A Sino-Russian military alliance is gratuitous (as of now)
December 16, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
"The New York Times got the story correct when its Moscow bureau watched the outcome of the videoconference between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping yesterday and assessed that the US’ two main adversaries “sought mutual support in their conflicts with the West but have not yet declared a formal alliance.”
The Sino-Russian alliance is a geopolitical reality today and one has to be colour blind not to see its spectacular hues. Yet, it is not (yet) a military alliance. To apply a western analogy, while the Sino-Russian partnership has great potential to model itself after the European Union, neither Moscow nor Beijing desires an Eurasian NATO to create synergy for it.
The westerners have a comprehension problem. Fundamentally, that is because of their colonial past. Yet, six EU member states, all who have declared their non-alignment with military alliances, have shown that there is life beyond the NATO: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Curiously, none of them has a gory colonial history.
Neither Russia nor China has a colonial past. They have been imperial powers but their greatness didn’t come out of slave labour or plundered wealth out of Africa, West Asia or the Southern Hemisphere. This important distinction is at the core of today’s geopolitical conundrum.
The Putin-Xi videoconference has taken place at a crucial juncture in regional politics with tensions rising over Ukraine and Taiwan. But the two superpowers assess that as things stand, each side is perfectly capable of securing its core interests on its own.
In fact, many American analysts also admit that the US will not risk a military intervention in Ukraine or Taiwan, not only due to the spectre of defeat but also the catastrophic consequences for the world order. Indeed, if conflict situations erupt simultaneously in the two theatres, it becomes a nightmarish scenario for the Biden administration.
In an editorial today devoted to the Xi-Putin virtual meeting yesterday, the Chinese Communist Party daily Global Times wrote, “To contain China and Russia simultaneously is arrogant thinking. Although the US has an advantage in terms of strength, it cannot crush either China or Russia. Having a strategic collision with any of the two countries will bring unbearable costs to the US. It’s a nightmare for Washington when China and Russia join hands… Threatening and coercing a major power is a bad choice. It is especially unwise when doing so against two major powers. Washington should learn to respect the core interests of the other major powers.”
Thus, while the prospect of a Sino-Russian military alliance hangs like the sword of Damocles, given the trajectory of China’s and Russia’s accelerating surge as world powers, Moscow and Beijing may never have any need of that sword. But the Putin-Xi videoconference was a stark reminder of it.
The Biden Administration cannot browbeat Russia or China. Over Ukraine, stirrings of rethink are already appearing. According to reports, the Biden Administration is counselling Kiev to act with self-restraint, work on granting autonomy to the breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and seek a political solution within the framework of the Minsk agreements (which has been Moscow’s suggestion, too.)
Equally, behind the rhetoric, Washington may be engaging with Moscow as regards the latter’s “red lines” over NATO’s further eastward expansion and the Western military deployments close to Russia’s borders. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov conveyed Russia’s security guarantee suggestions to the US in a letter handed over to the US Deputy Secretary of State Karen Donfried who visited Moscow yesterday.
Beijing is au fait with these developments. All the same, significantly, Xi Jinping told Putin that China plans to expand cooperation with Russia and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member countries to support security in the region. The exact formulation per a Chinese foreign ministry statement quoting Xi is as follows:
“The Chinese side intends to continue to develop flexible and diversified cooperation with Russia and CSTO member countries and stand up for security and stability in the region.”
The top Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov later told reporters in Moscow that Putin and Xi also discussed “literally all pressing and important issues” ranging from security guarantees for Russia in Europe to the creation of new alliances in the Asian-Pacific region.
The Sino-Russian alliance is unlike any that the US today can claim to have with any of its Western partners. The readouts of the remarks by Xi and Putin yesterday bear testimony to it. (here and here) The heart of the matter is that the Sino-Russian alliance is qualitatively superior to the US-led western alliance system in its sheer contemporaneity.
Washington is hard-pressed to match it, as the recent clumsy faux pas over AUKUS shows. The Biden Administration is resorting to cherry-picking and bragging that the US has more “allies” than China or Russia can count.
The mutual respect and mutual trust in the Sino-Russian alliance is steadily impacting the security of the Asia-Pacific region as well. By coincidence or not, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolay Patrushev, accompanied by a high-level delegation of representatives of Russia’s Defense Ministry, the Federal Security Service, the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation was on a “working visit” to Phnom Penh yesterday.
The Russian readout said, “The issues of Russian-Cambodian military cooperation and interaction on the anti-terrorist track were discussed. The parties noted that cooperation along the lines of power structures and special agencies and services is one of the foundations of bilateral relations between Russia and Cambodia.”
Cambodia is one China’s closest neighbours and a key ASEAN partner. The geopolitics of Cambodia is inseparable from the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy. Ream Naval Base on the Gulf of Thailand is the largest military base in Southeast Asia.
On December 10, Washington announced new sanctions on Cambodia, including an arms embargo to counter PLA’s influence in Cambodia. Patrushev’s visit came a week after that.
Patrushev’s interlocutor in Phnom Penh was General Hun Manet who is also the commander of the Royal Cambodian Army, the head of special forces and the country’s counterterrorism force. Hun Manet is the eldest son of Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen.
Succinctly put, Cambodia becomes yet another template of the Sino-Russian alliance in play. A similar play is happening in Vienna over Iran. This has been going on for some time also over North Korea. Of course, this is very much in evidence in Afghanistan.
In fact, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said recently at the Russia-India-China (RIC) ministerial format that it is necessary for RIC countries to coordinate their approaches on the threats of terrorism, radicalisation and drug trafficking.
