agreed to a meeting is they suddenly realized the extent of Russia’s military mobilization, especially submarines off America’s East Coast.
Additionally, being fully aware that Russia is near the US equivalent of DEFCON II might have altered a philosophy.