 Hello, you're watching yet another episode of Mapping Fortlines, and today we'll be talking about some of the enduring issues, some of the continuing issues that are happening in Europe right now. Of course, many other developments happening as well, Jee Jinnping and Vladimir Putin had a meeting, but we'll first talk about the responses by the United States and NATO to Russia's demands, which say a lot, not only about the situation right now, but also about the organization NATO is itself. We have with us Pravir Purkayastha. Pravir, thank you so much for joining us. So first of all, we saw last week, we talked about it last week, that the United States and the NATO had responded to the Russian demands. Now, at that point, there wasn't really too much clarity on what exactly had been said. However, we've seen that El Pais Spanish newspaper has carried leaks of both these responses, and they are quite indicative of where NATO stands, where the United States stands, and what are their kind of responses. So could you maybe first take us through what you found most fascinating or interesting about the responses from these two sides to essentially the same questions and demands by Russia? NATO has given what I would call is a boilerplate response. Everything Russia has said is wrong, whatever NATO has been doing and whatever it's saying is the absolute truth. Therefore, there is really nothing to discuss. That's been more or less what NATO has said. But as you know, NATO really represents the military arm of the United States in Europe. So therefore, to think about NATO independently is particularly difficult after Afghanistan, where though NATO had been a part of the forces that invaded Afghanistan with the United States, of course, the United States is a part of NATO. But when it withdrew, NATO's consent wasn't asked for and the United States just informed them we are withdrawing. So of course, they also had to withdraw because they had only limited forces over there. We accept that it is really a large part of it is really the United States. But NATO publicly doesn't say that it pretends it is really a set of countries which in a common way deal with their security, everybody is equal and they don't accept or admit publicly the US is obviously far more equal than anybody else over there. And NATO is really in that sense a showpiece. This becomes much more clear when you see the American response, which has been very, very different. And it's also interesting, the public response that the US has taken and the private response it has made seems to be different except on the one question that they have the right to admit anybody as a member of Ukraine. So that part they have catering. This is not admit to you to NATO. That this part of the United States has kept that is not up for negotiations. But they have said almost everything else is open to negotiations. And particularly on the missile batteries, which has been a major point of contention that the ages batteries in Romania and Poland, which can fire actually Tomahawk missiles. And that we know that the the MK 41 is I think the missile launching platform that can fire both interceptors as well as Tomahawk missiles. And this has been covered in news click a couple of times earlier. So that is something that United States has accepted that it will not put in the ages missiles any Tomahawk missiles, which are capable of being launched from the same batteries. So that's it. That's something interesting, because that's something they have not accepted till date. And they've also said we should have the right to do this for two missile batteries in Russia as well, which we will then name. But that's one part. Secondly, they have also talked about inter intermediate range ballistic missiles. They have named it actually even more widely as non strategic missiles. Now, what does non strategic missiles mean in terms of missile treaties is not very clear, because you have short range missiles, you have basically battlefield missiles, you have intermediate range missiles. So these are basically categories which need to be defined. But the fact that they have said non strategic missiles, which is really non ICBA, I presume that this means that this whole issue is also up for discussions. And they have said it could be a part of the new start discussions, which is supposed to take place with Russia and the United States. So major developments on that score, unlike NATO, which says nothing. And the fact that these things have been opened. And there is this tacit thing that you get that after all, everybody accepts the fact that Ukraine is not going to join NATO in the near future. So all of that is already there. Where it goes beyond what Stoltenberg had already said earlier in the NATO Russian meeting, he had said we can discuss about military exercises and museums. So that was a kind of vague statement, which was there. This has been made a little more specific. And I presume the military exercises also will come under discussions. So I think the scene is not as bleak as it might have appeared two weeks back. But there is still the crescendo of campaigns coming from the UK and from the United States, where some of the US government just the other day talked about what is it that they have that the Russians are making a propaganda video, which shows them the attack apparently by Ukraine on the Donetsk Donbas region. And this is being actually filmed by professional people, professional actors