On Sunday December 29, Lavrov engaged in another of his year-ending interviews, this one with Russia’s media group leader Rossiya Segodnya on the status of arms control treaties given the current conflict in international affairs as well as the state of various negotiations.
Regarding NATO's rollback to its 1997 condition/deployment, Article 4 of the Russian proposal is not asking for a "de iure" rollback (i.e. countries that became NATO members giving up their membership), but "de facto" is asking for exactly that (i.e. giving up their NATO infrastructure and deployments).
Clearly, I interpret Article 4 differently. But the point's moot anyway as it hasn't been included in Russia's negotiation stance since the SMO began. The intent now is to supplant NATO with the Eurasian Security Structure that will be constructed. That's the new mojo.
Ismaele is correct about Article 4 of Russia's NATO security agreement/treaty of Dec 2021. Furthermore Karl, you are wrong again. Russia has indeed repeatedly referred to the Dec 2021 treaties as a basis for a long-term settlement of the Ukraine issue. It - Russia's security arrangements with the US/Nato and Ukraine not being in Nato in any form as per the Dec 2021 proposals - is intrinsically tied to any conclusion of the Ukrainian SMO. From Putin's announcements of the SMO in Feb 2022 all through to now. I suggest your "interpretations" on several aspects is faulty here.
Regarding "The intent now is to supplant NATO with the Eurasian Security Structure that will be constructed. That's the new mojo." That is an unrealistic fantasy only very myopic and naive would imagine possible in the next two decades, and probably many more.
I have wondered about how a peace deal for Ukraine would tie in with a revival of arms control talks, which are, after all, in the interest of both sides.
Putin's declaration that the Oreshnik will go into production appears to contradict Lavrov's claim that Russia keeps to its unilateral moratorium on intermediate range missiles. A US intermediate range launcher may have been brought into Denmark for maneuvers earlier this year, but claiming that Nato has began deploying intermediate range missiles is stretching it a bit. The decision to deploy Tomahawks, SM-6 and/or Dark Eagle (IF operational) by 2026 isn't final in my view. A lot of things can happen until then.
Putin has talked about a Eurasian Security Architecture, but that's probably even harder to achieve than a revival of the European Security Architecture, and without the US, it probably wouldn't make much sense.
Anyways, I don't see Trump getting into the nitty-gritty of arms talks, which since the 1980s have become infinitely more complicated, with the cancellation of the ABM, INF and OpenSkies Treaties and the appearance of new types of weapons such as low-yield nukes, hypersonic missiles, AI and the like.
The 1997 Russia-Nato Founding Act is a bit vague on what can and cannot be done in the new members. There is talk about not stationing US nukes, but to apply this to the land-based Aegis ABMs in Rumania and Poland is subject to interpretation.
The Europeans are being bypassed with the focus now on Eurasia. The aim is defend the Heartland while melding the new Structure with China’s Global Security Initiative. When you read that proposal, what Putin’s advancing makes great sense. I’ve written upon that earlier. IMO, it’s important to see that Russian and Chinese policy is tied, and they both understand the process will take time as the Outlaw US Empire slowly declines.
Even if the Outlaw US Empire Deep State declares an acceptance of the Russian proposal, it would have no sense to trust the habitual Liars and sadistic Looters. The US owners are so profoundly col-nidreyed, that for them to make any promise means to set a trap for an honest opponent. The damned parasite!
"Said at the start of the Yom Kippur fast day, Kol Nidre declares all future vows and promises invalid, by declaring that all vows are "absolved, remitted, cancelled, declared null and void, not in force of in effect." Said by the cantor, surrounded by men holding Torah scrolls, it is sung to a traditional tune that has been passed down for generation."
I see Russia and its Eurasian partners erecting their Eurasian Security Structure with the "build it and they will come" attitude. Lavrov told TASS the Trump camp's proposed moratorium of 20 years on discussing Ukraine's entering NATO is unacceptable. They could make it 100 years and the answer would remain Nyet!
Thanks Karl, your insights are illuminating. The bankster's existential war against Russia (in particular) and China is past the point of return. Will the US rope together sufficient satellites to create a "garrison state", a kind of uneasy co-existence. Still, I don't think Musk can carry through on re-industrializing given that the alternative of guns/butter has been money printing, damn making choices.
Given the series of financial crises western finance induced, 1987, Latin American debt, Saving and Loan, Asian Financial crisis 1997, Dot com, GFC, 2019 Repo. With diminishing and willing counter parties to take the burden the combined west faces hard choices of financing the MIC and killing off a consumer economy resulting in Kaus's dream, you'll own nothing an be happy for captured western populations.
