SABRE-RATTLING

The January 21, 2022 meeting between US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva can be described as an exchange of reports on diplomatic activities concerning Ukraine in the first month of 2022. This round of talks was preceded by Blinken's tour to Europe, where he focused on the situation in Ukraine and the ongoing NATO-Russia confrontation.

Blinken’s meetings with his partners clearly demonstrated that European politicians prefer a dialogue with Moscow, as they are seriously afraid of military scenarios. A dialogue, however harsh and frank it may be, is a dialogue anyway. Yet everything that happened afterwards can rather be called sabre-rattling than a dialogue. 

In his address to fellow citizens, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky even urged them not to panic amid reports about possible preparations for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. According to Zelensky, it is necessary to remain calm and confident in ‘ourselves, our army and our country’ instead of playing along with Russia's aggressive intentions. He called on Western partners to show support for Kiev and “to be effective in their deeds”. “Ukraine does not want war, but must always be ready for it,” Mr. Zelensky said.

Harsh-looking contradictions

Yet the course of events shows that Ukraine's Western partners lack a monolithic approach to be “effective in their deeds”. In fact, Washington cannot entirely rely on its leading allies in NATO and count on their unconditional support. Hence all these talks about the unity of NATO partners in terms of relations with Russia.

Earlier, the EU threatened Russia with serious economic and diplomatic consequences in case of a possible military invasion of Ukraine. But 27 member states disagree on what should trigger sanctions. Meanwhile, some argue that cyber attacks or false-flag operations should be dealt with in the same way as a full-scale occupation.

Meanwhile, Russian officials made it clear that the Western states have no reason to fear Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, which is not expected anyway.

The outcome of the Lavrov-Blinken summit in Geneva thus gives reason to believe that a military solution of the Ukrainian crisis is seen as extreme and undesirable. Meanwhile, the parties apparently count on each other's actions confirming goodwill and a desire to end the confrontation through intensive dialogue.

But the last point has become a significant sticking point. The American side has continuously claimed that it was President Vladimir Putin who created the crisis by introducing 100,000 Russian troops along Ukraine's borders. Americans and their partners from NATO believe that this is not a military exercise or a routine deployment of troops. They refer to it as a show of force to cause or give a false pretext for a crisis that would trigger a possible invasion.

A few days before the Blinken-Lavrov meeting, President Joe Biden repeated that he expected his Russian counterpart to order an invasion of Ukraine and warned that Russia would face a ‘catastrophe’ should it ever do so. The same warning was also repeated by Mr. Blinken in Geneva on January 21.

Meanwhile, the Russian minister Lavrov reiterated Moscow's demand for a formal refusal of NATO to expand further eastwards. The Geneva summit once again demonstrated the high degree of contradictions between Russia and the US. Under such circumstances, the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement at the end of the meeting that the sides "agreed to intensify efforts to normalise the work of Russian and US diplomatic missions and to stabilise visa regimes" can be of little consolation.

More questions than answers

In general, the resumption of the NATO-Russia dialogue on January 12, 2022 was one of the most anticipated events of the year. In fact, nobody expected anything specific from it but even the slightest chance for a direct dialogue between the conflicting sides, however insurmountable contradictions are, might have been unique in itself.

At the end of 2021, Washington and Moscow agreed to negotiate security guarantees on three fronts. On January 10, the representatives of US and Russian foreign-policy establishments held a strategic dialogue. This was followed by a NATO-Russia meeting held on January 12 and a multilateral meeting under the OSCE on the next day. These were truly complex and comprehensive talks aimed at developing at least some political and legal space around the tensions between Russia and the Western countries and making the processes if not completely predictable, then at least partially manageable. After all, the escalation of tensions in recent months threatened to upset the delicate balance and lead to an open conflict, which both sides have been avoiding. But this is the only common point in their positions for now.

