New draft treaty for European security

Geopolitical goals of Russia

Introduction

• Basics:

  As always, I want to avoid writing history lessons. That’s why I will introduce quickly into the topic by enumerating some important historical events in short. Moreover, it makes some sense to read my former two articles, to be better able to grasp all connections and backgrounds.

  Moreover, I want to highlight, that this article and topic is one of the most important, that will be published. Since the whole Russian strategy pursues exactly this objective and to understand what is going on, on the battlefield, it is essential to understand the content of this article. Russia won’t stop, before she reaches the signing of the draft treaty, that we will discuss in this article.

  The cause for the whole process lays in the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1990, the Western leaders promised to the Soviet leadership, that if the Soviets withdraw its troops from Eastern Germany, there wouldn’t be any eastwards expansion of NATO.  Especially not on the territory of the states of the former Warsaw Pact. This verbal agreement was made during the negotiations between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker, which was the Secretary of State of the US. The negotiations led to the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Germany and to the reunification of Germany.

  Nevertheless, the further history is known well. Every few years NATO was expanded by new members in eastern direction. Which clearly includes former Warsaw Pacts members, such as Poland or the Baltic states.

  One can argue that, that there is no legally binding treaty, where a non-expansion was guaranteed. And so, the expansions were legal. And that’s right. Back then the Soviet Union was in the process of disintegration and was therefor weak and had no negotiation power. It was more or less the only possibility, to agree to verbal guarantees. Well, the promise is not legally binding, and the expansion is legal.

  But.

  For Russia it is an existential question. Either Russia achieves to enforce, what was promised, or the whole world will live in a constant status, of near destruction. By reading my first article, called “Scorched Earth”, one will understand, why.

  One could write book after book, just to explain the basics, there is much more to say, which is important. But I want to leave it with this information.

• The path to war in Ukraine:

  Russia has red lines when it comes to NATO expansion. Of course, I don’t know them for sure, but I will offer my assumptions.

  Countries that are highly likely red lines:

  • Belarus

  • Ukraine

  • Georgia

  • Moldova

  • Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union

  What does it mean? It means, that Russia would go to war, to prevent, that those countries would come into any Western led organization. Such as NATO or EU etc.

  The rest of the story is explained in some detail in my article “The path to war in Ukraine”. You should read it, for further understanding.

• Russian objectives for its security:

  Here I recommend the same. Please read my article “Ukraine: scorched earth”, to understand the security requirements of Russia better. Nonetheless I’ll reiterate some important facts here, since they are relevant to understand the whole article.

• Historic perspective:

  1941 Germany launched its Operations Barbarossa. It was the large-scale invasion off the Soviet Union. The German leadership wanted to take Moscow with similar Blitzkrieg techniques, that it successfully implemented before in France. Germany attacked with a huge army, that was organised in several “Heeresgruppen” (Army groups) and created a large frontline from the Baltic Sea, down to the Black Sea.

  The Soviet Union back then, had a large buffer zone between the German staging areas in Poland, Hungary and Romania and Moscow. Even though the Germans managed to penetrate quickly deep into Ukraine and Belarus, it gave the Soviet leadership enough time to prepare the country, especially Moscow for defence.

  Again, I don’t intend to go into details of this war, but I want to highlight, that this buffer zone and the Soviet winter gave the Russians enough time to prepare a CONVENTIONAL defence and to build up a wartime industry behind the Urals. Back then, there was only the possibility of conventional defence. Today there are other means, which is the problem.

  Russia wants to have a large buffer zone around its important cities and borders. There are two reasons. I just described the first reason. It gives the Russians enough time, in case of an aggression or invasion, to prepare the defence of larger cities. We can all agree that this are reasons, that mostly gives Russia security.

  The second reason is far more important for the whole world. We have today nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the United States have stationed many of them in Europe and in Turkey. The great powers insisting to have at least enough warning time, to be able to react. To launch interceptors and/or to start an own nuclear strike against the enemy. But most importantly, to have time, to validate by humans, whether it is a real nuclear strike or only a computer error. Such errors happened in the past and people prevented, on both sides, a mass launch of nuclear weapons. If the warning time is too short, because the enemy infrastructure is too close to large Russian cities, then there is no possibility for humans, to react or to check whether it is an error or a real strike.

