Putin's Response To Blinken

Earlier today I presented in a long post (Status Of The War On Russia) Tony Blinken’s insistence that the road to peace with Russia lays through more war in Ukraine:

Blinken stated, "The United States – together with our allies and partners – is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine’s defense today, tomorrow, for as long as it takes." He continued, "We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression."

Blinken dismissed the idea of even a temporary pause in the fighting. "Some countries will call for a ceasefire. And on the surface, that sounds sensible – attractive, even. After all, who doesn’t want warring parties to lay down their arms? Who doesn’t want the killing to stop?" He said. "But a ceasefire that simply freezes current lines in place and enables Putin to consolidate control over the territory he’s seized…It would legitimize Russia’s land grab. It would reward the aggressor and punish the victim."

The Secretary of State offered an ambitious vision of Kiev’s future military capabilities. "America and our allies are helping meet Ukraine’s needs on the current battlefield while developing a force that can deter and defend against aggression for years to come." He added, "That means helping build a Ukrainian military of the future, with long-term funding, a strong air force centered on modern combat aircraft, an integrated air and missile defense network, advanced tanks and armored vehicles, national capacity to produce ammunition, and the training and support to keep forces and equipment combat-ready."

To my chagrin I just now realized that I failed to include Vladimir Putin’s response to Blinken—or what certainly appears to be a response to Blinken’s statements that were made during a visit to Finland. The pointedness of Putin’s remarks certainly present a strong counterpoint to Blinken’s war mongering and fantastical strategy ideas. Here, Putin is quoted by Pepe Escobar. Putin was speaking to a gathering of war correspondents which, to me, strengthens the impression that Putin’s words were planned in advance as a response:

Arguably the money quote of the whole encounter is Putin’s concise, chilling evaluation of where we now stand in the chessboard:

“We were forced to try to end the war that the West started in 2014 by force of arms. And Russia will end this war by force of arms, freeing the entire territory of the former Ukraine from the United States and Ukrainian Nazis. There are no other options. The Ukrainian army of the US and NATO will be defeated, no matter what new types of weapons it receives from the West. The more weapons there are, the fewer Ukrainians and what used to be Ukraine will remain. Direct intervention by NATO’s European armies will not change the outcome. But in this case [NATO entry into open warfare with Russia], the fire of war will engulf the whole of Europe. It looks like the US is ready for that too.”

In a nutshell: this will only end on Russia’s terms, and only when Moscow evaluates all its objectives have been met. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Note that Putin identifies 2014—the year of the US sponsored overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government—as the year that the West’s war on Russia began. Well, one can argue about the exact date. Perhaps it was earlier, but certainly, in light of the warning from William Burns, then US Ambassador in Moscow and current CIA Director:

Sophia

@les_politiques

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” said current CIA director William Burns in 2008.

7:47 AM · Jun 17, 2023

Here’s a summary of Burns’ now famous 2008 cable:

NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES

Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). 

1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine’s intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country [Ukraine] in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia’s defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and “provocative acts” in the separatist regions. 

End summary.

Date: February 1st, 2008 – https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

The Neocon run US refused to discuss these issues with Putin. That refusal led to Putin’s famous, tersely worded, 2018 speech in which he announced Russia’s new hypersonic missiles:

I will say once again what we have repeatedly told our American and European partners who are NATO members: we will make the necessary efforts to neutralise the threats posed by the deployment of the US global missile defence system.

We mentioned this during talks, and even said it publicly.

Back in 2004, after the exercises of the strategic nuclear forces when the system was tested for the first time, I said the following at a meeting with the press (It is embarrassing to quote myself, but it is the right thing to say here):

So, I said:

“As other countries increase the number and quality of their arms and military potential, Russia will also need to ensure it has new generation weapons and technology.

“In this respect, I am pleased to inform you that successfully completed experiments during these exercises enable us to confirm that in the near future, the Russian Armed Forces, the Strategic Missile Forces, will receive new hypersonic-speed, high-precision new weapons systems that can hit targets at inter-continental distance and can adjust their altitude and course as they travel.

“This is a very significant statement because no country in the world as of now has such arms in their military arsenal.”

Of course, every word has a meaning because we are talking about the possibility of bypassing interception boundaries.

Why did we do all this? Why did we talk about it?

As you can see, we made no secret of our plans and spoke openly about them, primarily to encourage our partners to hold talks.

Let me repeat, this was in 2004.

It is actually surprising that despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defence industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power.

No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us.

So, listen to us now!

Events have shown that a failure to listen to Putin is a very big mistake. But, Neocons …