Russia is in the spotlight of the Western mainstream media’s attention again. The reason being the draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO which have been given to the US party on 15 December 2021 during a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry. The US party was also given detailed explanations regarding the logic of the Russian approach, as well as the relevant arguments behind this step. Nonetheless, as usual, the Western media decided to “follow their own path” and started inventing their own explanations of Russia’s actions. Russia is “threatening” the West again and is “planning to invade Ukraine”: “Amid fears Russia will invade Ukraine, Putin points finger at U.S. and NATO in marathon news conference” (Washington Post), “Vladimir Putin threatens 'military-technical' reaction to NATO over Ukraine” (Deutsche Welle), “Is Russia preparing to invade Ukraine? And other questions” (BBC). It seems to us that what they are trying to do is to make things look as if Russia is “blackmailing” the West with its possible invasion of Ukraine. This is what the narrative of “Russia amassing the troops at the border” (“Russia planning massive military offensive against Ukraine involving 175,000 troops, U.S. intelligence warns” (Washington Post), “How Russia’s Military Is Positioned to Threaten Ukraine” (New York Times)) serves to. It seems that the Western MSM got so addicted to this threadbare “aggressive Russia” topic that they just can’t take a broader look at the situation. Well, let’s try to observe it from an alternative viewpoint.

Though Ukrainian crisis indeed incited tensions between Russia and the West, those tensions did not begin in 2014, when an unconstitutional coup d’etat took place in Kiev with the support of some Western capitals and officials and other Western capitals’ and officials’ acquiescence. Regardless of whether the Western MSM, journalists and experts truly believe that the Russian initiative of an agreement on security guarantees with US and NATO is all about Ukraine or they just try to make you think that way, they are mistaken. The main reason behind Russia’s decision is much broader: Russia does not believe the West.

Not anymore. There were times when Soviet leadership decided to turn a new page in history of USSR-West relations. Here is an extract from an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, where he describes the sentiments that prevailed in Soviet leadership those days: “We were building new relations between us. President Vladimir Putin has mentioned this many times. There was an unprecedented level of trust and an enormous desire to be friends, if not allies” (Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Solovyov Live YouTube channel, Moscow, December 27, 2021). Back then, many in our country, including among the political elite and even supreme leaders, were driven by an honest desire to put an end to Cold War and restart the relationship with the West. We all know what happened. The arrogant West committed a terrible mistake: it sincerely believed in its definitive and irreversible victory in the Cold War (remember Francis Fukuyama with his “The End of History”?). But Russians never felt defeated; we also believed we would benefit, in particular, from switching to free-market economy.

The West shook hands with the Soviet Union and then simply betrayed its trust by violating the promise not to expand NATO eastwards. And now Russia wants legal commitment from NATO to stop its expansion. To quote Russian Foreign Minister again: “This time we demand – this is the only option – legally binding security guarantees. Trust but verify”.

Many things could have gone otherwise, but that tremendous potential of the year 1991 was wasted. One might ask: maybe things have changed? What if the Western elites of present day have fully realized their mistake and today approach the negotiations with Russia differently? What can we say to that? Our best hope is that the West realizes the seriousness of the current situation. The good news is that the first round of talks between Russia, US and NATO took place. Yes, this is good news in its own right, as it demonstrates that both sides, Russia and the West, are interested in dialogue. As one Russian saying goes, “Better a bad peace than a good quarrel”.

Realistically speaking, peace nowadays (even a “bad” one) rests on something we call strategic stability. Washington has been consistently undermining this stability by withdrawing from key agreements in the area: Treaty on Open Skies, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (IRNFT), Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT). The international system of arms control is next to non-existent due to these actions by NATO uncontested leader – the USA.

Against this background, Russia expects tangible results – a lot of things need to be rectified. Probably there will be new rounds of negotiations in the future, but Russia made it clear that it is not interested in endless talks, it needs results that are acceptable. Here is a quote from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s press-conference after Russia-NATO negotiations held on 12 January: “Russia expects the United States and other NATO countries to give a written response to Moscow’s security initiatives and will decide whether it is reasonable to continue talks or move to other measures to ensure national security”.

So much for the good news. The bad news is that the West is reluctant to accept the new reality where it no longer can impose its will on all others. At the very least, this sentiment is dominating the Western MSM right now. For example, here is a quote from an interview of Edward Lukas, British journalist and security specialist, to Estonian broadcaster ERR: “There's a serious problem with the way the West looks at Russia, in that we think that dialogue is good in and of itself…I feel that the responses, whether they are from the U.S., or the EU institutions or the big European countries, all failed to establish a kind of moral and psychological leadership”. The key word here is “leadership”. As if the West desperately needs to lead something, have an advantage, to dominate. It seems that over the past few decades the West just lost the habit of talking to someone as equals. If you thought that the West is resorting to threats to Russia now because the situation is exceptional and requires some “desperate measures” to be taken, then, we are afraid, you are wrong. It is typical of the West to go for threats when a certain situation does not develop in accordance with its wishes: “The West Must Punish Putin — But How?” (WBUR), “SWIFT and certain punishment for Russia?” (Foreign Affairs), “To punish Russia, Europe must be prepared to suffer” (CNN), “U.S. senators introduce Russia sanctions 'bill from hell'” (Reuters), “Blinken warns Russia of ‘massive consequences’ over Ukraine” (Al Jazeera).