Clearly, even in India, which has been bombarded with American spin about the negative fallouts of Sino-Russian alliance for its national security, there is appreciation today of that alliance as a factor of peace and global stability. Thus, on December 13, Russia, China and India filed a draft Security Council resolution on December 13 on aid for the Sahel region, where western intervention has spectacularly backfired as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen.
The bottom line is that a military alliance becomes gratuitous in the 21st century when the objectives of creating space for a more democratised world order guaranteeing the security and sovereignty of small and big countries alike and consolidating the emergent multipolarity can as well be realised peacefully through diplomacy.
However, a caveat must be put here. Putin has shared with Xi Russia’s specific suggestions sent to the American side aimed at developing legal guarantees for ensuring Russian security. According to a report in today’s Izvestia, the main issues covered in the letter were focused on “the attempts made by the US and NATO to alter the military-political situation in Europe in their favour.”
Herein lies the catch. The legally binding issue here is, in effect, about amending the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which defines the geographical scope of the alliance. This is easier said than done, as a consensus will be needed amongst the NATO allies and approval by the US Congress.
At any rate, Washington’s track record on the sanctity of international treaties is highly dubious. Therefore, how all this pans out remains to be seen. The Russia-China alliance is inextricably linked to that. "
https://www.indianpunchline.com/a-si...ous-as-of-now/
A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.
Some communications by The LORD with various European political leaders:
Telephone conversation with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson.
December 13, 2021 19:05
"Both leaders expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Glasgow under the United Kingdom’s chairmanship. The Prime Minister noted the contribution that Russia had made to the conference, as well as the Action on Forests and Land Use.
Like other Western leaders, Boris Johnson expressed concern about Russia’s alleged large-scale troop movements near the Ukrainian border.
In this regard, Vladimir Putin provided in-depth and principled assessments of the current situation in Ukraine.
Specific examples of Kiev's destructive course on derailing the Minsk agreements, which are the only viable path towards resolving the internal Ukraine crisis, were given.
It was also pointed out that the Ukrainian authorities are purposefully aggravating the situation on the line of contact and are using heavy weapons and attack drones, which are prohibited by the Minsk Package of Measures in the conflict zone. Ukraine’s policy of discrimination against Russian-speaking people was pointed out as well.
It was emphasised that all this is happening amid the active military “exploration” of Ukraine’s territory by NATO, something that poses a direct threat to Russia’s security.
With this in mind, Vladimir Putin stated the need to immediately begin talks in order to develop clear international legal agreements that can preclude NATO’s further eastward advance and the deployment of weapons that pose a threat to Russia in neighbouring states, primarily Ukraine. Russia will present draft documents to this end.
The leaders agreed to continue to discuss the issues raised during the conversation through various channels."
Telephone conversation with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson • President of Russia
Telephone conversation with President of Finland Sauli Niinistö
Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of Finland Sauli Niinistö.
December 14, 2021 16:05
"The main attention was paid to the issues related to the Ukrainian domestic crisis. President of Russia Vladimir Putin told Sauli Niinistö about the results of his talks with US President Joseph Biden via videoconference on December 7, 2021, and made principled assessments of the developments regarding Ukraine.
He emphasised the importance of the complete and unconditional fulfilment by Kiev of the Minsk Package of Measures.
The President of Russia noted, in part, that in violation of the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian authorities are more and more obviously placing their bets on the use of force. Thus, they are using heavy weapons and attack drones in Donbass.
In this context, Vladimir Putin again stressed the importance of immediately starting talks with the United States and NATO. The goal of the talks would be to draft international legal security guarantees for Russia, ruling out NATO’s further movement eastward and the deployment of weapons systems threatening Russia in Ukraine and other adjacent states.
Vladimir Putin emphasised that this fully conformed to the principle of indivisible security sealed in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1999 Istanbul Charter. In this context, Vladimir Putin supported President Niinistö’s initiative to convene a summit in 2025 in honour of the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
A number of current bilateral issues were discussed. The leaders reaffirmed their striving to continue developing mutually beneficial cooperation, including trade and the economy. In addition, emphasis was laid on further cooperation in regional affairs, including in the north and the Arctic.
The leaders exchanged greetings in connection with the approaching New Year and Christmas holidays."
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67359
Telephone conversation with President of France Emmanuel Macron
Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron. The conversation was initiated by the French side.
December 14, 2021 16:40
"Following an exchange of views about efforts to combat the spread of the coronavirus infection that are being undertaken in both countries, the presidents focused on current international affairs.
With regard to the question on the situation on the Belarus-EU border raised by Emmanuel Macron, the President spoke in favour of discussing these problems during direct contacts between EU representatives and Minsk. The fact that Poland and the Baltic States are violating their international obligations to protect the rights of refugees and that the migration crisis needs to be overcome in accordance with humanitarian law was noted. Hope was expressed that the migrant-related problem on the border would be removed from the agenda soon.
The sides presented their principled assessments of the current situation in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin provided specific examples of violations by Kiev of the Minsk agreements, which is the only viable path towards overcoming the internal Ukraine crisis. It was also noted that the Ukrainian authorities are purposefully aggravating the situation on the line of contact, and are doing so with the complicity of a number of Western countries. In addition, modern weapons are being pumped into Ukraine, which poses direct threat to Russia's security.
The President emphasised the importance of immediately launching international talks to develop legally stated guarantees to forestall NATO’s further eastward expansion and the deployment of weapons that threaten Russia in neighbouring states, primarily, Ukraine.
This issue also came up during a recent videoconference with US President Joseph Biden.
The President called on his French partners to be receptive to these concerns and to take part in discussing them.
The state of affairs in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement was reviewed in depth as well. Vladimir Putin briefed his counterpart on the trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Sochi on November 26, which was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the signing of the Statement on Nagorno-Karabakh on November 9, 2020. He updated his counterpart on the measures being taken locally to comply with the ceasefire, to have refugees return home, and to restore trade and economic links and transport service.
