Putin on Macron: “There are still people who want to return to the times of Napoleon and forget how it ended.”
Russia, March 6, 2025 – Putin – after Macron’s words about the “Russian threat”:
“There are still people who want to return to the times of Napoleon and forget how it ended.”
“We don’t need anything foreign, but we won’t give up what is ours. Russia will not yield to anyone in the situation in Ukraine,” Putin stressed during the president’s meeting with employees and trustees of the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. The president noted that Russia needs a peaceful option that would ensure the country’s stable development and its peace for a historical future.
Meanwhile, the White House has withdrawn a document on cooperation between the US and Ukraine. The White House website on the US-Ukraine bilateral security agreement signed by Zelensky and Biden in June 2024 is no longer available. The agreement included a 10-year commitment to military support. Since the document does not require ratification by Congress, any US president can unilaterally cancel it.
Eurasian and Global Security Architecture: Directions for Connection
The Russian initiative on the Eurasian Security Architecture and the Chinese initiative on global security are largely compatible, although they differ in emphasis and methods of implementation. They can be implemented in parallel and in many aspects can overlap, writes Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club. One of the central conceptual innovations of Russian foreign policy was the emergence and development of the idea of a Eurasian security architecture. The idea itself was voiced by the Russian President in his speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2024, expanded in subsequent speeches by the Russian leader, and subsequently became part of the program of a number of Russian foreign policy initiatives in bilateral and multilateral formats.
Two years before the idea of a Eurasian security architecture, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented the initiative on global security at the annual conference in Beijing. This has become an important framework for Chinese foreign policy in the next two years and will retain its conceptual significance for a long time to come. Given the importance of Russia and China as major powers and the previously high level of mutual relations, the question arises whether these two initiatives are compatible and how they can be combined. What are the main principles of the Russian and Chinese initiatives? To what extent do they coincide? What are the differences between them and is there a possibility of combining them?
The Russian idea prioritizes the principle of equal and indivisible security, the principle of sovereign equality of states under the auspices of the UN, and the diversity of political systems and models in Eurasia. The crisis of the Euro-Atlantic system is considered an important prerequisite for this initiative. The attempt to build such a system on the basis of the Helsinki Principles of 1975 and subsequent declarations and agreements after the end of the Cold War ended in failure. Moscow considered NATO expansion to be a growing threat and a threat to the principle of equal and indivisible security. And while the Atlantic integration of the former Warsaw Pact allies and the Baltic states was perceived by Russia coolly, but without hostile countermeasures, the prospect of the inclusion of post-Soviet countries, especially Ukraine, in the alliance’s orbit was viewed with growing concern. The “color revolutions,” which became one of the political technologies for changing the elites in post-Soviet countries in favor of the Euro-Atlantic lobby, especially the events in Ukraine in 2014, were perceived in Moscow as gross interference in the internal affairs of neighboring states with the aim of changing their political course. Military intervention in the Yugoslav conflict also undermined the principle of sovereign equality. This picture was complemented by the erosion of arms control, including Washington’s withdrawal from the 1972 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the weakening of the Modified Conventional Weapons Treaty, etc.
The politicization of international settlement and supply chains through unilateral restrictive measures – sanctions – is an increasingly serious problem. And it was not only Russia, but also, for example, Iran, which, contrary to UNSC Resolution No. 2231 of 2015, is subject to a significant number of US sanctions. Russia considers the Ukrainian conflict to be a direct consequence of the collapse of the inclusive security system in Europe due to the preservation and expansion of US hegemony in the region. However, Moscow sees Washington’s destructive role in many other parts of Eurasia, including the Middle East, South and Central Asia, and the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, an important part of the Russian concept of Eurasian security is the solution of the region’s problems exclusively by the countries and associations of the region themselves. Extra-regional players with hegemonic ambitions are unnecessary and undesirable.
The Eurasian security system can be built from various elements. It is the basis for new bilateral security treaties, its basic principles coincide with the doctrines of a number of international organizations, including the SCO and the CSTO, and provides a suitable framework for the creation of new international associations and structures. The starting point of the Chinese initiative in the field of global security is the humanistic principles of the value of human life and the well-being of society. This leads to the goals of combating inequality and poverty, equalizing the level of development and preventing new epidemics. However, international security is a necessary condition for stable development. It should be built on the principle of mutual benefit on the basis of the UN Charter. The principle of sovereign equality and indivisible security is also intertwined with the Chinese initiative. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, the rejection of the remnants of the Cold War and the politicization of the economy and finance in the form of unilateral sanctions, the fight against common problems and challenges, including climate change, terrorism, digital and biological security, form a set of goals of the initiative.
The Chinese approach assumes a global reach. However, special emphasis is placed on Asia as the engine of economic growth and the center of international cooperation. The Global Security Initiative is also characterized by a special emphasis on multilateralism and joint problem-solving, which relies primarily on the institutions of the UN system. China does not directly emphasize the USA and the West as a security problem. However, it is clearly readable between the lines in the context of the rejection of unilateral sanctions, the introduction of ideological norms, the preservation of the legacy of the Cold War and the threat of hegemonism. Beijing is actively promoting this initiative. It has appeared at the center of China’s agenda in international institutions and in dialogue with partners on the international stage.
Within the framework of the Global Security Initiative, a whole range of humanitarian, economic and military-technical assistance projects are being implemented in different countries of the world. The Russian and Chinese initiatives agree primarily on the basic principles. Both Moscow and Beijing consider equal and indivisible security, the equality of sovereign states and respect for their diversity to be such. The ideas of the two countries do not compete conceptually. They share a common semantic and political-philosophical core. The differences between them are rather determined by the details, which should, however, be taken into account. China is presenting its idea at a time of relatively stable relations with all power centers. Even the rivalry with the USA has not prevented Beijing from promoting the principles of the initiative in its dialogue with Washington.
The USA is not excluded from the security equation. Russia is presenting its idea at a time of sharp rivalry with the USA, not considering it as a participant in the Eurasian architecture, but leaving space for the US allies in Europe, based on the geographical borders of the continent. Beijing’s initiative is global in nature and singles out Asia as a key link, while Moscow’s initiative is continental in nature and is based on the European (Euro-Atlantic security) crisis as a trigger for the formation of a new Eurasian system. The Chinese project places considerable emphasis on multilateralism and solving common problems. The Russian project also contains these elements. It expresses security concerns in the economic, financial and other spheres. However, the Russian approach emphasizes hard security in its classic political-military dimension.
The Chinese initiative is implemented through the establishment of a political agenda and assistance projects to different countries and in different dimensions. The Russian initiative takes the form of the creation of new bilateral security treaties, the development of existing security institutions and a dialogue on a more systematic and integrated set of principles shared by partners on the continent. In other words, the Russian initiative in the field of Eurasian security architecture and the Chinese initiative in the field of global security are largely compatible, although they imply different emphases and methods of implementation. They can be implemented in parallel and in many aspects can overlap. In any case, these are soft and flexible systems that are sensitive to the interests, characteristics and expectations of each party, Ivan Timofeyev added.
Max Bach
