Since dissolution of the Soviet Union at end of 1991, the Russian Federation failed to deal with US-dominated NATO in the only language it understands.
Diplomatic outreach to the West consistently failed each time undertaken.
Toughness alone gets its attention.
Has Russia finally recognized reality or were remarks by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko head-fake deception?
Following “draft documents on legal security guarantees” Moscow proposed to the Biden regime last week, Grushko said the following on Saturday:
Russia “made clear that we are prepared to discuss ways to shift a military scenario or a military-technical scenario into a political process that will actually strengthen the military security of all states within the OSCE, the Euroatlantic and Eurasian space.”
“(I)f this doesn’t work out, we have already made clear to (US-dominated NATO) that we will switch to the mode of creating counter-threats.”
“(T)hen it will be too late to ask why we have made such decisions, why we have deployed such systems.”
“A moment of truth is upon us.”
“(W)e have reached a dangerous line.”
“(O)ur proposals are aimed precisely at moving away from this dangerous line and toward some kind of normal dialogue, at the forefront of which will be security interests.”
Moscow will no longer “brush aside” or “talk around” its security concerns.
As outlined in its security proposal to US-dominated NATO, Russia “will strive very consistently and fundamentally to implement a vision of how to build European security exactly as we have formulated it.”
Phony US claims about a Russian “threat from the East” doesn’t exist.
Calling this notion dangerously unacceptable, Grushko said hegemon USA must choose between taking Russia’s security proposals “seriously…or face a military-technical alternative.”
Two drafts were presented, one titled “Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees.”
The other is titled “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
They call for refraining from deploying nuclear and other weapons in Eastern Europe — by US-dominated NATO — ones that threaten Russia’s security, including in waters and airspace bordering its territory.
They demand no further NATO expansion east near or bordering Russia’s territory — or establishment of military bases in former Soviet republics.
Ways of resolving East/West tensions were proposed.
Russia wants hegemon USA to cease provocative military activities in Ukraine, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that Russia’s draft proposals aren’t for “pick(ing) and choos(ing).”
They “must be evaluated, (accepted or rejected) in their totality.”
According to Biden regime national security advisor Jake Sullivan, they’ll be addressed “in (an) appropriate format (sic).”
Grushko stressed that it’s for European regimes to either accept Russia’s mutual security proposals or risk military confrontation on the continent.
Vladimir Putin earlier called on US-dominated NATO to engage in substantive talks on legally binding/ longterm security guarantees Moscow seeks from the West.
Putin aide Yury Ushakov told Sullivan that Russia is ready to begin talks immediately on security guarantees it proposed.
Posing no threats to Western or other nations, Russia is a good neighbor.
It prioritizes peace, strict compliance with international law, respect for the sovereign rights of all nations, and cooperative relations between and among them.
Last week, notorious Biden regime under secretary of state for political affairs Russophobe, Victoria Nuland, recited her customary litany of bald-faced Big Lies about the country.
Falsely accusing Moscow of building up its forces along Ukraine’s border (sic), she said the Biden regime “call(s) on Russia to deescalate (sic)” — what it didn’t escalate, adding:
“(W)e remind(ed) Russia that any use of force to change borders (sic) is strictly prohibited under international law, and Russia should have no doubt that any further military aggression against Ukraine (sic) will have massive consequences and severe costs (sic).”
Ignored by Nuland, other Biden regime officials, congressional members and their MSM press agents is that “aggression” is a longstanding US/NATO specialty against invented enemies.
The Russian Federation never attacked another nation, threatening none now.
Like time and again earlier, Nuland lied claiming otherwise.
She lied accusing Russia of breaching Minsk I and II conflict resolution agreements.
She ignored US orchestrated and directed aggression by Kiev on Donbass — ongoing since April 2014.
She falsely claimed that Russian forces operate in Ukraine (sic).
She lied calling Donbass Ukrainian territory (sic).
She threatened Moscow, saying:
The Biden regime is “working…on a profound response should Russia choose the path of aggression (sic).”
“It will be primarily in the economic and financial realm, and we are building that package now…”
She lied claiming that Vladimir Putin “is putting in place all of the tools that he would need to move aggressively against Ukraine (sic).”
“(H)e already authorized (what) we already see around three sides of Ukraine (sic).”
All of the above and what followed reflects the Biden regime’s and her own perversion of reality.
It shows that dominant US hardliners have no intension of engaging with Russia diplomatically on a level playing field in the interest of pursuing and maintaining peace.
Nor is it likely to address its proposed security demands seriously.
A state of US-launched and maintained Cold War on Russia continues with virtually no prospect of easing heightened tensions.
While East/West war is highly unlikely, it’s possible by accident or design because of hegemon USA’s rage to transform the world community of nations into vassal states.
Will Moscow show toughness in dealings with the US-dominated West if things continue unacceptably on their present course?
Or will Grushko’s remarks be revealed as head-fake deception instead of essential firmness needed in dealings with Washington and its Western vassal states?