"That is to say, one of the essential points that we must address, as [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin has always said, is the fear that NATO will come to its doorstep, it is the deployment of weapons that can threaten Russia," Macron said.
"This issue will be part of the factors for peace, and therefore it must also be prepared: what are we ready to do, how do we protect our allies and member states, while giving guarantees for its own security to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table?" he added.
Do you agree with Macron that we should also provide "guarantees for its own security to Russia"?
This is actually an easy answer. Although such assurances are not to be given lightly, they are typically a pro forma aspect of many international agreements. In this, although it may be possible to argue with some of President Macron's rationale, overall his argument is, to his credit, not without merit.
The nature of the international arena must not be forgotten. As the American President Theodore Roosevelt said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
To be sure, in the case of Ukraine, Russia was the aggressor. President Putin was and is pursuing Russia's historic national interests in a part of the world that it has regarded not just even in its' sphere of influence, but literally as a part of itself. Russia has, for the time being - nothing in international, or for that matter human, affairs is permanent - lost that position.
From the Western perspective, though, except for the the states of eastern Europe, and to some extent the Middle East and the Caucasus, Ukraine is not essential. However, an independent Ukraine serves Western interests by stabilizing an area where some Western allies have vital security interests.
Thus, for the major Western powers - here defined as the USA, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and also Japan - it is important not that Ukraine necessarily win the war, but that she should not lose it. This leaving aside the principles of international law, which typically are honored only in the breech, but which are, as a matter of diplomatic strategy normally advocated by the West.
So the West can offer Russia security assurances, partly as a face saver for Russia and partly to reduce tensions with Russia. The key however being, as the old saw has it, "God is in the adjectives and the devil is in the details."
What will matter is the actual details of such assurances. If they are a mere bland diplo-speak assurance, then no harm done, If they are of such an extent that they allow Russia to occupy Ukraine - or at least enough of it as to facilitate future Russian aggression - then they would be unwise.
President Macron seems to be offering more toward the former than the latter. To be sure, by suggesting limits on the deployment of weapons, he may potentially go too far. Thus, in a hypothetical example, if such assurances meant the withdrawal of all USA and Canadian forces from Europe, President Macron might end up remembering the old line, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."
So much depends on the nature and details of any security assurances. To be sure, France is playing the balance of power game and that is the most likely course to any final settlement of the war. (He is, to be fair, also ignoring the domestic public opinion of the West, which is not likely to cotton to "rewarding the aggressor." However, that would be his domestic political problem.)
That said, at the most superficial level, security assurances to Russia are not only acceptable, they are most likely going to be part of any compromise settlement. In this. President Macron is merely expressing in words a part of how the international game is played.
According to its own website, the US Air Force currently has 43 active B-1s, 18 active B2s, and 72 active B52s (I was surprised to learn that the majority of USAF bombers are using WW2-era tech). ALL of them could, if launched from Washington, strike Moscow and return to safety (although not all the way back to Washington). And that's without in-flight refueling. I don't know about the Navy's aircraft, but since they're usually launched from carrier ships, there's very little limit to where they could hit. And ICBMs can even hit targets in low Earth orbit; there's no way to escape them, unless you flee to the moon. Short of removing ALL that equipment, we WILL have weapons that can threaten Russia- and that's just the US. Is Russia going to get rid of the nukes and long-range aircraft IT has?
And it's damned duplicitous to complain that the invasion- excuse me, invasions- of Ukraine have anything to do with NATO expansion, since Ukraine's bid for membership was withdrawn and then rejected. Claiming that the 2014 seizure (no, not "annexation"; it was already part of another sovereign country) of Crimea, which saw Russia committing multiple Geneva convention violations on top of violating the access treaty they had with the Ukrainian government, 1. was somehow a response to other nations being admitted ten years before, or 2. was going to make your other neighbors LESS likely to band together to try and stop you is blatant ignorance not only of history, but of basic psychology.
Macron just seems to be channeling Neville Chamberlain, here. Want to be sure NATO expansion does provoke Russia into starting a war? Either find Russian leadership that isn't insane, or invite them to join, so we can settle things diplomatically.
You know, when the English colonists in what would become the US began protesting in force their being taxed without representation in Parliament, King George could just have given them a few seats. He didn't, because he was a German, not English, and his hold on the throne was shaky- he feared looking weak before the other great powers of the world at the time. But if he HAD, while it (at best) would've weakened the monarchy in England, he could've emerged as a new kind of king- one who embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment and lead instead of ruling. With the seats granted, the whole crisis would've fizzled away, the Revolution would never have happened, and the UK (assuming it still formed, which it likely would've) would probably still be a superpower in its own right, instead of clinging to the one who's usurped its throne. Likewise, Putin could've come forward and opened a national dialogue about some kind of reunification of former Soviet peoples together; a way of changing borderlines without resorting to war. He could've been a new kind of Russian leader, one who didn't stomp on the common people, and encouraged the growth of economy and intellectualism. Instead, we just get more of the same.
We as NATO can say "we will never start a war with Russia." But that's rather redundant with respecting nuclear-powers mutually situation.
The real problem is Russia invading other countries. That involves killing and subjugation of people's homeland. Go fucking figure country's don't like them. That's why nato is appealing. Everyone pooling together prevents any global aggression.
What aggression or open hostilities come from NATO? If anything they want everyone to play nice and trade for a better economy growth. A lot of hussein but no one is being killed.
The idea is simple. Russia leave any ukrainian land they have stolen, sign for peace, and never try any shit like that again. That is their guarantee no one will attack them.
