What is Russia ranting on about? And there may be a reason why Germany is lethargic about potential confrontation.
NATO-Russia Founding Act (click here)
A lot has changed since these agreements and I don't see the free will of the people within NATO reverting back to an agreement they obviously no longer value. But, why is Russia seeing this as justification for it's aggression in Ukraine?
NATO has no plans to invade Russia, so Russia needs to continue on a diplomatic path to end the tensions over this Founding Act. From what I read so far it doesn't sound like a permanent document so much as an abandoned process. The "Founding" of the title states this clearly is a beginning to the relations for PEACE and not further invasion or conflict.
There were updates to this Founding Act as late as 1997. There may be later onces that I have not seen yet.
On May 14, (click here) NATO Secretary General Solana and Russian Foreign Minister Primakov announced agreement on the text of the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation," creating a new relationship between the Alliance and Russia. The Act has been referred to NATO countries and PresidentYeltsin for approval....
This was conducted in the Clinton years (click here) with a president that negotiated a peace agreement in the Dayton Peace Process and saved incalcuable lives. I sincerely doubt there was anything but a global peace on the minds of the Clinton Administration with the updated Founding Act. If I remember correctly, the Dayton process earned Former President Bill Clinton a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Dayton process is still written about today.
Conflict Resolution: Lessons from the Dayton Peace Process (click here)
At no point in time should Russia believe NATO or the USA is not interested in peace. The current tensions in Ukraine stem from Russian aggression following deadly attacks at the Maidan in Ukraine and the abandonment of the Presidential Palace and office by Viktor Yanukovych. Certainly, since the Pro-Russia president abandoned Ukraine in fear of standing trial, Russia is not seeking to invade and take control of the entire country of Ukraine. To say this is a change in the posture of Ukraine in relation with Russia is not clearly defining this point in history.
Russia has a lot to explain to the Ukraine people for all these years of conflict and occupation. To call upon The Founding Act now hardly seems timely or appropriate. The recent history in Ukraine dictates a far different outcome than continued occupation and invasion tensions. Russia needs to work on trade relations with Ukraine and not invasion. The West is supposed to dump the Minsk Protocol (click here) in the nearest trash barrel? I think not.
The Helsinki Agreement (click here) was another process since the Founding Act.
Helsinki Final Act (click here)
But, as to the Founding Act (click here) :
There is great many meetings and agreements with Russia and the USA and NATO since the Founding Act was first signed. This demand by Russia to return to a founding document is somewhat odd and out of step with the progression of peace in the region of Ukraine. Putin must set aside is politics if his reason for aggression is within old documents and agreements. There is much to be discussed regarding the abandonment of all the documents since the Founding Act.
NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe,...
... the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia....
...Accordingly, NATO has radically reduced and continues the adaptation of its conventional and nuclear forces....
Nuclear disarmament in all forms of missiles is always a peace priority. France has aggressively worked to remove it's nuclear weapons from the map, but, when Russia is intent on using nuclear arms near NATO borders the disarmament process in France always takes a back seat. That is not the fault of NATO so much as Russian aggression.
I might add, the civil war in Eastern Ukraine would not exist if it wasn't for Russia's instigation.
To say Russia's focus is confusing is to eliminate all these countries willingness to see peace permanently between them.
The current tensions with Ukraine institgated by Russia is a problem to all these countries and why the UN Security Council was convened yesterday. Russia does not have the right to arbitrarily decide on the sovereign authority of independent countries and their people. There is no agreement that provides Russia with that right. Russia wants to use it's military power to decide the fate of innocent, AND I MIGHT ADD, neutrally aligned people of Ukraine.
There is a pivot point in 1997.
The NRC replaced the Permanent Joint Council (PJC), (click here) a forum for consultation and cooperation created by the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Russia cannot arbitrarily decide to pick and choose documents for it's convenience. Russia was in agreement of that pivot point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred long before 1997.
...On December 25, 1991, (click here) the Soviet hammer and sickle flag lowered for the last time over the Kremlin, thereafter replaced by the Russian tricolor. Earlier in the day, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his post as president of the Soviet Union, leaving Boris Yeltsin as president of the newly independent Russian state....
All these agreements kept any other sovereign authority from invading Asia. The circumstances of the Soviet Union were allowed to unwind in peace. If it weren't for those agreements at the point of the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia might not even exist today. It could be said that at the fall of the Soviet Union all agreements were cancelled. That did not occur. No country on the face of Earth acted against old agreements, they left them in place with a willingness to continue those directives.
So, Russia has no right to decide in 2022 a return to an aggressive stance. There is no document providing that right. There is also no direct threat by any country on this globe to Russia. There is no reason for these events in recent years except Putin's politics.
No one wants agreements to fail. Everyone is seeking a strong peace resolution that permits trade and equality to all particpants. Putin needs to step back from the brink. NATO can't because Russia's obvious aggression is recognized and invites the NATO countries to support their treaty and sovereign borders.
The current peace process must continue and bring about a world secure from nuclear armaments.
Reiteration by NATO of aspects of its current defense policy and strategy, including the December 1996 statement that it has "no intention, no plan and no reason" to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members including nuclear weapons storage sites.
The Act has no impact on NATO enlargement. That process is proceeding on schedule; NATO leaders at the Madrid summit in July will extend invitations to the first countries to begin accession talks. Those countries admitted will have the full rights and responsibilities of Alliance membership, and the door to membership will remain open to all emerging European democracies.
Why do the former Soviet Union states want to be a part of NATO? Because they are viewed as sovereign powers. On the contrary, Russia occupies countries and does not treat them as allies, so much as possessions. That is an alarming reality to the former Soviet States. They are self-governing without any authority over their sovereign leaders. There are very distinct reasons why NATO expanded to include more countries AT THE REQUEST of their SOVEREIGN AUTHORITIES.
Putin has no sway in this matter unless he invades and kills innocent and neutral people and their authorities.