with props. All of this is very much if you remember, there was a very famous film which was made. So I think it's called Wag the Dog, where this is exactly the propaganda film that is made. So as people have said, well, this is a reputation of Wag the Dog, except it's being actually claimed by now US intelligence, not by a film producer. So that is one part of it. The other part of it, the in fact, the APC, I think foreign reporter had a clash with the spokesperson, when he said, you know, you're not giving any evidence. He said, I just give you, he said your statement that there is something that the US Russians are doing. And it is something that the US intelligence has found is not evidence. It's just your statement. So, you know, there is this strange reality where the British and the Americans seem to believe that whatever they say is actually evidence and you are needing to provide any proof or any factual basis on what they're saying. And we had the foreign minister of the United Kingdom, very recently talking about the Baltics and Black Sea, as if it's the same body of water. So of course, she said, no, no, no, I was talking of two different seas. So we have a very strange campaign that is there with still in spite of the fact that the US seems to have at least climbed down in private. I'm sure the US was aware that this response would not be kept secret, because it will be shared with their allies and it has been given to a Spanish newspaper. So with all of that, I think the ratcheting down of tension is there somewhat partly because Ukraine has also said it's not in our interest to have all of this happening. And I think the other important part is the international media is becoming a little more skeptical about the so-called war campaign being built around Ukraine and Russia's invasion. It's now three months in this campaign is on that Russia is going to invade, Russia is going to invade Ukraine. There is going to be war. And what is happening is I can see the headlines in New York Times, Washington Post also changing, saying that US sources claim that Russia is going to invade two weeks back. If you see all these headlines, Ukraine to be Russia is going to invade Ukraine. Russia preparing to invade Ukraine. Now we are saying US sources indicate that say that Russia is going to invade Ukraine. This whole thing used to be tucked in in some paragraph way down the headline. Now it's also coming out in the headline. So some ratcheting down of the invasion going to happen tomorrow propaganda. And I'm saying it propaganda because honestly speaking, if Ukraine sees they don't see the invasion building up, I don't see why we sitting here in our studios should think there is immediately chance of invasion. Because the State Department spokesperson of the United States say that they think there is going to be an invasion. So I think the Ukrainians would probably know little more about Ukraine and the possibility of invasion than the Americans or the British would. And it's also interesting at the same time European Union is now coming into play. You have Macron going to talking about going to Moscow. You have the German Chancellor going to Moscow. You have also some of the allies of the United States and NATO also breaking ranks with them. We have all one in Hungary, part of your European Union breaking ranks. So I think all said and done, the Ukraine about to be attacked by Russia campaign seems to be coming down, which is very good because we don't read the war in Ukraine. And it can trigger off other possibilities of war. And war between NATO and Russia is a very frightening prospect because after all the nuclear weapons on both sides. So I think this is a welcome development in spite of the fact that the US and UK do not seem to want ratcheting down of any tensions in Ukraine. So I think things are moving a little more towards peace, but cross fingers, because small accidents, small incidents can be blown up. And it can become a much bigger thing than it should be. Right, absolutely. But in this context, of course, the other major development was that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the Beijing Winter Olympics, that itself an interesting event because of the constellation of world leaders who have gathered there, many of whom are in fact close allies of the US as well. So that's also an interesting development. But specifically focusing on this meeting, how do you see the joint statement that has come out the kind of partnership that Russia and China are building, especially because they've taken great pains to emphasize that this is actually a very, very strong relationship and it will only grow stronger in the coming years. You know, this is a historic meeting in the sense that you can remember in 1973, 1973, this is when actually the China Soviets, the China Soviet split, the Soviet split really became public. And that's the time that the United States was able to split China and Soviet Union. And that relationship has had soured over a period of years. It continued till about 2000 odd or so. And slowly it has started coming back, the Russian and the Chinese coming together, both because they face sanctions, they face war threats, and they are regarded by United States and this is their military doctrine as revisionist powers. So revisionist powers are those who challenge the United States in any global theater, even if it is near their borders. So when you talk about the South China Sea, you talk