Putin’s treaty keeps the West guessing once again
Putin is channelling his inner Godfather again. But in a twist, this time he’s saying “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t accept”. This means that in Washington, Kiev, and NATO HQ, they’re asking themselves: “Why?”
Without prior negotiations Russia has drafted two treaties. One between Russia and the US on Security Guarantees, the other for NATO on an Agreement on Measures. Neither mentions Ukraine, both are about the country.
The preamble to the Guarantees calls for “recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns” which is a reminder to the Americans that Russia regards Ukraine as being within its sphere of influence and a buffer zone for its western border. Article 1 says neither party will “undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party” – so no more supporting colour revolutions in places like…Ukraine. It goes on to say, in a passage that could have been drafted by Humpty Dumpski, that they will not do anything which “could undermine core security interests of the other Party”. That’s broad enough to mean whatever Putin chooses it to mean.
Article 4 is where the action is. The US “shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of NATO and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former USSR”. This translates as “Moscow shall decide who can and cannot join NATO. Washington will agree and tell the NATO capitals”. Article 5 says neither party will deploy forces and armaments in areas where this could be perceived as a threat – which reads “If we say US forces in the Baltics are a threat – they must leave.”
There’s more. Neither party can deploy certain missiles outside of their national territory (which only affects the US). It ends “The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force” which is to say the year two thousand and never.
For “Security Guarantees” read “Protection Racket”. Russia is suggesting, without saying so, that if it gets to say what happens in its former empire (USSR) – it won’t attack Ukraine. So, if this is a non-starter, why make the offer?
The NATO countries understand this could be an opening gambit to get a future watered-down treaty with better terms for Russia than it currently has. More worryingly it might be that Putin is preparing the Russian public for war by saying he offered a way forward but was rejected.
Most treaties do not begin life already drafted. There are usually negotiations about the language which will be used and about what terms mean. Rough drafts are produced which are passed back and forth before versions which begin to approach being acceptable are produced.
There are elements in both documents which are constructive. For example, Article 2 of the Agreement of Measures with NATO says “Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties.” The NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, has sensibly not ruled out discussing the wider issues, albeit with Ukraine involved. The Americans have indicated they’ll engage at a bilateral level. That is already a win for Putin who is determined Russia be treated as an equal to the US.
A White House spokeswoman said, “substantive progress can only occur in an environment of de-escalation rather than escalation” but the Kremlin does not want discussions dragged out and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that Moscow is not interested in “a marathon”.
Lavrov’s comment could be another indication that Russia is preparing for war. Putin added to that this week saying that increased western influence in Ukraine means Russia has “nowhere left to retreat to” therefore he would not “watch idly” if this continues. Conversely, if all the military preparations and rhetoric are part of a giant bluff to win concessions, both men’s ominous remarks can be seen as an element of that. Either way, the US and NATO are engaged in diplomacy to avert an all-out war in Ukraine by warning Russia of its consequences.
For every reason to believe conflict is coming there is a counter point. The demands made in the “treaty”, the bellicose language, and efforts on the information battlefield to provide justification for action suggest invasion. So does the positioning and make-up of the troops massed on the Russian side of border. Most of Russia’s battalion tactical groups are there and have brought with them bridge laying equipment and mine clearing teams. There has been such an uptick of cyber-attacks on the Ukrainian government that the UK and US have sent cyber specialist to help Kiev. Putin must also be asking himself, in the light of a rapidly arming Ukraine – if not now when?
Against this is the delayed decision on approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which once operational makes Europe even more dependent on Russian gas. Putin must also factor in the danger that, post invasion, what is left of Ukraine will be invited to join NATO and that Sweden and Finland would apply. The sanctions imposed on Moscow would be far more severe than anything so far experienced and would include Russian banks being frozen out of the SWIFT banking messaging system. Russian losses in men and equipment would be substantial, and the military would find itself in a long-term guerrilla war.
Action before mid to late January is unlikely. Putin needs to sell the public justifications for action and the talks between Washington and Moscow ending without a breakthrough might be part of that. By then the ground where an advance could take place would be frozen including areas which normally would bog down mechanised forces.
We still don’t know Putin’s intentions. He’s a master at keeping us guessing. We should have a clearer idea within a month.