"As former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock said recently, the participants in the talks on the end of the Cold War realised that if they keep moving a tool such as NATO to a spot where barriers are crumbling, new barriers will appear in Europe. In subsequent years, they tried to talk Russia into believing that such a policy does not threaten its security, and even feigned offence when we insisted that in military policy, military capabilities speak louder than intentions and assurances.
This is a continuation of Russia-think. They never take the next step: Action speaks louder than capabilities. Did "capabilities" result in action? No. Invasion? No. Nuclear attack? No.
Back then, political declarations on the need for a single Euro-Atlantic security space at the level of the OSCE and the Russia-NATO Council were adopted. Our suggestions to put these political declarations on paper and make them legally binding to ensure European security were rejected. The arguments included (perhaps this was a Freudian slip) one that legal security guarantees can be provided only by NATO. That preserved the irritant in issues pertaining to providing equal levels of security to all Euro-Atlantic countries without exception."
Why did we, the West, America, not put those declarations in writing and make them legally binding? Russia was a party--or something, a partner, "stakeholder," whatever--to those "declarations." Since the declarations were not made legally binding, since only NATO, of which Russia is not a member, could enforce the new European order, there is not an equal level of security provided Russia. It seems to me Lavrov is right, here.
This is a continuation of Russia-think. They never take the next step: Action speaks louder than capabilities. Did "capabilities" result in action? No. Invasion? No. Nuclear attack? No.
Back then, political declarations on the need for a single Euro-Atlantic security space at the level of the OSCE and the Russia-NATO Council were adopted. Our suggestions to put these political declarations on paper and make them legally binding to ensure European security were rejected. The arguments included (perhaps this was a Freudian slip) one that legal security guarantees can be provided only by NATO. That preserved the irritant in issues pertaining to providing equal levels of security to all Euro-Atlantic countries without exception."
Why did we, the West, America, not put those declarations in writing and make them legally binding? Russia was a party--or something, a partner, "stakeholder," whatever--to those "declarations." Since the declarations were not made legally binding, since only NATO, of which Russia is not a member, could enforce the new European order, there is not an equal level of security provided Russia. It seems to me Lavrov is right, here.