Hope was expressed that the meeting of the heads of the EU bodies with Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan scheduled for December 15 would also be useful.
The expediency of stepping up the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group with co-chairs (Russia, the United States, and France) was supported.
The parties agreed to continue to maintain close personal contact."
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67362
THE LORD has published a copy of the Russian draft treaty to NaGastan and NATO.
NATO vows not to accept Ukraine to Alliance — draft treaty
17 Dec, 19:45
The parties also vow not to "deploy land-based intermediate-and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties"
"NATO member states take obligations that rule the further expansion of the Alliance, including by accession of Ukraine or other states, says the draft agreement on guarantees of security, presented by Russian Foreign Ministry Friday.
"All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States," the document says.
NATO member states also vow "not to conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia."
"In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the draft agreement says.
The parties also vow not to
"deploy land-based intermediate-and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties."
According to the agreement, Russia and all states that were NATO members by May 27, 1997, vow not to deploy their military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other European states beyond those deployed by May 27, 1997.
"With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties," the document reads.
Consultations mechanism
According to the draft agreement, "the Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries."
"The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region)," the treaty says.
Under the proposed agreement, the parties "shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties."
"The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities," the document reads.
In order to address issues and settle problems, the treaty proposes to "use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council."
Meanwhile,
"the Parties shall regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges, inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main provisions of their military doctrines."
"All existing mechanisms and tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure transparency and predictability of military activities," the document reads.
"Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties."
The document underscores that the treaty
"shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations."
"This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States.
With respect to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its deposit," says the document, adding that any signatory may withdraw from it by notifying the depositary."
NATO vows not to accept Ukraine to Alliance — draft treaty - World - TASS
Putin and Xi plot their SWIFT escape
Russia and China's announcement of an independent financial trading platform will free nations under US sanctions from western intrusion into their commercial activities.
By Pepe Escobar
December 17 2021
"Vladimir Putin got straight to the point. At the opening of his one hour and fourteen minute video conversation with Xi Jinping on 15 December, he described Russia-China relations as “an example of genuine inter-state cooperation in the 21st century.”Their myriad levels of cooperation have been known for years now – from trade, oil and gas, finance, aerospace and the fight against Covid-19, to the progressive interconnection of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).
But now the stage was set for the announcement of a serious counter-move in their carefully coordinated ballet opposing the relentless Hybrid War/Cold War 2.0 combo deployed by Empire.
As Assistant to the President for Foreign Policy Yuri Ushakov succinctly explained, Putin and Xi agreed to create an “independent financial structure for trade operations that could not be influenced by other countries.”
Diplomatic sources, off the record, confirmed the structure may be announced by a joint summit before the end of 2022.
This is a stunning game-changer in more ways than one. It had been extensively discussed in previous bilaterals and in preparations for BRICS summits – mostly centered on increasing the share of yuan and rubles in Russia-China settlements, bypassing the US dollar, and opening new stock market options for Russian and Chinese investors.
Now we’ve come to the crunch. And the catalyzing event was none other than US hawks floating the – financially nuclear – idea of expelling Russia from SWIFT, the messaging network used by 11,000+ banks in over 200 countries, as well as financial institutions, for rapid money transfers worldwide.
Cutting off Russia from SWIFT would be part of a harsh new sanctions package developed in response to an ‘invasion’ of Ukraine that will never happen – mainly because the only ones praying for it are professional NATO warmongers.
Profiting from a strategic blunder
Once again, an American strategic blunder offers the Russia-China self-described “comprehensive strategic partnership” the chance to advance their coordination.
Ushakov put it very diplomatically: it’s time to bypass a SWIFT mechanism “influenced by third countries” to form “an independent financial structure.”
That amounts to a serious game-changer for the entire Global South – as scores of nations yearn to be released from a de facto US dollar dictatorship, complete with recurring Fed quantitative easing circus packages.
Russia and China have been experimenting with their alternative payment systems for quite a while now: the Russian SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages) and the Chinese CIPS (Cross Border Interbank Payment System).
It won’t be easy, as the most powerful Chinese banks are deep into SWIFT and have expressed their reservations about SPFS. Yet, they will have to inevitably integrate prior to the launch of the new mechanism, possibly in late 2022.
Once the most important Russian and Chinese banks – from Sberbank to the Bank of China – adopt the system, the path opens for other banks across Eurasia and the Global South to join in.
In the long run, SWIFT, prone to non-stop American political interference, will be increasingly marginalized, or restricted to Atlanticist latitudes.
Bypassing the US dollar, on trade and all sorts of financial settlements, is an absolutely central plank of the ever-evolving Russia-China notion of a multipolar world.
The road will be long, of course, especially when it comes to offering a solid counterpoint to the US-controlled global financial system, a maze that includes the humongous investment houses of the BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street variety, with their interlocking shareholding of virtually every major multinational company.
Yet a SWIFT escape will rapidly gain momentum, because it is inextricably linked to a series of developments that Putin-Xi touched upon in their conversation, the most important of which are:
1. The progressive interconnection of BRI and EAEU, offering expanding roles to the BRICS-run New Development Bank (NDB) as well as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
2. The increasing geopolitical and geo-economic reach of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), especially after the admission of Iran in October.
3. And crucially, the upcoming Chinese presidency of the BRICS in 2022.
China in 2022 will invest deeply in BRICS+. This expanded BRICS club will be linked to a development process that includes:
1. The consolidation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – a massive East Asia trade deal uniting China, the ASEAN 10 and Japan, and South Korea, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
2. The African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA).
3. And the memoranda of understanding signed between the EAEU and MERCOSUR and between the EAEU and ASEAN.
Anchoring West Asia
Yaroslav Lissovolik, one of the world’s leading experts on BRICS+, argues that it’s now time for BRICS+ 2.0, operating in a system that opens “the possibility for bilateral and plurilateral agreements to complement the core network of regional alliances formed by BRICS countries and their respective regional neighbors.”
