"I think that everyone is starting to understand...that it is necessary to go back to the conceptual framework proposed by the best minds in Europe dozens of years ago – the necessity to create a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, as well as a space where security would be common and indivisible.
This idea was confirmed at the OSCE Summit in Astana in 2010, where participants coordinated an appeal for creating a community of equal, comprehensive and indivisible security based on cooperation.
These words were voiced and put into the document. They have to be implemented, and Russia is ready to do this"
Sergey Lavrov 7 December 2018
"The OSCE has failed because its founding principles – equal and indivisible security, ensuring that no participant strengthens their security at the expense of others – have been trampled on."
Sergey Lavrov 18 December 2024
Modern
security from war, terrorism, cyberattacks, biological attacks,
chemical attacks, economic sanction attacks, psychological
propoganda campaign attacks, denial of access to resources of all
kinds, food security - all are multi-faceted dimensions of
security. The need to agree on fair and universal security
arrangements as nations compete for diminishing mineral reserves
is more important than ever. The same goes for the dimensions of
food security. After all, the climate is changing, there are
increasing droughts, fires, floods, new pests emerging. We must
all work together to overcome these challenges. This is Russia's
point. No one can be allowed to create security threats for others
- and most particulalrly biological threats affecting human
health, or plant or animal health.
The world is now both interdependent and truly globalised. The
Covid-19 shutdowns demonstrated this in the most vivid fashion.
Russia wishes to sustainably develop, ensure its security, and
progressively improve the overall well-being of Russian people,
and particularly families. This should be the task of all
governments in the world, obviously. But as the west has tried to
prevent peaceful cooperation and the existing international
agreements don't work, a better way has to be found. Russia has
found itself in the position of having to be the one to find a
better way.
Russia signaled the need to find a better way in 2007, at the
2007
Munich Security Conference.(Edited outtake below)
""It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability.
It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”...And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking.
I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either....However, what is a unipolar world? ...at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within ..
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world...Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.
And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe.I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions...The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity...
...I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations... I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small - and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.
At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons.
Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space....The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times...Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each.
It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe.
On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?...
In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail...Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles....
As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof.
The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.
It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop...
According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable...
....I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so.
Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all....
What are we indebted to in the past decades if there was a stand-off between two superpowers and two systems, but nevertheless a big war did not take place? We are indebted to the balance of powers between these two superpowers. There was an equilibrium and a fear of mutual destruction. And in those days one party was afraid to make an extra step without consulting the other. And this was certainly a fragile peace and a frightening one. But as we see today, it was reliable enough. Today, it seems that the peace is not so reliable...
...the United States is actively developing and already strengthening an anti-missile defence system. Today this system is ineffective but we do not know exactly whether it will one day be effective. But in theory it is being created for that purpose. So hypothetically we recognise that when this moment arrives, the possible threat from our nuclear forces will be completely neutralised. Russia’s present nuclear capabilities, that is.
The balance of powers will be absolutely destroyed and one of the parties will benefit from the feeling of complete security. This means that its hands will be free not only in local but eventually also in global conflicts.
We are discussing this with you now. I would not want anyone to suspect any aggressive intentions on our part.
But the system of international relations is just like mathematics. There are no personal dimensions.
...As to fears and so on, are you aware that today Russians have fewer fears than citizens in many other countries? Because in the last few years we made cardinal changes to improve the economic well-being of our citizens. We still have a great many problems. And we still have a great many unresolved problems. Including problems linked with poverty. And I can tell you that fears basically come from this source."
And of course we should react to this.... I will allow myself to remind both myself and my colleagues that according to the UN Charter peace-keeping operations require the sanction of both the UN and the UN Security Council. This is in the case of peace-keeping operations. But in the UN Charter there is also an article about self-defence. And no sanctions [editor - permissions] are required in this case...
Vladimir Putin, 2007
As the Russian President pointed out, indivisible security
requires all countries to join a universal nuclear arms
control treat, not just the major powers of this dying epoch.
