Putin: It’s Not an Ultimatum, “We Simply Have Nowhere Further to Retreat To”

Putin gave a speech to “the Expanded Meeting of the Ministry of Defense Board” that was also televised for the entire Russian armed forces.

Parts of it were mundane, dealing with pedestrian issues only of interest to members of the Russian military (aka the support for their housing, etc), but parts of it were downright eerie. We’re definitely in a very deep crisis and confrontation right now. You can read the two segments dealing with the current state of heightened tensions below.

Putin: “What’s happening now, the tension developing in Europe, is their fault. At every step Russia was forced to somehow respond. At every step the situation grew increasingly worse … and degraded.” He says Russia must now make a decision re: NATO, US. pic.twitter.com/VsvsXUO6Vl

— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) December 21, 2021

For me what was especially interesting was that Putin echoed my own language from a few days ago, where I argued that “there isn’t another step back the Russians can take.” Putin put it as “we simply have nowhere further to retreat to” and again as “we simply have no room to retreat.”

It’s not a matter of Russia issuing diktats. It’s a matter of Russia that can no longer compromise because there is nothing left that can be compromised on. Now the Russian back is to the wall.

We already see that some of our detractors are interpreting them as Russia’s ultimatum. Is it an ultimatum or not? Of course, not.

…

[w]hat they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometres away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to.

…

Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: we simply have no room to retreat. That is the question.

Mind you the only steps Putin announced Russia would be taking are “military-technical reciprocal measures.” In Russian government parlance that almost certainly refers only to a change in posture, for example a deployment of new weapons in new locations, and falls short of war. The latter would be a “military measure” rather than a “military-technical” one.

[i]f our Western colleagues continue their obviously aggressive line, we will take appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures and will have a tough response to their unfriendly steps

Comrade officers,

Relying on the solid foundation and a powerful research and technology achievements of the past few years, we must definitely continue to improve and strengthen our Armed Forces, which is exactly what we will do.

The military political situation in the world remains complicated, with increased conflict potential and new seats of tension in several regions. In particular, the growth of the US and NATO military forces in direct proximity to the Russian border and major military drills, including unscheduled ones, are a cause for concern.

It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defence system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.

In this context, as you are aware, I invited the US President to start talks on the drafting of concrete agreements. Incidentally, during our conversation he actually proposed appointing senior officials to oversee this sphere. It was in response to his proposal that we drafted our proposals on precluding the further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of offensive strike systems in the countries bordering on Russia. As you are aware, we have sent the drafts of relevant agreements to our American colleagues and the NATO leadership.

We need long-term legally binding guarantees. Well, we know very well that even legal guarantees cannot be completely fail-safe, because the United States easily pulls out of any international treaty that has ceased to be interesting to it for some reason, sometimes offering explanations and sometimes not, as was the case with the ABM and the Open Skies treaties – nothing at all.

However, we need at least something, at least a legally binding agreement rather than just verbal assurances. We know the worth of such verbal assurances, fine words and promises. Take the recent past, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when we were told that our concerns about NATO’s potential expansion eastwards were absolutely groundless. And then we saw five waves of the bloc’s eastward expansion. Do you remember how it happened? All of you are adults. It happened at a time when Russia’s relations with the United States and main member states of NATO were cloudless, if not completely allied.

I have already said this in public and will remind you of this again: American specialists were permanently present at the nuclear arms facilities of the Russian Federation. They went to their office there every day, had desks and an American flag. Wasn’t this enough? What else is required? US advisors worked in the Russian Government, career CIA officers gave their advice. What else did they want? What was the point of supporting separatism in the North Caucasus, with the help of even ISIS – well, if not ISIS, there were other terrorist groups. They obviously supported terrorists. What for? What was the point of expanding NATO and withdrawing from the ABM Treaty?

They are to blame for what is happening in Europe now, for the escalation of tensions there. Russia had to respond at every step, and the situation was continuously going from bad to worse. It was deteriorating all the time. And here we are today, in a situation when we are forced to resolve it: After all, we cannot allow the scenario I mentioned. Is anyone unable to grasp this? This should be clear.

Sometimes I wonder: Why did they do all this in the then conditions? This is unclear. I think the reason lies in the euphoria from the victory in the so-called Cold War or the so-called victory in the Cold War. This was due to their wrong assessment of the situation at that time, due to their unprofessional, wrong analysis of probable scenarios. There are simply no other reasons.

I would like to emphasise again: we are not demanding any special exclusive terms for ourselves. Russia stands for equal and indivisible security in the whole of Eurasia.

Naturally, as I have already noted, if our Western colleagues continue their obviously aggressive line, we will take appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures and will have a tough response to their unfriendly steps. And, I would like to stress that we are fully entitled to these actions that are designed to ensure Russia’s security and independence.

As we know well, they are operating thousands of kilometres away from their national territory under different pretexts, including the need to ensure their own security. When international law and the UN Charter get in their way, they declare them obsolete and unnecessary. However, when something meets their interests, they immediately refer to the norms of international law, the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and so on. These manipulations are annoying.

…

On an informal note, I would like to add a few words to what the Minister said and what I said in my opening remarks. Everyone is discussing this and, of course, primarily the Armed Forces. I am referring to our documents, our draft treaties and agreements on ensuring strategic stability that we sent to the leadership of the United States and NATO.

We already see that some of our detractors are interpreting them as Russia’s ultimatum. Is it an ultimatum or not? Of course, not.

As a reminder: everything that our partners – let us call them that – the United States has been doing in previous years, supposedly ensuring its interests and security thousands of kilometres away from their national territory – they have been doing these tough things, the boldest things, without UN Security Council authorisation.

What was the pretext to bomb Yugoslavia? Was it authorised by the Security Council, or what? Where is Yugoslavia and where is the United States? They destroyed the country. Indeed, there was an internal conflict, they had their own problems, but who gave them the right to conduct airstrikes against a European capital? No one did. They just chose to do so, and their satellites were running behind them yelping along. So much for international law.

Under what pretext did they go into Iraq? It was Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. They went in, destroyed the country, created a hotbed of international terrorism, and then it turned out that they made a mistake: “The intelligence failed us.” Wow! They destroyed a country. The intelligence failed – that is all they had to say to justify their actions. It turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction there. On the contrary, everything had been destroyed as agreed.

How did they go into Syria? With Security Council authorisation? No. They do as they please. However, what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometres away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to.

There are experts here, sitting with us, I stay in constant contact with them. The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have it. It cannot be hidden. Everything goes on record, successful or unsuccessful tests alike. We have a sense of when it might happen. They will supply hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover – that does not mean that they will start using them tomorrow, because we already have Tsircon and they do not – to arm extremists from a neighbouring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, when they think circumstances are favourable.

Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: we simply have no room to retreat. That is the question.

Armed conflicts and bloodshed are absolutely not our choice. We do not want to see events go that way. We want to use political and diplomatic means to resolve problems but we want to at least have clearly formulated legal guarantees. This is what our proposals are all about. We set them down on paper and sent them to Brussels and Washington, and we hope to receive a clear and comprehensive response to these proposals.

There are certain signals that our partners appear to be willing to work on that. However, there is also a danger that they will attempt to drown our proposals in words, or in a swamp, in order to take advantage of this pause and do whatever they want to do.

To make it clear to everyone: we are aware of this, and this turn of events, these developments, will not work for us. We look forward to constructive and meaningful talks with a visible outcome – and within a definite timeframe – that would ensure equal security for all.