  The consequences are dire. Russia has a system, called Perimetr. I won’t go into details here, but you can google it and find out more of it. In short: It is an automated system, that checks many sensors across Russia over potential anomalies, that would occur after a nuclear strike. For example, radiation levels. But there are many more factors. This system can be put on fully automatic mode. Which it would be if NATO infrastructure would be deployed in Ukraine for instance. In this case there won’t be humans, checking whether there is a real missile flying in Russia’s direction. Perimetr would get data about an approaching object, that has all characteristics of a nuclear missile and would decide within seconds, to fully launch all Russian nuclear missiles worldwide, in submarines as well, to destroy all enemies.

  I want to highlight, that this is truly a situation that no one of us, neither on Russian side nor on Western side, should and would want to have. Ever. Why? A single error or misinterpretation of any objects could lead automatically to the end of the world. Within seconds. And neither Russia wants this. That’s why Russia is doing everything it can, to avoid such a situation, because the Russian leadership would like to ensure for the Russians, to live further on for many years to come.

  You might want to ask, why the West would want to take such a risk of the end of the world? That’s simple. The West has plans in place, to put that much pressure on Russia, that its government falls apart and the people coup the leadership away. In this case Russia would disintegrate and the West would have full access to all Russian resources. See the strategies of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the RAND papers in connection with the disintegration of Russia. In this case the West would get control over the Russian nuclear arsenal without a fight.

  Russia proposed after many rounds of provocations in Ukraine, between 2014 and 2021 to the United States a draft treaty for European security. To be straightforward, unless the United States are unwilling, to accept this treaty and sign it, Russia will continue with so called “military-technical measures”, to implement it unilaterally.

  In assumption, that you read my article “Path to war in Ukraine” I will jump now directly into the content of the Russian proposal for the West over a draft treaty for European security. In the mentioned article the prelude to this proposal is explained.

Content of the proposal

The proposed draft treaty can be accessed online on the website of the foreign ministry of the Russian Federation. I won’t write it down in detail here but summarize in few words the eight articles.

1. The security of the parties needs to be guaranteed in both ways and is indivisible. The parties shouldn’t take measures that would undermine the security of the other party.

2. The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

4. The United States shouldn’t further expand NATO eastwards and deny any country of the former Soviet Union an accession. The US shouldn’t establish military bases on countries of the former Soviet Union, that are not members of NATO.

5. The parties shouldn’t deploy its armed forces in areas, that would pose a threat, to the other party. Heavy bombers and warships shouldn’t be deployed in areas, where they could attack the other party. There should be a dialog maintained between the signing parties, to maintain security.

6. The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

7. The parties shall deploy nuclear weapons only on its own territory. All nuclear weapons, that are deployed on foreign soil, shall be returned on its own soil. All infrastructure abroad, for deployment of nuclear weapons shall be eliminated. No foreign military personnel shall be trained in the use of nuclear weapons of the signing parties.

8. 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. Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Western reaction

Russia negotiated with three parties over the draft treaty.

1. The United States

2. NATO

3. OSCE

Russia announced, that it needs an answer immediately. It received it within days. The answer was negative. All parties rejected the proposal. The United States rejected diplomatically. The other two parties, let’s say, undiplomatically.

From my point of view did the Russian negotiating team, as well as the Western negotiating team exchange pretty clear prospects, what will happen, in case of different scenarios. We can say red lines were communicated and consequences announced for crossing of red lines. Which makes absolutely sense and is usual before all large-scale wars. To avoid a chain of events, that would lead into Armageddon. Of course, such negotiations are never made public.

The further developments are known well. Russia started with the unilateral implementation of the draft treaty. Russia started in Ukraine.

Russian implementation thus far

Russia is pursing a multidimensional approach to defeat the West economically and from within. By doing it this way, Russia reduces the risk of a nuclear exchange, that would be almost inevitable if a military conflict between both parties would break out. To make it very short: Russia is applying a set of measures that should, if successful, bring the West economically on its knees. Due to following internal struggles, the calculation is, that the West falls apart, and the single members would start, to pursue its own national interests, that would be negotiated with Russia one on one.