North Korea has missiles that can now reach the USA mainland,
thanks to Russia (this is a form of Russian coercion to catalyse
dialogue. They did the same in Ukraine when they made a lightning
strike into Kiev city - talks were agreed 4 days later. But the
west cancelled them. Coercion,
even as an almost last resort, doesn't always work.) Clearly,
increasingly more sophisticated missiles will arrive in the hands
of many different countries around the world. Some will have the
destructive power of low yield tactical nuclear weapons. Effective
instruments of arms control must be found, with accent on the word
'effective'. But progress cannot be hostage to what the USA wants,
which, so far, is unreasoning one sided advantage for itself. It
won't work. Therefore the USA must be sidelined, and arms controls
developed bilaterally or multilaterally, in a flexible but
effective series of interconnected (perhaps) instruments.
Indivisible security also encompasses economic security. Clearly,
instruments will have to be developed to punish those who impose
illegal sanctions. Russia has made a start.
There is no doubt Russia wants peace for itself, as a first
priority. But peace for the world is also in Russia's interest,
just as it is for everybody. But good manners and a desire for
peace does not equate to weakness. Russia won't be tricked yet
again by
the West's lies.
"We know various options that are being discussed, we know the ”lures“ they are going to show us in order to convince us that the time has come.
Once again, we want to resolve all disputes...by peaceful means. And we are ready for that, we want that.
But this should be a serious negotiation with provision of security for the opposing side, and in this case we are primarily interested in the security of the Russian Federation.
That is what we will proceed from."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024
The new epoch was born in 2007, but it is starting to come of age
in 2024. An edited part of Mr. Putin's epoch-catalysing direction
to the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs is
reproduced below (the full directive is here):
"...it was Washington that undermined strategic stability by unilaterally withdrawing from the treaties on anti-missile defence, on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles and on open skies, and, together with its NATO satellites, dismantling the decades-old system of confidence-building measures and arms control in Europe......Calls for a strategic defeat of Russia, which possesses the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians...
...It is evident that the entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes. At present, it is practically non-existent and must be rebuilt.
To achieve this, we must collaborate with interested countries...to develop our own strategies for ensuring security in Eurasia and then present them for broader international deliberation.
This is the task set in the Address to the Federal Assembly: to outline a vision for equal and indivisible security, mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation, and development on the Eurasian continent in the foreseeable future.
What needs to be done to achieve this and on what principles?
First, it is important to establish dialogue with all potential participants in this future security system. I would like to ask you to address the necessary issues with countries that are open to constructive interaction with Russia.
During my recent visit to China, President Xi Jinping and I discussed this issue. It was noted that the Russian proposal is not contradictory, but rather complements and aligns with the basic principles of the Chinese global security initiative.
Second, it is crucial to recognise that the future security architecture should be open to all Eurasian countries that wish to participate in its creation. ”For all“ includes European and NATO countries as well. We share the same continent, and we must live and work together regardless of the circumstances. Geography cannot be changed.
Yes, Russia's relations with the EU and many European countries have deteriorated, and it is important to emphasise that we are not to blame for that. The anti-Russia propaganda campaign, involving senior European politicians, is accompanied by speculation that Russia intends to attack Europe. I have addressed this issue before, and there is no need to repeat it again here. We all understand that these claims are baseless and serve only to justify an arms race...
The threat to Europe does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans is their critical and increasing dependence on the United States in military, political, technological, ideological, and informational aspects. Europe is being marginalised in global economic development, plunged into the chaos of challenges such as migration, and losing international agency and cultural identity...
...The United States is investing in military technologies, particularly advanced future technologies such as space exploration, modern drones and strike systems based on new physical principles. The United States is funding areas that will shape the nature of future armed conflicts, as well as the military and political power of nations and their standing in the world. These countries are expected to invest in areas of interest to the United States. However, this does not expand European potential...
If Europe wants to continue being an independent centre of global development and a cultural and civilisational pole on our planet, it should definitely maintain good and friendly relations with Russia. Most importantly, we are ready for this...