Our point is that decades of global dominance fostered a habit among Western elites to speak down on everyone else as well as a certain perception of other countries. We believe that the quintessence of Western’s approaches towards Russia was voiced by Petr Kozlov, journalist from BBC Russian Service, at President Putin’s annual press-conference 2021: “Probably, you remember that each time power in Russia was concentrated in the hands of one person in the absence of active opposition, when Russia was in a state of active, acute confrontation with the West, ultimately this situation prompted a response which plunged the country into the abyss of wars and revolutions. Do you not think that you, possessing all the power, are now laying the foundation, perhaps, for such wars and revolutions?” Judging by this question, Mr.Kozlov has been completely brainwashed by Western propaganda as he described things back to front. For one thing, being a Russian himself, he completely misunderstands Russian society and its values. The Russian people have always appreciated strong leadership. They always wanted a strong and wealthy state that would take care of its people. If it’s called “paternalistic” in the West – so be it, they don’t care. In our humble opinion, this is one of the reasons of the incumbent Russian President’s popularity. Secondly, Mr.Kozlov has demonstrated outright absence of even basic knowledge of history. If anything, the consolidation of power “in a state of acute confrontation with the West” helped our country get through most challenging periods of its history. For example, Joseph Stalin. World War II started a little more than 20 years after World War I ended, which means that Soviet Russia and then USSR only had so much time to prepare itself for the most destructive war in humankind’s history. The Soviet leadership, just like anyone else, saw the war coming. Concentration of power in one hands allowed the Soviet Union to focus on its vital objectives, prepare itself for the conflict, to emerge victorious in a fierce fight against Nazi Germany, the strength of which rested on basically entire Europe’s economic and industrial potential, its satellites and other Axis powers, and to save Europe from Nazi oppression. The importance of Joseph Stalin’s input in all this should not be underestimated.

Now let’s have a look at World War I for a comparison. Russia entered that war in fulfillment of its obligations to its allies from Entente bloc – UK and France. And what was the result? The Russian Empire has fallen and a young state of Soviet Russia was abandoned by its former allies and left in diplomatic isolation. Moreover, Entente powers actively intervened (including militarily) in Russian Civil War, dragging the conflict on and pouring oil on flames as Russians were fighting among themselves. Russia gained nothing from this alliance with Western powers. Another example comes from the 1990’s. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian Federation was at its weakest. This is when the relations with the collective West truly flourished – when Russia was weak, passive in the international affairs, unable to help its allies. Is this the Russia that Mr.Kozlov wants to see? Is appeasing the West at the cost of surrendering its own pride, national interests and sovereignty Russia’s historic mission in Mr.Kozlov’s eyes? We can hardly agree on that.   

In defence of Petr Kozlov’s position, one might argue that regular alternation of power prevents usurpation of the said power. There is some truth to that. But to all those who thinks that staying in power for “too long” (whatever that means) is the ultimate evil, we would like to give two examples. The first one being the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel who remained in power for 16 years (2005-2021) and nobody seemed to have any problem with that. We don’t recall any articles in the media expressing concern about democracy and human rights in Germany being endangered. Former US President Donald Trump, on the other hand, was attacked by the media, politicians, academicians, celebrities from any conceivable angle, under any conceivable pretext including the infamous so-called “Russian interference in the US elections”. Donald Trump was even labeled a “dictator” (“US could be under rightwing dictator by 2030, Canadian professor warns” (The Guardian), “10 Ways Trump Is Becoming a Dictator, Election Edition” (Foreign Policy), “Trump’s Dictator Chic” (Politico)) although he stayed in the presidential office for 4 years. See? The so-called “dictatorship” and “authoritarianism” the Western MSM keep wining about have nothing to do with how long do politicians stay in power. It’s pure propaganda.

Any government of any country can be declared by the West as “authoritarian” in a blink of an eye if that serves the West’s goals. The most concerning part about all this is that the Western propaganda downgraded things like democracy, freedom of speech, pluralism of opinions and human rights to mere propaganda clichés that have zero substance behind them. These words are now just empty shells of their former beings. The West respects democracy? But it openly interferes with other countries domestic affairs, demonizes democratically elected leadership of foreign countries. What kind of adherence to democracy is this? The West respects the freedom of speech? No, it resorts to direct censorship of the media (“LRT FACTS. How did Estonia force Russia's Sputnik to close?” (LRT English), “Germany takes Russia's RT Deutsch off air within days of launch” (Reuters)). There go your freedom of expression and pluralism of opinions. What about human rights? Well, the so-called “migrant crisis” at Belarus-Polish border was a perfect opportunity for the West to display its full commitment to human rights and high humanistic standards. What do we see in reality though? An outright slaughter. A blood bath. According to the information gathered by Belarusian Investigative Committee from Mr.Emil Czeczko – a Polish soldier who deserted Polish military: “During the criminal case investigation, Emil Czeczko disclosed that he and his fellow servicemen had participated in organized murders in the border area and near the settlement of Siemianowka, Poland, starting on June 8, 2021. According to the serviceman, he is aware of murder of over 240 people”. This is what the Investigative Committee of Belarus said in its Telegram channel. So? Was this discussed intensively in Western MSM? Of course not - they are conspiratorially silent.

In conclusion, we would like to say that over the past decades, the West did everything in its power to make sure to lose Russia’s trust, including by abandoning, de facto, the values it once adhered to and replacing them with hypocrisy and double standards. In this context Russia wants written security guarantees from the expanding military bloc NATO. The Western unease about that can already be registered. Old habits die hard, but hope is always the last to die.