So if we’re talking about a major qualitative jump in terms of economic development across the Global South, the question is inevitable. What about West Asia?
All these interconnections, plus an escape from SWIFT, will certainly profit the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), arguably the flagship BRI project, to which Beijing plans to annex Afghanistan.
CPEC will be progressively connected to the future Iran-China corridor via Afghanistan, part of the 20 year Iran-China strategic deal in which BRI projects will be prominently featured. Iran and China already trade in yuan and rials, so settlements between Iran and China in a non-SWIFT mechanism will be a given.
What happened to Iran is a classic example of SWIFT becoming hostage of imperial political manipulation. Iranian banks were expelled from SWIFT in 2012, because of pressure from the usual suspects. In 2016, access was restored as part of the JCPOA, clinched in 2015. Yet in 2018, under the Trump administration, Iran was once again cut off from SWIFT.
None of that will ever happen with Iran joining the new Russia-China mechanism.
And that leads us to the interconnection of China’s BRI expansion in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The reconstruction of Syria may be largely financed via the non-SWIFT mechanism. Same for China buying Iraqi energy. Same for the reconstruction of a Yemen possibly hosting a Chinese-owned port, part of the “string of pearls.”
Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Israel may remain in the US financial sphere of influence, or lack thereof. And even if there is no BRICS nation anchoring West Asia, and no regional integration economic agreement on the horizon, the role of the economic integrator is bound to be eventually played by China.
China will play a similar role to Brazil anchoring MERCOSUR, Russia anchoring the EAEU and South Africa anchoring the SADC/SACU.
Both BRI and the EAEU will get a tremendous boost by bypassing SWIFT. You simply can’t go multipolar if you trade using (devalued) imperial legal tender.
BRI, EAEU and those interlocking economic development agreements, combined with digital technology, will be integrating billions of people in the Global South.
Think of a possible, auspicious future spelling out cheap telecom delivering financial services and world market access, in a non-dollar environment, to all those who have been so far cut off from a truly globalized economy."
Putin and Xi plot their SWIFT escape
Trade and investment sure beats warfare and sanctions.
Exit Nord Stream 2, Enter Power of Siberia 2
Pepe Escobar
December 23, 2021
"Military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement.
Coming , it did sound like a bolt from the sky:
“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the U.S. frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But it’s something, not just verbal assurances.”
And that’s how Russia-U.S. relations come to the definitive crunch – after an interminable series of polite red alerts coming from Moscow.
Putin once again had to specify that Russia is looking for “indivisible, equitable security” – a principle established since Helsinki in 1975 – even though he no longer sees the U.S. as a dependable “partner”, that diplomatically nicety so debased by the Empire since the end of the USSR.
The “frequently withdrawing from treaties” passage can easily be referred to as Washington in 2002 under Bush Jr. pulling out of the ABM treaty signed between the U.S. and the USSR in 1972. Or it could be referred to as the U.S. under Trump destroying the JCPOA signed with Iran and guaranteed by the UN. Precedents abound.
Putin was once again exercising the Taoist patience so characteristic of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: explaining the obvious not only to a Russian but also a global audience. The Global South may easily understand this reference; “When international law and the UN Charter interfere, they [the U.S.] declare it all obsolete and unnecessary.”
Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko had been uncommonly assertive –
leaving nothing for the imagination:
“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about switching over from a military or a military-technical scenario to a political process that will strengthen the security of all countries in the area of the OCSE, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. If that doesn’t work out, we signaled to them [NATO] that we will also move over to creating counter threats, but it will then be too late to ask us why we made these decisions and why we deployed these systems.”
So in the end it comes down to Europeans facing “the prospect of turning the continent into a field of military confrontation.” That will be the inevitable consequence of a NATO “decision” actually decided in Washington.
Incidentally: any possible, future “counter threats” will be coordinated between Russia and China.
Mr. Zircon is on the line, Sir
Every sentient being from Atlanticist shores to Eurasian steppes by now knows the content of the Russian draft agreements on security guarantees presented to the Americans, as
by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.
<em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxcOSAaUjA" target="_blank">
Key provisions include no further NATO expansion; no Ukraine admission; no NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia; Russia and NATO agreeing not to deploy intermediate and short-range missiles in areas from where they can hit each other’s territory; establishment of hotlines; and the NATO-Russia Council actively involved in resolving disputes.
Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs extensively reiterated that the Americans received “detailed explanations of the logic of the Russian approach”, so the ball is in Washington’s court.
Well, National Security advisor Jake Sullivan at first seemed to kick it, when he admitted, on the record, that Putin may not want to “invade” Ukraine.
Then there were rumblings that the Americans would get back to Moscow this week with their own “concrete security proposals”, after de facto writing the script for their NATO minions, invariably conveyed in spectacularly mediocre fashion by secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg.
The Ukraine narrative didn’t change an inch: “severe measures” – of an economic and financial nature – remain in the pipeline if Russia engages in “further aggression” in Ukraine.
Moscow was not fooled. Ryabkow had to specify, once again, that the Russian proposals were on a bilateral basis. Translation: we talk only to those with deciding power, not to minions. The involvement of other countries, Ryabkov said, “will deprive them of their meaning.”
From the start, NATO’s response had been predictably obvious: Russia is conducting a “substantial, unprovoked, and unjustified” military buildup along its border with Ukraine and is making “false … claims of Ukrainian and NATO provocations”.