about the dashed lines near the Chinese coast, that all of that is meant that we should be able to control the sea or the ocean on Chinese side, we should be able to control the land borders or the Russian side, that these theaters are also should be under US control. This is the US military doctrine. I am not saying something which is an assumption on my part. This is what the themselves are saying. So obviously, if you do that, and you have what Obama said, a pivot to Asia, you have the AUK US, you have the quad of which India is also a part. All of that means that this you are thinking to militarily contain China. And you are also the same time ratcheting up NATO's pressure on Russia. So if you confront both these countries, militarily, economically through sanctions, then of course, you're driving them close. So this is not that the Russians and the Chinese have done a great diplomatic coup by coming together. This is what the Western powers, the NATO, and the particularly the United States has forced them to do. And they then see there is a huge synergy they're coming together. China has economically economic strength, which is much beyond Russia. It's a much bigger economic power than Russia is. But Russia has still military power, which China does not have. And also, now that Russia has huge resources of gas, could be facing sanctions in the West for the gas it supplies to Europe. It finds China ready to take up because China is a huge energy guzzler, as we know, and gas is going to be instrumental if they have to move away from coal, which has been a major energy source for China. So we also are following the Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin meeting and the joint communique about the close relations between them. This has been followed up with also a gas agreement, which increases their gas supplies from Russia by 20 to 25%. So these are significant changes because one of the things on sanctions would have been that we will take your gas, which of course is going to be very hard for the West European countries and other European countries as well. But they thought it would impact Russia. Now Russia is relatively a stable autarky in the sense that apart from gas, it all is self sufficient on almost almost all things. And it also the huge foreign exchange reserve. So given that, the only thing that could have hurt it is that a sale of gas to Western Europe, if that was stopped. Now that we have they have ready by taker of gas in China, it's really going to be Western Europe, which is going to suffer. And it's not surprising, therefore, that France and Germany are finally breaking ranks with the United States, though it's still very low key that they think they should be peace and how should we achieve peace. And therefore, the visits to put to see put it in Moscow. So all of this I think is an indicator that there is a major failure of US foreign policy, that the belief that they are still the world's hegemon, which took a huge beating, both in Iraq and Syria. And now it is taken a beating in Afghanistan. I think to some extent, Biden was trying to type that over with the Ukraine crisis and also talking about Taiwan. So I think these are the two ways he was trying to reassert the US leadership, particularly over his Western allies. And of course, the Eastern allies to Japan, South Korea and Australia to some extent India, the India's broken ranks in the United States in the Security Council on Ukraine. So given all of that, I think this is a very, very significant relationship that is developing. And it has a strategic potential, which Brzezinski had seen long back and so at Kissinger and said, we should never get these two countries to come together if they do, then they become really much more formidable. And therefore, we should always keep them apart. I think after 50 years of Kissinger Nixon meeting with the Chinese leadership, I think we have now a reversal of that and something which is come together not because of ideological reasons, which is what was the earlier sinusoidal relationship, but actually on another strategic and economic issues that confront both these countries and the kind of hostility they face from the United States and its allies. So I think it's a much more significant issue. Hopefully, this will make Europe rethink where their future lies. Does it lies across the Atlantic? That's what the NATO talks about. It's really about an Atlantic alliance or it lies in Eurasia. If it lies in Eurasia, then of course, they have to rethink their strategy vis-à-vis Russia and China. But if they don't, then they would be linking themselves to essentially to United States. United States can give them fuel, they can give them hydrocarbons, but in a much higher cost. That's the price they might have to pay for not looking at Eurasia, not looking at Europe, but looking at the Atlantic. So that's, I think, where the strategic game at the moment is. So to me, it's fault lines Europe that we are discussing today, that it's really the future of Europe. Does it lie in Asia? Does it lie across the Atlantic? Which is what they thought till now. So that's, I think, the key issue that they have to confront. I think Russia and China have already made up where they want to be. Their future is in Eurasia. Thank you so much, Fribir. That's all we have time for today. We'll be covering these issues yet again in the coming episodes of Mapping Fault Lines. Until then, keep watching NewsClick and see you soon.