...I vividly recall participating in a conversation in 1991 where German Chancellor Helmut Kohl emphasised the importance of partnership between Europe and Russia. I hope that new generations of European politicians will eventually restore this legacy.
Speaking of the United States, the never-ending attempts...to maintain their imperial status and dominance...are only further exhausting the country... and clearly contrary to the genuine interests of the American people. If it were not for this dead-end policy...international relations would have long been stabilised.
Third, it is necessary to significantly intensify the dialogue process between multilateral organisations already operating in Eurasia to promote the idea of a Eurasian security system, above all such organisations as the Union State, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
We consider it possible that other influential Eurasian associations from Southeast Asia to the Middle East will join these processes in the future.
Fourth, we believe that the time has come to start a broad discussion of a new system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective security in Eurasia.
At the same time, it is necessary, in the long term, to gradually phase out the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.
Of course, we are aware that in the current situation this point may seem unrealistic, but that will change. However, if we build a reliable security system in the future, there will simply be no need for such a presence of out-of-region military contingents. To be honest, there no need today either – just occupation and that’s all.
In the final analysis we believe that countries and regional structures in Eurasia should themselves identify specific areas of cooperation in joint security. Guided by this, they must also build a system of working institutions, mechanisms, and agreements that would really serve to achieve common stability and development goals.
In this sense, we support our Belarusian friends’ initiative to develop a programme document – a charter of multipolarity and diversity in the 21st century. It can formulate not only the framework principles of Eurasian architecture based on the essential norms of international law, but also, a strategic vision of the nature of multipolarity in a broader sense and multilateralism as a new system of international relations which would replace the Western-centric world.
I consider it important and would like to ask you to thoroughly work out on this document with our partners and with all interested states.
I will add that when discussing such complicated and comprehensive issues, we need as broad representation as possible and a consideration of different approaches and positions.
Fifth, an crucial part of the Eurasian security and development system should definitely be the issues of the economy, social well-being, integration, and mutually beneficial cooperation, as well as addressing such common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, the climate, the environment, and developing mechanisms to respond to the threats of pandemics and crises in the global economy. All that is important.
The West not only undermined the world’s military-political stability by its actions. It has compromised and weakened the key market institutions by its sanctions and trade wars.
Using the IMF and the World Bank and twisting the climate agenda, it has been restraining the development of the Global South. ...it applies prohibitive barriers and all kinds of protectionism...the United States has abandoned the World Trade Organisation as an international trade regulator. Everything is blocked. Meanwhile, the pressure is exerted not only on competitors, but on their own satellites....European economies which are teetering on the brink of recession.
Western countries have frozen some of Russia's assets and currency reserves. Now they are trying to invent some legal justification for their irreversible appropriation... By stealing Russian assets, they will take one more step towards destroying the system that they created themselves and that for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowed them to consume more than they earn, and attracted money from all over the world through debts and liabilities.
Now it is becoming clear to all countries, companies and sovereign wealth funds that their assets and reserves are far from safe, both legally and economically. And anyone could be the next in line for expropriation by the United States and the West, those foreign sovereign wealth funds could also be the one.
There is already a growing distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies. There has appeared a certain outflow of funds from securities and bonds of Western countries, as well as from some European banks, which were until fairly recently considered to be absolutely reliable to put capital in. Now gold is also being taken out- gold from those banks. And this is the right thing to do.
I believe that we need to seriously intensify the formation of effective and safe bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms as alternatives to those controlled by the West. This includes the expansion of settlements in national currencies, the creation of independent payment systems and the building of value chains that bypass the channels blocked or compromised by the West.
Naturally, it is necessary to continue efforts to develop international transport corridors in Eurasia, the continent with Russia as its natural geographical core.
Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I instruct you to assist as much as possible in developing international agreements in all these areas. They are extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our country and our partners. This should also give a new impetus to building a large Eurasian partnership, which, in essence, may become a socioeconomic basis for a new indivisible security system in Europe...
Our proposals aim to establish a system where all nations can feel secure.
