The outgoing “high commissioner” of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Valentin Inzko’s Parthian shot threatens to unravel the restless raj he has haughtily ruled since 2009, amply rewarded for his generous efforts with an annual salary of half a million euros.

For several years Inzko has been threatening to impose in Bosnia a “Srebrenica genocide denial” law, relying on his presumed prerogatives under the Dayton peace agreement, unless that is the local lawmakers got his hint and passed the prescribed law motu propio. But of course as a lawyer Inzko should be well aware that in conditions of coercion there can be no motu propio. That knowledge did not prevent him, however, precisely from the exercise of coercion just days before his heartily desired departure, as if he deliberately wanted the coda to his rule to symbolize the general lawlessness of his office ever since it was set up in 1996, supposedly as a temporary measure to facilitate peace and reconciliation in a strife riven land. In the event, the “temporary measure” making Bosnia a full-fledged NATO protectorate has been in effect for a quarter of a century, and with no end in sight, but with increasingly determined resistance by Security Council members Russia and China.

Inzko’s decree was just another in a long train of routine humiliations for the supposedly independent and sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Like all previous occupiers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Inzko and his NATO brethren have found the Serb element a very hard nut to crack. In the present situation, the contentious issue is the foreign cabal’s insistence that Bosnian Serbs, whose political embodiment is one of the country’s two entities, the Republic of Srpska, humbly admit that they committed genocide on their Muslim neighbours in July of 1995. Either that, or stop denying that they did, which is practically the same thing. Except for some usual suspects from the ranks of local Western-financed NGOs few takers have been found, which infuriates the international overseers immensely. Moreover, due to Bosnia’s post-Dayton constitutional structure a “national interest” issue such as this cannot be given legislative effect without a consensus of all three constituent ethnic groups. Republic of Srpska’s determined opposition to the self-incriminating Srebrenica genocide denial initiative has effectively squashed all attempts to pass such a law using regular legislative procedures. That is when “high representative” Inzko stepped in to do the job.

Pointedly, Milorad Dodik, the Serbian representative in Bosnia’s collective presidency, commented that the imposition of this law is the “final nail in the coffin” of the failed state of Bosnia. (He would have said “the final straw” had he been talking in English, which he does not speak.) He was obviously alluding to the title of a book by Bosnian Serb academic, Prof. Nenad Kecmanovic, “Bosnia, the impossible state,” which takes a very dim view of its subject’s viability.

The principal points in the current controversy are the unreasonably long persistence of the office of the “high representative” in Bosnia (supposedly he “represents” the European Union, of which Bosnia is not even a member) and the actual extent of his powers.

Putting and keeping their man on the vice-regal throne in Sarajevo (individual officials have changed over the last 25 years but the general political direction of their office has invariably remained the same) is invested with obvious geostrategic logic, which is to secure the empire’s Balkan rear for the Ostfront, when the time to open it is deemed ripe. In the meantime, by hook and by crook the empire and its local “high representatives” have pursued obstinately three single-minded goals. These are to dismantle the loose confederation agreed upon in Dayton in favor of a centralised state ruled by their satraps from Sarajevo, to incorporate Bosnia into the crumbling European Union, and to make it join the NATO alliance. A fundamental obstacle to the achievement of all those goals is an empowered Republic of Srpska, with its stubbornly retrograde population whose unanimous affections in their entirety flow in the opposite direction, to … well, you know who, but it is neither Brussels, London nor Washington.

In that context, the actual powers under the Dayton peace agreement of the “high representative,” whose task is to make all the above happen, are a core issue. Those powers, it seems, have largely been based on an insolent bluff, the so-called “Bonn powers” supposedly delivered to the Bosnian viceroy at a meeting of Western Alliance officials in Germany in the late 90s, much akin to the fraudulent Donatio Constantini and other similar medieval swindles. The entire fraudulent scheme was debunked in detail and with great effectiveness by British academic John Laughland some time ago. But alas! Balkan politicians do not seem to have grasped Dr. Laughland’s memo because they are not very fluent in English. Besides, their not wholly unjustified inferiority complex makes them susceptible to the most preposterous claims, especially when they are delivered by stern Western officials in pin striped suits, to whose impertinent demands “Yes, bwana” is always the only possible answer.

Inzko’s imposition in Bosnia of a country-wide Srebrenica genocide denial law, in clear defiance of the Serb half of the country, is already provoking exactly the sort of destabilising reactions that were probably envisaged by those who inspired it. There is talk of the Serb entity walking out of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not recognising the credentials of Inzko’s successor, not enforcing Inzko’s arbitrary decree on its territory, and so forth. In short, the planned exacerbation of Bosnia’s permanent crisis has so far been an outstanding success.

Add to that the recent “Srebrenica denial” spat in neighbouring Montenegro which further undermined the already wobbly post-Djukanovic government and the campaign in Serbia, clearly inspired by Western services and their agents of influence, to further discredit the unsavoury current regime and nudge it closer to recognizing Kosovo secession in return for a let-up on the political pressure, and all the ingredients for a toxic Balkan brew have been assembled.

A “Balkan Spring,” perhaps a bit late in the year, but probably welcome any time, may well be in the early implementation stage. It is difficult to conceive that all the elements of a perfect storm in the three central Balkans statelets have been planted fortuitously, without the guidance of a single strategic concept or operational centre.

There is a Serbian saying that when an idle priest can think of nothing better to do he entertains himself by baptising goats. Bosnia’s High Representative Valentin Inzko apparently finds himself in a similarly absurd position. Oblivious to the Great Reset issues gripping the world around him and even of the dire condition of his own Bosnian raj, Inzko was busy over the last couple of days composing a letter to Nedeljko Čubrilović, speaker of parliament in the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia’s Serb-run entity. Inzko’s message conveyed the preposterous demand that the parliament strip former Republic of Srpska officials, Radovan Karadžič, Biljana Plavšić, and Momčilo Krajišnik of their medals and awards on the ground that they are “war criminals,” duly condemned as such by the Hague Tribunal.

To make sure that everyone grasped the seriousness of the demand he was making, Inzko gave the parliamentarians three months, until the end of April, to comply. The awards and honorable mentions for the condemned individuals had been voted by the parliament of the Republic of Srpska in October 2016, for their signal contribution to the entity’s establishment during the 1990s, a reality that is historically incontrovertible.

