Russia has always been really good at sticking to its message, no matter how absurd it may seem. As a former Russia analyst in my government days, I’ve seen Russia make contentions and stand by them no matter how much its assertions were disproven and no matter how much contradictory evidence presented.
Moscow has never stopped viewing the United States (and NATO) as its primary national security concern, and Russia is very good at playing the victim, every time the United States or another western country accuses it of wrongdoing. Poisoning operation against a dissident abroad? Russia is innocent. It’s all russophobia. Kill an “unfriendly” journalist? Deny, deny, deny and claim that the West is simply trying to paint Russia as a bad guy. Novichok poisoning against opposition leader Alexey Navalny? Russia dint do nuffun, and no matter how much evidence Germany or the UN present to the contrary, Moscow will claim that no evidence has been presented.
That’s why I’m not at all surprised at the inanity Russia’s Foreign Ministry peddled after the two-hour call President Biden had with President Putin. Russia is innocent of aggression, the United States is trying to “whip up confrontation” with Russia, NATO is pushing Ukraine to become more aggressive, etc. etc. etc.
I’m also unsurprised at Russia’s continued “demands” to “reduce tensions in Europe.” Note, that the tensions were caused by Moscow to begin with, including by its troop buildup on Russia’s border with Ukraine and its use of energy as a bludgeon against European customers. But that’s no matter, because Russia is simply blackmailing the United States and NATO into meeting its demands in return for stopping aggression which Russia began in the first place.
We insist on the legal consolidation of the agreement on the non-deployment by the United States and other NATO countries of strike weapons systems that pose a threat to the Russian Federation on the territory of neighboring countries, both members and not members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
- withdrawal of areas of operational exercises at an agreed distance from the Russia-NATO contact line;
- coordination of the maximum distance of approach of warships and aircraft to prevent dangerous military activities, primarily in the Baltic and Black Sea regions;
- resumption of a regular dialogue between the defense ministries along the Russia-US and Russia-NATO lines.
We call on Washington to join the unilateral Russian moratorium on the deployment of ground-based INF in Europe, agree and introduce the necessary measures to verify the fulfillment of mutual obligations.
Note that even as Kremlin spokesperson Peskov expresses indignation that “Russia was being demonized for moving its troops within its own borders,”—practically on top of Ukraine—the Russian Foreign Ministry is demanding that NATO not come near Russia’s borders and Moscow has squealed resentfully every time the alliance held joint exercises near Russia, including apparently attempting to jam GPS signals during the Trident Juncture NATO exercise in Norway.
Reciprocity would be necessary for NATO to draw back its operational exercises, and I just don’t see that happening.
Also, Moscow wants NATO to guarantee that it will not deploy weapons that pose “a threat to the Russian Federation” even in NATO countries. That demand takes a lot of gall, and I would imagine it’s a nonstarter. There are NATO members close to Russia, including the Baltic States and Poland, and let’s remember that NATO membership was approved by the citizens of these sovereign nations as a way to escape Russian influence. NATO membership also provided them with a collective security guarantee should Russia get froggy again. They never trusted Russia, and with good reason.
The Soviet Union, and later its successor Russian Federation, has been perceived in all three countries as the main threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Although good neighbourly relations have been declared as another foreign policy priority, the perception of the potential threat related with uncertainty about Russia’s internal political situation and its external policies have remained fairly stable.
It’s not like aggression hasn’t happened already. Aside from Russia’s invasion of Crimea and its illegal annexation, let’s not forget the Russian cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007. The sovereign nations in close proximity to Russia have every reason to be concerned, and Moscow has zero authority to dictate to NATO where it places its hardware.
The MFA also claims that “a course has been taken to draw Ukraine into NATO,” which is really a load of garbage, considering how long Ukraine has been begging to join the alliance (Kyiv first announced its desire to join in 2002 - nearly 20 years ago) and the fact that it has not gotten a membership action plan (MAP) yet.
Russia’s demands are so much hot air. Its list is more of an absurd overplay that Moscow probably expects to be whittled down. I compare it to purchasing an expensive home: demand a ridiculously high price, knowing that buyers will offer less and that the selling price would be somewhere in the middle.
That said, Russia is overstepping. It is not the Soviet Union. It does not have the resources or the size to take on NATO—especially with the United States at the helm. The Kremlin probably hopes that we are so busy with China, corruption, and other priorities, that we will put its aggression against Ukraine on the backburner. And if NATO responds, Moscow will likely paint the alliance as the aggressor, claiming like a petulant child that Ukraine started it, and that NATO is standing behind its “puppet” in victimizing poor, innocent Russia.
The contradiction is pretty ridiculous. Putin acolyte and US-sanctioned nutjob Konstantin Malofeyev bragged to the media in a veiled threat recently that the war against Ukraine won’t last more than a week, while Russia continues to paint itself as the victim of aggression, knowing that it could not defeat NATO should the alliance decide to intervene.
And I cannot imagine that at least several NATO nations would sit by the sidelines, with at least intelligence and equipment support from the United States.