Non-Aggression Pact

 

The collapse of the USSR, which the West did not want so much, nevertheless happened, because the Soviet system was exhausted. Post-Soviet Russia declared that communism, aggression and totalitarianism were over and that Russia would be peaceful, anti-communist and democratic. The liberal West gladly and naively believed this.

In vain. Because already in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin clearly warned that he would go to war with the West, which had allegedly deceived Russia. The "deception" consisted in the fact that NATO, despite its promises (which, however, no one confirmed), swore not to get closer to Russia.

Of course, they forgot that the countries of Central Europe, without exception, after being liberated from the socialist concentration camp, quickly and without any coercion, knocked on the door of the Alliance. And they did not automatically and immediately find themselves there.

 

 

The evolution of hostility towards NATO reached its peak in December 2021, when Russia, through a speech by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, demanded that the Alliance "pack its belongings and return to the 1997 borders." The territory of the former USSR was, of course, to become a zone of undisputed influence of Moscow.

The inaccuracy of the thesis about the "threat" from the West was obvious, because NATO never intended to attack Russia. This is easy to prove by looking at the state of the armed forces of NATO countries even now - after almost four years of full-scale Russian aggression. And what about the previous years?! Russia still insists that NATO is an existential threat to it.

On the other hand, Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine forced the liberal-hedonistic West to finally wake up and realize that Russia is the greatest threat to democratic civilization.

This conclusion was particularly reflected in a series of resolutions of the European Parliament, the parliamentary assemblies of NATO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, in which Russia is defined as a country that professes and implements the inhuman theory and practice of racism.

The West continues to call on Russia to stop the war in Ukraine and start negotiations. True, no one understands what. But what everyone understands is that there is no trust between the West and Russia and there will be none in the near future. In parentheses, we note that within NATO, not everyone is convinced of the effectiveness of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

As a result, we have two antagonistic forces: the democratic world and the racist regime in Russia, supported by authoritarian China, with Ukraine as a field of conflict. It is extremely difficult to predict how this conflict will end, given the inadequacy of the Kremlin leadership, which constantly blackmails the world with its nuclear weapons, on the one hand, and the West's animal fear of Russia, on the other.

 

The traditional answer: disarmament, verification, confidence-building measures, etc., etc. As the current situation shows, this approach does not work. Because Russia's imperial aggressive policy remains unchanged. Therefore, there is no point in repeating previous mistakes.

 

 

Look at the problem from the other side. Do not disarm, but ARM! Because only weapons and the fear of their use will provide a real guarantee of mutual security. In our European case (after all, Moscow fears NATO's eastward advance precisely in Europe) it should be about the following:

a) mutually recognize that the demarcation line between Europe and Russia, based on today's realities, is the countries of NATO's eastern flank and Ukraine (and within its internationally recognized borders. This is a key element of future agreements).

b) mutually recognize that this demarcation line should become a zone of concentration of such a quantity and quality of weapons on both sides that will make a physical attack by one side on the other pointless. At the same time, the radius of action of the accumulated weapons should reach up to 4,000 kilometers in both directions and have a nuclear component.

The width of such a "defensive wall" is subject to agreement. The same applies to the inventory and quantity of weapons, as well as the maximum level of personnel. Strict and unconditional control should be established to ensure that the above parameters are not exceeded.

Thus, on both sides in the demarcation zone (from Norway to Romania) such a number of personnel and weapons will be accumulated and deployed that their potential impact will encompass the entire European continent and a significant part of the territory of Russia. This "defensive wall" will become a real guarantee of security for both the countries of Europe and Russia.

Any country that expresses a desire to join the participants of the Pact on one side or the other will be able to do so with the consensus agreement of the other participants in the Western group of countries (i.e. the EU and Ukraine) or Russia and its allies. In such circumstances, both sides will determine additional elements of mutual deterrence.

Weapons, multiplied by the fear of mutual annihilation, will not allow either side to attack the other, and will therefore remove existing security fears. Because neither NATO nor Russia will be able to advance. Therefore, NATO's advance to the East and Russia's advance to the West will be impossible.