Inzko is, of course, cheerfully oblivious of the fact that the people of the Republic of Srpska, about a million of them, do not give a hoot for the judgments of the Hague Tribunal, which they despise. Naturally, they have their own criteria for assigning merit to their country’s historical figures whom they deem worthy of such recognition.

Inzko’s seemingly petty ultimatum to Serbian parliamentarians is actually part of a broader game plan for destabilizing and undermining the Republic of Srpska, Russia’s steadfast ally in the Balkans. Crude attempts over the last couple of years to ignite street disorders by following the Gene Sharp color revolution playbook had failed miserably because the coup leadership selected by Western special services was abysmally incompetent and the public were properly enlightened to see through the entire scheme. Now a new, subtler approach is being taken. A Navalny wannabe, trained “anti-corruption” demagogue, has managed to con citizens of Banja Luka, the country’s capital, to elect him mayor and he is using his bully pulpit to the hilt to enact a sophisticated political performance. As for Inzko, he is working from the same script in coordination with the fifth column to intimidate and humiliate the country’s institutions and leadership.

With Inzko’s threat to use the High Representative’s fictitious “Bonn Powers” to impose a Srebrenica “genocide denial” law in the background, the current campaign actually started some months ago when he demanded that a student dormitory in the war-time capital of Pale, named after Republic of Srpska’s first president, Radovan Karadžić, be renamed for all the obvious reasons. After weeks of defiant refusal, the government foolishly rolled over and finally agreed to Inzko’s demand, just to keep the peace, presumably. Never lacking in a sense of humor, university students informally renamed their facility after “Dr. Dragan Dabić,” which was Dr Karadžić’s nom de guerre while hiding in plain sight in Belgrade from Hague Tribunal’s arrest warrant.

Encouraged by that ill-considered concession, Inzko and the elusive “international community” which issues his marching orders (not that we don’t know who they really are) now scent weakness, so predictably are demanding more. The demand to strip the founders of the Republic of Srpska of their honorific awards is but a prelude to the projected imposition of the Srebrenica “genocide denial” decree, a provocation already announced by Inzko. That is additionally made clear by the truculent language of Inzko’s letter which minces no words in attributing to the Serbian people collective war crimes responsibility. By caving in, Inzko told Serbian parliamentarians, they “will remove the collective responsibility of the Serbian people, and by removing collective guilt and eliminating the burden of the past the entire nation would gain relief…” Inzko, who is Austrian, may have made a Freudian slip, and possibly was actually thinking of the Volk, including his fellow-Austrians, the ethnic stock of the Großdeutsches Reich of recent memory. But the language and the plain reference in the letter are clear enough and it prefigures much additional bullying to come.

There is little doubt that once the “honors-for-war-criminals” affair is over, Srebrenica denial legislation will be the next logical pressure point on the agenda. While this time round Inzko has not specifically invoked the “Bonn Powers,” the threat of doing so is implicit in the three-month ultimatum to the deputies to come to heel, or else. Setting aside the inspiring “rule of law” paradigm such a threat sets, the natural question is what the “or else” could possibly be other than a High Representative dictate, embodied by the Bonn Powers?

Here, a short digression is in order. The Bonn Powers are an entirely fictitious concoction nowhere mentioned in the Bosnia peace treaty agreed in Dayton and signed in Paris in 1995, not unlike the Joint Criminal Enterprise doctrine, which also is not mentioned anywhere in the Statute of the Hague Tribunal but has been used effectively to undergird decades-long prison sentences. Both devices were contrived out of whole cloth to facilitate the fraudulent implementation of specific imperial political objectives. In the present case, it is to enable Bosnia’s High Representative to issue binding interpretations of the Dayton peace agreement in accordance with his whims and the instructions passed on to him by the foreign power centers which control him. The myth of the non-existent Bonn Powers was brilliantly exploded quite a few years ago by the British scholar and at the time Director of Studies at the Paris-based think tank Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Dr. John Laughland.

After a detailed study of the issue, Dr. Laughland concluded that “it is highly anomalous for the High Representative to invoke both Article 5 of Annex 10 and the so-called Bonn powers when justifying his controversial decisions to annul the decisions of parliaments or sack officials. Yet he does invoke both these very regularly. It is controversial because these are not ‘powers’ in the usual sense of the word. They are not specific executive competences which have been delegated but instead enabling clauses which allow him to interpret his own powers and which are therefore wielded without any judicial, political or parliamentary control.” Need more be said?

So the stage is being set in the Republic of Srpska for what in Texas they call a double whammy. While the new, and it must be admitted cleverly selected, crop of agile fifth columnists are burrowing from within, High Representative Inzko is aiming his artillery fire at the Serbian entity’s institutional infrastructure, to soften it up. Very soon, the graduated pressure being applied will reach the critical point of Srebrenica. The hybrid warfare game plan does not require a rocket scientist to decipher. Once the founders of the Republic of Srpska are successfully ostracized in their own land as “war criminals,” the principle of collective responsibility for alleged war crimes is established, and by Inzko’s illegal decree disputing the fabricated Srebrenica “genocide” narrative is made a punishable offense, the final assault on the Serbs’ remaining relatively free patch of land in Bosnia will not be far behind.

One recent instance of non-adjustment, however, is the Western media’s continuing public relations and propaganda campaign against Russia.

On 9 April Al Jazeera carried a report that “A U.S.-Russian space crew blasted off Thursday to the International Space Station following tight quarantine amid the coronavirus pandemic.

NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy and Roscosmos’ Anatoly Ivanishin and Ivan Vagner lifted off as scheduled from the Russian-operated Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.” There was an excellent 400-word piece about the mission, just as one would expect from Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, the New York Times, as ascertained from a search of its website on 10 April, didn’t mention the mission at all. The Washington Post carried a twelve-word item that read in its entirety “By Associated Press April 9, 2020 — A U.S.-Russian space crew has blasted off to the International Space Station.” End.

The reason for reluctance on the part of the U.S. mainstream media to inform the world about such an important international event is that Russia played the major part in a successful space mission with the United States. Imagine the news cover if the spacecraft hadn’t been a Russian Soyuz, but a U.S.-produced SpaceX (still under vastly expensive development) launched from the Kennedy Space Centre. There would have been front-page headlines with “Keep America Great” exhortations from the space commander in Washington.

