All those are facts on the ground and the reasons Russia insists on legally binding agreements that would help stabilise the security system in the Euro-Atlantic. The key to that is the principle of indivisibility of security. It is fundamental to the entire architecture of European security and its accurate interpretation is crucial for the prospects of our dialogue with western countries. The Charter for European Security signed at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, summit in Istanbul in November 1999, which was signed for Ireland by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, formulates the basic rights and obligations of the participating states regarding this principle. It emphasises the right of each state to be free to choose or change the way in which it ensures its security, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve, as well as the right to neutrality. The same paragraph of the charter clearly conditions this right by the obligation of each state not to strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of others. It also states that no state, group of states or organisation may exercise preferential responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or consider any part of it as its sphere of influence. At the OSCE summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our countries approved a declaration, confirming this integral package of interrelated obligations. However, western countries continue to pick and choose from this package only the provisions they want, to be exact, the right of a state to be free to choose alliances to ensure exclusively its own security. They shyly omit the clause "as they evolve", as it was also an integral part of the understanding of the indivisibility of security, implying mandatory withdrawal of military alliances from the original function of deterrence, as well as their integration into the all-European architecture on collective rather than a narrow group basis. The principle of indivisibility of security is selectively interpreted to justify the irresponsible policy of NATO expansion. The western governments also try to ignore one of the key OSCE documents, the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which states clearly that participating states shall "take into account the legitimate security concerns of other States" when choosing methods of ensuring security, including participation in alliances, and "maintain military capabilities commensurate with legitimate individual or collective security needs".

I would like to emphasise the indivisibility of security means that security can be either one for all or none at all. As the Istanbul document stipulates, every OSCE participant has an equal right to security, not just NATO members, that interpret this right as referring exclusively to the members of this North Atlantic club.

One cannot but acknowledge that the decided aims and rhetoric by the US, NATO, and EU leaders have reached a level of absurdity. We are witnessing the daily drumbeat about the so-called imminent Russian invasion in Ukraine as well as the readiness by the West to respond to that invasion with massive and destructive sanctions against Russia. Any unbiased and serious observer would note that not only are there no facts on the ground to support such invasion fantasy and not only has Russia stated repeatedly it does not have any intention to attack Ukraine or anybody else, but there are not even hypothetically any political, economic, military or any other reasons for such invasion. Our conclusion is that a rather dangerous game of shadow-boxing is going on for the sake of a certain political agenda in Washington, Brussels and European capitals. It is indeed dangerous because it might push the current Kyiv government to undertake another military adventure in the east of the country, which would be catastrophic for Ukraine and for the entire of Europe.

We must be candid in that the EU, of which Ireland is a member state, has played far from a benign or constructive role in Ukrainian affairs over recent years. We cannot but recall a pivotal moment in modern Ukrainian history, namely, in February 2014, when the US and the EU provoked and supported a bloody unconstitutional coup in Kyiv against the legitimate government that was, by the way, not even close to being pro-Russian. As a result, radical nationalist forces came to power in Kyiv. It is they who started a military conflict, essentially, civil war, in the eastern regions of Ukraine, where the local population did not accept this coup and its nationalist agenda that includes elements of neo-Nazi ideology. People there did not want to follow Kyiv’s orders to ban the use of the Russian language, which is the mother tongue for a large number of Ukrainians. They stood for their right to maintain the way of life they were used to, preserve their cultural identity and traditions, and protect their homes and families from aggressive neo-Nazi bands. People of Donetsk and Lugansk turned out to be quite successful in defending their land. Soon afterwards some Europeans began to realise what happened. France and Germany joined Russia in the so-called Normandy Format to convince the Kyiv regime as well as leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk to sit at the negotiating table and sign the Minsk Protocol. This document remains the only viable way to resolve the internal Ukrainian conflict. The package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, as it is called, was endorsed in the Resolution 2202 of the UN Security Council in 2015, therefore, it is an international legally binding act mandatory for implementation by Kyiv, Donetsk and Lugansk.

Right now the most important thing the European Union as well as the US could do to achieve peace in Ukraine is to force the Kyiv government into implementing the Minsk Agreements. Without such pressure there is no realistic chance that the current regime in Ukraine would undertake any steps to fulfil its obligations, starting with a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. This month Russia serves as a chair of the UN Security Council. On 17 February we have scheduled a meeting of the Council on the subject of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements and invited the permanent representative of Ukraine to attend. This will be a perfect chance for the Council to insist that its decisions shall be implemented.

I would like to conclude on the issue on which I stated, namely, security in Europe. Regrettably, the situation is by no means better than in December. A response from the US to our draft agreement does not give much ground for optimism. Our key demands on the non-extension of NATO are being ignored. Our answer to that is still being assessed.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that we must find a way to safeguard the security interests of all involved in the process: Ukraine, the European Union and Russia. It will only be possible if proposals from Russia are treated with a serious and responsible attitude. We hope that all reasonable, dialogue-oriented countries, including Ireland, will support the pursuit of peace and stability in Europe.