With such a framework, we could approach today’s numerous conflicts in a different way, and more constructively.
The issues of insecurity and mutual distrust are not limited to the Eurasian continent; rising tensions are evident worldwide.
The interconnection and interdependence of our world are constantly apparent..."
Vladimir Putin 14 June 2024
Security for greater Eurasia - from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific
Ocean, from the Arctic shoreline to the Southern periphery
connection to Africa, all South Asia to the South East Asian
Island States. When it comes to the greater body of the massive
Eurasian super-continent, success can only come through logic,
exploring the reasonable limits of possibilities, constant
strategic planning, imagination, and flexibility when confronted
with obstacles. One major obstacle is the malignant policies of
the United States political class in the wider sense that noted
geopolitical commentator Ray McGovern defined it (the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank
complex, or 'MICIMATT').
The United States is not geographically contiguous with Eurasia.
In some matters it cannot be ignored. Otherwise, it can. USA is an
island continent, with it's own enormous resources of all kinds
(albeit it is unwilling to pay the costs of depleting its own
mineral first - it would rather deplete someone elses). Notice
that the Russian President only refers to NATO in the context of
the European component of NATO that shares the same geographic
boundary. It is best to leave trouble makers out. Moreover, it is
best to gradually phase them out. The Russian President has long
considered that a unified military defense structure shared across
cooperating countries will supply adequate defense for all while
at the same time minimising the waste of money on military
materiel and armed forces.
Ultimately, and he has previously mentioned this, it will be
possible, in principle, to entirely eliminate nuclear weapons.
Even the United States will eventually acquire unstoppable
hypersonic weapons. After all, if the command and control
centers - including the Presidential Commanding Officer - of any
aggressor countries anywhere can be reliably eliminated, it
creates a very powerful incentive for politicians to not create
conflicts, direct or by proxy.
If that is the case, what is the point
of nuclear weapons? There is none.
Nuclear
non proliferation principles of increased and indivisible
security
"Russia, for its part, has consistently maintained that it is necessary to rely on the approaches that have no alternative and that have been enshrined in the provisions of the NPT and the consensus documents of the NPT review process.
Their key clauses stipulate that nuclear disarmament should be considered as an integral part of the process of general and complete disarmament and that steps leading to nuclear disarmament should promote international peace and stability and be based on the principle of increased and undiminished security for all.
What we have here at hand is highly sensitive national security aspects that should not be addressed without due regard for strategic situation ...Russia has to retain nuclear deterrence as an integral component of its efforts to address specific external threats, which continue to increase, affecting our country's vital interests.
As a consequence, while the provisions of Russia's doctrines evolve, the factor of nuclear deterrence keeps playing an important role.
...in pursuit of overwhelming military superiority and with full support of its allies, the United States continues to undermine the remains of the international security architecture, which it has already destroyed to a large extent. Washington has opted for bloc politics and keeps forming more and more military coalitions, implementing a variety of actions and technical military programmes that undermine strategic stability.
Particular emphasis should be put on the destabilizing practice of the NATO's so-called "nuclear sharing" involving forward-based U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, that is, thousands miles away from the U.S., and capable of promptly hitting critical targets in the territory of Russia and its allies.
Given the general increase in threats posed by the West and active modernization of the mentioned nuclear capabilities, this practice increases strategic risks and prompts one to take compensating counter-measures. This factor ...has long been a major obstacle to further steps in the field of nuclear disarmament.
We reiterate that the United States' nuclear weapons must be completely withdrawn to their national territory and the relevant infrastructure in Europe must be dismantled.
Washington's steps to replicate such schemes in other parts of the world where the United States already practices its so-called "extended nuclear deterrence," also have extremely negative implications for regional and global security.
In particular, the United States' and Republic of Korea's joint "nuclear planning" activities accompanied by calls to involve Japan in the process, create considerable tension in the Asia-Pacific and spur arms race. These tensions are fuelled by Washington's active steps to deploy its strategic platforms in the region, including nuclear delivery vehicles, and plans to transfer systems that could carry nuclear weapons, to their allies.