And so the propaganda of the third Cold War continues, involving all sorts of important international affairs, not least being Crimea which (whisper this) is doing very nicely, thank you, having been restored to Mother Russia.

It must be acknowledged, however, that the Washington Post marked the sixth anniversary of the restoration with a piece on 18 March that (albeit reluctantly) recognised Crimea’s accession to Russia. It noted, among other things, that “in Crimea itself, the annexation was popular, especially among Crimea’s large population of older ethnic Russians. More than five years later, and billions of roubles of investment later, it remains popular.” It is mandatory in the West to use the word “annexation” when referring to the accession of Crimea to Russia following a popular referendum, but even the Post can’t escape the facts, which are so distasteful to the propagandists.

In 1783 Crimea became part of Russia and remained so until, as recorded by the BBC, “In 1954 Crimea was handed to Ukraine as a gift by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev who was himself half-Ukrainian.” The majority of citizens wanted to rejoin Russia rather than stay with crippled post-revolution Ukraine which would have victimized them because of their Russian heritage. One of its first actions “was to repeal a 2012 law recognising Russian as an official regional language” and governance from Kiev boded badly for minorities.

It was rarely stated that 90 percent of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated, and they voted to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” (in the words of the Declaration of Independence of 1776) in order to rejoin Russia. It would be strange if they had not wanted to accede to a country that not only welcomed their kinship, empathy and loyalty but was economically benevolent concerning their future, as has now been amply demonstrated by ensuing growth and prosperity. As even the Washington Post had to acknowledge, “Crimea’s three largest ethnic groups are, by and in large, happy with the direction of events on the peninsula.”

At the time that these ethnic groups were voting to rejoin their mother country, five years ago, the West, and most notably the administration in Washington, decided to oppose any such move. It didn’t matter that it was a fair and free vote, because there are ways to defeat common sense and national aspirations while creating the impression that it is wrong for people to express their feelings and wishes if these favour a nation that is anathema to those who make the rules.

For example, the government in Crimea invited observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to witness and assess the conduct of the referendum held to determine whether the people of Crimea wished to remain under the Kiev government or rejoin Russia. There were no strings attached, and the invitation was sent to the HQ of the OSCE in Vienna. Then there was a pause during which the matter was considered in who knows what halls of power. And the OSCE conjured up an intriguing excuse for refusing to assess conduct of the plebiscite. As Reuters reported, “a spokeswoman said Crimea could not invite observers as the region was not a full-fledged state and therefore not a member of the 57-member organization. ‘As far as we know, Crimea is not a participating state of the OSCE, so it would be sort of hard for them to invite us,’ she said. She also said that Ukraine, which is an OSCE member, sent no invitation and that the organization ‘respects the full territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine’.” You couldn’t make it up.

The feelings and aspirations of Crimea’s citizens didn’t matter to the OSCE or to the West as a whole. The West wanted, and still wants, Ukraine to rule Crimea, and seems determined to pester and sanction Russia accordingly. But nobody can seriously imagine for one moment that Russia is going to hand over Crimea to the Kiev government. So what is the answer?

Nobody expects the Great and the Good of the West to openly admit they were wrong about Crimea, and that the region and its citizens are in fact immeasurably better-off than they would be had they been subjected to rule by Kiev. But there is usually a way out of such a dilemma, and one that can be gently implemented without embarrassment. All that the West needs to do is quietly accept the status of Crimea and remove anti-Russia sanctions without fanfare. There would be discontent among the ultra-nationalists in Kiev, of course, but the world would be a more secure and happier place. Surely that’s a worthy aim to be achieved?

In the statement (Nov. 2) to the Permanent Council invoking the mechanism, the group of 16 noted that these concerns are "centered around allegations of impunity for reported human rights violations and abuses in Chechnya from January 2017 to the present, including, but not limited to, violations and abuses against persons based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as against human rights defenders, lawyers, independent media, civil society organizations, and others." Russia was given six days to say if it would cooperate or not.

The US State Department has supported the initiative. “The administration will continue to work with our European partners to expose Russia's human rights violations and abuses," stated deputy spokesman Robert Palladino. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, an independent US government commission that works to monitor the OSCE, also threw its support behind the initiative.

The timing always offers a clue about the objective of the intended steps.  The 25th OSCE Ministerial Council, the central decision-making and governing body of the OSCE, is to meet Dec. 6-7. The “investigation” is a way to lay the groundwork to attack Russia, accusing it of all imaginable sins.

All the fuss about human rights in the republic mainly boils down to the plight of the LGBTI community. Very few such people have complained, and many of them said Europe was not any better than Russia.  It should be noted that the issue was not important enough to be included in the agenda of the  OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger during his visit to Moscow Nov. 2-3.

Are the invented stories about the violations of LGBTI rights in Chechnya really at the top of the OSCE’s human-rights agenda, eclipsing other problems and justifying the invocation of the Moscow Mechanism?  What about the WWII veterans from the Nazi SS special forces who are openly marching in the streets of Latvia’s cities and towns? What about the rise of far-right nationalism in that country? Anti-Semitism in the Baltic states is a problem grave enough to prompt a response from the pope, but no, the OSCE does not believe that issue to be serious enough to investigate.   

What about far-right vigilantes in Ukraine who are intimidating people, often violently, with the tacit approval of law-enforcement agencies? Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2018  that Ukrainian authorities had backtracked on important human-rights pledges in 2017. Torture and other ill-treatment, attacks by neo-Nazis against minorities, such as the Roma community, in that country are a matter of concern for Amnesty International, but not those who seek a larger role for the OSCE in improving the human-rights situation in Europe. Why isn’t Kirill Vyshinsky, a Russian journalist held behind bars in Ukraine, not a matter of concern for the OSCE?   

“It sounds like the stuff of Kremlin propaganda, but it’s not.” These are the first words of the Atlantic Council’s report on far-right violence in Ukraine. It was made public last summer. Where is the OSCE? Why is it hushing up human-rights violations in Ukraine?

What about the European Court’s September ruling on the violation of human rights by the UK surveillance program? No investigation was launched by the OSCE. Nor did it initiate an investigation into the Spanish state’s human-rights violations that were publicized the same month. The OSCE deals with security. Is it investigating the reports on US biological military research in the OSCE member countries? 

