Image Credit: 

[Image from: Kremlin.ru, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]


What To Do About That Russian Ultimatum

"Get off our front porch. Get out of our front yard. And stay out of our backyard." This might stand as a crude summary of two draft security pacts Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei A. Ryabkov delivered last week as Russia's price for resolving the crisis created by those 100,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's borders. Ryabkov's demands appear to be a virtual ultimatum, designed to be rejected by the U.S. and NATO and provide Moscow with a pretext for an invasion and occupation of part or all of Ukraine.      

Among the maximalist Russian demands: Written guarantees from NATO that it will not admit into the 70-year-old Cold War alliance any more ex-Soviet republics, specifically, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Offensive weapons are to be kept out of nations that border Russia. The U.S. and Russia should keep their warships and strategic bombers away from each other's territory. The U.S. should forgo planting military bases in any of the five "stans," the Central Asian nations that once were part of the USSR. NATO should withdraw military infrastructure it has placed in Eastern European states after 1997.

That date is significant. For not until 1999 did Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic join NATO. And the accession of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia came only in 2004.

Russia is calling for the creation of a security zone around its borders to include all of the former Soviet Union and beyond, where U.S. and NATO military bases would be prohibited. That Ryabkov's demands were specific and made public suggests they are to be taken seriously and Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind them. The deputy foreign minister is calling for immediate negotiations over these security pacts to begin in Geneva.

Before dismissing these Russian demands outright, the U.S. should look closely to see if there are not some issues on which compromise is possible and common ground can be found so the Ukraine crisis might be defused. One senior U.S. official has been quoted as indicating such: "There are some things in those documents that the Russians know will be unacceptable ... but there are other things that we are prepared to work with and merit some discussion." The U.S. has already signaled, with President Joe Biden's warning to Putin about "severe ... economic sanctions" should Russia invade, that we are ruling out war and confining any U.S. response to nonmilitary means. 

British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace has said that the U.K. is also unlikely to send troops to defend Ukraine if Russia invades, as Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Nor is the U.S. or NATO going to war for Georgia to validate its claims to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as we showed in 2008. That August, President George W. Bush sat immobile as Putin's Russia threw the invading Georgians out of South Ossetia.

Again, America is not going to war for Georgia or Ukraine. We have demonstrated that with our inaction in the Russian-Georgia war of 2008, in the Crimea and Donbass crises in 2014, and in the Ukraine crisis of 2021. So, why not find a way to convey this reality, to avert a Russian invasion of Ukraine and war Kyiv would surely lose? If Ukraine and Georgia are not going to be admitted to NATO or given Article V war guarantees, why not say so publicly now? 

What is happening today is that, after decades of moving NATO east from the Elbe River to the Baltic states and borders of Russia itself, the chickens of NATO expansion are coming home to roost. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has doubled in size.

We now have outstanding U.S.-NATO war guarantees to 28 nations on the other side of the Atlantic, some of them tiny nations deep inside Eastern Europe, in the very shadow of Russia, the largest nation on earth. The day cannot be far off when the U.S. is going to have to review and discard Cold War commitments that date to the 1940s and 1950s, and require us to fight a nuclear power such as Russia for countries that have nothing to do with our vital interests or our national security. Ryabkov's call for U.S.-Russia negotiations at Geneva may be the place to begin a public reappraisal of our Cold War commitments.

For any concessions we make on not expanding NATO into Ukraine and Georgia, we can demand reciprocal Russian concessions. New arms agreements to limit U.S. and Russian missiles in Europe and to restrict the number of U.S. and Russia air and naval operations near the borders of our respective countries seem negotiable.

A Russian-Ukrainian war, which Kyiv would almost surely lose, would prove a disaster for both nations. The winner would be China. For such a war would leave Russia no place else to turn for an economic, political and strategic partner. And U.S. interests are not served by the cementing alliance between Beijing and Moscow.


Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


A general updating of geopolitical reality is sorely needed. Russia, and the former subject nations of the Warsaw Pact, have thrown their communist banners into the trashcan where they belong. They are now embracing nationalist reality (Russia for the Russians, Poland for the Polish, Hungary for the Hungarians, etc...) and admirably embracing their pre-communist/atheist/materialist (pre-Modernist) traditions and customs, including their Christian roots. They are now the defenders of European traditions, unlike the West Europeans infected with Modernist/Leftist "Wokism" and its hatred for all things pertaining to Tradition,even the good and admirable things. We are sadly allied with this craziness. We should agree that no Great Power will be militarily involved with Nations touching Russian borders ("Finlandized" neutrals) but seas and oceans are The Commons and traversible by one & all


Our foreign policy needs to at least resemble political reality, Russia will never give up its only warm water access, Sevastopol in the Crimea. So why don't we figure out a way to legalize that, something like a lease agreement signed at the UN giving them access for as long as they want, with an annual payment to the Ukraine (or some such financial arrangement), but that gives the Crimea back to the Ukraine for border integrity. There's a way, but as long as we ignore this reality, Russia will always be an adversary. Let's get real and eliminate this barb, and bring Russia into the community of nations, where they belong.


Putin's declarations make one thing about US foreign policy crystal clear - our policy is designed for and by Israel, the country that controls the US policy machinery on most all fronts. The leaders of most world capitals recognize this fact, but of course Washington DC is not one of them.


Why does nato even exist? Russia is not going to invade Europa.