Washington’s written response to Moscow’s security proposals was leaked and published by the Spanish newspaper El Pais. While the US isn’t willing to give a written guarantee that Ukraine won’t ever join NATO, the document contained serious offers from the US on the issue of arms control.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been concerned that US MK 41 missile launchers that are deployed in Romania can fit Tomahawk missiles that could potentially target Russia. In the written response, the US said that it was willing to discuss a “transparency mechanism to confirm the absence of Tomohawk cruise missiles” at US bases in Romania and Poland.
In exchange for the verification method, which would likely be in the form of on-site inspections, the US wants Russia to offer “reciprocal transparency measures on two ground-launched missile bases of our choosing in Russia.”
Russia is also seeking a mutual ban on the deployment of short and medium-range missiles in Europe that were previously prohibited under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which the US withdrew from in 2019. The US said it’s prepared to start talks on “arms control for ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles and their launchers.”
At this point, there is only one major piece of nuclear arms control between the US and Russia, the New START treaty, which puts limits on the deployment of nuclear warheads, Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers. Last year, President Biden and Putin agreed to extend New START for five years.
The US proposed to Russia to begin negotiations on a follow-on to New Start “immediately.” The document reads: “We share the goal of sustaining limits on intercontinental-range delivery vehicles currently subject to New START … In addition, we must include new kinds of nuclear-armed intercontinental-range delivery vehicles in follow-on arms control agreements. We also must discuss non-strategic nuclear weapons and non-deployed nuclear warheads.”
Another major concern for Moscow is the potential deployment of US missiles and combat troops to Ukraine. The US said it’s “prepared to discuss conditions-based reciprocal transparency measures and reciprocal commitments by both the United States and Russia to refrain from deploying offensive ground-based missile systems and permanent forces with a combat mission on the territory of Ukraine.”
Neither the US nor Russia commented on the contents of the leaked document on Wednesday, but the Pentagon did confirm its authenticity. Putin said Tuesday that the US is ignoring its main concerns related to NATO expansion, but the Russian leader said he still favors talks.
Even with the NATO issue, the US has signaled it might be willing to give Moscow an informal guarantee that Ukraine won’t be joining the alliance anytime soon. Russia wants a guarantee in writing since the US broke a verbal promise it made at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO eastward. But if there are real deals made concerning bans on missile and troop deployments to Ukraine, that could alleviate Moscow’s main worries of what a Ukrainian NATO membership could mean.
Yes, I noticed the response about the Tomahawks. If the US actually followed through on that, it would help alleviate some of Russia’s concerns.
One problem for the US in that regard is the fact that it sold the EU on those systems as a defense against Iran – which everyone with a brain knows is complete bullcrap. So the question is: if those systems are for use against Iran – which they’re not – why would the US want to keep them against Russia’s objections? And if the US admits they are pointed at Russia, then why would the US agree to remove them or insure that they can’t put nuclear warheads on them? I submit that Russia is right to be suspicious of US motives to “talk” about them.
But there still remains the Russian demands about NATO expansion – and not just Ukraine, where an “informal guarantee” will never be good enough – and rolling back NATO to its 1997 limits. While I expect Russia might “give” on some of that, I think the US isn’t going to budge on that.
There’s also the issue of whether the US is merely proposing an unending series of “talks” that ultimately go nowhere while events proceed on the ground, especially in terms of increasing Ukraine’s military capabilities (however pointless most of those are.)
And of course, if anything kicks off in Ukraine, that will be the end of that.
In short, nothing has changed – yet. Russia has requested a US and NATO response as to why the US and NATO are ignoring the second part of the OSCE Istana and Istanbul agreements about not enhancing a country’s security at the expense of other countries. This is the core issue of NATO expansion for Russia and they want an answer.
If you listen to the whole CN Live interview betw Joe Lauria, Alex Mercouris, and Scot Ritter, this latest seems to fit precisely with Moscow’s game plan, … Washington is being played like a fiddle, …all aimed to end in a new OSCE with Russia full partner, … and the Anglo/Zionist Empire largely out.
Thanks for the reference, wasn’t aware of that video. I’ll watch Thursday.
Update: this is a REALLY good video interview. Highly recommend watching this. I learned a LOT.
WATCH: New CN Live! — ‘A Bear Trap in Ukraine?’
February 2, 2022
Alexander Mercouris & Scott Ritter engaged in an astonishingly wide-ranging and deep discussion on CN Live! about what’s next for Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and NATO.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/02/watch-new-cn-live-a-bear-trap-in-ukraine/
I will be very curious to see how this situation progresses though to my mind the idea that talks are happening at all is a good thing although I agree with your point Richard concerning what these talks might actually accomplish and to what purpose. NATO is the sticky wicket for Russia (indeed for many of us)… If it is difficult for me, as an American, to believe what NATO says with regard to mostly everything, I am not sure if any of Russia’s concerns will be legitimately addressed and their apprehension is understandable…
NATO “expands”, that is exactly what NATO does…
It is obvious the US wants and expects Putin to attack Ukraine.
It is just as obvious the US thinks such an attack will be small or invite massive counterinsurgency problems.