The Moscow Mechanism is being invoked to divert attention from serious and pressing problems that are beyond what the OSCE or any other Western-dominated institution can manage. This is another move to create a certain environment prior to the 25^th OSCE Ministerial Council, at which Moscow will ask some awkward questions. The poor performance of the OSCE’s specialized institutions, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the High Commissioner on National Minorities, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media, is one of the issues that will be raised. The OSCE world have done better to have set its double standards aside, in order to concentrate on real issues, such as the emergence of neo-Nazism in Europe and the human-rights violations in Ukraine.

In the heat of the Cold War, the CSCE served as an inclusive, consensus-based platform for constructive dialogue no matter how adverse the weather was. It’s hard to overestimate the important role the 1975 Helsinki Act played in making Europe a safer place.

Since the 1990s, the OSCE has been declared obsolete numerous times but it is still unique and its raison d’être can hardly be questioned. Reviving the Helsinki spirit and restoring confidence that existed those days should be a top priority at the time the attempts to build a single security system in the Euro-Atlantic area have evidently led to nowhere. The common goal of creating a value-based security community from Vancouver to Vladivostok, envisioned in OSCE documents after the end of the Cold War, has never materialized. Today Europe is divided and unstable, balancing on the brink of slipping into anarchy and a new Cold War.

It has turned into a continent where double standards prevail, color revolutions are staged and sanctions wars are raging, while the idea of US exceptionalism is used to justify violations of international law. But sanctions and violations do not help build security architecture.

The ramifications of instability in the MENA region, triggered to large extent by US and NATO military interventions, pose a serious threat to Europe. The crisis in Ukraine, the Nagorno-Karabakh stand-off, the situation in Kosovo and the status of Transnistria remain unsolved problems.

The OSCE has to large extent lost its role as a security forum able to effectively handle problems. This has happened for a range of reasons, including the NATO eastward expansion, the erosion of treaty-based stability and inability to find solutions to regional conflicts.

The treaties concluded within the OSCE framework are either dead or about to take the final breath. The Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) has become a thing of the past. The Open Skies Treaty is facing an uncertain future.

The turbulent times dictate the need for the OSCE’s notable comeback to turn the tide and strengthen European security. In 2018, Italy chairs the OSCE and the country’s new government can play a positive role in making the Organization reappear on the radar and regain its relevance.

Practical steps can be taken. The 2011 Vienna Document on Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBMs) could be updated. The discussions on “Steinmeier Initiative” in the area of conventional arms control could be a start of OSCE-brokered process. In 2008, Russia submitted for OSCE consideration the draft Treaty on European Security. It was largely ignored by Western nations and swept under the rug as time dragged by. Probably if the attitude had been different then, Europe would have been a much safer place today. Now the German initiative, which is in essence a repetition of what Moscow offered ten years ago, has been waiting to be put on the OSCE agenda since 2016. Is it the right moment for wasting time instead of starting talks?

The ongoing Structured Dialogue (SD) on security challenges is a good step towards the revival of multilateral security dialogue. The Organization can be used as an effective communication channel for more frequent military-to-military contacts to prevent escalation and enhance predictability and transparency. It is especially important in view of fruitless attempts to make the NATO-Russia Council an effective forum for addressing burning security problems. Finally, the OSCE could initiate a new negotiation process with the aim of having a “Helsinki Act II” document signed.

The OSCE needs reforms. Its decision-making process has proven to be ineffective. All decisions are taken by consensus. With so many members, it’s unrealistic. The most complex and important issues are supposed to be discussed at the level of heads of state. There has been no OSCE summit since 2010. The Organization has no Charter. Russia has proposed to prepare one numerous times but the initiative is left hanging in the air.

Not all is doom and gloom. Far from it. The newly formed Italian government led by PM Giuseppe Conte has the reputation of being able to adopt inventive approaches and see things in a new light. It’s full of desire to contribute into making the OSCE an effective multilateral forum able to enhance European security. Swiss diplomat Thomas Greminger, the new OSCE Secretary General, is resolute to get the Organization back to the days of glory. The 25^th OSCE Ministerial Council will be held in Milan on 6 and 7 December 2018. There still time to work on new proposals to make the Organization regain its prominence.

It is therefore prudent to deploy international monitors to try to restrain the violence, or at least offset the undoubted propaganda war which will ensue. The move to involve the UN is also a damning reflection of how ineffective the already-in-place monitors from the OSCE have been.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has stationed hundreds of international members in eastern Ukraine since March 2014, yet the OSCE has done little to restrain the offensive actions by the Kiev-controlled Ukrainian Armed Forces against the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The lack of restraint stems from the OSCE being evidently biased towards the Kiev regime and its reluctance to issue public criticism of Kiev’s daily violations of the Minsk Accord. In other words, despite claims of impartiality, the OSCE serves as a propaganda tool for the US-backed regime.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that increased American military support to the Kiev regime will result in an escalation of violence. When US defense secretary James Mattis was in Kiev last month, he said Washington was «considering» sending lethal weapons to the regime’s forces. As part of the public relations exercise, Mattis called the weapons «defensive» lethal weapons. Those «defensive» arms include Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Reliable reports say that lethal US weaponry has already begun arriving, including grenade launchers and the high-powered Barrett M-82 sniper rifles with a range of 1.8 kilometers. According to sources in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), the American military supplies are being delivered through private US firms, which obscures Washington’s official involvement.

Over the past week, DPR military chief Eduard Basurin has cited as many as 200 violations of the ceasefire supposedly in place under the 2015 Minsk Accord. Those violations were carried with heavy artillery and mortars, hitting 25 locations in the Donetsk province. The DPR also claims that Kiev forces are moving up heavy weapons, including Howitzers, to the Contact Line, in another breach of Minsk.

Meanwhile, a check on the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission’s latest reporting on the ground indicates «fewer ceasefire violations». Typical of the OSCE reporting, those violations that are noted are worded in vague fashion in such a way that it is not clear which party is committing the attacks. The OSCE reports cite explosions and artillery fire, but rarely assign blame or details that might allow readers to ascertain who is firing at who. The lack of details strongly suggests a deliberate effort by the OSCE authorities to obfuscate. Yet, it claims to be a frontline source for journalists to file reports on what is happening in Ukraine. No wonder Western media in particular are so vacant about the conflict, if this is their source.