That once again proved the point it’s a monumental waste of time to discuss with yapping chihuahuas of the Stoltenberg variety, for whom “NATO expansion will continue, whether Russia likes it or not.”
In fact, whether U.S. and NATO functionaries like it or not, what’s really happening in the realpolitk realm is Russia dictating new terms from a position of power. In a nutshell: you may learn the new game in town in a peaceful manner, civilized dialogue included, or you will learn the hard way via a dialogue with Mr. Iskandr, Mr. Kalibr, Mr. Khinzal and Mr. Zircon.
The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has extensively analysed for years now all the details of Russia’s overwhelming military dominance, hypersonic and otherwise, across the European space – as well as the dire consequences if the U.S. and NATO minions “decide that they want to continue to play dumb.”
Martyanov has also noted that Russia “understands the split with the West and is ready to take any consequences, including, already declining, shrinkage of trade and reduction of the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU.”
That’s where the whole ballet around the security guarantees intersects with the crucial Pipelineistan angle. To sum it all up: exit Nord Stream 2, enter Power of Siberia 2.
So let’s revisit why the looming energy catastrophe in the EU is not forcing anyone in Russia to lose his/her sleep.
Dancing in the Siberian night
One the top takeaways of the strategic Putin-Xi video conference last week was the immediate future of Power of Siberia 2 – which will snake in across Mongolia to deliver up to 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to China.
So it was hardly an accident that Putin received Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh in the Kremlin, the day after he talked to Xi, to discuss Power of Siberia 2. The key parameters of the pipeline have already been set, a feasibility study will be completed in early 2022, and the deal – minus last-minute pricing tune-ups – is practically clinched.
Power of Siberia 2 follows the 2,200 km long Power of Siberia 1, launched in 2019 from Eastern Siberia to northern China and the focus of a $400 billion deal struck between Gazprom and China’s CNPC. Power of Siberia 1’s full capacity will be reached in 2025, when it will be supplying 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually.
Power of Siberia 2, a much bigger operation, was planned years ago, but it was hard to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom wanted Western Siberia to Xinjiang across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia straight into central China. The Chinese eventually prevailed. The final route across Mongolia was decided only two months ago. Construction should begin in 2024.
This is a massive geoeconomic game-changer, totally in line with the increasingly sophisticated Russia-China strategic partnership. But it’s also supremely important geopolitically (Remember Xi: China supports Russia’s “core interests”).
The gas for Power of Siberia 2 will come from the same fields currently supplying the EU market. Whatever demented concoctions the European Commission – and the new German government – may apply on stalling the operation of Nord Stream 2, Gazprom’s main focus will be China.
It doesn’t matter for Gazprom that China as a customer in the near future will not fully replace the whole EU market. What matters is the steady business flow and the absence of infantile politicking. For China what matters is an extra, guaranteed overland supply rote boosting its strategy of “escaping from Malacca”: the possibility, in case Cold War 2.0 turns hot, that the U.S. Navy would eventually block maritime shipping of energy sources via Southeast Asia to China.
Beijing of course is all over the place when it comes to buying Russian natural gas. The Chinese have a 30% stake in Novatek’s $27 billion Yamal project and a 20% stake in the $21 billion Arctic project.
So welcome to 2022 and the new, high stakes realpolitik Great Game.
U.S. elites had been terrified of playing Russia against China because they fear this would lead Germany to ally with Russia and China – leaving the Empire of Chaos out in the cold.
And that leads to the “mystery” inside the enigma of the whole Ukrainian face: use it to force the EU away from Russian natural resources.
Russia is turning the whole show upside down. As an energy superpower, instead of an internally corroded EU dictated by NATO, Russia will be mostly focused on its Asian customers.
In parallel, military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement. Lavrov confirmed the first round of Russia-U.S. talks on security guarantees will be held in early 2022.
Are these ultimatums? Not really. Seems like Ryabkov, with notable didacticism, will have to keep explaining it over and over again: “We do not speak in the language of ultimatums with anyone. We have a responsible attitude towards our own security and the security of others. The point is not that we have issued an ultimatum, not at all, but that the seriousness of our warning must not be underestimated.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...-of-siberia-2/
Last edited by OhOh; 24-12-2021 at 01:10 PM.
Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference
The President’s annual news conference was broadcast live by Rossiya 1, Channel One, NTV and Rossiya 24 television channels, as well as Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio Rossii radio stations.
December 23, 2021
One of many questions and THE LORDS reply:
"Pavel Krasnov: Thank you.
Pavel Krasnov, Channel One:
Mr President, the issue of gas is dominating minds, above all in Europe, of course. We are seeing an extremely acute gas crisis. However, when it broke out and prices soared, we started to hear endless accusations directed at Gazprom and Russia in general with ever increasing frequency. Another round of accusations on restricting supplies via the Yamal-Europe pipeline came the other day. Generally speaking, the accusations are contradictory: we are accused of monopolising the market, while also not supplying enough gas.
Yesterday, our Ukrainian neighbours made some news. Naftogaz again asked the European Commission for nothing less than to compel Gazprom to offer more gas for sale. This seems funny, of course, but the Europeans are not in a laughing mood. The situation in Europe is very difficult: gas prices set an absolute record – more than $2,000. This never happened before and was impossible to even imagine. But is Gazprom to blame for this?
Mr President, here is my question: is there at least a tiny grain of truth in these accusations against Gazprom?
Vladimir Putin:
Certainly not. There is no truth to them. This is like trying to say that down is up.
Our colleague here asked what the West does not understand. They lie all the time. This is why they are muddying the waters. Gazprom supplies all the gas requested by our counterparties under their contracts. Moreover, it has even increased supplies by almost 12 percent, I think, or by about 20 percent if we exclude Russia’s immediate neighbours. Overall, it is increasing supplies to Europe as well.