Many reasonably believe that it is the US-Russia confrontation that is at the heart of the current tensions in international affairs. With all its seriousness, the Ukrainian crisis is unfortunately not the only trigger exacerbating relations between the two countries. Russia’s intensive strategy in the Middle East and North Africa, military cooperation with China in the North Pacific, the sale of modern weapon systems to Turkey, political support for Iran and a number of other issues that Washington considers vital for its national interests act as catalysts of conflict between the two countries. However, Ukraine today may well be a trigger for a possible open confrontation. The question is who will pull the trigger first and whether it will be pulled at all.

Russia responded to Ukraine’s attempt to regain control of at least part of the Donbass region last year with a military buildup on its western borders and increased support for the defense units of the so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. This apparently encouraged Americans to initiate the upgrade of the Ukrainian army and declare its readiness to provide Kiev with direct military support in case Moscow openly intervenes with the support of the self-proclaimed republics.

President Joe Biden has not even ruled out the deployment of US combat units in Ukraine. Hundreds of American instructors are currently in the country, rotating in and out since 2015 to improve the skills of the Ukrainian military. Members of the Florida National Guard are stationed in Ukraine in addition special operations forces. Also, the US has been supplying the Ukrainian armed forces with various weapons over the years, including radar systems, equipment capable of destroying drones, as well as anti-tank weapons. The White House administration says that the assistance may be increased if Russia makes an attempt to invade.

Russia, on the other hand, believes that the US is pushing Kiev into an open conflict with Moscow and suggests focusing on topics that could steer the sides away from a direct confrontation. In particular, the documents point out that a military confrontation between Moscow and Washington “could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, which would have far-reaching consequences.” The latter circumstance obviously calls for the renewal of the START-3 treaty. It is the only treaty in force between the two countries adopted a decade ago and set to expire on February 5, 2022.

Either way, the January 10 Geneva talks between the US and Russia on security guarantees lasted about 7.5 hours. According to participants, the talks were complex, but important for understanding the positions of the sides. The Russian delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Defence Minister Alexander Fomin. The US was represented by US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Bonnie Jenkins.

In principle, there was nothing fundamentally new to expect at the talks. The Russian side demanded NATO not to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance in the future. But the Americans did not agree to follow. That was understandable, because for Washington it would have meant de facto abandonment of its traditional military and political support for its two partners in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region. In turn, that would seriously undermine Washington’s image, followed by a collapse of the policies of the former and current political elites in Ukraine and Georgia, who have long been promising to consistently pursue a path towards NATO membership. As a result, we could have seen an inevitable rise in the ratings of pro-Russian parties and movements and the strengthening of their weight in respective countries.

While there is no information on the military component of the talks, we can assume that the sides have discussed limitations on offensive and other weapons, in particular tactical missiles. According to a Russian representative, any agreement on intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in the course the US-Russian talks depends on other factors. The US officially suspended its membership in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) on August 2, 2019. To justify the move, Americans claimed that Russia had adopted the 9M729 cruise missile as part of the Iskander-M complex. The parties likely discussed the prolongation of the New START Treaty as well.

At least, Sherman mentioned agreements on tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Press statements suggest that the Americans were interested in discussing strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, missile deployment in Europe, possible limitations on military exercises and mutual military transparency.

Overall, the stakes in negotiations are expected to be high. This allows for manoeuvring and mutual concessions, gradually lowering the bar of demands to the level of an acceptable compromise.

A formula with many unknowns

The follow-up NATO-Russia Council meeting in Brussels could hardly ensure a rapprochement between Moscow and the West. But undoubtedly it was absolutely necessary, as stated by the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.

“Our differences will not be easy to overcome,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's said in his statement for the press after the talks at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. An expected one...

NATO administration called on Russia to “immediately de-escalate the situation in Ukraine” and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours. It believes that Russia has concentrated some 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine. NATO representatives claim that Russian representatives did not undertake to withdraw troops, nor did they reject the demand, media reported.

