Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov today warned NATO the Kremlin’s security concerns need to be addressed, or else.
“I said that we would find forms to respond, including by military and military-technical means [if NATO ignores Moscow’s concerns again],” the high-ranking Russian diplomat told TASS.
“I reaffirm this. We will have to balance the activities that are of concern to us, because they increase the risks, with our countermeasures,” Ryabkov said.
On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry released two Russian draft documents on the provision of legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO.
Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier called on NATO to begin substantive talks on reliable long-term security guarantees to Russia. He stressed that Russia needs legally binding guarantees because the West has failed to fulfill its verbal commitments.
Russia’s concerns focus mainly on stopping NATO’s encroachment on the Russian Federation’s near abroad.
5 comments
Of course you know, this means war!” Bugs Bunny
I agree with Putin….as usual. He represents his people and they like him in a similar way that we like Trump….different, but similar. They are real men and get the job done…unlike your current pathetic half-whitted milk-sop President or the loony left UN and their bizarre non-representative bullshit.
My opinion is you should be dumping Europe and making allies with Russia and the former Eastern Bloc countries and look to your own problems, which are much worse than Russia’s issue, and which should be sorted in a Trumpian- Putanesque manner…and fast. Or you will be living under socialism in the way your vile media likes to pretend Russia does to it’s citizens…
Thanks, Joe! FJB
Putin isn’t perfect by any stretch. After all, he is a politician; he’s taken bribes over time and has long been in bed with the oligarchs in Russia just as we’ve seen with Ukraine and others in Eastern Europe. Putin also wants to reclaim Russian diplomatic ‘dominance’/influence over the former Russian Empire/Soviet lands and satellites it lost after 1991, although some of those countries want very little to do with Russia beyond perhaps trade. (The Baltic states made clear in 1989 that they wanted nothing to do with Russia post-Soviet era, and there have long been partisan divides in Ukraine and Georgia on balancing relations between the U.S. and Russia.)
But he nails it on ‘wokeness’. He sees liberalism for what it is: the third generation of fascism/communism. You can’t invade every nation that isn’t Western and liberal and believe you can kill their ancient cultures as we’ve done now for better than 20 years, especially in the Islamic world. If you reject God, you have no spiritual guide and thus reject morality in general. Multiculturalism as we’ve known it here has totally fractured our society, and there is no shared understanding of what America means or what her place is in the world, never mind history. We’ve stretched ourselves to the limit and now we are losing our deterrence in Central Asia and the Pacific due to a generation of piss-poor leadership.
Neutrality, militarily, is the key for Ukraine – but hands off, let Ukraine join the EU.
A compromise on demarcation lines will need to be reached.
However, Russia had no intention of adhering to previous treaties.
No more than the Third Reich had observed their own signatures.
Insofar as Ukraine is concerned:
One cannot force a nation that does not want Russian dominance into such alliances.
Russia’s hegemony in Ukraine was a fait accompli when it invaded Donbass.
https://tinyurl.com/y3hks5ja
Our means to enforce the Budapest Memorandum is impotence.
The same impotence Obama exemplified after, and during the lead up to, 2914.
TO QUOTE: “One of the often quoted historic examples of international guarantees that is considered classic are those given to Belgium in the nineteenth century. Its international guarantees of eternal neutrality were signed in 1831 by the five great European powers — Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia. However, later, they were brutally and cynically violated twice — in 1914 and 1940 by the aggressive German Empire and the Third Reich, respectively. And this is despite the fact that over the interwar period, Germany has officially confirmed Belgium’s neutrality guarantees on at least two occasions — on January 30, 1937, and on April 28, 1939.
So, considering the current volatility in the international relations and the weakening of the UN’s role, to seriously rely on any so-called “international security guarantees” is obviously nothing more than wasting both time and resources, while being trapped by illusions — the practice as irresponsible as extremely dangerous, as Ukraine learned firsthand in 2014…” REF: https://tinyurl.com/yxbz9m37