Sergey Lavrov accurately suggested that the Biden regime’s response to Russia’s sought security guarantees would likely be leaked.
On Wednesday in English, Spain’s El Pais published the full text of what was sent to Russia.
It includes a 4-page response to one Russian proposal, a 5-page response to an accompanying one.
In response to a Biden regime request, Moscow agreed not to publish its response on its own.
The Biden regime’s response unacceptably called on Russia to withdraw its forces where they’re not deployed or where exist on request by a host government or in its own Republic of Crimea.
In return for the above and related demands, the Biden regime offered nothing but empty promises to be breached at its discretion for any reason or none at all.
As explained last week, Russia’s sought security guarantees call for hegemon USA-dominated NATO to obey what’s mandated by the UN Charter and other international laws.
Yet US history from inception shows that it operates exclusively by its own rules, no others.
Commenting on the Biden regime’s response without disclosing what it wants kept secret, interventionist Blinken falsely accused “Russia’s military (of) instigat(ing) crisis…by build(ing) up on Ukraine’s borders (sic).”
He lied accusing Moscow of “undermin(ing) security” — what’s been longstanding US-dominated NATO policy throughout the post-WW II period.
His remarks — and what’s revealed in the leaked Biden regime’s documents — show no change in hegemon USA’s policy toward Russia and other nations free from its control.
It shows that further good faith Russian diplomacy will achieve nothing positive with a nation bent on wanting its sovereign independence eliminated.
The Biden regime refused to take Russia’s legitimate security concerns seriously.
Ignoring its own high crimes of war and against humanity at home against exploited Americans and abroad against invented enemies, the Biden regime unjustifiably blamed Moscow for a “substantial, unprovoked, unjustified, and ongoing” military buildup along Ukraine’s border with intent to invade (sic).
It refused to halt NATO’s eastward expansion toward and to surround Russia’s borders.
Its support for NATO’s open door policy is all about waging hot and cold wars on Russia, as well as against other invented enemies.
Its alleged “hand of friendship” comes with brass knuckles on closed fists.
Its perpetual war on Russia by other means belies its falsely claimed good faith outreach.
It falsely accused Moscow for its own flagrant breaches of core international law.
According to Russian analyst Ivan Timofeev:
For weeks, heightened East/West tensions show no signs of easing.
He believes one of “three scenarios” is likely ahead:
Scenario One: East/West war.
“Sooner or later, Ukraine (may) turn into a springboard for possible military operations against Russia.”
Heavily arming the country, training its military, orchestrating and directing its war on Donbass “is a fundamental threat to Russia.”
If scenario one is proxy war on Russia by US-dominated NATO with Ukrainian forces used as cannon fodder, “a radical breakdown” in East/West relations would likely follow.
Timofeev sees “permanent tension” ahead as a second possible scenario to perpetuate what’s ongoing.
He calls a third scenario “smile and wave.”
Describing Ukraine as “a (politically unstable) toxic asset for the West,” he called the country a drain on its resources.
Under this scenario, “there is a partial de-escalation of the Ukrainian issue, although rivalry with the West remains.”
East/West war is high-risk with no rewards.
While possible, heightened tensions short of warfare most likely will continue ahead.
If direct or proxy war erupts, it’ll be made-in-the-USA, not Russia.
It’ll likely be brief, not long-lasting.
At the same time, nothing can be ruled out because of US-dominated NATO’s history of wars by hot and/or other means against invented enemies.
Once hostilities begin, they can take on a life of their own.
Two global wars played out this way.
While unthinkable, a third one is ominously possible.