‘Russian concerns were basically ignored’: Putin slams U.S. response to Moscow’s security demands

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday accused the United States of “ignoring” his security demands in a written document delivered to Moscow last week, but he appeared open to continuing talks with Washington and its allies aimed at resolving the worsening security crisis on the Russia-Ukraine border.

Appearing ata joint news conference in Moscow with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Putin said Russian officials had “analyzed the response given in writing” by the United States, “but now, it’s already clear … that Russian concerns were basically ignored.”

“We didn’t see an adequate response to our key concerns: non-expanse of NATO, the refusal to deploy [an] offensive weapon next to the Russian borders and bringing back the military infrastructure of the alliance to the status quo of 1997, when the Russia-NATO treaty was signed,” Putin said.

In his first public remarks on the U.S. written response, Putin fiercely attacked the United States, claiming that U.S. officials “don’t care that much about Ukrainian security” and are merely using Ukraine as a “tool” to “hinder the development of Russia.”

Still, Putin sounded somewhat optimistic about the potential for a diplomatic outcome to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, saying, “I hope that eventually we will find a solution, even though it’s not going to be easy. We understand that. But I’m not ready to talk [about] what kind of solution it will be.”

Putin also indicated that he was looking forward to an in-person meeting later this week or next with French President Emmanuel Macronfollowing their call on Monday.

State Department spokesperson Ned Price, responding to Putin’s remarks, insisted at a news briefing on Tuesday that the U.S. written document “did address the points that had been raised by the Russian Federation. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Russians will agree with the way in which they were addressed.”

“We heard from President Putin a variety of things,” Price said. “I will leave it to the Kremlinologists out there — budding, professional, amateur or otherwise — to read the tea leaves and try to interpret the significance of those remarks. For our part, we don’t necessarily need to do that because we know that a formal response from the Russian Federation is forthcoming.”

Earlier Tuesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke again with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “to follow up on” the U.S. written document, which U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivanpresented to Moscow last Wednesday.

In his call with Lavrov, Blinken “urged immediate Russian de-escalation and the withdrawal of troops and equipment from Ukraine’s borders,” according to a readout from Price. Blinken also “emphasized that further invasion of Ukraine would be met with swift and severe consequences and urged Russia to pursue a diplomatic path.”

The conversation between the two top diplomats came amid debate over recent communication between Washington and Moscow — specifically, whether Russia had responded yet to the U.S. written document. Russian officials on Tuesday denied that Moscow had presented its own counterproposal.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov acknowledged that Moscow had relayed to Western officials “other considerations, on a somewhat different issue,” according to The Associated Press. But he told reporters there had been “confusion” regarding Russia’s fuller response to the U.S. written document, which he said is still in the works.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko also told the Russian government-owned news agency RIA Novosti that it was “not true” that Moscow had transmitted its response to the United States.

Prior to those remarks by the Russian officials, a State Department spokesperson confirmed on Monday that U.S. officials had “received a written follow-up from Russia.” But the spokesperson declined to provide further details on the communication, saying, “It would be unproductive to negotiate in public, so we’ll leave it up to Russia if they want to discuss their response.”

Multiple U.S. and European officials confirmed to POLITICO that the document Russia sent to the United States was not about Moscow’s broader concerns regarding Ukraine or NATO but about questioning the Euro-Atlantic area’s security commitments. Chiefly, Lavrov criticized what he deemed to be contradictions in the 1999 “Istanbul Document” of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

At his news briefing on Tuesday, Price reiterated that Russian officials “are working on a formal response” to the U.S. written document. “That draft,” he said, “will go to President Putin, as we have known and expected all along. And when President Putin has a chance to review it and approve it, it will be coming to the United States. We understand that once that takes place, the Russians, too, are willing to engage in continued dialogue.”

The back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow began after The Washington Post reported on Monday that Russia had “delivered a written response” to the United States.

The production of the U.S. written document followed a month of intense international talks on the Russia-Ukraine crisis, which culminated in Blinken meeting with Lavrov in Geneva.

Blinken left that session pledging to present Russia with a written record of Washington’s concerns about Moscow’s behavior and proposals to end the security crisis. He also said he expected to speak with Lavrov again “in the coming days.”

After the United States presented Russia with its written document last week, however, Russian officials criticized the response, which Lavrov said “contains no positive response on the main issue.”

U.S. officials have refused to provide specifics about the written response they presented to Moscow, but the United States had already ruled out Russia’s major requests: that NATO pull back its presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, and that Ukraine and Georgia be permanently barred from joining the military alliance.

The confusion over the Russian counterproposal only compounded the tensions that emerged on Monday at a Ukraine-focused meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which the United States called in advance of Russia taking over the Security Council presidency this month.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield argued that Russia’s actions “strike at the very heart of the U.N. Charter,” while Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vasily Nebenzya sought to prevent the meeting from proceeding and rejected the United States’ “unfounded accusations.”

Nahal Toosi and Alexander Ward contributed to this report.