In my opinion, this is the only country, the only global company that behaves like this. I have already said at many meetings, including international events, that American suppliers withdrew considerable amounts from Europe, from the European market, I believe. I think the total amounts to 14 million tonnes of LNG. They took it to premium markets, first to Latin America, to Brazil, and then to Asia: China, South Korea and Japan. Because they pay more for this gas. The Europeans thought they had premium markets, but no. It appears that these markets are in other places as well. Prices began to soar. There are many factors: bad weather, a long and cold spring last year, a shortage of gas in underground storage facilities and windmills failing to work. All this contributed to the shortage.
In the process, government authorities are harassing their oil and gas companies, which do not invest enough in expanding production as a result. This is how the shortage emerged. They did not pump enough gas into underground storage facilities and now they are taking it out in a big way. Of course, this is a problem. Now some Western operators are storing their gas in Ukraine’s underground facilities. They are actively withdrawing it and using it in their own countries. This is understandable since the gas from underground facilities is many times cheaper than on the market.
We were saying – and I want to repeat it – that there was no point in destroying long-term contracts. The European Commission was telling us: no, it is necessary to move to market relations, the market will set it right. This is how the market made its adjustment – over $2,000 for a thousand cubic metres.
Take it. No!
You are correct, just yesterday they were shouting: help, this is Russia and Gazprom expanding and taking over the market. We are not taking over anything. Indeed, we supply a lot, but we are not the only suppliers to the European market. However, we are probably the only ones who are increasing our supplies.
We are being told to pump to cover the needs of the spot market, since they need to first meet the demand of their counterparties under long-term contracts.
Look at what is happening. Germany is our largest consumer in Europe. I might have my numbers off a little, but they take about 50–51 billion cubic metres a year. We supplied an extra 5.6 billion cubic metres there, which is more than 10 percent. Listen, this is a decent amount. We supplied an extra 4.4 billion cubic metres of natural gas to Italy.
You just mentioned the Yamal–Europe natural gas pipeline. I see Russia and Gazprom accused of Gazprom failing to book capacity for gas supplies to Europe via the Yamal–Europe route for the second or third day in a row. That is disgusting, how should I put it… Well, okay. This is just totally out of line. After all, it failed to book capacity, because its counterparties and companies, mostly German and French, who buy gas from this route, failed to submit bids for purchase. What is there to transit if Gazprom has not received purchase requests? What did they do then? They turned on this route in reverse mode and have been pumping gas from Germany to Poland for several days now.
I think everyone would find it interesting. Why? Because we supply gas to Germany under long-term contracts at prices that are three, four, six, or even seven times lower than on the spot market. Should you resell even 1 billion cubic metres of gas, you will make almost a billion dollars, 900 million plus. This is business. This is my first point.
They have stocked up on gas, having received from us 5.6 billion cubic metres on top of what is provided under long-term contracts, and are now reselling it. But there is more to it. After all, they are pumping gas in reverse mode, so how can it be supplied in the other direction? Gas cannot move in both directions in one pipe at the same time. So, they: a) failed to place an order; b) turned it on in reverse mode.
But this is only a portion of the information.
There is a connecting pipe that connects the Polish pipeline system with the Ukrainian system. The volume is about 3 million cubic metres per day. This is exactly the amount that Germany is supplying to Poland. I have every reason to believe that this gas is eventually supplied to Ukraine. Consumers in Europe and Germany should know what is really happening, and, perhaps, ask certain authorities to clarify their stance.
Instead of supplying gas to Poland and then to Ukraine in an effort to help someone tide over, it would be better to continue supplies to Europe, Germany, for instance, and to reduce the spot price, because the more product on the market, the lower the price. No, they began to pump in reverse. This is the problem.
How is Gazprom involved in this?
So let them tend to their business and address their issues in time and not think that they are so smart and that God fell asleep on them. They should address the problems of their own making, and we are willing to help them do so, which is what we are doing.
I think I just made a convincing case for it."
Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference • President of Russia
A video from the same Event.
THE LORD answers two questions from another countries media representative:
Putin: How Would America React If Russian Missiles Were Placed At The Border With Canada & Mexico!?
U.S. Navy Acknowledges Russian Weapon Superiority
Posted by b on December 23, 2021
"Adding to the tenor of yesterday's piece
What Russia Says About Its Not-An-Ultimatum Demands To The U.S. And NATO
is a sign that the U.S. finally recognizes and acknowledges the overwhelming superiority of new Russian weapons like the hypersonic Tsirkon (Zircon) missiles.
Russia has several Corvette/Frigate sized warships in the Admiral Gorshov class with about 5,000 long tons each. They are designated Project 22350. More are these on order. They cost about $120 to $150 $500* million each.
Next to excellent air and missile defenses and electronic warfare capabilities each of these ships has 16 to 32 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells from which they can fire hypersonic anti-ship and/or land attack missiles.
The U.S. standard navy vessels are the Arleigh Burke class destroyers with about 9,000 long tons. There are currently 69 of them in service with each costing about $1.8 billion.
The Burkes have 96 VLS cells each from which they can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles against land or sea targets. The U.S. has no hypersonic missiles. (Ballistic missiles are supersonic but usually not used for such purposes.) Tomahawks fly at subsonic speed and are no longer up to date. When the U.S. attacked Syria in 2018 with a launch of a total of 103 cruise missiles against 8 targets 71 of those missiles were shot down by air and missile defenses or diverted by electronic means. Only 32 missiles, less than a third, reached their targets.