“It was not an easy discussion, but that is why this meeting was so important,” Mr. Stoltenberg said, adding that NATO allies and Russia had a “very serious and direct exchange of views on the situation in and around Ukraine and its implications” for European security.

Earlier, the US said the fate of the Moscow-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to transport natural gas from Russia to Germany would depend on de-escalation by Russia.

Even before the Brussels meeting, NATO officials had stressed that they wanted to focus on Russia's massive and continuing military build-up around Ukraine. At the same time, NATO views Moscow's other proposals as a desire to force Brussels to reconsider the security architecture in post-Cold War Europe.

Meanwhile, it is encouraging that for the first time in 30 years, the US agreed to address issues that could not have been discussed even a year ago. Another positive development is the statement of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov that Russia “has no intentions to invade Ukraine.”

However, it is the lack of mutual trust that is the driving force behind the ongoing confrontation. It is unlikely that this situation will change dramatically in the near future.

Later, on December 13, during his meeting with the EU foreign and defence ministers in Brest, France, Jens Stoltenberg briefed the participants on the outcome of the Russia-NATO Council meeting. He tried to allay the EU leaders that Russia was not going to divide the West without the EU involvement in the negotiations with the US and NATO on the issue of Ukraine. Indeed, there is a strong belief in the EU that Russia wants to restore the post-Helsinki 1975 European security architecture and brings forth conditions similar to those once imposed by the Soviet Union. Thus, they conclude, the Kremlin is trying to enlist support of some European countries.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell seems to be satisfied with the coordination between the US-NATO and the EU leadership regarding their common position in negotiations with Moscow. Both the Americans and NATO once again assured the Europeans that no agreement would be reached behind the backs of the EU.

OSCE: a negotiating platform or a wrestling ring?

It seems that as negotiations intensify, positions of the parties get tougher, although the opposite is expected. For example, on December 12, during discussions in Brussels, a group of American senators led by Robert Menendez (D), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a bill on sanctions against Russia.

These include a set of sanctions against the Russian President Vladimir Putin personally. Thus, the senators propose to ban Putin from entering the US and to freeze his hypothetical assets in the US, in case of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The same restrictions would apply to Russia's heads of government, foreign and defence ministers, as well as to anyone Washington considers involved in the military invasion. Sanctions are also proposed against relatives of the Russian president, as well as businessmen close to him.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian leader, called the possible American sanctions against the Russian president ‘an extreme measure’ comparable to the severing of relations. On December 13, the EU officially announced the prolongation of the anti-Russian sanctions unanimously agreed by EU leaders back in December. This move was definitely not a good background to hold negotiations within OSCE to reduce tensions. Moreover, consolidation of the Western players, their determination to defend their own positions using the most extreme measures, and the reluctance of Russians to change their approach actually split the OSCE platform to two clearly disproportionate parts.

Thus, the first closed meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in 2022 under the Polish chairmanship in Vienna on January 13 ended, like previous meetings, without results. Russian Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich said at a press briefing in Vienna that Russia had not received a clear answer to its proposals on security guarantees.

Michael Carpenter, US Permanent Representative to the OSCE, perhaps trying to make an encouraging public statement about the future of negotiations, said that the launch of the European security dialogue was the main outcome of the Permanent Council meeting.

Indeed, given the increasing fears about the complete breakup of relations between the US and Russia, the statement deserves a praise. Moscow and Washington have made it clear that they would avoid a breakup. But with the increasing arms race in Europe, when the situation resembles preparations for a major war, this is clearly not enough.

Another disturbing symptom of the seriousness of the situation was when a group of Western countries announced the evacuation of the embassy staff and their family members from Ukraine. We observed a similar situation not long ago just before the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan.

Ukraine is not Afghanistan, and no one is going to seize power in this country. The whole point is that those who are evacuating their citizens believe that it is not power that can be seized, but the country as a whole!