After German reunification spheres of influence on the peninsula changed. To safeguard peace, security and prosperity, several agreements were drafted and signed:

• Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 19 - 21 November 1990
• Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation
• Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances
• Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994

"However, every country has the right to choose whatever option it considers most effective for ensuring its security."

April 8, 2004

Russia's attack on Ukraine is being commemorated in several places around the world. Two years ago this day, the Russians attacked Ukraine
from multiple sides. The aim was to overthrow the government of President Zelensky and 'demilitarize' Ukraine.

In December 2023, Navalny went missing from prison for almost three weeks. He re-emerged in an Arctic Circle corrective colony in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. On 16 February 2024, the Russian prison service reported that Navalny had died at the age of 47. His death sparked protests, both in Russia and in various other countries. Accusations against the Russian authorities in connection with his death have been made by many Western governments and international organisations.

On Friday, March 1, he was buried at the Borisov cemetery.

At the NATO Summit in Madrid, Allies agreed that Russia is the most significant and direct threat to their security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Russia's brutal war in Ukraine has shattered peace in Europe. Due to its hostile policies and actions, NATO cannot consider Russia to be our partner. NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. The Alliance will continue to respond to Russian threats and actions in a united and responsible way.

"Russia must face the fact that Europe and China are already economically more powerful and that Russia is falling behind China on the road to social modernization. In these circumstances, Russia's first priority should be to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power."

It is known worldwide there can only be question of a great civilization if it pursues peace and freedom and high artistic styles, ways of thinking in philosophy, and culture.

However, apart from a few brief periods of these characteristics (eg. Peter the Great, a Tsar who Loved Science and The Voltaire Library), Russian Federation shows over the course of its history only oppression and conquests of territories. That's actually meaningless or purposeless.

Never ever there will be greatness when rulers oppress or when a country grows in size by seizing "just a territory".

Only you can make amends again by taking co-responsibility for turning darkness into the light by caring and working for the world.

Russia: conquer Bakhmut (a symbolic 'new East Berlin'). After that the current government to resign and then a government with new leaders accepts an invitation of the UN, which IO takes stock of the demands of both parties and is given the mandate to negotiate demands in order to find a good solution for world peace, and stability in the region.

At dawn of 24 February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion against the sovereign country Ukraine. Russian military vehicles crossed the Ukrainian border in several places.

http://www.4pt.su/en

16 March 2022: World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine

(*) Chaillot Papers are the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) flagship publication. Written by the Institute’s analysts, as well as external experts and based on collective work or individual research, they deal with all subjects of current relevance to the Union’s security.

Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian-Russian State border (with annex and maps). Kiev, 28 January 2003

Entry into force: 23 April 2004, in accordance with article 6

[without reference to a Main Committee (A/68/L.39 and Add.1)] 68/262.

Territorial integrity of Ukraine

Nearly 20 years ago, Vladimir Putin gained and solidified power by exploiting blackmail, fears of terrorism, and war. Since then, he has combined military adventurism and aggression abroad with propaganda and political repression at home, to persuade a domestic audience that he is restoring Russia to greatness and a respected position on the world stage. All the while, he has empowered the state security services and employed them to consolidate his hold on the levers of political, social, and economic power, which he has used to make himself and a circle of loyalists extraordinarily wealthy.

Democracies like the United States and those in Europe present three distinct challenges to Mr. Putin. First, the sanctions they have collectively placed on his regime for its illegal occupation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine threaten the ill-gotten wealth of his loyalists and hamper their extravagant lifestyles. Second, Mr. Putin sees successful democracies, especially those along Russia’s periphery, as threats to his regime because they present an attractive alternative to his corrupt and criminal rule. Third, democracies with transparent governments, the rule of law, a free media, and engaged citizens are naturally more resilient to the spread of corruption beyond Russia’s borders, thereby limiting the opportunities for the further enrichment of Putin and his chosen elite.
Mr. Putin has thus made it a priority of his regime to attack the democracies of Europe and the United States and undermine the transatlantic alliance upon which Europe’s peace and prosperity have depended upon for over 70 years.

While the countries of Europe have each had unique responses to the Kremlin’s aggression, they have also begun to use regional institutions to knit together their efforts and develop best practices. NATO and the EU have launched centers focused on strategic communications and cyber defense, and Finland’s government hosts a joint EU/NATO center for countering hybrid threats. A number of independent think tanks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also launched regional disinformation monitoring and fact-checking operations, and European governments are supporting regional programs to strengthen independent journalism and media literacy. Some of these initiatives are relatively new, but several have already begun to bear fruit and warrant continued investment and broader expansion. Through the adoption of the Third Energy Package, which promotes energy diversification and integration, as well as a growing resistance to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, many European countries are reducing their dependence on Russian energy supplies, though much remains to be done.