Hypersonic missiles allow the attacker to overcome the missile defenses any target can currently come up with. That leads to, as Andrei Martyanov teaches in his books, to an overwhelming salvo superiority for the side that has hypersonics:
The result of such calculations is well expressed in a quote from Admiral Turner who Martyanov cites: "It isn't the number of keels, or size of ships that count. It is the capacity to do what might be decisive in some particular situation."
Finally some folks at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey have also done the appropriate math. Here are their results (pg 57):
The literature review section describes the manner in which [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)] cruise missiles must be launched in salvos as large as 16 missiles to defeat a target with active defense. Due to its exceptional speed, maneuverability, and low flight path, a single hypersonic glide body missile is likely to be able to overcome an active defensive system that could defeat even a salvo attack of TLAMs. An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with 96 TLAMs, or six salvo attacks of 16 missiles each. This means that a vessel equipped with 12 hypersonic missiles can attack as many actively defended targets as two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers firing 16-missile salvos. 12 [All-Up-Rounds (AURs)] was chosen as the highest rating for this attribute because it represents the offensive equivalent of two entire vessels in the scenario where an actively defended target is being attacked.
One Russian Admiral Gorshov class corvette of some 5,000 tons with 16 hypersonic missiles and costing some $150 $500 million has MORE firepower than two U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers with 9,000 tons each, 192 missiles and costing a total of some $3.2 billions.
Its not just me, Andrei Martyanov or Russian diplomats claiming that but postgraduate folks paid by the U.S. Navy.
The results of hypersonic missiles against enemies with no hypersonic capabilities are truly impressive. That quite obvious fact is only now sinking in with U.S. subject experts:
Steve Trimble @TheDEWLine - 19:04 UTC · Dec 22, 2021Fascinating study. A Navy fleet planner posits how 1 ship with 12 CPS hypersonic missiles may have the same striking power as 2 Arleigh Burke destroyers with 192 Tomahawks.
Patrick Armstrong, a former military analyst in service with the Canadian diplomatic corps, recently listed a number of measures Russia could take to press for a U.S. sign-off of its Not-An-Utimatum draft treaties. I would like to draw your attention to this one:
I believe (suspect/guess) that the Russian Armed Forces have the capability to blind Aegis-equipped ships. Moscow could do so in public in a way that cannot be denied. Without Aegis, the US surface navy is just targets. Objection: this is a war-winning secret and should not be lightly used. Unless, of course, the Russian Armed Forces have something even more effective.
Burke class destroyers are equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system. If Russia can disable it by blinding its sensors, which I have also reason to believe to be true, Russia does not even need hypersonics to kill those ships. In a conflict with Russia or its allies the premier U.S. Navy ships are just useless metal-hulls destined to sink to the ground of the ocean the happen to float on.
By the way - Russia does not depend on just a handful of Gorshov class corvettes. Its Yasen class submarines can also fire Tsirkons. It also has supersonic Onyx anti-ship missiles that can be fired from various surface ship classes, submarines or from land based launchers as well as the hypersonic Kh-47M2 Kinzhal anti-ship missiles that can be launched from fighter jets or bombers.
When the U.S. or Britain send ships into the Baltic or Black Sea it is solely for propaganda purpose. If a real conflict with Russia breaks out those will be killed within minutes.
And its not just the U.S. Navy that can not take on Russia. Scott Ritter is a former Marines intelligence officer and UN inspector:
Scott Ritter @RealScottRitter - 18:09 UTC · 22 Dec 2021 An open challenge to the US Army—on a moments notice (not of your choosing) deploy two heavy brigades to the NTC within one week, ready on arrival to conduct intense combined arms exercises lasting a month. Not going to happen. What makes anyone think we matter in Europe?
My point is the US is but a shadow of its former strength when it comes to projecting ground combat power in Europe. The one Armor BCT we have on rotation isn’t enough. Neither is the second Armored BCT we’ve prepositioned equipment for in Poland.
Sending a handful of U.S. bombers to Romania is also propaganda targeting the 'western' public and not a real challenge to Russia's air defenses. In a real conflict they would hardly be able to take off before being hit.
Russia has achieved military supremacy over U.S. and NATO forces and not only in Europe. That is why it can make demands and why it can have expect that these will be fulfilled. The 'or else' behind these not-an-ultimatum demands is too obvious for those in the known.
Now is the time for the pundits and the public they preach to to recognize that.
---
*The $150m was my mistake. It was for a different ship. $500 million (Rs4,000 crore) was the sales price mentioned in some Indian paper about the possible purchase of a Admiral Gorshov class frigate. Russia will likely pay much less than that."
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/1...rity.html#more
^ You don't ever have a day off, do you?
Every day, every hour, every minute is an opportunity to swamp the forum with cut and paste propaganda from your masters.
How much are you being paid, you weird cnut?
The russian court AKA Putins enforcers, have just banned Russia's oldest human rights organisation, Memorial, for failing to register as a foreign agent".
Memorial has documented the many human rights abuses in the old Soviet union. Once again the Russian court has shown that human rights and rule of law are entities alligned to the state rather than separate from the state and justice is a meaningless word.
'Another foreign agent': Russian court orders closure of country's oldest human rights NGO, Memorial | Euronews
OhOhs latest story is another propagandist bending the truth. "How would you feel if Russia had missiles on the mexican border?" BTW Mexico does have its own missiles on its territory, many sold to them by the USA, which does not appear to be uncomfortable with Mexican missiles "on their border" in the slightest.
Meanwhile back in Europe, those missile are there for the Nato countries defence in other words the actual european countries that border Russia. The USA cannot place or operate missiles in any European country. They either belong to Nato or the country concerned. Nato (or the USA) cannot deploy missiles in any european country without request or express permission of that countries government.
