The Time for Moscow’s Concessions is in the Past
🎙 Excerpts from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov’s interview with “Rossiya 1” TV channel:
📍 August 4, 2024
📝 In accordance with the Gorbachev-Reagan agreement, the USSR and the US destroyed all their ground-based intermediate and shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles, also committing to not produce, test, or deploy such missiles in the future. By 1991, the USSR had destroyed 1,846 missiles, while the US destroyed 846, meaning that the Soviet Union got rid of twice as many of its missiles.
❌ The era of Moscow’s unilateral concessions is now definitely over. Never again, even under the best scenarios in our relations with NATO and the EU — which are currently hard to imagine — will we offer any unilateral concessions to the West. No handouts, gifts, concessions, or gestures to appease Washington. If the US attempts to impose something unilaterally beneficial to it again, there will be no agreements. Period.
🔙 It was once possible to reach agreements with Washington on a sound and reasonable basis. Some of them are still viable, especially on individual humanitarian issues, but this does not change the overall picture. Negotiations can now only be conducted on a “quid pro quo” basis. The Americans understand this kind of talk quite well.
❗️ President Putin’s statement on July 28 at the main naval parade in St. Petersburg regarding the US plans to deploy American intermediate-range high-precision missile systems in Germany in 2026 essentially means that the unilateral moratorium declared by the Russian President shortly after the INF Treaty became history will cease to be in effect. And we will have the opportunity to restore the situation within acceptable limits for us, possibly not even reciprocally. We will ensure our security, and our adversary, the collective West, will not enjoy any unilateral advantages. We will not allow them to gain these advantages.
[Emphasis on Telegram channel of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.]
≈≈≈≈≈
TRANSCRIPT
(machine translation)
The time for Moscow’s concessions is in the past: an interview with Sergey Ryabkov
On Friday, it was five years since the United States destroyed the foundation of global security by unilaterally ceasing to comply with the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In July, the United States announced plans to deploy missiles in Germany. Putin warned America three times: the answer will be ironclad. So how many seconds until the apocalypse? Olga Skabeeva spoke about this with Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov.
Q: Where are we now, if you look at the clock of the apocalypse?
Sergei Ryabkov [SR]: I would not like to say that “we are in free fall”, “we are flying into the abyss”, “we are on the verge of sliding into uncontrollable chaos”. Although this kind of epithet is increasingly coming to mind. I would say that the Doomsday clock now shows something like two minutes to two. This does not mean that their turn is irreversible and the clock will strike. Politicians and diplomats in the West and in the capitals under its control need to take a responsible approach to what is happening. And the military needs to keep the powder dry, because the scenarios can be very different.
Q: At the same time, you allowed the deployment of missiles with a nuclear warhead in response?
SR: If the supreme commander-in-chief, if our military says that special ammunition is needed on such and such carriers, then it will be so. But they must make this decision based on a combination of factors. I admit that there may come a time when this will be necessary. The third stage of the exercise to prepare for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons has now begun. This is a powerful signal in itself.
On August 2, 2019, Washington withdraws from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, concluded between the USSR and the United States in 1987. In accordance with the Gorbachev-Reagan agreement, the USSR and the United States destroyed all intermediate-and shorter-range land-based ballistic and cruise missiles, while also committing themselves not to produce, test, or deploy such missiles in the future. By 1991, the USSR had destroyed 1,846 missile systems, the United States – 846. That is, the Soviet Union cut twice as many of its missiles.
Q: Vladimir Putin, comparing what is happening now with the same double decision in the 80s – what does he mean? At that time, Washington outplayed us and deceived Gorbachev. How tough are the current conditions for resolving the crisis?
SR: The time of Moscow’s unilateral concessions is irrevocably in the past. Never in the future – even in the best possible circumstances in our relations with NATO and the European Union, which is now difficult to imagine – but even in these situations, no unilateral concessions on our part will be granted to the West. No handouts, gifts, concessions, any gestures to appease Washington. If they try again to impose something on us that is unilaterally beneficial only to them, then there will be no agreements. Just like that.
Q: “Appease Washington?
SR: “Appease me? It’s impossible. First of all, this is not our style. It was once possible to negotiate with Washington on a sound and reasonable basis. Something has been happening recently, especially in certain humanitarian subjects, but this does not change the overall picture. And you can only negotiate “bash on bash”, sorry for such a term. Americans understand this conversation very well.
A really tough conversation took place recently between the military departments. Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov called the Pentagon for the first time. And he said something that made US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin squirm.
Quote from the New York Times:
“The Russians found out about the secret operation of Ukraine against Russia, which, in their opinion, was approved by the Americans. Pentagon officials were surprised by the accusation and were unaware of any such plot. But whatever Mr. Belousov revealed, officials said it was taken seriously enough that the Americans contacted the Ukrainians and said, ” If you’re thinking of doing something like this, don’t do it.”
