Xinmin Global | Is the security dialogue between Russia and the West really fruitless?Fly into the homes of ordinary people
Recently, Russia and the United States, NATO and the OSCE-style “war on wheels” dialogue came to an end. Judging from the feedback from public opinion, the dialogue seems to be labeled as “fruitless”. However, to accurately assess the outcome of the dialogue, it is necessary to proceed from reality, rather than simply taking the “safety guarantee agreement” as the only criterion. From this perspective, the author believes that although there is a lack of iconic results, all parties have used dialogue to achieve their bottom-line goals, and there may be limited compromises at the tactical level in the future.
Achieving “bottom line goals”
First of all, this dialogue achieved the “bottom line goal” under ultra-low expectations.
Russia, the United States, and NATO frequently “speak harshly” before the start of the dialogue, which not only reduces the outside world‘s expectations for the negotiations, but also leaves enough room for possible compromises in the future. Although no immediate results have been achieved, all parties have continued to test each other’s bottom line while drawing “red lines” through dialogue.
Caption: At the dialogue, Russia and NATO discussed the restoration of the Russia-NATO Council mechanism. Source: aljazeera
In the context of ultra-low expectations, all parties seem to be “saying their own words”, but they may not have achieved nothing. For example, the United States has obtained a political statement that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine; issues such as restrictions on military exercises and missile deployments that Russia is concerned about have also received relatively positive responses, and the confidence of the two sides to resolve border standoffs through dialogue has been strengthened.
This multi-level and comprehensive bottom-seeking process is generally beneficial for Russia and the United States to achieve the bottom-line goal of “preventing war and avoiding chaos”.
Dialogue focus shift
Second, the offset of the center of gravity is the main obstacle to the landmark achievement “dystocia”.
Russia and the West are shifting the focus of their dialogue. Russia attaches more importance to the strategic value of dialogue, and takes the opportunity to reconstruct the European security architecture in the “post-Cold War period”. Therefore, Russia used extreme political and military pressure to bring the United States and NATO back to the negotiating table, and took “NATO to give up the legal guarantee for eastward expansion” as a strategic pre-emptive move, and made public the content of the so-called “Security Guarantee Agreement” to seize the moral commanding heights and alleviate the situation. Identity Anxiety and Security Panic in “Post-Soviet Space”. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the reason why Russia put forward the “security guarantee” proposal is because patience has reached its limit.
The United States and NATO are more concerned about the tactical value of dialogue, and hope to shift the focus of the game to technical issues such as arms control and armaments. From the perspective of the United States, Russia’s relevant demands are contrary to NATO’s “open door” policy, and there is no room for compromise. However, it is in the short-term interests of the United States to “stabilize” Russia through dialogue and avoid a strong military rebound caused by excessive stimulation and squeeze.
Caption: On January 11, two Ukrainian soldiers passed by the village of Luhansk in the Donetsk region. A warning board said “Beware of mines”. Source: voa
In fact, since the disintegration of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, under the impact of several major geopolitical and security incidents, the perceived contradiction between Russia and the West about “security” and “insecurity” is deeply rooted, and it is not expected that dialogue can be completely changed. Containment and anti-containment, expansion and anti-expansion struggle.
Limited compromise can be expected
Finally, limited compromise between Russia and the West beyond their core demands can be expected.
At present, the dialogue has not changed the tough stance of the two sides on the core demands. The differences on whether to insist on or abandon NATO’s eastward expansion are still irreconcilable. Russia and the United States are still actively creating “off-site pressure”.
At the same time as Russia and the OSCE dialogue, the US Senate submitted a sanctions bill against Russia. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov also suggested that military experts are offering President Vladimir Putin options to deal with the worsening situation in Ukraine.
Although Russia and the United States are simultaneously planning two-handed preparations to deal with the uncertainty of the situation. However, it cannot be ruled out that the two sides refer to the “easy first and then the difficult” approach to make limited compromises to reduce the risk of direct conflict and reduce the investment of strategic resources.
For example, in response to the existing security panic, the United States and Russia may reach a consensus on suspending the deployment of missiles, and even start a dialogue on returning to the “Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty”; limit the frequency and scale of military exercises in the area around the Black Sea; reduce the border areas between Russia and Ukraine in batches The number of troops stationed in the United States; adjustment of the relevant plans for US arms sales and military assistance to Ukraine; a more cautious internal assessment of Ukraine’s “joining the treaty”, and no timetable or roadmap has been formulated for the time being.
In theory, the “war doubts” on the Russian-Ukrainian border have not completely disappeared. Russia has also launched many unexpected military operations, using limited resources to win the initiative in the game with the West. However, in terms of probability, it is extremely unlikely that Russia will take the initiative to take military action in the short term.
For Russia, the goal of using the “safety agreement” to create issues, control the rhythm, and seek “each step back” by raising the price ceiling is proceeding in an orderly manner. What’s more, taking the initiative to take military action may not only lead to unprecedented sanctions and strategic costs, but may also help Ukraine, Georgia and other countries to accelerate their “entry into the treaty” in a disguised form, completely breaking the fragile balance of all parties in the region, which is obviously mutually beneficial with Russia. Security is contrary to the original intent. Therefore, political dialogue will remain the basic channel for resolving the Russia-Ukraine border standoff.
Author: Zhao Long, researcher at the Shanghai Institute of International Studies
Editor: Wang Ruoxian