Let’s summarize the objectives:

1. Bring the West economically on its knees.

2. Avoid, if possible (not granted) an armed conflict with NATO.

3. Increase internal struggle in the West, NATO and the EU by economic downfall and massive shortages of resources. Which creates ideal conditions for diplomatic divide and conquer strategies.

4. After the disintegration of the West creating new relationships and treaties with single national states, that pursue their own interests.

5. Thereby such a draft treaty would either no more be necessary or would be negotiated with single national states.

I don’t intend to go too deep here, since other articles will focus solely on single approaches, mentioned above. But some basic approaches will be described, on a basic level below.

Possible Russian approach and strategy

Basics

Since Russia is forced to implement its draft treaty unilaterally and at the same time, the West is dead set to NOT implement it, we can talk about a full-fledged war between both parties. This war is currently going on. Fortunately, not yet between troops of those parties, between Russia and West’s proxy, Ukraine. Apart from this, there is an actual economic world war going on. Better said, a war for the future distribution of resources, which will define, again, for a long time, which nations will be dependent on which resource supplying nations. There will be winners and losers.

Crashing Western economies through the Ukraine war

The war in Ukraine is causing the following circumstances for the West:

• Deindustrialization of Europe:

  The war in Ukraine triggered massive sanctions against Russia by Europe. Most sanctions are initiated by the United States, nevertheless only Europe is implementing them. In most cases the US assesses the potential damage, and refrains from imposing sanctions on Russia, which they force Europe to impose and absorb the blow back on its own. The industrial centre of Europe is Germany. All other EU countries are interconnected with Germany. If an outside actor would like to deindustrialize Europe, then he would need to choke off Germany, the rest would collapse alongside Germany. This is a scenario that is being currently implemented. By whom? Well, I’m afraid, not only by Russia. But I’ll discuss this issue in another article.

  Germany and Europe are sanctioning themselves away from cheap Russian resources. Not only do they sanction themselves away, but through diversionary activities in connection with energy supply, external powers are actively helping Europe, cutting themselves off, from Russian supplies.

  Germany is currently losing access to cheap energy and other cheap resources from Russia. This access to cheap resources was the basis for the whole German prosperity and export potential. Germany is an export nation. If the production costs not only increase, but skyrocket, then either Germany would sell its good on the world market huge financial loses, by keeping prices stable or lose market share or whole markets, if it increases the prices according to the production cost increase. Both scenarios are totally unsustainable. The situation won’t change. It is to be expected that most German enterprises will go bankrupt or move to other countries, where they can produce cheaper.

  I will go deeper into economic circumstances in a separate article. For now, this information should be sufficient.

• Great drop in prosperity in Europe through inflation:

  Due to a massive surge of prices, across most commodities, Europeans will be able to buy far less commodities with the same amount of money. Which is a spiral, since further businesses will have impacts, due to a drop off domestic demand. In the best-case scenario, people will be able to buy far less commodities. They will need to concentrate on basic goods, needed to live. In the worst-case scenario, people won’t be able to buy basic demands and will lose everything, they posses and go into dependence of governmental social programs. One can imagine that people will not be happy.

• Demilitarization of Europe:

  Europe is currently forced, by obligations against NATO, to send as many as possible weapons from its storages to Ukraine. Especially Eastern European countries are forced to send ALL their Soviet era weapons to Ukraine. We are currently reaching the point, where most weapons, that could have been sent, are sent. In turn we can conclude that, Europe is running low of weapons and especially ammunition. But not only Europe. The United States as well. In fact, the ability to defend themselves is at risk or already gone, at least in Europe.

• Total dependence of Europe on the United States:

  Since Europe currently loses its access to cheap Russian materials and energy, it will be forced to buy extensively expensive American energy and materials. If Europe was able to have two or more major suppliers until now, this possibility is now gone. A monopoly is being created by the Americans. Europe will get energy for a high price, and only if it follows the geopolitical path, set by the United States. It was exactly created, what the Americans warned Europe all the time, could happen, if Europe get depended on Russia. But only the other way around.