Ukraine is forever tied to Mother Russia why? History for one and Chernobyl for two. The US has publicly declared that they are in the process of “containing” Russia, now how stupid does NATO think Russia is ? Chernobyl has the potential to have horrible consequences if mismanaged. Now do we think the US is worried about that ? All the way across the Atlantic, ? Hell no, we are hell bent on world domination,that’s what it boils down to and how many die while we are in the process is not a factor, can we even be trusted.?
I would dearly love to see Russia’s response to that hooey. It was completely tone-deaf to actual events on the ground and ignored the salient facts that 1) Russia’s troops are entirely stationed IN RUSSIA and 2) Ukraine is not a NATO member, so what’s up with this Article 5 BS? And if Russia responds to Ukrainian aggression in the Donbass and kills a few “observers” from NATO-allied nations, well, what were they doing there?
Additional observations from Gilbert Doctorow: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2022/02/03/are-biden-and-putin-deal-makers/
There isbreally just one positive – and that is reopening the intermediate range missile negotiations.
Even this has a weird caveat on including other weapons — worded weardly. I think this is rsther simple — introduce weapin categories where Russia currently has an advantage. This does not solve European problem.
Other proposals are not serious.
Russia does not need to inspect any sites for the presence of Tomohawk. The presence of Tomohawk compatible launcher is the problem. I do not know what kind of missile defense dystem they actually have,
Makes no sense thst US is requesting unspection at site of its choosing — while the real questiommn is the status if launchers that thresten Russia. If US or NATO believe a psrticular site is dangerous to them -/ name it. No choosing.
The idea that Russia will withdraw and leave those regions exposed, is ludicrous. Even recently Kiyv was debating storming the area and pushing population
Out into Russia. As for NATO military in Ukraine, what sre they there for? Helpling ethnically cleanse the ares?
Other than ethnic clleansung — does Ukraine or NATO have a plan for reintegrating the region? No Minsk implementstion? This part of proposal is joke.
Removal of all NATO infrastructure from member territories that joined frim 1977 — that is signed but ignored. Russia will work through OSCE. Thst was presumably its purpose,
Refusal to explain why concerns were ignored -/ addressed US cherrypicking.
There is a GOOD reason why Russia is asking for. Legally binding sgrerment, No party will volunteer saying why.
Here is why.
US most often signs international agrerments by the president. This Agrerment can change when President changes, There are also UN Resolutions. US changes its mind on that. It beats others for vuolsting UN resolutions bur exempts itself?
US position is that no agreemments have a strebgth of a treaty unless Ciongress RATIFIES.
Russia often keeps abuding by own agreement, ratified or not. Even when US violates sgreements because they are not rstified.
By asking for a ratified legally binding agreement and not getting anywhere, Russia will look at the RATIFIED treaties for violations, giving Russia right to withdraw.
There may be other such time bkmbs but I know of one, Bucharest agreement in Ukrainian borders.
Treaty was violated by Ukraine before the coup, but especially after coup,
One violation was the terms of Siviet Cinstitution thst was invoked to gain undependence. It required Ukraine to hold referendum on Crimea as they had the right to decide if they wish to go back to prev1953 status, back to Russia. After coup in 2014, Ukraine declared it revolution (Biden called it the Revolution of Dignity. Revolutions essentially have no legsl cintinuity — Ukjraune promptly csncelked many tresties and memberships without due orocess,
US did not uphold its ibligations throughout Ukraine post coup legal matters.
So, while asking for security guarantees with NATO, US and all 34 members of OSCE – in the case of no response to core issues — Russia may withdraw from Buksrest avreement.
Cinsequence? Ukraine borders eith Russia will becoome UNRECOIGNUZED,
By now there are many proofs oif treaty violations, Russia was pstient. It conducted legslly required referendum. Legally rejoined Russia,
And because of violation of Bucharest treaty, Russiia withdraws, Kiev other agreements csn be cancelled,
Other things msy lurk in Baltics.
I’m not familiar with the Bucharest agreement, but if what you say is true, these are interesting points – that Russia might withdraw from it, claiming it is null and void after Ukraine’s actions. This also applies to the claim that Russia is violating the agreement to assure Ukraine’s territorial integrity and not threaten Ukraine – which is also null and void after the coup, at least in Russia’s viewpoint. I’ll have to look into that more closely.
Sorry, I just noticed I caaed it Bucharest Agreement — it is BUDAPEST Agreement. Signed by Russsia, US and UK. In 1994. Basically, Yeltsin signed it. UzS and UK just wanted nukes to be transfered to Russua, and promised to respect sovereignty and territorialm integrity. Victoria zNuland and US violated itl, . then Russia returned Crimea, But Minsk would federalize Ukraine — however keep borders same.
US and UK now claim that they are the gusrantors of Ukrainian territorial integrity under Budspest agrerment.
But US coup and militaryv presence, is a violation.
Whike Crimea return to Russia is linked to Ukraine denying Crimea referenbdum, Minsk is following Budapest. Without Minsk, Russia surelly would want to exit Budapestt and notb recoognize borders.