On Wednesday, 15 December 2021, Reuters headlined “Russia hands proposals to U.S. on security guarantees”, and the George Soros-and American-Government-controlled “Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty” official American Cold War news site headlined “Kremlin Says Moscow Handed Security-Guarantee Proposals To U.S.” (Soros also exerts considerable influence in the European Parliament; and, so, he is a power not only in NATO but in the EU. He’s a liberal imperialist fascist, not a conservative one, and some organizations that are funded by conservative fascist billionaires, such as the Media Research Center, have called him a “Marxist” though Soros is rabid against all forms of socialism and had actually helped to end Marxism in the Soviet Union, because what Soros really wants is for America’s Government to obtain dictatorial power over every nation — become the world’s first all-encompassing empire, a global liberal-fascist one; so, what is going to be documented in the links here is rejected by both liberal and conservative fascists, and by all billionaires and all other other imperialists. Anyone who favors any sort of imperialism will want to hide, instead of to spread, the facts that will be documented in what follows here. This will be nothing of the standard “Left” or “Right.” It won’t fit into standard political theories — all of which are funded by billionaires and are demonstrably false.)
Both of those media (both Reuters and RFE/RL) included the following key statement, in exactly the same words: “‘American representatives were literally today handed concrete proposals in our Foreign Ministry that are aimed at developing legal security guarantees for Russia,’ Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters.”
For the first time ever, Russia’s Government was requesting from America’s Government, “security guarantees” — but almost nothing about them was being published. In fact, no other U.S.-and-allied news-media published even that this historic event had occurred on that date. Perhaps Putin had decided to have it done in this quiet way so as to maximally enable the U.S. Government to handle the matter entirely in private so as to enable America’s Government to say yes to The Kremlin’s “proposals” without embarrassing itself by being publicly accused by America’s Deep-State operatives (or “neoconservatives” or advocates for expanding America’s empire) of “caving in to Putin” (which accusation would virtually assure that Biden wouldn’t become re-elected, because no major U.S.-and-allied media — all of which represent America’s Deep State — would back him if he said yes to this). So: this was a critically important moment in history.
Then, on 17 December 2021, International Business Times, which is not controlled by America’s Deep State, nor by Russia or any of its allies, headlined “EU threatens Russia sanctions as NATO backs Ukraine”, and reported the crucial news that, “Western allies on Thursday rejected Russia’s bid to thwart Kiev’s NATO ambitions and urged Moscow to halt its military build-up along Ukraine’s border and return to talks led by France and Germany.” Simultaneously, NATO’s Website itself headlined, “Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the situation in and around Ukraine”, saying that they “reject the false Russian claims of Ukrainian and NATO provocations,” and that “NATO is a defensive Alliance and will continue to strive for peace, security, and stability in the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area. We stand united to defend and protect all Allies.” (It was their standard Orwellian, true is false and false is true, rhetoric, and has been successful at duping publics ever since NATO was founded on the basis of lies back in 1949, and ESPECIALLY ever since 24 February 1990.) So: America’s Government had discussed with its European allies the “proposals” from Putin, and they — NATO, the marketing organization for the weaponry that’s made by corporations that are based in NATO (and even the EU) — promptly “rejected” the “proposals.” However, this wasn’t YET an official rejection; so, Moscow continued trying to make its case, and to do it as privately as possible in order to minimize the blowback that a yes-answer to it would produce from the Deep State.
What makes the Deep State so powerful is that throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries, corruption (or ‘the free market’ — pure capitalism, zero socialism) is a religion in U.S.-and-allied countries, and not MERELY the reality in some of them — that the super-rich (the individuals who control the biggest corporations, on the one-dollar-one-vote principle via the number of shares they hold) control the Government, instead of the Government controlling an authentic system of justice (on the one-person-one-vote principle). All of its top public officials represent ONLY the super-rich, who control all of the weapons-manufacturing companies in those countries. This religion was designed by agents (economists, journalists, and other hired ideologues) for those super-rich, and it has benefitted the super-wealthy there enormously. Their returns on those investments in “manufacturing consent” in their ‘democracies’ have been phenomenal. So: they pour whatever capital they must into their national politics so as to win public offices no matter which Party a given politician publicly advocates for. It’s the political donors who control the nation (on the one-dollar-one-vote basis). For example, in the imperial nation itself, America, 57.16% of all money that’s donated to political campaigns comes from the wealthiest one-ten-thousandth (top 0.01%) of the population. Any candidate who goes against that top 0.1% stands virtually no chance to become elected (or s‘elected’ to become elected). As the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said when asked about the effect that corruption was having upon the U.S. Government:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.
It’s now a scientifically proven fact, no longer a ‘theory’ about politics in America. Any political ‘scientist’ who calls America a “democracy” now is fraudulent as being any sort of “scientist” at all, and is merely spouting the line that the person is hired and paid to assert as an (appropriately institutional) ‘expert’ on American politics. (And those institutions are themselves corrupt; it’s part of the (dictatorial) ‘capitalist’ (or “fascist”) system.)
And THIS is the reason for why the Deep State (the agents of U.S.-and-allied billionaires) have virtually a lock-hold over the U.S. Government. It happens every election-year.
So: to continue:
On that same date, 17 December 2022, since NATO had now publicly (though not YET officially) rejected Russia’s “proposals,” The Kremlin’s Website finally published what those “proposals” were (or had been), and headlined them, “Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”. Their Website is extremely user-hostile (much like that of America’s Government is); and, so, few people initially got to see it, but its key portion was its Articles 4-6:
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Then, on 7 January 2022, NATO and the U.S. Government, both publicly and officially, rejected Russia’s “proposals,” and so there could then be no remaining doubt that if Ukraine was going to continue being an agent of what now unambiguously are Russia’s mortal enemies, then Russia would need to conquer Ukraine itself, BEFORE Ukraine would become a member-nation of NATO and thus spark a very hot WW III for Russia to invade; so, on 24 February 2022, Russia did invade Ukraine. Afterwards, America and its NATO have come increasingly closer to treating Ukraine as-if Ukraine already is a NATO member-nation. (Will they go all the way to nuclear war over it is now the question.)
I have elsewhere stated the reasons why Russia was presenting those “proposals” (which were actually demands, the cause for which had started on 24 February 1990: Russia’s Government is finally responding to that — what started on that date — in the only way that still remains possible for Russia to do, short of invading the United States itself).
Time was running out for Russia to defend itself short of by going to war directly against the U.S. The only question that had remained for Russia was when and how to invade Ukraine. Whether they did it at the right time and in the right way will be debated-about by future investigative historians, but that it needed to be done was beyond any rational dispute. (Nonetheless, it was virtually universally denied by ‘experts’ in The West. Propaganda can make a majority of the public believe virtually anything, virtually anywhere. I avoid it, everywhere, and rely upon, instead — and link directly to — ONLY evidence that can’t rationally be doubted. Doing this now in The West stands out like a sore thumb; but what Galileo and Darwin wrote, likewise did — because they, likewise, never compromised truth, never misrepresented the available evidence. Historians should follow the same rule. Few do.)