Given the Pentagon’s move to openly step up lethal weapons to the Kiev regime, the implications for worsening violence in eastern Ukraine are ominous. Kiev’s forces, which include Neo-Nazi battalions, have been waging an «Anti-Terror Operation» (ATO) on the ethnic Russian population of Donetsk and Luhansk since April 2014. Up to 10,000 have died in the conflict. The ATO was originally launched at the same time that then CIA chief John Brennan visited the Kiev regime – two months after the CIA backed the coup that brought the regime to power.

The violence has continued despite the signing by Kiev and the separatists of the two-year-old Minsk Accord – brokered by Russia, France and Germany. The Kiev regime headed up by President Petro Poroshenko claims that the separatists are «terrorists» supported by Russian «aggression». The separatists view the Kiev regime as illegitimate having violently and illegally seized power from an elected government in February 2014.

Washington backs the illogical position of Kiev and its evident repudiation of the Minsk Accord in spite of its signature. Yet, perversely, the US imposes sanctions on Russia for allegedly not implementing the Minsk deal.

This week, Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel gave his support to the proposal announced by Vladimir Putin for a UN peacekeeping force. The Donetsk and Luhansk separatists have also voiced their support for the initiative. Russia is putting the matter before the United Nations Security Council. But it is not clear if the US will scupper the proposal.

The Kiev regime and US government-owned Radio Free Europe quickly poured scorn on Russia’s proposal. Cynically, it is claimed that the deployment of UN peacekeepers on the Contact Line would bolster the separatists’ territorial claims. Instead, Kiev wants UN troops to be deployed all across the breakaway republics and on the border with Russia.

But this is the point. The Kiev regime cannot be trusted to uphold any ceasefire agreement or commitments to recognize autonomy in Donetsk and Luhansk, as it is obligated to do under Minsk. Having UN blue helmets stationed all over the breakaway republics would most likely give Kiev a cover to infiltrate its forces. Just a quick indicator of bad faith was the routine breaching of the so-called «schools truce» called on August 25 by Poroshenko. That truce was called at the same time that Pentagon chief James Mattis was visiting Kiev, suggesting it was a public relations stunt to ease the announced supply of «defensive» lethal weapons by Washington.

Thus, the Russian proposal for UN monitors at the interface between Kiev troops and the separatists is a reasonable move. It may not be effective in stemming the violence especially in light of US stepping up weapons supplies. But, at least, it is worth giving a chance. The other potentially positive effect is that the UN peacekeepers might be able to account more accurately on which side is stoking the violence. This is all the more important since the OSCE has shown itself to be totally ineffectual, or worse, complicit in giving the Kiev regime a cover for its depredations.

The OSCE comprises 57 participating nations, including the US, Russia and European states. But its membership is dominated by 29 countries belonging to the US-led NATO military alliance. Russia has long complained that the OSCE needs reforming to allow for more balanced representation.

In his 2007 landmark speech to the Munich Security Conference, Putin warned, among many global issues, that Washington and its NATO allies were «trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument to promote Western foreign policy interests».

Like many other multilateral institutions, including the UN, the European Union and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the OSCE has demonstrated a subservience to Washington’s geopolitical dominance.

This is clearly the case in Ukraine. The OSCE has never issued an unequivocal condemnation of Kiev forces, even though the latter have carried out countless violations and are the main obstacle to implementing a peaceful settlement.

In a must-read revealing interview, one former American member of the OSCE said that the organization routinely distorts the nature of the conflict in Ukraine and is «highly biased in favor of the Kiev regime». He said that field reports from rank-and-file OSCE officers were often suppressed by their superiors based in Kiev.

Alexander Hug, the ex-Swiss army chief of the OSCE operation in Ukraine, has in the past written opinion articles for the Kyiv Post, a news outlet that is stridently pro-regime and openly anti-Russian. In one of Hug’s articles, it bore the tagline «Russia’s war against Ukraine». Ironically, the OSCE chief introduced that article with the words: «The first casualty of war is the truth». For the OSCE chief to show such flagrant bias is contemptible and brings the so-called monitor into disrepute.

All the signs indicate that the war in Ukraine is set to escalate – especially given the increased supply of American weaponry to Kiev regime forces. Washington is acting recklessly. It is tacitly declaring war in Ukraine, with grave implications for US-Russia relations.

The deployment of UN peacekeepers to the conflict zone may not be sufficient to prevent the US-backed regime going on the offensive. But at least the presence of more international monitors might allow for more critical information on which side is pushing the violence.

Certainly, the OSCE monitors already in place are totally unreliable despite their claims of impartiality. Indeed, the OSCE as presently formulated and deployed is part of the problem for why a peaceful settlement in Ukraine is continually confounded.

Russia’s proposal for UN peacekeepers is being viewed cynically in the West as a hollow gesture. Such Western views are contorted and laced with their usual Russophobia instead of being objective.

The Russian proposal is simply because the OSCE is hopelessly derelict in its duties, and needs to be sidelined by some other more effective monitoring mechanism. The war-footing of the US-backed Kiev regime amid OSCE silence is testament to its dereliction.

«Europe's security is in danger», German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Die Welt newspaper in an interview published on November 25. «As difficult as ties to Russia may currently be, we need more dialogue, not less».

Steinmeier, a Social Democrat nominated to become German president next year, first called for a new arms control deal with Russia in August to avoid an escalation of tensions in Europe.

Fifteen other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – have since joined Steinmeier's initiative: France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal.

The group plans to discuss the issue on the sidelines of a December 8-9 ministerial level OSCE meeting in Hamburg. Germany is holding the rotating presidency of the organization.

Mr. Steinmeier first floated the idea of an arms control agreement with Moscow in August amid rising tensions between Russia and NATO. He has also slammed NATO for «saber-rattling and war cries» and provocative military activities in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

Russia withdrew from the original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (the CFE treaty) in 2015. Signed in 1990 by NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the agreement set ceilings for the level of conventional arms systems signatories were allowed to deploy and established verification and confidence-building measures.

The treaty had long been undermined by NATO expansion, leading to imbalance of forces. The alliance has accepted 12 Eastern European countries since 1999 with Montenegro invited to join. In 1999, signatories agreed an adapted version, but this was never ratified because NATO insisted Russia had to withdraw all its troops from former Soviet territories such as Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria as a precondition for the ratification. Although Russia had withdrawn almost all its troops, there remained some insignificant contingents but the alliance stubbornly sought to pursue its line.

