24 Dec 2021 9:17 pm
A “choreographed de-escalation” in the form of a cautious advance agreement between Russia and the West should make it easier for the opponents to get to the negotiating table. However, this proposal by the ICG think tank, which is close to Soros, is at the expense of Russia.
The International Crisis Group, a nongovernmental think tank co-founded and co-funded by self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros, has expressed concern about the alleged “expansion of Russian military presence” near the border with Ukraine. In this context, the analysts suggested that the USA, Europe and Russia first carry out a “choreographed sequence of mutual de-escalation measures”. RT took a look at the organization’s report.
“First, the United States, the European powers, and Russia will quietly come to an agreement – discreet enough that no government should appear weak in the eyes of its people – an agreement to refrain from military action that the other side considers particularly provocative could be felt “, is called it in the text of the document.
For Russia, such an agreement would not only mean the withdrawal of troops from the Ukrainian border, but also the dismantling of infrastructure and equipment in the regions near its borders with Ukraine, according to the authors of the publication.
At the same time, Russia and the NATO military should undertake to restrict their respective naval exercises in the waters of the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea; In addition, the West should reduce its rhetoric regarding the accession of the Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, without, however, closing the “open doors” of NATO for them.
According to the ICG experts, such a light agreement would make it easier for the sides to suspend “provocative military exercises” and enable them to return to peace talks. At the same time, the ICG * proposes to conclude an agreement “on the limitation of the deployment of armed forces and military actions in herds of instability in Europe”.
Russia – and the Donbass – even before the start of the “real“ Negotiations at a disadvantage
As important and correct as the proposals of the Soros-affiliated ICG appear, some of the premises of the work they put forward are flawed. The authors of the report fail to respond to the fact that Russia’s interest in Ukraine is by no means exclusively a security interest – rather, Russia does not want the basic rights of the Russian-speaking population in the south-east of the country to be violated by the Ukrainian military, security forces or paramilitaries. The almost daily casualties and wounded among the civilian population on the contact line in the conflict area as a result of shelling (mostly by artillery) – almost all of which are attributable to the two People’s Republics – are also kept secret.
In this sense, Russia would be prevented from acting if its military infrastructure were permanently dismantled at a military disadvantage with regard to its self-imposed moral obligation to help the people’s militias in Donbass against an offensive by the Kiev regime. What is more, the marches of the Russian military close to the border, criticized by the ICG analysts, had been taking place for some time – but the incursion into Ukraine, which was so zealously painted on the wall, has so far failed to materialize. In contrast, the current troop concentration of almost half the total strength of the entire Ukrainian military in or near the Donets Basin – especially for the bankrupt Ukrainian state with its underfunded military – represents something extraordinary, an indication of a possible offensive soon.
On the contrary, it is the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as Russia, which in this case would have to demand a withdrawal of troops from the line of contact and the dismantling of any military infrastructure there from Ukraine – or on the maintenance of Russia’s troops in its border areas Ukraine, not least with the argument of its deterrent effect against a possible Ukrainian offensive in the Donbass. There is also no suggestion in the think tank’s document to limit the troop presence of NATO countries in Ukraine, for example, to western, or at most central, Ukraine.
Incidentally, it hardly seems credible that a think tank which, in contrast to many other conspecifics, has a permanent staff presence in the respective areas of interest boastswho could misunderstand the above facts.
An offer that cannot be accepted
It can be assumed that – if the negotiators of NATO or the USA as Russia’s adversaries within the meaning of the recently submitted draft treaties on security guarantees base their early negotiations on the ideas set out in the ICG report – they will only endanger the prospect of their work being successful and move the birth of the new pan-European security structure further away.
Russia will prevent from the outset any overly persistent efforts by the West to take measures that provide for permanent demilitarization of the Russian side of the border with Ukraine, but not demilitarization of the contact line in the conflict area, if not as a sign of unwillingness to negotiate.
The Russian Foreign Ministry had previously published drafts for a treaty each with the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance on mutual security guarantees.
Moscow’s proposals include a shared commitment not to deploy medium and short-range missiles in areas from which they could strike the other side’s territory.
more on the subject – Russia’s foreign minister in an RT interview: “Too often deceived, therefore want binding guarantees”