The time was different, but Albert Speer got lots of help and had plenty of resources. Musk has no help and few resources. Musk will need to kill the neoliberal parasites to accomplish what Speer did, and that’s the battle I want to see.
i can't see trump pulling the usa out of nato.. as it is he is asking them to raise their rates to 5%, as opposed to the present 2 %.... i would like it if he actually got out of nato, but remember - nato is a usa creation that has served their military industrial complex very well over the years! why would trump pull the plug on that??? great if he does, but i doubt he has the character or ability...
Really? They will not do that until and unless they are militarily defeated on the battlefield and summarily surrender. NATO is not going anywhere in the next two decades at least. Because no one is going to take them on directly in a war to defeat NATO.
Me neither. But I can see a few nations quitting sometime before 2030.
I cannot see Russia achieving any of its Ukraine SMO goals for years. Or it's broader strategic security treaty goals with the US hegemony for decades at this rate.
Trenin like many others, Lavrov included, are speaking academic hypotheticals and often unachievable hyperbole.
yes and no... i think it is complicated... one has to express their viewpoint,but also realize how practical or pragmatic it is when you have a sworn enemy trying to destroy your ideals and viewpoints...
Which means what exactly? Stop saying two things at the same time. What is that you really think. What you said james, says nothing. Everyone already knows it is complicated, me included. Yes to what, and No to what? Be clear, because you are not so far. You are sitting on a fence.
i am not sitting on a fence, but it is a question of how much writing i want to engage in here... as it presently stands - not much.. if i knew you in person, i'd be happy to talk about it over coffee.. cheers james
"but it is a question of how much writing i want to engage in here."
Then why engage at all?
This is an online discussion and was when you first engaged in it.
You are not going to get to have coffee with anyone. Your excuse is irrational, but you are free to do and say whatever you want. But the disingenuous (cop out) attitude is noted. You are sitting on a fence!
Something to keep in mind -- President Trump could end US involvement in the Ukrainian war in 24 hours. That is certainly within his authority (since the pathetic US Congress has never declared war), and that would be the end of the war as far as the US is concerned. Already, the Ukraine has largely dropped out of the news in the US -- hardly anyone outside the DC Swamp cares.
The US pulling out would not end the fighting in the Ukraine -- any more than the US pulling out of Vietnam and out of Afghanistan ended the turmoil in those places, but very few people in the US cared about continuing violence in those countries once the US left. Then the issue would be up to the Euros and to the Zelensky regime to deal with. The US has got many bigger problems to deal with much closer to home.
The Empire can indeed stop supplying Ukraine, but as I note it’s Ukraine/NATO’s part in the strategy of containing Russia that matters, which it will continue to do despite Trump’s efforts since he still wants to employ that strategy against Chiana and any other nation that dares to compete with the Outlaw US Empire.
Thanks for sharing the link. Unfortunately, I disagree with a great deal of what was discussed. A great deal of current and historical reality was omitted or twisted to fit POVs. For example, there was complete disregard for the actual power holders within the Outlaw US Empire--the Neoliberals/Money Power. Nor was there any inkling or discussion of what Trump's proposed economic plan will do to the nation. IMO, all the blind spots exhibited by all three young men are the result of their lack of experience and shallowness of understanding. Another example: the danger to Russia if Trump takes Canada and Greenland. The Outlaw US Empire has zero Arctic assets and Canada has just a tad more than nothing. Neither has any base on the Arctic Ocean. And with what military means are these conquests going to be made? And what means will be used to occupy Canada? Etc. Taking Mexico is an even worse notion. And Panama wasn't invaded as one of them stated; it was raided and Noreiga kidnapped, not invaded and occupied. And of course, those are all wars that the Empire's citizens don't want. The nihilism as proposed IMO doesn't exist.
I expect Trump to continue the longstanding US strategy towards Eurasia. Raising tariffs will rapidly increase inflation and thus interest rates will rise, and bond holders will revolt. the bottom 80% of Americans are mired in recession and a new record for homelessness was just announced. Trump's economic plan will exacerbate that, and all his rhetoric about combatting China won't mean anything to the millions that are financially stressed. Recall that first and foremost Trump is of the Rentier Class and is very poorly educated about most things that matter. Look at the division that already exists between him and top advisor Musk--Trump wants to deport and halt immigration while Musk wants increases in H1B Visas. I see one fiasco replacing another fiasco that intends to keep digging the hole deeper and midterms in 2026 again changing the balance.
i can't think of a more obvious example of paying for a seat at the ''dumbocratic'' table, as this is with musk spending . 2 bil to get the chair... wow... and not a word from these narrative control freaks about democracy and freedom in action, lol...
