Legal Agreement Ukraine Nato
Even if the Minsk agreements are implemented as Moscow would like, it will still not allow Russia to achieve its strategic goals of keeping Ukraine in its own sphere of influence. The reintegration of the pro-Russian separatist region of Donbass into the Ukrainian political system will not give Russia a veto in Ukraine`s foreign or defense policy. Kiev will always be able to marginalize the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, just as President Volodymyr Zelensky did with pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, his political party and TV channels. The implementation of the Minsk agreements could destabilize Ukraine in the short term, but Kiev will adapt quickly, and then NATO`s path to Ukraine – if not Ukraine`s to NATO – will be open. Moscow`s fixation on the Minsk agreements has prevented it from solving other problems in its relations with Ukraine, leaving Russia`s relations with the West hostage to Kiev`s maneuver. « The threat to our western borders is indeed increasing, as we have said many times, » Putin said Wednesday at a ceremony for ambassadors in the Kremlin. « In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on the development of concrete agreements that prohibit any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory there. » As in the late 1960s, direct interaction between Moscow and Washington could provide a political framework for future détente in which agreements on European security would become possible. Nevertheless, an escalation remains likely, as unrealistic demands are placed in artificially short time frames, and too little emphasis is placed on diplomacy – and too much on the military aspect. « As we engage with the United States and its allies, we will insist on the development of concrete agreements that would preclude further eastward expansion of NATO and the stationing of weapons systems that pose a threat to us in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory. We propose to start substantive discussions on this subject.
In particular, I would like to stress that we need precisely legal and legal guarantees because our Western colleagues have not complied with their verbal obligations. In his speech yesterday at the expanded annual meeting of the Russian Defense Ministry corps, Putin gave his most comprehensive explanation to date as to why Russia wants the security guarantees outlined in the draft treaty and draft treaty. Repeating much of what he said in his speech to the State Department board last month, he said: « The growth of US and NATO forces near the Russian border and major military exercises, including unforeseen ones, are a source of concern. It is extremely alarming that elements of the global US defense system are stationed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be stationed in Poland, are suitable for launching Tomahawk attack missiles. If this infrastructure continues to advance, and if US and NATO missile systems are stationed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7 to 10 minutes, or even five minutes, for hypersonic systems. This is a major challenge for our security. In their video conference, Biden and Putin talked for two hours about building Russian forces near Ukraine, Putin explained the reasoning, and Biden warned of the possible consequences of deploying them. The White House then said: « President Biden expressed the deep concern of the United States and our European allies about the escalation of Russian armed forces around Ukraine, making it clear that in the event of a military escalation, the United States and our allies would respond with strong economic and other measures. President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.
Both presidents have tasked their teams with the follow-up, and the United States will do so in close coordination with its allies and partners. The Kremlin issued a lengthy statement in which, among other things, it attributed responsibility for the current situation to NATO, not Russia, and said that NATO is « making dangerous efforts to conquer Ukrainian territory. » The statement also provided some more information on the desired outcome of the follow-up talks. Russia is « seriously interested in obtaining reliable and legally binding guarantees that prevent NATO`s eastward expansion » and the stationing of « weapons systems that pose a threat to Russia » nearby. The Kremlin statement also said Biden and Putin had « agreed to ask their representatives to conduct detailed consultations on these sensitive issues. » The reaction from NATO leaders has so far been strongly negative, but Biden has yet to comment on the issue. It is true that at present, at least, it does not have a sufficiently large majority in the Senate to ratify the legal guarantees of non-enlargement. For this reason, the nuclear deal with Iran has been presented as a political commitment rather than a contractual obligation. Not to mention that within NATO, the thirty member states should ratify the treaty obligations. Putin`s demand for legally binding agreements that NATO will not expand further east has limited its room for maneuver. It is hard to imagine alliance partners accepting such a thing, especially in a legally binding form that would have to be ratified by the Senate in the United States.
Either way, Moscow`s unrealistic demands – and their public announcement if such sensitive issues are better discussed in private – have raised suspicions in the West that this is just a cover-up operation and that Moscow`s tight deadline for starting talks indicates an imminent decision on a military operation. MAYNES: You know, for more than a month now, the United States has been sounding the alarm about 100,000 Russian forces gathering near the border with Ukraine. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied that its troops pose a threat, and yet it is now quite clear that Moscow has used this show of force to draw the US into discussions not only about Ukraine`s future, but also about NATO`s role in Eastern Europe. And what Russia says it wants are security guarantees – legally binding guarantees that, as you know, would not only prevent NATO from entering Ukraine and other states bordering Russia, but would also push the Alliance`s activities back to where they were in the late 1990s, in fact, before all these former communist countries of Eastern Europe joined them. On the 10th. In March 2018, NATO added Ukraine to the list of new NATO members (others, including Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia). A few months later, at the end of June, the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on national security: the law defines the principles of the state`s national security and defense policy and focuses on ukraine`s integration into the European security, economic and legal system; Improve mutual relations with other states and finally membership of the EU and NATO. Regarding the draft agreement and the treaty, Putin said: « We already see that some of our critics interpret it as Russia`s ultimatum. Is this an ultimatum or not? Of course not.
As a reminder, everything our partners – let`s call them that – the United States has done in recent years to supposedly ensure its interests and security thousands of miles from its national territory – it has done these difficult things, the boldest things, without the approval of the UN Security Council. However, what they are doing, trying or planning in Ukraine does not happen thousands of miles from our national border. It`s at the door of our house. You have to understand that we simply don`t have a place to withdraw. The United States does not yet possess hypersonic weapons, but we know when it will have them. They will provide hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover. Arm extremists from a neighboring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, if they think the circumstances are favorable. .