Since undemocratic Dems usurped power by the most brazen election fraud in US history, Russian/US relations sank to an all-time low.
Moscow firmly opposes further US-dominated NATO expansion eastward toward its borders.
At yearend 2021, Sergey Lavrov said that if the US/West “continues its aggressive line, then Russia will be forced to take all necessary measures to ensure a strategic balance and eliminate unacceptable threats to our security.”
Vladimir Putin made similar comments, saying the following:
“Our actions will depend on the unconditional guarantees of Russian national security, rather on the course of negotiations.”
“We made it clear that NATO’s expansion to the east is unacceptable.”
Lavrov explained that Russia’s sought security guarantees “are aimed at creating and legalizing a new system of agreements based on the principle of the indivisibility of security and abandonment of attempts to achieve military superiority, which was approved unanimously by the leaders of all Euro-Atlantic states in the 1990s.”
He “emphasize(d) that what we need is legally binding guarantees since (the US/West) systematically fail(ed) to fulfill political obligations, not to mention voiced assurances and promises given to Soviet and Russian leaders.”
For Moscow, allowing Ukraine and/or Georgia to join NATO is a red line its ruling authorities won’t allow to be crossed.
Yet US-installed NATO puppet Stoltenberg said the following in December:
“(T)he decision on whether Ukraine can join NATO will be taken by Ukraine and 30 NATO allies alone.”
Earlier he called NATO an “evolving alliance” to be expanded at the discretion of its member states and others seeking membership.
In 1997 — years after Soviet Russia’s dissolution — remarks by father of containment George Kennan (1904 – 2005) apply to current East/West relations a generation later.
His remarks were when NATO was a 16-nation alliance — compared to 30 today.
Kennan stressed that “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
It would “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
No “necessity for this move” exists. “No one (is) threatening anybody else.”
Expanding NATO would make the (US) founding fathers…turn over in their graves.”
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.”
“Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”
“Russians are little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions.”
Kennan expressed great concern about “references to (post-Soviet) Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.”
“Don’t people understand,” he asked?
“Our differences in the cold war were” about communism v. capitalism.
“(N)ow we are turning our backs on the very people” who were involved in transforming Russia into a democratic state threatening no one.
Its “democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, (than) any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia.”
“Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then (pro-NATO expanders) will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are.”
“(T)his is just wrong.”
“This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up (near its) end.”
Kennan correctly assessed how Russia would “react adversely” to NATO’s eastward expansion.
In the 90s and earlier, he said also said the following:
He largely blamed the US for not resolving differences with Russia.
In 1998, he called Senate ratification NATO’s expansion “the beginning of a new Cold War.”
He said neither “side could guarantee beyond all possible doubt that if conventional (US/Russia) warfare broke out on a large scale there would in fact be no use of nuclear weapons.”
“As long as the weapons themselves exist, the possibility of their use will remain.”
Their existence “is a global (issue) that involves a little less than the whole future of humanity and its stake in the future of civilization.”
“I believe that we, as the first country to have developed those weapons and the only one to use them against another population, and a largely helpless one at that, have a great and special responsibility and even a duty to take the lead in bringing those weapons under eventual control either through international organs or in having them eliminated from national arsenals.”
Instead, the Obama/Biden and Trump regimes vowed to spend at least $1.2 trillion ahead on nuclear weapons development over the next 30 years.
Factoring in inflation and typical US overreach, the amount spent for nukes in the next few decades may likely be multiples of the above amount.
If used in warfare, their destructive power “could well do irreparable damage to the entire structure of modern civilization,” Kennan stressed.
Eliminating them entirely is the only sensible option — not taken earlier or based on what’s planned by US ruling regimes now.
Viewing Russia “a great and dangerous enemy (is) silly, and should have no place in our thinking,” Kennan stressed.
“We have never been at war with Russia, should never need to be and must not be.”
Yet what’s unthinkable remains possible, as well as possible US war against China and/or Iran, as well as other countries from US control.
Its rage to control the world community of nations, their resources and populations could doom us all one day.