In particular, the United States intends to transfer to Australia submarines designed, among other things, to carry nuclear cruise missiles that are under development....
One should also mention Washington's long-term policy of shaking and re-formatting the arms control architecture to suit its selfish purposes. The system of relevant mutually reinforcing agreements has already been largely destroyed by the United States, who, on the one hand, has cynically dismantled all the international instruments that restrained it, and, on the other hand, took destructive steps that rendered the implementation of a number of treaties counter-productive for other parties.
All this highlights the hypocrisy of the United States' attempts to impose on its opponents unfair arms control and strategic risk reduction schemes that do not correspond to the realities and benefit no one but Washington.
Until Washington and the U.S.-led NATO, who renounce the principle of equality and show no readiness to respect our security interests, abandon their profoundly hostile anti-Russian policy, strategic dialogue with the West remains pointless to Russia. "
Deputy Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 25 July 2025
Nuclear free zones in Eurasia are certainly possible, at least for
intermediate range missiles. In turn, this requires watertight
agreements, and rigorous inspection processes.
The USA is an obstacle to nuclear disarmament. The USA is adding nuclear glide bombs all around Russia's borders. It is scheming to install cruise missiles (eventually hypersonic) in countries bordering Russia and China that are nothing but ciphers for the US malign plans. It is adding a notional possibility to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles launched in response to a US nuclear (or proxy) nuclear first strike attack. (Ultimately Russia and China will have to amend their nuclear doctrine to allow for a strike on the country that provided the nuclear device to any proxy country that launches a first strike nuclear attack on Russia or China. An amended doctrine should, in my opinion, also include the US or Europeans providing the material, components, instructions, advice to make a nuclear weapons, whether 'washed' through many proxy hands or not - and without limit of time.)
Russia and China will make their own arrangements to create exactly the same 'hair-trigger' risk to the continental United States that the United States creates to Russia and China. Unlike the United States, Russia and China will not rely on cipher countries to deliver the nuclear attack. Russia and China already have the means - and they are becoming more numerous - to deliver nuclear strikes almost anywhere in the USA from sea and air with missiles immune to any current or likely future US anti-missile defence system.
"...as the United States advances its plans to deploy its ground-launched intermediate and shorter-range missiles in different parts of the world, Russia's unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar systems is hanging by a thread. There are some other countries that will have to respond to Washington's steps in this area. As a result, the chain of actions and reactions initiated by the United States will inevitably cause a new and extremely dangerous surge in negative dynamics.
In view of the above, Russia continues to insist that the disarmament issues, including the matters of nuclear disarmament, should be discussed exclusively within the general context of comprehensive strengthening of international security and stability."
Deputy Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 25 July 2024
Indivisible security requires a complex web of checks and
balances, inspections, compromises and so forth. It is impossible
to reliably achieve this with the US at the moment. But if
bilateral and multilateral arrangements based on the principles of
increased security that is not at the expense of anyone else
becomes current in Eurasia and the global south more generally,
where does that leave a typical US cipher-country, a zombie,
without sovereignty?
Standing alone, dust in its pocket, gun at its head.
Does the average European citizen want this?
The politicians they elect do.
They appear not to understand they have entered the epochal change
to indivisible security. They must either change, or get out of
the way. Collective security is hard enough to achieve as it is.
Childish wreckers and destroyers have no place here. Peace needs
mature politicians of intelligence, goodwill, integrity - and
power. If the Europeans won't move with the times, so be it. Self
interested sovereign countries of the global majority will make
their own web of agreements, bilaterally, multilaterally, or both.
Its mix and match time.
A
system of bilateral and multilateral Eurasian security
"...the US and its allies...sought to build a security model in the European region that would presuppose their dominance and would ignore the repeatedly proclaimed principle of the indivisibility of security.