Maybe OhOh should ask the nine european countries that border Russia how comfortable they are having one of the largest missile arsenals in the world sitting just over their border in Russia. Especially as many of them were invaded or annexed by Russia in the past.
Russia with all of its military parades and boasts of defeating Nazi Germany, would have lost the war if it wasnt for the billions of dollars worth of arms planes trains explosives etc, probably worth around $200 billion in todays USD from the USA, plus the bulk of important metals that came from the commonwealth countries and military supplies from Britain.
Rather ironic that Russians looks upon those countries that saved them as their enemies.
'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?
Foreign media organisations in the USA also have to register as 'foreign agents'. Simple question- why doesn't Memorial register as a foreign agent, as required under Russian law?
There is no point in trying to get anything across to these anti Russia war hawks. The question just is, do they support sending troops from the US, UK and Australia to fight and die in Ukraine. Do their tax money being sent to fight some border skirmish with Russia ? Do they want to risk nuclear war because of a border skirmish between Ukraine and Russia ?"Our leadership has repeatedly said we can no longer tolerate the situation that is developing in the immediate vicinity of our borders. We cannot tolerate NATO expansion. We will not just prevent it. We will put a stop to it," Ryabkov said.
I assume the answer is yes. But why ? Just wondering..
So they can lose, again (it must be in their DNA). Either that, or the usual vacuous jawboning from propagandized chickenhawks
It is blindingly obvious that the law was introduced to stifle govt opposition. If registered in the very emotive term "foreign agent" Organisation must call themselves this on all publications implying it is foreign when in fact it is not, in an attempt to damage its credibility. It is also subject to onerous regulation.
Maybe you can explain why the Russian girls group Pussy Riot has just been designated a foreign agent, or save you a job her is an amendment to the law which blind freddie (possibly not you though) can see was implemented to nobble the governments opponents.
Here is part of the latest amendment to the foreign agent law that they are now able to apply to anyone who opposes the government.
Individuals (Russian citizens, foreign citizens and stateless persons) also can be declared "foreign agent" for their political activity. Political activity is defined as any influence to public opinion including publications in social media and public policy including a sending a requests and petitions. Receiving funding from foreign sources is optional - it's quite enough to "carry out activity in favour" of foreign and international authorities, organizations, citizens and stateless persons. Individuals declared "foreign agent" are obliged to make special reporting and are deprived of the right to hold public office.
The answer is of course that will not happen anyone that thinks so has no knowledge remotely connected to those countries or anything to do with foreign affairs.
Just an idiotic statement.
See Above. You should know better.
Your association with BS reminds me of a poem:
How well do I remember, it was just this past December,
I was walking down the street in manly pride
When my heart began to flutter, and I fell into the gutter,
and a pig came up and lay down by my side
As I lay there in the gutter, with my heart still in a flutter,
a lady passing by began to say
'You can tell a man who boozes, by the company he chooses'
And the pig got up, and slowly walked away
That will never happen see above.
Why, he has weapons suitable for a variety of tasks that don't require a nearby country for them to be effective.
Space, air, above and below the waves.
One example:
Russia test-fires new hypersonic Tsirkon missiles from frigate, submarine
December 31, 2021
"Russia test-fired around 10 new Tsirkon (Zircon) hypersonic cruise missiles from a frigate and two more from a submarine, Interfax news agency said on Friday citing northern fleet.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has lauded the weapon as part of a new generation of unrivalled arms systems.
Putin has called a missile test, conducted last week, “a big event in the country’s life”, adding that this was “a substantial step” in increasing Russia’s defence capabilities.
Some Western experts have questioned how advanced Russia’s new generation of weapons is, while recognizing that the combination of speed, manoeuvrability, and altitude of hypersonic missiles makes them difficult to track and intercept.
Putin announced an array of new hypersonic weapons in 2018 in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a US-built missile shield."
Russia test-fires new hypersonic Tsirkon missiles from frigate, submarine | Reuters
Last edited by OhOh; 31-12-2021 at 09:25 PM.
Not sure of a "cage" match but, here is a picture of THE LORD warming up for next week's ice hockey game with Biden and his medical care team:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko took to the ice to take part in a friendly hockey match, St. Petersburg, December 29. Both teams included renowned hockey players, including Pavel Bure, Alexey Kasatonov, Valery Kamensky, Ilya Kovalchuk, Vyacheslav Fetisov.
Before the game, at a meeting in the Constantine Palace, the heads of state discussed topical issues of Belarusian-Russian cooperation"
This week in photos: Putin plays hockey, New Year tree under water and festival in Spain - Society & Culture - TASS
One suspects this may have been a topic of discussion:
Union State to neutralize losses related to NATO approaching - Lavrov
In particular, this refers to jointly opposing information campaigns launched against Russia and Belarus, politicizing in activities of international organization, and imposing the NATO-centric security model in Europe, Russian Foreign Minister said.
31 Dec, 13:48
"The concerted action program in the sphere of foreign policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus anticipates neutralization of threats related to NATO infrastructure coming closer to borders, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TASS in an interview.
"This document provides for close coordination of steps on international floors, including in cooperation with other states and associations. In particular, this refers to jointly opposing information campaigns launched against us, politicizing in activities of international organization, and imposing the NATO-centric security model in Europe," the Minister noted.
The program provides a notable role to cooperation for neutralization of threats "related to NATO military infrastructure approaching borders of the Union State," Lavrov said.
Document signing is the response to the West against improper sanction pressure, discrediting of bilateral cooperation between Russia and Belarus and meddling in internal affairs of both states for the purpose of destabilizing sociopolitical conditions, the Minister stressed."
Union State to neutralize losses related to NATO approaching - Lavrov - Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS
Suggesting that the Russian area of "security concerns", will include all Russian partner/associated countries in Europe/Asia/....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)