According to the Adapted CFE, the quota for the number of forces practically did not change. The agreed limits for NATO exceeded three times the ones established for Russia. The flanking zone limitations for the Russian Federation were not reconsidered. The three Baltic States refused to join the treaty when they became NATO members. The adapted version of the treaty did not address the problem of NATO’s superiority in naval forces. A number of NATO countries have essentially breached its requirements, periodically refusing to provide information to the Russian side or allow inspections. The alliance has stepped up provocative activities near Russia’s borders.

NATO failed to take into account Russia’s concern over ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans. This policy implemented by NATO actually finished off conventional arms control in Europe. In 2007, Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty to finally withdraw in 2015.

As a result, the OSCE Vienna Document and the Treaty on Open Skies are the only mechanisms left in place but they are too limited in application to curb the rising tensions.

The goal of creating a «Greater Europe» stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok seemed to be achievable some years ago. Now it has become a far-fetched dream. A quarter of century has passed since the Soviet Union’s collapse. The Russia-West dialogue has failed to translate into some kind of strategic relationship.

It’s important to note that the initiative to relaunch the negotiation process does not belong to Germany. The West has rejected Russia’s proposal to discuss a new European Security Treaty. The Russia-proposed draft document was published in 2009. In March 2015, Russia expressed its readiness for negotiations concerning a new agreement regarding the control of conventional weapons in Europe. It never rejected the idea of launching talks to address the problem.

New security arrangements should take into consideration the realities of the fast changing world, including new technologies. Any arrangement should cover long range conventional strike capabilities, the weapons based on new physical principles, tactical nuclear weapons, the NATO’s naval and conventional superiority, the bloc’s further expansion and a host of other problems. No deal is possible without an agreement of NATO’s BMD program.

The process should not be limited to weapons systems only. The confidence-building and security measures (CBSMs) contained in the Vienna Document should be further developed to reduce the risk of a new armed conflict sparked as a result of an accident – something NATO has refused to do so far.

A new agreement should address the security agenda in a broader sense. The debate is long overdue. The problem should not boil down to bilateral Russia-NATO relationship. It should eventually feed into a broader conversation on the overall European security system based on a new architecture.

Europe is facing a host of security challenges. Launching a meaningful discussion with Russia is logical step to take. Russia and the West have plenty of possibilities for cooperation besides arms control and military activities in Europe. The possible areas of cooperation include the fight against terrorism, especially the Islamic State group, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, the Arctic, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and countering piracy to name a few. Respect for mutual concerns and interests is a prerequisite for success.

With all the differences dividing Russia (the Soviet Union) and the West at the height of the Cold War, those days diplomacy worked well to prevent the worst. It can be done now. The significant support for the proposal launched by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier provides a serious opportunity to turn the tide. This chance should not be missed.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on October 22 that Moscow finds unacceptable the US warning of criminal charges to be brought against Russian diplomats if they appear at polling stations to get acquainted with US election process on November 8. Moscow chose to conduct the observations independently and not with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) because it does not fully accept the ODIHR methodology and criteria used for assessment of the elections. Besides, it would involve additional restrictions on visiting polling stations in some states.

The idea to send a delegation of observers to the United States has been rejected by State Department.

According to State Department spokesman Mark Toner, the effort to send diplomats was a «PR stunt».

Three states – Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas – have even threatened to bring criminal charges against the diplomats if they appear at ballot stations.

In contrast, Russia sent personal invitations to US monitors asking them to observe the September parliamentary elections, and 63 accepted the offer. In total, 774 monitors from 63 nations received accreditation to observe Russia’s parliamentary elections. In addition, US representatives visited Russia earlier as part of an OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’ monitoring mission.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that that election is «rigged», which Republican officials have disputed. «I'm telling you, Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged», he told Fox News.

According to Trump, his own primary election was «rigged» against him. Just think about it – the leader of the major political party believes that the US voting system is flawed! The candidate has said that some people voted being ineligible, some cast ballots many times and some impersonated dead voters. A Politico / Morning Consult poll released on October 17 found that 48 % of Trump supporters said they were «not too» or «not at all» confident that votes would be accurately counted on Election Day, and 81 % of Trump supporters said they believe the election could be «stolen» from Trump as a result of voter fraud.

Around a quarter of Americans say they have «hardly any confidence» that their votes will be counted correctly, according to a recent AP / NORC survey.

According to Shyla Nelson, the co-founder of Election Justice USA, US elections are manipulated in many ways, including «voter suppression, unauthorized registration purges, district gerrymandering, gross exit poll variances, the privatization of voting machinery, and the lack of transparency in ballot processing – our elections will continue to rank among the lowest in the world in integrity».

Several key swing states use electronic voting systems with no backup paper trail. The system makes it virtually impossible for election officials to provide proof of how the election results were achieved. The reliance on electronic voting machines – often running on increasingly obsolete hardware and software – and online voting threatens public trust in US elections.

There are multiple examples of incidents that lead experts to question the safety and reliability of voting systems across the country. A LawNewz report says cyber-attacks and hacking into the voting system are a reality.

According to the OSCE / ODIHR Needs Assessment Mission (NAM) Report, some 4.1 million citizens that are residents of US territories are not eligible and some 600,000 citizens that are residents of the District of Columbia can vote in presidential elections but do not have full representation in Congress.

Around 5.8 million prisoners and ex-prisoners continue to be disenfranchised due to prohibitive and disproportionate legal regulations or burdensome procedures for reinstating voting rights in a number of states. Women are generally underrepresented in public office, holding some 20 per cent of seats in the outgoing Congress and some 25 per cent of seats in the state legislatures. There are no limits on campaign spending. The paper concludes that there is a range of vulnerabilities in the conduct of American elections.

The 2016 Democratic Primary election was riddled with irregularities and fraud. In June, six Republican candidates from the June 2016 primary election filed «Statements of Contest» in Clark County District Court based on NRS 293.410(f), which allows for an election contest on grounds that there was a «possible» malfunction in the voting or counting devices used to record and tabulate the votes.