...events...have clearly demonstrated that such a “Euro-Atlantic” concept has proven its inconsistency and actually come to collapse. This could not but affect the OSCE and, in particular, the politico-military dimension of its activities. Russia, on the other hand, sought to defend those principles that were laid down in Helsinki (for example, the sovereign equality of participating States), and then enshrined, in particular, in Astana (the indivisibility of security).
Now is the moment of truth. Either our opponents will reconsider their approaches and return from fanning confrontation to the path of cooperation (although, let’s face it, we no longer believe in such sanity on their part). Or the existing institutions will be completely marginalized, and we will be faced with the question whether it is expedient to continue participation in them, investing effort and resources.
...in the context of accelerating world order reorganization, it is equally in the interests of Russia and the majority of independent States of our continent that a system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective security in Eurasia develops....
The time has come to begin a broad discussion on such a system.
It will be open to all interested Eurasian States and not directed against anyone’s interests;
it will embody the principle of “regional problems – regional solutions” in relation to the mainland.
This would serve as a safety net against geopolitical upheavals arising from the crisis of globalization, built according to Western patterns.
Within the framework of the new architecture, military-political guarantees would be designed to
protect its participants from external threats,
a conflict-free space would be created, open to
cooperation in the interests of all States located here, and
the destabilizing influence of extra-regional players would be minimized or eliminated.
At the same time, in the future it is necessary to work towards a gradual reduction in the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.
Of course, a literal return to the Russian security proposals that we put forward 25, 15 or even two years ago is impossible – too much has happened, circumstances have changed.
However, the basic principles and, most importantly, the very subject of the dialogue remain unchanged.
It is up to each of the European and Asian States represented in this room to decide whether to take part in the creation of such a system or remain on the sidelines of this process."
Anton Mazur Deputy Director of the Department for non-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia 18 July 2024
I have restructured Mr.Mazur's remarks to highlight the
arrangements being suggested mitigate or solve a number of
current problems. They can be summarised as protection,
peace, cooperation, legitimate sovereign interests, and stability.
The ultimate vision is 'onshoring' of military power potential to
Eurasia.
"Answering a question about NATO’s long-standing claim of being a defensive alliance that protects the territories of its member countries, Jens Stoltenberg said that while NATO remains a defensive alliance, the threats it faces are now global, necessitating its presence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The aggressive and unfair nature of this stance is evident to all.
Alongside the PRC and our other partners within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, we advocate for a Eurasian security model. This model will be based on equality, indivisibility of security, and mutual consideration of interests across the board. Achieving this model will take considerable time and effort."
Sergey Lavrov 18 July 2024
These arrangements will certainly take a long time. But the 2008
framework had a lot of flexibility. Countries could join and leave
relatively easily. Similar provisions will be an important feature
of a new framework. I advise those interested to go to my 2022
article and examine and think about the principles, provisions,
and structure of the
Russian 2008 proposal for indivisible security.
Create
indivisibly secure global trade mechanics
Global financial institutions have been undermined. No countries
sovereign wealth fund is safe. No one will trust western financial
mechanisms in future. US treasuries will be quit. Sovereign gold
holdings in western depositories will be repatriated. Naturally,
countries will be attracted to direct bilateral trade. Electronic
payment systems for imports and exports are already under way,
making it impossible for the west to interfere. Re-establishment
of the security of international financial transactions is once
again reliably ensured. Well, outside the western countries, at
least. Whether or not there is some form of 'closed loop'
gold-backed trading currency outside the west is far from a
settled question. But it cannot be absolutely excluded. One thing
is certain: trade relations in the new epoch will no longer be
interfered with by third party hands.
Along with the 2023 Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian
Federation, (my annotated and opinionated version is here),
this is the direction leading into a new epoch of flexible and
adaptable agreements and institutions that don't have the systemic
and irreparable flaws of the current western institutions and
agreements. The 'program document' the President mentioned is the
start of painstaking and no doubt slow work to formalise an
outline of the structures of the new epoch. This is an historic
moment, ultimately affecting everybodies lives, but the people of
the west are oblivious to it.