Kiev’s operation, if it had happened, would have plunged Russia and the United States into an unmanageable conflict phase with one hundred percent guarantee.
Q: Are there any details of this conversation?
SR: I can say that according to some indications, the signal that was sent by the Russian side to Washington – and I understand that not only to Washington, but also to some other capitals controlled by Washington-has reached. We have avoided a new escalation round. But that particular episode is very disturbing. As is customary with them, it was planned in relation to our internal events in order to cause maximum damage and get the maximum media effect they needed. Here is that particular episode, which is called “we have passed, thank God,” that is, the signal of our military leadership and the Minister of Defense to our American colleague, apparently, had an effect.
Q: Did they prepare something for the parade in Russia?
SR: I don’t want to go into details, but in principle there was a certain connection with such events.
The details of the audacious action at this moment are a state secret.
At the parade in St. Petersburg after the thwarted provocation, Vladimir Putin makes a statement that is discussed by the whole world.
Q: What does this mean in practice?
SR: In practice, this means that the unilateral moratorium announced by President Putin shortly after the INF Treaty finally went down in history will cease to apply. And we will be able to mirror, or maybe not necessarily mirror, the situation in an acceptable framework for us. We will ensure our security, and our opponent, the collective West, will not have any unilateral advantages. We won’t let him get these benefits.
Q: Do we not feel like we are catching up in this situation, when we always only respond, but never act preemptively?
SR: I am still in favor of avoiding escalation on my own initiative, but scenarios in which an escalation step is possible in fact are undoubtedly being considered. This is all too serious to talk about this kind of topic in the abstract. Secondly, it should not be limited to signals, it should be actions, otherwise we devalue the effect that we need to get from such steps.
Q: Does it make sense to talk to Germany in this regard, or is Berlin’s position secondary here?
SR: “We don’t stand with our hands outstretched. We have enough opportunities to deliver certain signals, including to the German government. We won’t ask anyone for anything. They think that they should not talk to us at this level, so we take it for granted. When they reconsider their approach, when they realize how wrong this line is, then let them tell us about it, we will see if it is worth talking to them. This is not why we started the SVO, so that we can now fulfill the ultimatums of this group.
The other day, German Foreign Minister Baerbock recalled her sporting past by performing a trampoline flip.
Q: Don’t you think that there is some kind of absurdity and madness going on?
SR: You can jump on a trampoline, or over a fire, or whatever you want. But this should be done in your spare time, and at the same time work should be conducted solidly and professionally. That’s what our opponents have big problems with. There is no professionalism anywhere. There is simply an attempt to serve the geopolitical tasks formulated in several cabinets, and then impose all this on the rest of the world.
Q: F-16s made their first sorties in Ukraine. Strikes on Russia are also allowed. Our actions?
SR: They do not have the means to change the situation on the battlefield in their favor. F-16, like everything that we saw on Poklonnaya Gora, and now in Patriot Park, their wreckage and burnt fuselages will also be displayed there. The problem is escalation. The problem is that there are no limiters left. You correctly said that strikes on the territory of Russia are allowed. American assurances that no such decisions were made and no indulgences were granted to Kiev are worthless.
Q: If they fly from NATO airfields, will we strike?
SR: Any means and any forces used against us in connection with or in the course of the SVO are legitimate goals for us. And let those who listen only to themselves listen, sitting in Washington, in Brussels, in Warsaw – anywhere.
Q: I will ask more specifically: if they fly from Romania, from Poland, from Moldova, will we strike?
SR: I don’t mention any goals; their list is not a question that we should discuss when we are on TV. But here, too, the scenarios are different, and it’s not for me to exclude any of them.
Related Posts
-
TECHNOFEUDALISM
February 14, 2025 -
Keep on Trumpin’
February 11, 2025 -
The AfD, Germany: some information that is new to me
February 9, 2025 -
In Valdai, confronting the “American problem” in West Asia
February 8, 2025 -
Ottoman Empire 2.0?
February 4, 2025 -
SMO: Large frontline summary 27-31 January 2025 – Marat Khairullin
February 4, 2025 -
Fascinating: Russia and DeepSeek
February 2, 2025 -
What Sültan Erdogan is really up to
January 30, 2025 -
Dancing to Trump’s Disco Inferno
January 28, 2025 -
Trump Shocks the World
January 23, 2025
When the Defense Minister of a nuclear superpower has to be the one to make the call — promising raw destruction to the Anglo-Americans if their nazi proxy harms their President, the Tragedy is far advanced and indeed near denouement..