A report by the nonprofit election integrity organization Election Justice USA (EJUSA) is recommending that Democratic primary results in numerous states, including New York and California, be decertified and that the paper ballots be recounted by hand in all states which show irregularities, where paper ballots are available, and counted by hand in all future US elections.

With all the facts adduced above, it won’t be a big surprise if many Americans, as well as people in other countries who follow the events in the United States, will question the legitimacy of the election results. As one can see, there is each and every reason to express concern over the fairness of the November 8 vote.

US media has many times raised ballyhoo over the Russian elections being unfair.

Now they do their best to downplay the irregularities of US voting system.

If the election system is fair, there is no need to prevent Russian diplomats from getting closely acquainted with the procedures. After all, Russia may be willing to take a page out of US book to perfect the election system of its own.

There is one more aspect worth mentioning here. By denying the diplomats their right to monitor the elections, the US is in violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which gives nations the right to monitor elections in other countries.

The document reads, «The functions of a diplomatic mission, in particular, consist in ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State». Watching the vote is part of permitted diplomatic activities.

And it’s not about the elections only. The US has just threatened Russia with new sanctions to undermine the relationship negatively affected by the differences over Ukraine, Syria, NATO expansion and disagreements over issues related to arms control and human rights.

Now the administration has taken another step to further spoil the bilateral relationship, which is at the lowest ebb to make remember the days of Cold War. It has done each and every thing to make it as bad as it could be and is on the way to make it even worse. That’s the legacy the next president of the United States is doomed to inherit.

His Holiness the Pope did not of course make a public statement about the meeting, but the NATO publicity machine (a large and remarkably expensive organisation) made up for that omission by announcing that he and his distinguished visitor discussed global issues of common concern, including the conflicts in Syria and the wider Middle East, the importance of protecting civilian populations from suffering, and the importance of dialogue in international affairs to reduce tensions. The Secretary General also stressed that climate change could pose a significant security risk.

It is remarkable that His Holiness engaged in such discussions with the titular head of an enormous nuclear-armed military alliance, and it would be interesting to know what Mr Stoltenberg thinks about climate change in the context of international security.

The meeting was intriguing in other ways. It will be recollected that in February 2016 Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church met with Pope Francis in Havana and that Western media headlines included “Pope Francis Handed Putin a Diplomatic Victory” which was as absurd as it was trivial. But even The Economist headline was similarly slanted and amusingly asked “Did the Pope Just Kiss Putin’s Ring?”

This set the tone for other comment, but one thrust of its reporting was especially revealing, as it pointed out in shocked — shocked — tones that the Pope had “made clear in his interview before the meeting that on certain issues he agrees with Mr Putin and disagrees with America and its allies”. How truly dreadful that the Pope dares to be even-handed and ventures to disagree with the western world about international affairs.

The Economist further noted that “On Libya, where Western powers helped to bring down former dictator Muammar Qaddafi, the pope was explicit: ‘The West ought to be self-critical.’ And he continued that ‘In part, there has been a convergence of analysis between the Holy See and Russia’.” The Economist did not mention the unpalatable fact that the ‘western powers’ — the US-NATO military alliance — bombed and rocketed Libya to a catastrophic shambles and created a base for Islamic terrorists. Perhaps the Pope had taken note of that merciless Blitz, and of the fact that under the dictator Gaddafi the Catholic community in Libya had lived peacefully while now it is suffering gravely.

As recorded by Christian Freedom International, “The upsurge in attacks on Christians in Libya since the Obama / Clinton supported ouster of Gaddafi is of grave concern. CFI condemns these abductions, killings and attacks on Christian property in what is becoming an increasingly inhospitable region for Christians.” Perhaps Pope Francis raised this unpalatable fact with the devout Mr Stoltenberg, a graduate of Oslo Cathedral School who, it should be remembered, was prime minister of Norway when its air force “carried out about 10 percent of the NATO airstrikes in Libya since March 31 [to the end of June 2011].”

The revelation that the Pope has had the temerity and moral realism to “disagree with America and its allies” is not altogether surprising, but the report that “on certain issues he agrees with Mr Putin” must have shaken Mr Stoltenberg, whose fundamental stance is that “Russia is trying to kind of re-establish spheres of influence along its borders and for me this just underlines the importance of strong NATO, of strong partnership with other countries in Europe that are not members of NATO.”

Mr Stoltenberg believes that because Russia wants to establish — or, more accurately, maintain — spheres of influence along its borders then it must be discouraged or even stopped from doing so. This is confrontational, and it is unsurprising that His Holiness has made it clear that the Vatican is not an unconditional supporter of Washington’s Pentagon and its sub-office at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Mr Stoltenberg may not have read the address to the US Congress by His Holiness in 2015, when he said ‘We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the golden rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.’ As reported, ‘The line drew instant, thunderous applause from Democrats, followed with some hesitation by Republicans, a pattern repeated throughout the address.’

In his talk to Congress Pope Francis veered from the Stoltenberg line that Russia’s desire to maintain peaceful ‘spheres of influence’ around its borders must by definition be wrong and unacceptable when he pointed out that ‘there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.’

As President Putin observed in an interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera “we are not expanding anywhere; it is NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?” No, it is not — except in the eyes of such as Mr Stoltenberg.

Stoltenberg makes many visits round the world, including head-of-state-style attendance at the UN General Assembly in New York, where he had discussions with, among others, Ukraine’s President Poroshenko, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; and his most recent stopover was in the United Arab Emirates on October 19. There, while committing NATO to an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme with the UAE he “praised the UAE for its role as a valuable NATO partner in projecting international security and stability: from Kosovo, to Afghanistan to Libya.”

Perhaps Mr Stoltenberg’s meeting with the Pope affected his short-term memory. He ignores the unpalatable facts that in Kosovo, as Freedom House reports, there has been “little progress in strengthening its statehood,” while Afghanistan verges on total anarchy and, as noted above, US-NATO’s war on Libya destroyed the country. These are far from being examples of “security and stability” as Mr Stoltenberg would have us believe them to be, but self-delusion knows no borders.

When Stoltenberg was made head of NATO, President Putin considered him to be a “serious, responsible person” but warned with prescience that “we'll see how our relations develop with him in his new position.” Unfortunately that apprehension concerning future developments has been more than justified. During a trip to Washington in April, Stoltenberg told the Washington Post correspondent Karen de Young, that “NATO has to remain an expeditionary alliance, able to deploy forces outside our territory,” which is a plain unvarnished statement of expansionism. The Pope summed it up when he quoted the Bible’s advice to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ but it is unlikely that Mr Stoltenberg could ever bring himself to abide by such wise advice. More confrontation lies ahead.