Once the instruments of the new epoch take further concrete form,
countries will be able chose to 'pick and mix' bilateral and
multilateral arrangements available from both the old dying epoch
and the new. The old epoch arrangements deliberately and
arrogantly reject and exclude the new; the new epoch instruments
embrace the best of the old, and in contrast to the old
western-biased arrangements, offer new, flexible and adjustable
arrangements, without compulsion or exclusion.
There
is no alternative to indivisible security
What is the alternative to indivisible security for all? What if
the west takes conflict and provocation to the very brink, whether
with Russia, China, or Belarus? Look at it through Russia's eyes.
The primary issue for Russia is not Ukraine, important though
that is, it is that the USA is ringing Russia with potentially
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, probably so-called 'low yield'
tactical nuclear weapons. These missiles will eventually be
hypersonic and therefore very difficult for Russia to shoot down.
In fact, given the length of Russia border, it will be impossible
to shoot them all down. Together, these threaten the end of the
Russian State. If the US/NATO refuses to remove these nuclear
weapons from its border, what options does it have?
"Clearly, a new equal and indivisible security framework must be created in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive discussion on this subject with all countries and associations that may be interested in it..."
Vladimir Putin 29 February 2024
I would like to stress that it is impossible to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis and to overall European security without Russia’s participation, without an honest and responsible dialogue with us.
Vladimir Putin June 14 2024
"13 June 2024
Here are the new American sanctions. There will be new European ones soon. Do we need to respond to them? It seems not, their number is already measured in tens of thousands. We have learned to live and develop with them.
On the other hand, it is necessary. Not only for the authorities, the state, but for all our people in general. For everyone who loves our Motherland - Russia. After all, they - the USA and their fucking allies - declared war on us without rules!
How to react? I already talked about this once, but it’s worth repeating.
Every day we must try to inflict maximum harm on those countries that have imposed these restrictions on our country and all our citizens.
Harm in everything in which harm can be done.
Harm to their economies, their institutions and their rulers.
Harm to the well-being of their citizens. Their confidence in the future.
To do this, we must continue to look for the critical vulnerabilities of their economies and hit them in all areas.
Cause damage in all places, paralyzing the work of their companies and government agencies.
Find problems in their most important technologies and strike them mercilessly. Literally destroy their energy, industry, transport, banking and social services. Instill fear of the imminent collapse of all critical infrastructure.
Are they afraid of handing over our weapons to the enemies of the Western world? We must transfer to them all possible types of weapons, except nuclear (for now)!
Are they afraid of anarchy and an explosion of crime in major cities? We must help disorganize their municipal government!
Are they afraid of war in space? This means they will receive it too.
Let everything stop for them, everything will deteriorate, everything will go to hell!
Are they afraid of social explosions? Let's arrange them!
We need to throw all the most ominous night terrors into their media sphere, use all their terrible phantom pains. No need to spare their psyche anymore! Let them shiver in their cozy homes, let them shiver under the blankets.
Are they yelling about our use of fake news? Let's turn their life into a complete crazy nightmare in which they will not be able to distinguish wild fiction from the realities of the day, infernal evil from the routine of life.
And no rules regarding the enemy! Let them get everything in full for harming Russia, and as painfully as possible! Everyone can contribute!
Remember:
Quid pro quo! [i.e. Return the favor]
Tit for tat!
A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he did <...>, so should be done to him
(Leviticus 24:20)."
Dmitry Medvedev 13 June 2024 (Telegram channel, machine translation, minor edits for sense)
On the US mainland.
Such an response from Russian submarines will be with unstoppable
Zircon missiles traveling at mach 9. They will reach command and
control centers in about 4 minutes from launch. Russia's small
'tactical' nuclear weapons (if that is what they use) are 70
kilotons (70 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). For comparison,
the nuclear bomb the American government dropped on Hiroshima bomb
was about 15 kilotons (15 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). The
nuclear bomb the American government dropped on Nagasaki was 25
kilotons (25 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). If you are
wondering about the destructive power of these lower yield
explosions, a brief description of the effects is here.
Indivisible Security is not just an option - it is an imperative.