This de facto state of affairs will have to be established by a Non-Aggression Pact. Unlike the previous ones, it will have real guarantees of compliance, and will therefore be effective.

At the same time, it should, among other things, clearly state that an attack by one side will entail an automatic and immediate response by the other. This will encourage NATO to develop a clear mechanism for the application of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or its equivalent for the countries participating in the Pact on the European side.

 

It is worth starting with a political declaration by Ukraine and NATO countries wishing to participate in such a project, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, of their readiness to conclude a Non-Aggression Pact (in the event that any NATO country does not wish to become a party to the Pact, its provisions will not apply to that country. If any European country that is not a NATO member expresses a desire to join the Pact, the remaining countries participating in the Pact on the European side should consider such a proposal within a reasonable period of time).

Countries allied with Russia or other countries bordering it will also be able to join the Pact together with Russia.

After the parties clearly document the political will to conclude a Non-Aggression Pact, they will agree on the quantitative and qualitative parameters of the “defensive wall” and control mechanisms.

After that, Russia will withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian territories it has occupied. Thus, Ukraine will regain full control over its internationally recognized territory.

In parallel, the parties will prepare the text of the Pact and include in it, in particular, provisions on the absence of territorial claims of the parties to each other and will undertake not to violate each other's territorial integrity.

The parties will carry out the relevant internal procedures, the Non-Aggression Pact will enter into force.

The participating countries of the NATO Non-Aggression Pact will reduce the sanction pressure on Russia in accordance with the pace of compensation for the losses it has caused to Ukraine.

The parties agree that the period of negotiations on the preparation of the text of the Non-Aggression Pact will not exceed six months. The same period will be provided for the implementation of internal procedures.

The term of validity of the Pact is 25 years. If within five years none of the parties declares a desire to withdraw from the Pact, its validity will be automatically extended for another 10 years.

 

 

The topic of aggressive intentions of the parties will become a thing of the past. Europe will not be afraid of an attack by Russia, counting primarily on its own defensive capabilities.

But what about Russia, what is its interest? After all, will it be forced to leave Ukraine and pay reparations?

The main motive will be that, by resuming dialogue and phased economic cooperation with Russia, it will give Europe, and more broadly, the West as a whole, a chance to survive in one form or another.

It is clear that after the collapse of the Putin regime, Russia will no longer exist within its current borders. Individual peoples will leave it and form their own statehood. But what remains will have a chance to exist for a certain period of time.

Such a prospect may seem much more attractive to the current Putin-like "elite" than bringing Russia to complete collapse if the war continues.

Moscow will be able to sell this, at least ostensibly, as a "victory", because, they say, the sinister NATO will never again threaten Russia. And the source of "neo-Nazism" in Europe, Ukraine, will have to recover for another decade after "our heroic SVO". Kremlin propaganda will convince the local masses of this in a month or two.

What will accelerate the realization of the lack of an alternative to such an option in the Kremlin and those around it?

Ukrainian flying/floating sanctions (good drones and missiles of various types in the right quantity) and real economic sanctions from the EU, which will stop the financing of the war.

 

By the way, we should congratulate the inhabitants of the Moscow swamps on the beginning of a new era of the nuclear arms race and remind them of what, in particular, caused the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century - "Star Wars". Now there is something to think about seriously.

Moscow's response will test the seriousness of Russia's claims that the West threatens its security. Or it will prove once again that the real goal of the Russian Federation is an attempt to conquer Ukraine and restore its influence in the post-Soviet space and in Central Europe.

Will Russia abandon this win-win strategy that is saving it? Otherwise, it will soon face a repeat of the fate of the USSR, regardless of whether the West wants it or not. History cannot be deceived.

This option, by the way, will also give hope to those politicians in the West who are mortally (but senselessly) afraid of the disintegration of Russia. Because for some time, in such a scenario, it will partially survive.

This will also help many European politicians to better understand the meaning of the concept of "security Eurocentrism", when it will not be necessary to find out every time which leg the next owner of the Oval Office got up from this morning.

So the question is also for our European partners: maybe we will finally start thinking and acting in this direction?