Exploitation of the low availability of energy and resources in military terms

The same goes for weapons. Since Europe gave away most of its weapons, especially the Soviet models, they are now depended on deliveries of the United States. Own production will get immense expensive, as discussed above. If Europe want to have weapons, especially Eastern Europe, then it will need to buy it from the Americans. If they don’t act, as ordered, there won’t be weapons, and no ability to resist. Against none, neither America nor Russia.

Summarized implications:

• Due to expensive energy and materials military production will be either very expensive or impossible.

• Military stocks are very low.

• Eastern Europe needs to change its whole military infrastructure and procurement on American systems. This will be the most expensive project, that those countries probably ever had. Maybe it won’t happen at all. If it happens, then the American MIC (military industrial complex) will earn a fortune and grow, while Eastern Europeans will only work, to send money for rearming with expensive American systems to the United States.

• No military possibility to resist Russia, if Russia would decide to go further west, after Ukraine. This is a theoretical point, since not very realistic.

Triggering social unrest in the West and applying divide and conquer techniques

When people start losing their jobs, their property and their health on mass, then even the Europeans will take to the streets. If you add a cold and long winter with possible blackouts and no heating to it, the cocktail is perfect, for revolutionary sentiments in Europe. Much will depend on the intensity of the coming winter. What can be said for certain is, though, that the next winter, from 2023 to 2024, will be a total catastrophe.

The calculus of the Russians is, that the people coup away governments to restore ties to Russia, to save their economies and their prosperity. Will it have success? I don’t know. But of course, Russia will only help, if its draft treaty will be ratified by the single national state, that is asking for help.

Collapse

There are many scenarios, that are imaginable. But in case, that the people don’t overthrow their governments and re-establish ties to Russia, it is highly likely that after several hard years, the countries will collapse on their own. If the governments of Europe will need to subsidize its citizens and enterprises, to be able to survive, and considering the amount of money, that is already planned in Germany and Britain for subsidizing BEFORE the crisis really kicks off, this will not be sustainable for any government for more then maybe three years.

Here we would see a collapse of the system, and again revolutionary sentiments.

Either “No threat” or “Treaty”

Russia will accept only two outcomes of the crisis in Europe:

1. “No threat” scenario:

   If the European countries and institutions like NATO and EU collapse/vanish and don’t pose any threat for a long time, Russia could be satisfied, since its security requirements will be met long term.

2. “Treaty” scenario:

   The European countries and institutions like NATO and EU somehow managed to prevail, but choses to surrender, before the worst-case scenarios materialize, mentioned above, they could in this case sign the draft treaty.

Requirements

What conditions need to be in place, that the scenario, mentioned above, materialize?

Here are the most important:

• The West needs constantly to think, that it is winning, and that Russia is losing. If the Western public would get the impression, that its sacrifice is for nothing good, it would collapse far quicker. Thus, Russia decided to do a SMO (special military operation). It gives the west all the time and confidence, that it needs, to impose as much self-sanctions as possible, to send in as much of its military stock (demilitarization) as possible, to endure its whole deindustrialization and deenergization.

• Many people constantly ask, what is the reason for the SMO. One of the reasons is for sure, the mentioned above. To look weak. Give the West confidence. Apart of this, of course to activate the Russian public as well. (There are far more military reasons, why Russia is conducting a SMO, which I will explain, in the military articles).

• The West always will need, until the point it collapses or surrenders, to be confident, that it is winning, and Russia is losing. This is what is needed, to convince all, elites and the people to keep up fighting (suffering) and not thinking about putsch the government away.

Risks

I explained until now, what I assume the Russian plan is. But both sides are planning and escalating, based on what the situation on the ground is. Only because it potentially is the Russian plan for the draft treaty, it doesn’t mean, that it will succeed like this. Unfortunately, it is a very dangerous game, that, if escalating would mean WW3. Or worse, nuclear Armageddon. One of the measures, to keep those risks low is already described above. The deenergization and deindustrialization of Europe, which makes it far less likely that NATO would decide for adventure, while currently not being able to sustain a war industrially.

Conclusion

I hope I was able to explain the bigger picture a little better with this article. It will be far easier, to understand the military situation, if you kept up reading my geopolitical preparation articles until now. Certainly, Europe is currently a very bad place to be, during the next few years.