All news

Russia’s security ideas contradict US principles — Blinken

When it comes to things like shutting NATO’s open door or bringing NATO back to its pre-1997 positions, the answer is no, US Secretary of State noted

MUNICH, February 20. /TASS/. Russia’s stance, reflected in Moscow’s response to Washington’s proposals on security in Europe, go against fundamental US principles, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said.

"In the Russian response they continue to hold to positions that are fundamentally at odds with our basic principles and that we’re committed to," Blinken said in an interview with Suddeutsche Zeitung. "When it comes to things like shutting NATO’s open door or bringing NATO back to its pre-1997 positions, the answer is no."

"When it comes to finding ways to build confidence, to reduce risks, to pursue arms control; to look at whether, when it comes to the positioning of weapon systems and forces or exercises on a reciprocal basis, there are steps that we can take that would strengthen collective security, the answer is yes," the US top diplomat continued.

"The question is really what is Russia actually seeking. Is it to address in a practical way legitimate security concerns that all of us have or is it to reconstitute the Soviet empire or, short of that, to reassert a sphere of influence or, short of that, to Finlandize countries around it? If that’s what we’re talking about, there’s not a lot to work with," he added.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry on December 17 last year published drafts of agreements on security guarantees that Moscow was expecting the United States and NATO to conclude with it. Two treaties - with the United States and the alliance’s members - envisage, among other things, a pledge to refrain from NATO’s expansion to the east, including from the admission of Ukraine, and also restrictions on the deployment of major offensive weapons, including nuclear ones.

Earlier, the Russian president called upon NATO to enter into meaningful negotiations with the aim of giving Russia reliable and long-term security guarantees. He specified that Moscow needed legally binding guarantees, because previously the Western counterparts had defaulted on their verbal promises.

Russia, the United States and NATO have held several rounds of consultations in different formats, but no agreements have been unveiled to this day.