Musk has nothing to do with anything. Trump could drop him in a second with zero impact apart from MSM Neoliberal Democrat handwaving.
RE "not a word from these narrative control freaks about democracy and freedom in action"
Yes there is, they are the one's spruking the propaganda memes Karl says are asking if Musk is actually the President. Which is of course ridiculous at face value. Obviously, an intentional lie to shit stir, nothing more. But it gets repeated anyway by those who still believe in such MSM trash talk as it might match their own beliefs about Trump etc. What else needs to be said than it is unimportant and does not matter to anything?
"A great deal of current and historical reality was omitted or twisted to fit POVs (and Blind Spots.) "
This is the norm everywhere. Across all sides. Sharing one's own POV and saying why they see it that way is called having "Discussions:101". Everyone's POV is flawed, and everyone has their Blind Spots and Biases irrespective of what the actual facts and reality on the ground might be.
Karl again says : "I don’t know where or from whom the myth of NATO rollback arose from, but as you can see there’s absolutely zero in either proposal suggesting any such thing. The closest is Article 4, but that has nothing to do with rolling back; it only deals with the deployment of military forces on the territory of non-NATO states at that time—it says nothing about the removal of those states from NATO."
I say you have this wrong Karl. Can you provide any examples where people using the phrase "rollback of Nato" specifically also state it means existing members of NATO being required to quit NATO? Which is what you are implying they meant.
I'll repeat my question: Karl, Can you provide any examples where people using the phrase "rollback of Nato" specifically also state it means existing members of NATO being required to quit NATO?
Do you understand the question? Let me know if it is unclear.
Regarding Trump unilaterally removing the Outlaw US Empire from NATO, I would like to remind everyone that one year ago the Congress approved a bill barring any president to do that without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress: https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/
Regarding NATO's rollback to its 1997 condition/deployment, Article 4 of the Russian proposal is not asking for a "de iure" rollback (i.e. countries that became NATO members giving up their membership), but "de facto" is asking for exactly that (i.e. giving up their NATO infrastructure and deployments).
Clearly, I interpret Article 4 differently. But the point's moot anyway as it hasn't been included in Russia's negotiation stance since the SMO began. The intent now is to supplant NATO with the Eurasian Security Structure that will be constructed. That's the new mojo.
Ismaele is correct about Article 4 of Russia's NATO security agreement/treaty of Dec 2021. Furthermore Karl, you are wrong again. Russia has indeed repeatedly referred to the Dec 2021 treaties as a basis for a long-term settlement of the Ukraine issue. It - Russia's security arrangements with the US/Nato and Ukraine not being in Nato in any form as per the Dec 2021 proposals - is intrinsically tied to any conclusion of the Ukrainian SMO. From Putin's announcements of the SMO in Feb 2022 all through to now. I suggest your "interpretations" on several aspects is faulty here.
Regarding "The intent now is to supplant NATO with the Eurasian Security Structure that will be constructed. That's the new mojo." That is an unrealistic fantasy only very myopic and naive would imagine possible in the next two decades, and probably many more.
Correct. Worded better than I could do it.
Thanks Karl, for brining up this topic.
I have wondered about how a peace deal for Ukraine would tie in with a revival of arms control talks, which are, after all, in the interest of both sides.
Putin's declaration that the Oreshnik will go into production appears to contradict Lavrov's claim that Russia keeps to its unilateral moratorium on intermediate range missiles. A US intermediate range launcher may have been brought into Denmark for maneuvers earlier this year, but claiming that Nato has began deploying intermediate range missiles is stretching it a bit. The decision to deploy Tomahawks, SM-6 and/or Dark Eagle (IF operational) by 2026 isn't final in my view. A lot of things can happen until then.
Putin has talked about a Eurasian Security Architecture, but that's probably even harder to achieve than a revival of the European Security Architecture, and without the US, it probably wouldn't make much sense.
Anyways, I don't see Trump getting into the nitty-gritty of arms talks, which since the 1980s have become infinitely more complicated, with the cancellation of the ABM, INF and OpenSkies Treaties and the appearance of new types of weapons such as low-yield nukes, hypersonic missiles, AI and the like.
The 1997 Russia-Nato Founding Act is a bit vague on what can and cannot be done in the new members. There is talk about not stationing US nukes, but to apply this to the land-based Aegis ABMs in Rumania and Poland is subject to interpretation.