Despite the clear assaults on our democracy and our allies in Europe, the U.S. government still does not have a coherent, comprehensive, and coordinated approach to the Kremlin’s malign influence operations, either abroad or at home.

Although the U.S. government has for years had a patchwork of offices and programs supporting independent journalism, cyber security, and the countering of disinformation, the lack of presidential leadership in addressing the threat Putin poses has hampered a strong U.S. response. In early 2017, Congress provided the State Department’s Global Engagement Center the resources and mandate to address Kremlin disinformation campaigns, but operations have been stymied by the Department’s hiring freeze and unnecessarily long delays by its senior leadership in transferring authorized funds to the office.

While many mid-level and some senior-level officials throughout the State Department and U.S. government are cognizant of the threat posed by Mr. Putin’s asymmetric arsenal, the U.S. President continues to deny that any such threat exists, creating a leadership vacuum in our own government and among our European partners and allies.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations below are based on a review of Mr. Putin’s efforts to undermine democracy in Europe and effective responses to date. By implementing these recommendations, the United States can better defend against and deter the Kremlin’s malign influence operations, and strengthen international norms and values to prevent such behavior by Russia and other states. A more comprehensive list of recommendations can be found in Chapter Eight.

1. Assert Presidential Leadership and Launch a National Response: President Trump has been negligent in acknowledging and responding to the threat to U.S. national security posed by Mr. Putin’s meddling. The President should immediately declare that it is U.S. policy to counter and deter all forms of Russian hybrid threats against the United States and around the world. The President should establish a high-level inter- agency fusion cell, modeled on the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), to coordinate all elements of U.S. policy and programming in response to the Russian government’s malign influence operations.
And the President should present to Congress a comprehensive national strategy to counter these grave national security threats and work with the Congress and our allies to get this strategy implemented and funded.

3. Expose and Freeze Kremlin-Linked Dirty Money: Corruption provides the motivation and the means for many of the Kremlin’s malign influence operations. The U.S. Treasury Department should make public any intelligence related to Mr. Putin’s personal corruption and wealth stored abroad, and take steps with our European allies to cut off Mr. Putin and his inner circle from the international financial system. The U.S government should also expose corrupt and criminal activities associated with Russia’s state-owned energy sector. Furthermore, it should robustly implement the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which allow for sanctions against corrupt actors in Russia and abroad. In addition, the U.S. government should issue yearly reports that assign tiered classifications based on objective third-party corruption indicators, as well as governmental efforts to combat corruption.

4. Subject State Hybrid Threat Actors to an Escalatory Sanctions Regime: The Kremlin and other regimes hostile to democracy must know that there will be consequences for their actions. The U.S. government should designate countries that employ malign influence operations to assault democracies as State Hybrid Threat Actors. Countries that are designated as such would fall under a preemptive and escalatory sanctions regime that would be applied whenever the state uses asymmetric weapons like cyberattacks to interfere with a democratic election or disrupt a country’s critical infrastructure. The U.S. government should work with the EU to ensure that these sanctions are coordinated and effective.

5. Publicize the Kremlin’s Global Malign Influence Efforts: Exposing and publicizing the nature of the threat of Russian malign influence activities, as the U.S. intelligence community did in January 2017, can be an action-forcing event that not only boosts public awareness, but also drives effective responses from the private sector, especially social media platforms, as well as civil society and independent media, who can use the information to pursue their own investigations. The U.S. government should produce yearly public reports that detail the Russian government’s malign influence operations in the United States and around the world.

6. Build an International Coalition to Counter Hybrid Threats: The United States is stronger and more effective when we work with our partners and allies abroad. The U.S. government should lead an international effort of like-minded democracies to build awareness of and resilience to the Kremlin’s malign influence operations. Specifically, the President should convene an annual global summit on hybrid threats, modeled on the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL or the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) summits that have taken place since 2015. Civil society and the private sector should participate in the summits and follow-on activities.

8. Build Global Cyber Defenses and Norms: The United States and our European allies remain woefully vulnerable to cyberattacks, which are a preferred asymmetric weapon of state hybrid threat actors. The U.S. government and NATO should lead a coalition of countries committed to mutual defense against cyberattacks, to include the establishment of rapid reaction teams to defend allies under attack. The U.S. government should also call a special meeting of the NATO heads of state to review the extent of Russian government- sponsored cyberattacks among member states and develop formal guidelines on how the Alliance will consider such attacks in the context of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense provision. Furthermore, the U.S. government should lead an effort to establish an international treaty on the use of cyber tools in peace time, modeled on international arms control treaties.

