Russia' Deputy Foreign Minister said Monday that if Russia does not receive security guarantees that satisfy it, regarding the situation taking place with Ukraine, then it is ready for a military response.

To make certain that readers of this website understand Ryabkov's remarks in their complete context, we quote him in full:


This week, the US is to give a response to the proposals / ultimatum put forward by the Russian Federation. Ushakov noted today that Xi Jinping fully supports Russia's demands for security guarantees.

If the answer from the United States is “no,” then we will face an escalating round of the Cold War, since the experience of the last similar war shows that certain rules for its conduct are formed not from good wishes, but based on the results of such rounds and the local and global crises caused by them, which force the parties to agree on some framework.

So far, there is practically no such framework - the old agreements have practically all been dismantled, new ones have not yet been formed.

Russia has made it clear that it is not ready to put up with the role that the United States is ready to assign to it in the framework of its vision of the world order. The United States, on the other hand, is demonstrating a clear unwillingness to recognize Russia's right to have spheres of influence and to pursue a subjective foreign policy independent of Washington's decisions. This gives rise to systemic and irreparable contradictions.

So far, we do not see any prerequisites for the escalation to fail.

All of these security assurance proposals have a meaningful purpose. In the event of an escalation, the Russian Federation will declare that it offered to settle the matter peacefully, but the opponents chose war.

From a historical perspective, we can recall Stalin's proposals in the second half of the 30s to create a European collective security system to contain the threat of war caused by the actions of Germany. These proposals were actually rejected by the West, which allowed Soviet diplomacy to regularly point out that it was the actions of Britain and France that opened the way for the policy of appeasing the aggressor and the Second World War.

So, from the point of view of information and diplomatic purposes, our proposals will make sense even in case of refusal, in my opinion, the Kremlin hardly counts that the United States will agree to everything - these are the greatest requirements with which to start bargaining to enter the Big Deal on new rules of coexistence.

The absence of a deal with the United States will most likely lead to an intensification of hostilities in the Donbass and other military-political consequences, since if diplomacy does not work, at the next stage specialists will enter the arena to achieve political goals by other means, and this may not necessarily be hot war, and for example, a new nuclear missile crisis.

If, for example, strike weapons appear on the territory of NATO countries that will be able to reach our command centers within a few minutes, then we will be forced to create an equal situation for our "partners. "

In current realities, this means the deployment of short and medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads in Kaliningrad; and the deployment of nuclear weapons in Venezuela and Cuba to "create an adequate situation for partners."