The entire system of existing arms control agreements is being eroded. With almost every channel of negotiation deadlocked, the Old Continent is facing the most challenging crisis it cannot ignore. The danger of a new arms race looms large. History has many examples of international crises and tensions that developed a momentum of their own and resulted in conflict. The voices calling to urgently address the issue are getting louder.

Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says, European security is at risk unless a new arms control agreement is in force.

In an article published by German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on August 26, Steinmeier called for «concrete security initiatives» including regional caps on armaments, transparency measures, rules covering new military technology such as drones, and the ability to control arms even in disputed territories.

New military capabilities, including the use of drones, must be taken into account, the foreign minister insisted, adding that «true verification» of arms would be vital to any successful pact, along with the inclusion of regions «whose territorial status is controversial». The minister suggested that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could be the forum for talks.

Steinmeier has previously criticized NATO for staging military maneuvers in Eastern Europe, which he said amounted to «saber-rattling and shrill war cries» that could worsen tensions with Russia.

Mr Steinmeier is not alone. His proposal dovetails with what a group of former foreign and defense ministers said on August 24.

Russia and NATO must agree on common rules to handle unexpected military encounters to reduce the risk of inadvertently triggering a war between Moscow and the West. Calling for a high-level NATO-Russia meeting, the group of 14 – including former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, ex-German defense minister Volker Rühe and colleagues from Britain, France, Spain and Turkey – said rules for communication at sea and in the air were paramount.

The issues related to security and conventional arms are actually not covered by any comprehensive agreement in force. There is a dangerous void here, especially since the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) became a thing of the past. Initially signed by representatives from 16 NATO states, as well as by six members of the Warsaw Pact, on Nov. 19, 1990 in Paris, the CFE went into effect in 1992. It established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. The treaty proposed equal limits for the two «groups of states-parties», the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. NATO’s expansion at the expense of the Soviet Union’s former allies has created an imbalance of forces. The Adapted CFE Treaty was drawn up in 1999 to replace the treaty’s established limits for each bloc with a system based on national and territorial ceilings on arms and equipment for each signatory state. The quota for the number of forces practically did not change. The agreed limits for NATO exceeded three times the ones established for Russia. Unlike the Russian Federation, NATO countries did not ratify the agreement. The flanking zone limitations for Russia were neither cancelled, nor reconsidered. NATO required the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria – absolutely insignificant contingents – as a condition for the ratification of the treaty. Russia slammed the condition as an «artificial linkage». The three Baltic States refused to become parties to the treaty when they joined NATO. The Adapted CFE did not encompass naval forces where NATO has substantial superiority. Over the last few years, Russia has followed policies to fulfill the terms of the treaty, while at the same time, a number of NATO countries have essentially breached its requirements, periodically refusing to provide information to the Russian side or allow inspections. Pouring oil on the flames was the decision to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. This is not a breach of the CFE Treaty but goes strongly against its spirit. 

In 2007, Russia «suspended» its participation in the treaty and on 10 March 2015, citing NATO’s de facto breach of the treaty, Russia formally announced it was «completely» halting its participation in it.

The West rejected Russia’s initiative to discuss a new European Security Treaty with the draft document made public in 2009.

As a result, the Vienna Document is the only mechanism in place at present, but it’s certainly not enough to curb the rising tensions.

The OSCE’s Treaty on Open Skies, too, is limited in application.

The gist of the problem is that over twenty years of cooperation have never translated into the type of strategic relationship that NATO and Russia had hoped for and formally enshrined in numerous political documents.

The initiative to relaunch the negotiation process does not belong to the West. In March 2015, Russia expressed its readiness for negotiations concerning a new treaty regarding the control of conventional weapons in Europe.

It has never rejected further talk on Conventional Arms Control in Europe (CACE).

New security arrangements should take into consideration the changes the world is going through. A new arms control treaty should be expanded to new technologies. Long range conventional precision guided weapons, armed unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), offensive cyber capabilities, robots, and the weapons based on new physical principles need to be addressed by any agreement to come. Naval forces have been so far excluded from the process. The time has come to rectify this omission and include sea-based weapons and carrier-based aircraft into the agenda.

And it’s not about weapons only. What Europe needs is further development of the confidence-building and security measures (CBSMs) contained in the Vienna Document. Dangerous military activities and excessive build-up of conventional arms exacerbate the risks of new armed conflicts that should be prevented by multilateral transparency mechanisms in a timely detection of destabilizing build-up of arms and in creation of opportunities for a dialogue to lift concerns.

A new deal should not boil down to the correlation of conventional and nuclear weapons only. It should address the issue of European security in a broader sense. The debate over the European security order is long overdue but goes well beyond NATO. The Russia-NATO dialogue should eventually feed into a broader conversation on the European security order, through existing institutional arrangements between NATO and the European Union, as well as NATO and the OSCE facilitated by the Secretary General’s new representative to the OSCE announced at the NATO summit held in Warsaw. NATO-Russia talks could usefully contribute to the agenda of others, and get the ball rolling on a much needed exercise of reestablishing the rules of the European security order. It’s a pity that the discussions within the OSCE never amounted to a new architecture – something long sought by Moscow.

Europe is facing significant internal as well as external challenges, security is paramount and the moment is right to launch a meaningful discussion with Russia on the European security order in a realistic manner taking into account mutual concerns and interests. Respect for each other’s views and interests is a prerequisite for success. It should not be a dialogue of the deaf – something demonstrated at the recent Russia-NATO Council’s meetings. The would-be talks should recognize a strong self-interest on both sides in transparency and predictability to avoid miscalculations and reduce risks as the relationship has clearly become confrontational. The conditions should be created to work out differences without the threat of military force.

Obviously Russia and NATO have plenty of possibilities for cooperation, including the situation in Afghanistan, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, countering piracy, cooperation in the Arctic, combating terrorism to name a few. This is the time to reactivate the negotiating track. After all, diplomacy worked well even at the height of the Cold War. The Initiative launched by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier provides the opportunity not to be missed.