9. Hold Social Media Companies Accountable: Social media platforms are a key conduit of disinformation campaigns that undermine democracies. U.S. and European governments should mandate that social media companies make public the sources of funding for political advertisements, along the same lines as TV channels and print media. Social media companies should conduct comprehensive audits on how their platforms may have been used by Kremlin-linked entities to influence elections occurring over the past several years, and should establish civil society advisory councils to provide input and warnings about emerging disinformation trends and government suppression. In addition, they should work with philanthropies, governments, and civil society to promote media literacy and reduce the presence of disinformation on their platforms.

10. Reduce European Dependence on Russian Energy Sources: Payments to state-owned Russian energy companies fund the Kremlin’s military aggression abroad, as well as overt and covert activities that undermine democratic institutions and social cohesion in Europe and the United States. The U.S. government should use its trade and development agencies to support strategically important energy diversification and integration projects in Europe. In addition, the U.S. government should continue to oppose the construction of Nord Stream 2, a project which significantly undermines the long-term energy security of Europe and the economic prospects of Ukraine.

Relations between Russia and the European Union should set clear long-term objectives, and the EU should stop using the friend-or-foe principle in dealing with Russia, says Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. "It's getting increasingly more obvious that we are being hampered by a lack of clear long-term objectives in resolving specific problems related to the developments on our continent," Lavrov said in an article published in the Thursday issue of Kommersant.

"There is the impression that our Western partners often act instinctively, being guided by the simplistic friend-or-foe principle and not thinking too much about far-reaching implications of their steps. Anyway, I think the primitive tug of war between the European Union and Russia cannot meet the realities of international relations, which are getting increasingly more complicated, and is not worthy of the huge political-diplomatic experience the European powers have accumulated for centuries," Lavrov said."The relationship between Russia and the European Union has approached a kind of moment of truth. In order to build cooperation consistently and purposefully, we should understand whether we are determined earnestly to follow the way of achieving ambitious goals of true strategic partnership. Otherwise, we will continue stumbling now and then on the absence of clear objectives. Information wars won't help here. This calls for true leadership and political wisdom," he added."The reflections on what actually prompts our Western partners to be so stubborn in taking the either-or approach in the Ukrainian situation and, rejecting proprieties, bluntly pursue the line of its inclusion in its geopolitical environment inevitably lead to fundamental aspects of relations between the European Union and Russia. It turns out that the present misunderstanding is based on a lack of clarity regarding long-term objectives in the development of relations between Russia and the EU, or, using Javier Solana's expression, a deficit of strategic trust," Lavrov wrote. Western media outlets often resort to anti-Russian information campaigns using Cold War-style phraseology, he said."I had the chance to hear echoes of such judgments at the OSCE ministerial meeting in December 2013 and at the recent jubilee session of the Munich Security Conference. Certainly, society is a living organism, and ideas about values may change as long as it develops. A lot of approaches common in the European Union today were perceived as unacceptable in the same countries just about 20-30 years ago. I mean, in particular, moral relativism, the propagation of permissiveness and hedonism, the strengthening positions of militant atheism, and the rejection of traditional values that have been the moral foundation of human development for centuries. Moreover, these attitudes are being promoted with messianic persistence both in those countries themselves and in their relations with neighbors," he said.

Lavrov pointed out in connection with this that "principles of democracy imply above all respect for opinions of others. Everyone should acknowledge that, by agreeing on basic values, including respect for democratic foundations in public affairs, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the peoples of Europe should at the same time allow each other to remain different and retain their cultural identity, in full compliance with universal human rights conventions and declarations," Lavrov said.

The United States, like other Western democratic powers, such as the United Kingdom, Norway, France, and Denmark, never recognized the incorporation as valid and continued to accredit the legations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. On June 23, 1940, U.S. Secretary of State Sumner Welles declared the American non-recognition policy on the principles of the Stimson Doctrine. The policy was maintained until the 1991 restoration of independence in all three countries.

St. Petersburg International Cultural Forum - a unique place, where every year specialists from the sphere of culture, politics, public authorities and businesses meet each other

