Nasprotnike je treba pazljivo poslušati. Da razumemo njihove namene in da znamo nanje učinkovito odgovoriti. Besede Sergeja Lavrova imajo težo. Jaz njegove spodnje izjave iz zadnjega intervjuja razumem v smeri, da bo Rusija vztrajala pri tem, da se Nato umakne na meje pred širitvijo v nove članice EU. In v luči govoric, da ameriški predsednik Trump resno razmišlja o tem, da se ZDA umaknejo iz Nata, bi kombinacija obojega pomenila, da (1) ZDA upoštevajo ruske zahteve, in hkrati (2) da bi morale preostale članice Nata prevzeti varnostne garancije za (nekdanje) Nato baze v novih članicah EU. To pa bi efektivno pomenilo, da ex-Natovih vojaških baz v novih članicah EU ne brani več 5,225 ameriških jedrskih konic, pač pa, da nasproti 5,580-im ruskim jedrskim konicam stoji le še 515 francoskih in britanskih jedrskih konic. Pri čemer so francoske in britanske rakete z jedrskimi konicami hitre kot kočije v primerjavi z ruskimi nadzvočnimi raketnimi ferariji.

Kaj torej preostane “pogumnim” članicam EU, ki se danes tako glasno repenčijo pod ameriško zaščito?

1. Vključitev v vojno v Ukrajini in začetek tretje svetovne vojne (po kateri Evrope ne bo več)? ali
2. Otoplitev diplomatskih odnosov Rusijo in poskus izpogajanja novega, samostojnega varnostnega sporazuma med Evropo in Rusijo? 

Zaenkrat vemo le to, da so čivave zelo pogumne in glasne, ko lajajo izza hrbta gospodarja na buldoga onstran ograje in da dobijo srce in noge zajčka, ko gospodarja ni zraven in buldog preskoči ograjo.

Vir: Arms Control Association

We were not blind.

As far back as 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, President of Russia Vladimir Putin warned that while we were working with NATO, the European Union, and the G7 (as a member of the G8 at the time), we should not be mistaken for naïve or unaware.

If we are to be treated as equals, then let us work as equals.

We continued our efforts.

In numerous meetings, Vladimir Putin patiently explained to each country and Western partner what he meant in Munich, in case there had been any misunderstandings.

Until the very last moment, we gave them a chance to avoid an open conflict.

In December 2021, we told them plainly: You are stalling on the Minsk Agreements and creating security threats for us.

Let’s sign a European security treaty that ensures stability without dragging anyone into NATO.

They ignored us.

Even in January 2022, I met with then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

He told me that NATO was none of our business and that the only assurance they could offer was some limitations on the number of intermediate-range missiles they would deploy in Ukraine.

That was it.

More hypocrisy, impunity, exceptionalism and a sense of superiority.

And where did it lead?

It is hardly surprising that at a major event last year, President Putin said that things will never return to how they were before February 2022.

He had hoped otherwise, even as he understood those hopes were in vain.

But he gave them every possible chance – urging them to come to the table and negotiate security guarantees, including for Ukraine, in a way that would not undermine our security.

It was possible to resolve all these issues.

Now, many politicians, former government officials, and public figures – speaking with hindsight – claim things should have been handled differently.

But what’s done is done.

Our goals are clear, and our objectives are set − just as they used to say in the Soviet Union.

Vir: Sony Thang via X