There’s no ambiguity about US policy toward nations free from its control.
Longstanding US policy shuns improved relations with governments unwilling to be subservient to its interests.
A permanent state of hot and cold wars exists between both right wings of the US war party and sovereign independent countries.
Targeted for regime change, China, Russia and Iran top Washington’s list of nations it seeks to transform into vassal states by whatever it takes to achieve its diabolical aims.
Before delivering its proposals for sought security guarantees to the Biden regime, Moscow knew they’d be rejected.
Before engaging with the US diplomatically, Russian officials know that improved relations are off the table with Washington.
That whatever may be agreed on, if anything, is subject to breaching by the US at a time and for whatever pretexts it chooses to unjustifiably justify its hostile actions.
Commenting on the Biden regime’s rejection of Russia’s sought security guarantees, Vladimir Putin said the following on Tuesday:
“(W)e are closely analyzing the written responses received from the US and NATO on January 26.”
“(I)t is already clear…that the fundamental Russian concerns were ignored.”
US-dominated NATO “refer(s) to the right of the states to freely choose ways to ensure their security.”
“(T)his is not just about giving somebody the right to freely choose how to ensure their security.”
“This is only one part of the well-known principle of the indivisibility of security.”
“The second inalienable part says that no one should be allowed to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of the other states.”
The above principle is binding East/West policy.
It’s defined in the 1997 Russia/NATO Founding Act and other agreements between Moscow and the US-dominated West.
Principles of mutual cooperation were established to protect and preserve Euro/Atlantic security and stability.
Instead of fulfilling its obligations, US regimes since the 1990s flagrantly breached them.
Sergey Lavrov earlier minced no words, saying that hegemon USA “grossly violated” what it pledged to observe.
What’s gone on unacceptably for years “contradict(s) decisions adopted by the OSCE and Russia-NATO summits on creating an integral space of peace, security and stability in the Euro/Atlantic region and directly affect the national interests of Russia.”
On Tuesday, Lavrov again commented on Washington’s indivisibility of security breaches by dominant Biden regime hardliners, explaining the following:
“Russia is seriously concerned about increasing politico-military tensions in the immediate vicinity of its western borders.”
To avoid greater US-dominated NATO escalation than already, Moscow sent two proposed “international legal documents” to the Biden regime and Brussels on fundamental security guarantees it seeks on December 15.
Delayed responses received on January 26 unacceptably rejected “the principle of equal and indivisible security that is fundamental to the entire European security architecture,” Lavrov explained.
Along with the 1997 Russia/NATO Founding Act and other East/West agreements, the 1999 Charter for European Security includes “key rights and obligations of OSCE participating states” on the indivisibility of security.
“It underscored the right of each participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements including treaties of alliances, as they evolve, as well as the right of each state to neutrality.”
The Charter obligates each state not to strengthen its security at the expense of other nations.
It prohibits states from actions that compromise peace and stability “in the OSCE area.”
At the December 2010 OSCE Astana summit, its member states “approved a declaration that reaffirmed this comprehensive package of interconnected obligations.”
Since the late 1990s, the US-dominated West reinterpreted the above and related agreements in pursuit of the diabolical aims of their ruling regimes.
Ignoring binding agreements, they “selectively interpreted” the principle of indivisible security to unjustifiably justify expanding NATO eastward to Russia’s borders.
“The very essence of…indivisible security is that” it either exists for all on a level playing field or for no one.
US-dominated NATO unlawfully goes its own way in flagrant breach of what its ruling regimes agreed to observe as binding principles.
What’s unacceptable to peace and stability has gone on for decades.
This must change.
Russia justifiably “demands a frank clarification of (US-dominated NATO) positions,” Lavrov stressed, adding:
“We want to receive a clear answer to the question (on) how (alliance member states) understand their obligation not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of other states on the basis of the commitment to the principle of indivisible security.”
Vladimir Putin, Lavrov and other Russian officials understand hegemon USA-dominated NATO’s menacing policy well.
A state of undeclared US cold war exists against Russia and other independent nations with no intention of improving relations ahead.
How will Russia respond to reality?
Will it continue the futility of diplomatic outreach to the US?
Or will it deal with its ruling authorities in the only language they understand?
While the chance of unthinkable global war 3.0 is slim, it’s possible because lunatics run the Washington asylum.
Their rage to dominate the world community of nations is reflected by a permanent state of hot and cold wars on invented enemies.
The chance of their turning a page for peace, stability and compliance with the rule of law ahead is virtually zero.
The ball is in Russia’s court on how it’ll deal with indisputable reality going forward.
“The chance of their turning a page for peace, stability and compliance with the rule of law ahead is virtually zero.”
… yeah, well of course! We spent almost half of the entire world’s cumulative military budget, and at broke-as-f$&k as a result. Just like Nazi Germany after the stock market crash of 1929. (and also 1918-1923ish.) Its really not a good look for us. Do we actually think that we can avoid paying back our foreign debt by going to war with the countries we owe money to? It would be insane- almost every country on the planet loans us money. Even ones that we loan money to as well (oddly), like Israel.
Remember that WW2 happened because of unresolved issues re: WW1. And WW1 happened because of 2 NATO-like military alliances were triggered by a limited small-scale war between two tiny countries. Or at least, that was the excuse given. I’ve noticed a lot of effort has been made to attempt the whitewash of the Kaiser- but he was just as foul as Hitler.