The Europeans are being bypassed with the focus now on Eurasia. The aim is defend the Heartland while melding the new Structure with China’s Global Security Initiative. When you read that proposal, what Putin’s advancing makes great sense. I’ve written upon that earlier. IMO, it’s important to see that Russian and Chinese policy is tied, and they both understand the process will take time as the Outlaw US Empire slowly declines.
Even if the Outlaw US Empire Deep State declares an acceptance of the Russian proposal, it would have no sense to trust the habitual Liars and sadistic Looters. The US owners are so profoundly col-nidreyed, that for them to make any promise means to set a trap for an honest opponent. The damned parasite!
"Said at the start of the Yom Kippur fast day, Kol Nidre declares all future vows and promises invalid, by declaring that all vows are "absolved, remitted, cancelled, declared null and void, not in force of in effect." Said by the cantor, surrounded by men holding Torah scrolls, it is sung to a traditional tune that has been passed down for generation."
I see Russia and its Eurasian partners erecting their Eurasian Security Structure with the "build it and they will come" attitude. Lavrov told TASS the Trump camp's proposed moratorium of 20 years on discussing Ukraine's entering NATO is unacceptable. They could make it 100 years and the answer would remain Nyet!
Thanks Karl, your insights are illuminating. The bankster's existential war against Russia (in particular) and China is past the point of return. Will the US rope together sufficient satellites to create a "garrison state", a kind of uneasy co-existence. Still, I don't think Musk can carry through on re-industrializing given that the alternative of guns/butter has been money printing, damn making choices.
Given the series of financial crises western finance induced, 1987, Latin American debt, Saving and Loan, Asian Financial crisis 1997, Dot com, GFC, 2019 Repo. With diminishing and willing counter parties to take the burden the combined west faces hard choices of financing the MIC and killing off a consumer economy resulting in Kaus's dream, you'll own nothing an be happy for captured western populations.
The time was different, but Albert Speer got lots of help and had plenty of resources. Musk has no help and few resources. Musk will need to kill the neoliberal parasites to accomplish what Speer did, and that’s the battle I want to see.
thanks karl..
i can't see trump pulling the usa out of nato.. as it is he is asking them to raise their rates to 5%, as opposed to the present 2 %.... i would like it if he actually got out of nato, but remember - nato is a usa creation that has served their military industrial complex very well over the years! why would trump pull the plug on that??? great if he does, but i doubt he has the character or ability...
Agreed, that's why IMO the conflict will go until a military victory is attained. It will be up to Europeans to dissolve NATO.
"It will be up to Europeans to dissolve NATO."
Really? They will not do that until and unless they are militarily defeated on the battlefield and summarily surrender. NATO is not going anywhere in the next two decades at least. Because no one is going to take them on directly in a war to defeat NATO.
"i can't see trump pulling the usa out of nato."
Me neither. But I can see a few nations quitting sometime before 2030.
I cannot see Russia achieving any of its Ukraine SMO goals for years. Or it's broader strategic security treaty goals with the US hegemony for decades at this rate.
Trenin like many others, Lavrov included, are speaking academic hypotheticals and often unachievable hyperbole.
yes and no... i think it is complicated... one has to express their viewpoint,but also realize how practical or pragmatic it is when you have a sworn enemy trying to destroy your ideals and viewpoints...
Which means what exactly? Stop saying two things at the same time. What is that you really think. What you said james, says nothing. Everyone already knows it is complicated, me included. Yes to what, and No to what? Be clear, because you are not so far. You are sitting on a fence.
i am not sitting on a fence, but it is a question of how much writing i want to engage in here... as it presently stands - not much.. if i knew you in person, i'd be happy to talk about it over coffee.. cheers james
"but it is a question of how much writing i want to engage in here."
Then why engage at all?
This is an online discussion and was when you first engaged in it.
You are not going to get to have coffee with anyone. Your excuse is irrational, but you are free to do and say whatever you want. But the disingenuous (cop out) attitude is noted. You are sitting on a fence!
have the last word, lol...
Something to keep in mind -- President Trump could end US involvement in the Ukrainian war in 24 hours. That is certainly within his authority (since the pathetic US Congress has never declared war), and that would be the end of the war as far as the US is concerned. Already, the Ukraine has largely dropped out of the news in the US -- hardly anyone outside the DC Swamp cares.
