Russia will hold consultations with the United States, NATO and OSCE to find ways to the de-escalation in Eastern Europe.

According to Stephane Dujarric, the UN Secretary-General’s spokesman, Russia’s consultations with the United States, NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) would lead to de-escalation.

It is worth noting that on January 10, Geneva will be hosting Russian-US talks on security guarantees. On January 12, Moscow will be signifying its concerns on security issues in Europe as well as Russian projects on security guarantees with NATO representatives in Brussels, and on January 13, these topics will be again discussed at a meeting of OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna.

It should be noted that on December 17, 2021 the Russian Foreign Ministry published the draft agreements between Moscow and Washington on security guarantees and the measures of ensuring the security of Russia and NATO member states. These drafts were submitted to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried on December 15.

Further clarifying this issue, Eurasia Diary presents an interview with Andrew Korybko, who is a Moscow-based American political analyst.

He is a specialist on the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's Belt & Road Initiative, and Hybrid Warfare.

- Mr Korybko, do you think that the Russian leadership is really interested in the consultations with the United States and Europe to de-escalate the tense situation in Eastern Europe?

- Russia is sincerely interested in de-escalating tensions with the US surrounding the undeclared American-provoked missile crisis in Europe. NATO’s steady expansion eastward coupled with its deployment of strike weapons closer to Russia’s border, including hypersonic ones that might be delivered to Ukraine under the cover of “anti-missile systems”, creating a serious national security crisis for Russia. Its red lines can’t be crossed otherwise the Kremlin will be forced to unilaterally defend its interests, though this possible defence thereof would in that scenario predictably be misportrayed by the Western Mainstream Media as so-called “unprovoked aggression”. The prerogative for resolving this unprecedented security crisis on the continent lies entirely with the US, which is responsible for provoking it in the first place. The anti-Russian faction of its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) considers Moscow to be their country’s top strategic rival while the ruling anti-Chinese one that Biden inherited from Trump sees Beijing as their number one threat. The US authorities need to control the first-mentioned faction’s subversive efforts to provoke an even worse crisis with Russia if they hope to reach a deal with Moscow to facilitate the redeployment of some of their European forces to the Asia-Pacific to “contain” China.

- Do you think that Geneva, Brussels and Vienna talks that are expected to be held on January 10-13 will have positive impacts on common understanding between Russia and West on ensuring security and stability in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine?

- The US is already aware of Russia’s concerns, but the question is whether or not it’ll respect its red lines and go forward with mutual compromises aimed at comprehensively de-escalating the undeclared missile crisis that its anti-Russian “deep state” faction provoked. The collective West, with reference to the EU, is inconsequential in this respect despite US rhetoric to the contrary since this is a crisis between America and Russia where Europe is just a military theatre under the Pentagon’s influence. The European states have no practical influence over what the US ultimately decides to do. The very fact that the upcoming talks will take place speaks to the US’ willingness to seriously consider what Russia officially describes as its “security equation” proposal. It also suggests that America will make a sincere effort to explain to its allies (who in reality function as vassals) whatever deal it ends up cutting with Russia if it does indeed end up eventually reaching one. It’s making a superficial effort to consider their concerns but will really do whatever it thinks is best and will then coerce them to go along with it like it always does even if some like the Baltic States and Poland are extremely upset afterwards.

-. What is the importance of Russia's proposals on the security guarantees and measures of security in the region?

- The proposals aim to stop NATO’s continual expansion eastward and to prevent the deployment of strike weapons near Russia’s borders. Those developments have upset the strategic balance between these nuclear superpowers since they aim to neutralize Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities and thus give the US an eventual edge in carrying out a crippling first strike in the worst-case scenario. This balance must urgently be restored in order to avert an apocalyptic conflict. It would also help the US concentrate more on “containing” China in the Asia-Pacific. To be clear, Russia doesn’t support the US’ aggressive anti-Chinese “containment” efforts, but it wouldn’t be able to influence the US if it decides to redeploy some of its European-based forces to the Asia-Pacific in the event that tensions are successfully de-escalated with the Kremlin. Moscow is against Washington’s maximum pressure campaign against Beijing, but the unspoken flip side is that more American attention towards China takes some of the pressure of Russia. It would be best if the US doesn’t pressure anyone at all, but that scenario is realistic for anyone to expect in the New Cold War.