AP--here you go--the true Russian strategy on the Ukraine--the idea of protecting ethnic Russian minorities rights takes a back seat/is in fact a smoke screen in front of the three items below.
AND AP--there is no negotiations that will overcome and or answer the three Russian demands without a total capitulation by the EU/NATO/US.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140913/1929...nd-Behind.html
Probably one of the best Russian statements on exactly what their core strategy is in the Ukraine and surprisingly directly stated. Surprised they released it in such detail via RIA--this tells me they are attempting to appeal to a few of the EU that were against the last round of sanctions and are trying to get their messaging out into the public domain in order to influence the coming debates especially if they make an military move to annex the south east Ukraine up to Odessa forming a land corridor to the Crimea.
If one really reads the statements the following jumps out as core Russian demands.
1. the Ukraine is "ours" not NATO's ie non aligned must remain a demand BECAUSE NATO "violated" the 1997 agreements we had with them--NOW this is key the 1997 document is a political statement not a formal submitted to all governments for approval document BUT because Russia places so much emphasis on "legality"--they treat it as a treaty to be honored.
Moving NATO infrastructure closer to Russian borders by pulling more countries into the alliance is unacceptable, Sergei Lavrov said.
Interesting in that only the Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldavia are not in NATO- the rest of the Warsaw Pact is inside NATO.
Confirmation that the 1997 agreement is not a treaty--is here:
Lavrov noted that Russia’s proposal to turn the commitments given within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) not to strengthen the security of the alliance “at the expense of the security of others" into a legally binding agreement “was rejected multiple times”.
2. By constantly questioning NATO's intent and in proposing new security formats--the Russian aim is/was to pit internally each member against each other in order to weaken NATO to a non threat position and or to prove to say Poland and the Baltics that their best interests lie with Russia and not the US/NATO.
3. Russia wants to split the EU and US economically as well as politically.
Although the Unites States are trying to do their best to disrupt the economic relations between the EU and Russia, Russia is not losing the battle for influence in Europe, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday.
"There is a big battle going on," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Russian TVC channel. "The United States want to use the current situation in order to separate Europe from Russia economy-wise and bargain the most favorable conditions for themselves in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the creation of a transatlantic trade and investment partnership."
Here for me is the true Russia fear and it is macroeconomics pure and simple--it is TTIP as it would negate their vision of an European wide from Portugal to the Russian Far East free trade zone controlled/influenced by Russia which in effect would make Russia with it's oil/gas then one of the largest economic powers to go along with it's military/nuclear power thus effectively negating any US influence in Europe.
Again this implied desire to split the EU and the US is repeated several times by the Russian FM in the entire RIA article.
Answering the question on whether Russia is losing Europe to the United States, the Russian Foreign Minister said, "I think not."
"Now we are seeing the EU giving the subject a second thought. The fact that some of the EU countries, which are not the largest and do not have a leading role, begin to argue openly that the policy of sanctions is a deadlock, that it is counterproductive, says a lot," Lavrov said.
Here is in fact a tad differently worded the core Russian macroeconomics view of Europe that they ae striving to create, influence and control. They have discussed their "dream" of an free trade economic zone from Portugal to the Russian Far East in conversations with the EU but have been blocked by the EU--now it raises it's head again.
That is at the core of their dispute with the Ukrainian EU Association agreement---the millions they will loss on the free trade side if the Ukraine is in the EU since a majority of their products to the West cross through the Ukraine due to the European highway systems and that they cannot change.
Here though is the Russian view very well explained--free trade zone between the EU--the CIS and the EEC--the CIS and EEC are totally under Russian control and dominance.
Lavrov said that Russia is interested in a strategic partnership with the EU to grow in strength and develop.
"If you add up the potential of Russia and the European Union, then both will benefit from stronger positions in the world markets," the Russian foreign minister said. Russia is still prepared to take practical steps for the implementation of this course, the minister added.
The idea of creating a free trade zone between the EU and the Customs Union by 2020, and in future the Eurasian Economic Union, is still relevant.
"This idea is still alive, relevant and is of particular interest [to Russia], especially in the context of the current events in the economic relations between Ukraine and the EU, and Ukraine and the Commonwealth of Independent States. That would be the answer to a lot of questions," Lavrov said.
Bookmarks