The US pulling out would not end the fighting in the Ukraine -- any more than the US pulling out of Vietnam and out of Afghanistan ended the turmoil in those places, but very few people in the US cared about continuing violence in those countries once the US left. Then the issue would be up to the Euros and to the Zelensky regime to deal with. The US has got many bigger problems to deal with much closer to home.
The Empire can indeed stop supplying Ukraine, but as I note it’s Ukraine/NATO’s part in the strategy of containing Russia that matters, which it will continue to do despite Trump’s efforts since he still wants to employ that strategy against Chiana and any other nation that dares to compete with the Outlaw US Empire.
Fascinating New Rules Geopolitics show posted today. The two guests were new to me and had a lot of interesting ideas.
Their theme is that 2024 was a year of chaos. Fasten your seatbelts for 2025
https://x.com/NewRulesGeo/status/1873745861563588716
Thanks for sharing the link. Unfortunately, I disagree with a great deal of what was discussed. A great deal of current and historical reality was omitted or twisted to fit POVs. For example, there was complete disregard for the actual power holders within the Outlaw US Empire--the Neoliberals/Money Power. Nor was there any inkling or discussion of what Trump's proposed economic plan will do to the nation. IMO, all the blind spots exhibited by all three young men are the result of their lack of experience and shallowness of understanding. Another example: the danger to Russia if Trump takes Canada and Greenland. The Outlaw US Empire has zero Arctic assets and Canada has just a tad more than nothing. Neither has any base on the Arctic Ocean. And with what military means are these conquests going to be made? And what means will be used to occupy Canada? Etc. Taking Mexico is an even worse notion. And Panama wasn't invaded as one of them stated; it was raided and Noreiga kidnapped, not invaded and occupied. And of course, those are all wars that the Empire's citizens don't want. The nihilism as proposed IMO doesn't exist.
I expect Trump to continue the longstanding US strategy towards Eurasia. Raising tariffs will rapidly increase inflation and thus interest rates will rise, and bond holders will revolt. the bottom 80% of Americans are mired in recession and a new record for homelessness was just announced. Trump's economic plan will exacerbate that, and all his rhetoric about combatting China won't mean anything to the millions that are financially stressed. Recall that first and foremost Trump is of the Rentier Class and is very poorly educated about most things that matter. Look at the division that already exists between him and top advisor Musk--Trump wants to deport and halt immigration while Musk wants increases in H1B Visas. I see one fiasco replacing another fiasco that intends to keep digging the hole deeper and midterms in 2026 again changing the balance.
how long before the musk-trump divorce? lol..
Some publications have asked if he's actually president. Musk talks about Zelensky's corruption, yet he clearly bribed his way onto Trump's team.
i can't think of a more obvious example of paying for a seat at the ''dumbocratic'' table, as this is with musk spending . 2 bil to get the chair... wow... and not a word from these narrative control freaks about democracy and freedom in action, lol...
Musk has nothing to do with anything. Trump could drop him in a second with zero impact apart from MSM Neoliberal Democrat handwaving.
RE "not a word from these narrative control freaks about democracy and freedom in action"
Yes there is, they are the one's spruking the propaganda memes Karl says are asking if Musk is actually the President. Which is of course ridiculous at face value. Obviously, an intentional lie to shit stir, nothing more. But it gets repeated anyway by those who still believe in such MSM trash talk as it might match their own beliefs about Trump etc. What else needs to be said than it is unimportant and does not matter to anything?
"A great deal of current and historical reality was omitted or twisted to fit POVs (and Blind Spots.) "
This is the norm everywhere. Across all sides. Sharing one's own POV and saying why they see it that way is called having "Discussions:101". Everyone's POV is flawed, and everyone has their Blind Spots and Biases irrespective of what the actual facts and reality on the ground might be.
No exceptions.
Thank You...
Cheers karl!
I see Lavrov has conducted another interview on Monday with TASS.
Very informative! Thank you karlof1!!
Karl again says : "I don’t know where or from whom the myth of NATO rollback arose from, but as you can see there’s absolutely zero in either proposal suggesting any such thing. The closest is Article 4, but that has nothing to do with rolling back; it only deals with the deployment of military forces on the territory of non-NATO states at that time—it says nothing about the removal of those states from NATO."
I say you have this wrong Karl. Can you provide any examples where people using the phrase "rollback of Nato" specifically also state it means existing members of NATO being required to quit NATO? Which is what you are implying they meant.
I'll repeat my question: Karl, Can you provide any examples where people using the phrase "rollback of Nato" specifically also state it means existing members of NATO being required to quit NATO?
Do you understand the question? Let me know if it is unclear.
Ref see Ismaele comment.