The Russian Foreign Ministry has sent a letter to Albania asking it directly whether it is for or against Ukraine's membership in NATO. 

The letter, rare in its kind, has been published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and addresses all NATO countries, which according to the Russians should give their individual positions on security issues relating to them. 

The move has been read as a diversion from Russia to NATO countries to find out if there are gaps in the organization's stance and if there are countries that will veto Ukraine's membership. 

Full letter 

You know very well that Russia is seriously concerned about rising political-military tensions near its western borders. In order to avoid any further escalation, the Russian side presented on December 15, 2021 the drafts of two related international legal documents - a Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Security Guarantees and an Agreement on Security Measures of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

The responses of the US and NATO to our proposals received on January 26, 2022 demonstrate serious differences in terms of the principle of equal and indivisible security, which is essential to the entire European security architecture. 

We believe that this issue needs to be clarified immediately, as it will determine the prospects for future dialogue. The Charter for European Security, signed at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999, formulated the main rights and obligations of the OSCE participating States regarding the indivisibility of security. 

It underlined the right of each participating state to be free to choose or amend its security agreements, including the treaties of alliances as they develop, as well as the right of each state to neutrality. 

The same paragraph of the Charter directly conditions these rights with the obligation of each state not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other states. He further states that no state, group of states or organization can have any primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. 

At the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our nations adopted a declaration reaffirming this comprehensive package of related commitments. 

However, Western countries continue to derive from it only those elements that suit them, and specifically - the right of states to be free to choose alliances to guarantee exclusively their security. 

The words "as they evolve" have been shamefully removed because this provision was also an integral part of the understanding of "indivisible security", and especially in the sense that military alliances must abandon their original preventive function and be integrated into the European architecture.

Based on a collective approach, not as close groups. The principle of indivisible security is selectively interpreted as a justification for continuing on the path towards irresponsible NATO enlargement. 

It has been revealed that Western representatives, while expressing their willingness to engage in dialogue on the European security architecture, deliberately avoid references to the European Security Charter and the Astana Declaration in their comments. 

They cite only previous OSCE documents, especially often - the 1990 Paris Charter for a New Europe that does not contain the increasingly 'inappropriate' obligation not to strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of its other member states.

Western capitals also try to ignore a key OSCE document - the 1994 Code of Political-Military Aspects of Security, which clearly states that States will choose their security agreements, including membership in alliances, given the legitimate security concerns of other states. It will not work that way. The very essence of indivisible security agreements is that there is either security for all or no security for anyone. 

The Istanbul Charter stipulates that every OSCE participating State has an equal right to security and not just NATO countries that interpret this right as an extraordinary privilege of membership in the 'exclusive' North Atlantic club. 

We will not comment on NATO instructions and other actions that reflect the aspiration of the 'defense' bloc for military supremacy and the use of force, bypassing the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. 

Suffice it to say that such actions run counter to fundamental pan-European obligations, including commitments under the above documents to maintain only such military capabilities that are commensurate with individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security interests of other states. 

Discussing the current situation in Europe, our colleagues from the United States, NATO and the European Union have repeatedly called for "de-escalation" and called on Russia to "choose the path of diplomacy". 

We want to remember: we have walked that path for decades. Highlights, such as the documents of the Istanbul and Astana summits, are precisely the direct result of diplomacy. 

The very fact that the West is now trying to review in its favor these diplomatic achievements of the leaders of all OSCE countries raises serious concerns. 

The situation requires sincere clarification.