Hamid drives a clapped-out Soviet bus in a Russian mining colony beyond the Arctic Circle, where temperatures regularly plunge below minus forty. Yet this native of the Uzbek deserts has few regrets about his decision to migrate to Putin’s empire. “In my country there more men than jobs - In Russia there are more jobs than men.” He expresses himself in the faultless Russian of a Soviet education. “It’s easy for us to come and work here. The borders are not hard to cross, we speak the language and there are lots of people who can make you the permits.”Russia is now an immigrant society. In Moscow and other major cities, migrants from the ex-Soviet states of Central Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe do the work that natives turn down. Tajiks sweep the streets, Moldovans wait tables and Uzbeks work on construction sites. The metro flutters with flyers stuck inside carriages hawking the mobile numbers of professional forgers -“We Make Your Moscow Permit.”Russia has become the second most popular destination for migrants in the world after the USA. In St. Petersburg hour long queues snake round the migration bureau where hundreds of migrants nervously swap cigarettes for job tips as they wait to register. Magadan on the Pacific has several Georgian restaurants and even on the dirt tracks of northern Siberia, Uzbek cafeterias are not uncommon.Visa-free regimes between Russia and most of her former colonies, along with the endemic corruption of her Gogolian officialdom, mean few bother with the hassle of formal immigration. Nor have many much intention of returning to their weak and mostly impoverished states for more than a holiday.

In 2009 the Russian Migration Service claims over 10 million migrants entered the country. They add that as many as 5 million illegals“are living in the shadows.” Many experts agree that the migrant population is over 8.5 million, although off the record, some diplomats suggest the real figure may be over 15 million. That would be roughly 8 million more workers that the 6.7 million drop that Russia has recorded since 1991.

The danger of demographic collapse is frequently cited as the Achilles heel of Russia, with the original BRIC report noting that it posed a danger to the country’s growth. In fact Russia does not have an economic demographic crisis – instead she has a demographic crisis in terms of ethnic Russians and fully fledged citizens as a proportion of the population.Ethnic Russians were officially 79% of the population in the suspect 2002 census which did not include migrants, and was widely accused of exaggerating the number of Russians while masking Chechen demography. Taken at face value the census suggests the country is as Russian as Israel is ethnically Jewish or the United States racially ‘white.’ However, if you include migrant workers, ethnic Russians may make up as little as 73% of those living in Russia.

This multi-ethnic composition echoes back to imperial past of both Tsarist Russia and the USSR. Slavic Soviet elites voiced concerns throughout the 1970s and 80s about what they called “the yellowing” of their country, and the fact that ethnic Russians made up just 50% of the population by 1990 played a part in President Yeltsin precipitating the break-up of the USSR.

It is Russia’s male death rates – not birth-rates – that mark her out from the rest of the developed world. Male life expectancy is only 59 – compared to 73 for Palestinian men. However, male life expectancy did rise by four years between 2005 and 2009.This slight improvement is partly due to the steady emergence of a private healthcare industry with access to western drugs. Russians were poorly nourished in the shortage economy of the late 1980s and early 1990s when adverse demographic trends set in. Now supermarkets and the availability of imported food are playing their part in these incremental improvements.Russia’s demographics are still bad, but the country is not ‘dying out’ just yet thanks to these positive signs that the population is at least starting to recover. And, as well as a likely reliance on migrants for decades to come, it is striking that the highest birth rates in the Federation are in the non-ethnic Russian republics of the North Caucasus and outer Siberia. The Russian military is concerned that by 2015 an estimated third of its conscripts may be of Muslim origin, many from the war-torn Caucasian regions they are expected to serve in. The decline in the Russia population in both the Far East and republics such as Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan will make it far harder for the Kremlin to dictate their future.Will mass-migration modernise Russia?What insider Gleb Pavlovsky has called “a sociologically obsessed Kremlin” is trying to discreetly fashion a more multi-cultural society. In April, Putin himself bluntly declared that “the door will always be open” for those that wanted to tie their future to Russia. In September the head of the Federal Migration Service said migrants were the key to improving the country’s demographic situation. This echoed another statement by Putin in April that Russia was aiming to make foreign workers “feel more at home in Russia”, as he further liberalised labour laws with Kazakhstan and Belarus.Last year the Kremlin claimed that the number of Russian citizens increased for the first time in 15 years – albeit it by a rather measly 25,000 – thanks to 330,000 new citizenships being awarded (mostly to migrants).But benefiting from migration involves more than just letting people in. Most migrants live in penury and often suffer harassment by skinheads. Transient and largely unprotected by labour laws, their presence in turn risks driving down the wages of other workers and prolonging the lives of otherwise defunct and uncompetitive Soviet factories.Mass migration has also politicised elements of Russia’s working class. The ‘Movement Against Illegal Immigration’, the myriad skin-head gangs and neo-Nazi brotherhoods have mobilised the energies of the losers of Putinism – a de-industrialised underclass who desperately need economic modernisation, an enabling welfare state and a crackdown on corruption. Ethnic struggles have eclipsed class struggle on the streets.Migrants may yet save the Russian economy from a demographic crunch. Yet if Putin’s plans do not include strengthening the rule of law, they could lead to other challenges to the Russian state, holding back the modernisation of the country’s creaking industry and emptying what it means to be a ‘Russian citizen.’

(source: ECFR)