Below are extensive excerpts from an article in Canada's National Post by Derek Fraser, formerly Canada's Ambassador to Ukraine http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/21/derek-fraser-what-vladimir-putin-wants-from-the-west/:
In late October of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, delivered major foreign policy addresses that have perhaps not received all the attention they deserved. Their principal message, as Lavrov declared on Oct. 20, was that the West had to stop acting unilaterally and start taking Russian security and other interests into account...
Lavrov stated that, after the Cold War, the West had not responded to Russia’s proposal to develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security for the Euro-Atlantic space. Instead, it had expanded NATO towards the Russian border. Russia and the West, he said, should now strengthen the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to make it a strong organization with international authority. Russia and the EU should also, according to Lavrov, gradually develop “a common economic and cultural space from the Atlantic to the Pacific where no country would strengthen its security at the expense of the others.”
For Lavrov, the Ukrainian civil war could have been avoided if Russian-proposed treaties on European security had been concluded, or Russia had been party to the negotiation of the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine. Russia, according to Lavrov, had no intention of complying with Minsk ceasefire agreement of Sept. 5, whereby foreign troops were to be withdrawn from Ukraine, and OSCE observers allowed on the Russian border. Instead, it was up to Ukraine to begin a dialogue with the rebels on the terms of a settlement. This is consistent with the Russian desire to see Ukraine negotiate with the rebels a highly decentralized system of government whereby the regions would have competences in foreign political and economic relations, as well as a veto on Ukraine’s foreign policy, so as to prevent Ukraine from moving West.
Putin, in his speech, stated that the Ukrainian civil war was an example of a conflict “at the intersection of major states’ geopolitical interests,” “and I think it will certainly not be the last” without a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements....
If the West was prepared for dialogue, Putin indicated that Moscow was ready for “the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament” and military interventions in third countries.
The proposed treaties on European security to which Lavrov referred appear to be two treaties the Russians put forward in 2008 — a European Security Treaty and a Union of Europe between Russia and the EU. The West did not accept those Russian proposals for good reason. The Russian initiative of a European Security Treaty largely duplicated agreements already in force, notably the OSCE and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Besides giving Russia a veto on the expansion of NATO, the European Security Treaty would have weakened the OSCE. It would have revoked the OSCE principles of the inviolability of borders, the non-interference in internal affairs, the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
The EU rejected also the Russian proposal for a bilateral Union of Europe. The Union would have formed a single energy complex, which could have prevented Europe from diversifying its sources of energy. The Union would have also co-ordinated military, political and strategic matters. North America would have been excluded. So would have been the other former Soviet republics, unless they were part of one of Russia’s organizations.
While the Russian revival of their old proposals for East-West security treaties appears to offer little, perhaps the West should respond to it with counter-proposals of our own. Otherwise we run the risk of slipping further into a new Cold War. One of the Western practices during the Cold War was always to maintain dialogue with the other side. Another was to look seriously at Soviet overtures, however unpromising they might be, to see whether they might be turned into something positive. It was out of initially strongly opposed viewpoints that were negotiated the Helsinki Accords of 1975, which marked a major step towards eventually ending the Cold War. Perhaps Western experience in negotiating the Helsinki Accords should serve as a model for our actions now.
Putin's "late October" speech referred to by Ambassador Fraser has to be the Valdai magnum opus which the undersigned broke his back and went temporarily blind reading but besides that--besides that!--the speech got no more attention here. It should have, I admit. I had intended to write on it. Did not read Lavrov's speech, was not aware of Lavrov's speech.
In late October of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, delivered major foreign policy addresses that have perhaps not received all the attention they deserved. Their principal message, as Lavrov declared on Oct. 20, was that the West had to stop acting unilaterally and start taking Russian security and other interests into account...
Lavrov stated that, after the Cold War, the West had not responded to Russia’s proposal to develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security for the Euro-Atlantic space. Instead, it had expanded NATO towards the Russian border. Russia and the West, he said, should now strengthen the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to make it a strong organization with international authority. Russia and the EU should also, according to Lavrov, gradually develop “a common economic and cultural space from the Atlantic to the Pacific where no country would strengthen its security at the expense of the others.”
For Lavrov, the Ukrainian civil war could have been avoided if Russian-proposed treaties on European security had been concluded, or Russia had been party to the negotiation of the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine. Russia, according to Lavrov, had no intention of complying with Minsk ceasefire agreement of Sept. 5, whereby foreign troops were to be withdrawn from Ukraine, and OSCE observers allowed on the Russian border. Instead, it was up to Ukraine to begin a dialogue with the rebels on the terms of a settlement. This is consistent with the Russian desire to see Ukraine negotiate with the rebels a highly decentralized system of government whereby the regions would have competences in foreign political and economic relations, as well as a veto on Ukraine’s foreign policy, so as to prevent Ukraine from moving West.
Putin, in his speech, stated that the Ukrainian civil war was an example of a conflict “at the intersection of major states’ geopolitical interests,” “and I think it will certainly not be the last” without a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements....
If the West was prepared for dialogue, Putin indicated that Moscow was ready for “the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament” and military interventions in third countries.
The proposed treaties on European security to which Lavrov referred appear to be two treaties the Russians put forward in 2008 — a European Security Treaty and a Union of Europe between Russia and the EU. The West did not accept those Russian proposals for good reason. The Russian initiative of a European Security Treaty largely duplicated agreements already in force, notably the OSCE and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Besides giving Russia a veto on the expansion of NATO, the European Security Treaty would have weakened the OSCE. It would have revoked the OSCE principles of the inviolability of borders, the non-interference in internal affairs, the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
The EU rejected also the Russian proposal for a bilateral Union of Europe. The Union would have formed a single energy complex, which could have prevented Europe from diversifying its sources of energy. The Union would have also co-ordinated military, political and strategic matters. North America would have been excluded. So would have been the other former Soviet republics, unless they were part of one of Russia’s organizations.
While the Russian revival of their old proposals for East-West security treaties appears to offer little, perhaps the West should respond to it with counter-proposals of our own. Otherwise we run the risk of slipping further into a new Cold War. One of the Western practices during the Cold War was always to maintain dialogue with the other side. Another was to look seriously at Soviet overtures, however unpromising they might be, to see whether they might be turned into something positive. It was out of initially strongly opposed viewpoints that were negotiated the Helsinki Accords of 1975, which marked a major step towards eventually ending the Cold War. Perhaps Western experience in negotiating the Helsinki Accords should serve as a model for our actions now.
Putin's "late October" speech referred to by Ambassador Fraser has to be the Valdai magnum opus which the undersigned broke his back and went temporarily blind reading but besides that--besides that!--the speech got no more attention here. It should have, I admit. I had intended to write on it. Did not read Lavrov's speech, was not aware of Lavrov's speech.
