Editor's note: Danil Bochkov is an expert with the Russian International Affairs Council. He graduated cum laude with a master's degree in economics from MGIMO-University under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and a master's degree in world economy from the University of International Business and Economics in China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Russia has found itself in a political stalemate with the West over Ukraine following several rounds of security guarantees talks failed to deliver any viable compromise between Moscow, Washington, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Russia insists that NATO and the U.S. must pledge official and legally binding obligations to stop the alliance's eastward expansion and take away weapons and the military from central and eastern Europe, including Romania and Bulgaria so that it rolls the block's infrastructure and deployments back to the status quo in 1997.

After another round of talks between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on January 21 had no breakthrough effect on de-escalation of tensions, with Russia demanding to get written replies from the U.S. and NATO to its security claims. Moscow's rationale is that unless it gets its "concrete" security demands fulfilled there could be no further progress on the matter, while the U.S. and its allies are reluctant to give any concessions and compromise until they get any assurances from Russia on a de-escalation. Russia is digging in its heels that its security concerns are real and focus on the West's "pumping Ukraine with weapons, sending hundreds of Western military instructors."

It seems to be a vicious circle in which all the parties go in rounds without any prospects for seeing eye to eye. Russia has finally obtained written responses from the U.S. and NATO, both of which brought little or no hope for any turnaround on the issue. In fact, they rejected all the main demands of Russia, with the most important takeaway to be, as Blinken noted, that "NATO's door is open, remains open, and that is our commitment."

So as not to shut the door completely, Washington proposed to cooperate on nuclear arms control and limits on military exercises, both of which are regarded by Moscow as second-tier issues that should be addressed only after the key requests of the Kremlin are settled.

In general, Moscow responded with pessimism to the written replies and stressed that they contained "no positive reaction" to what it proposed earlier. In the meantime, the tensions around European security and Ukraine keep boiling with the U.S. president speculating about Russia's plans to attack Ukraine in February while the country's intelligence is expecting Russian President Vladimir Putin to make a final decision within weeks.

Militarily, all the parties have already started preparations for the Russian alleged invasion. U.S. President Joe Biden has already put 8,500 troops on heightened alert and is about to reinforce the U.S. contingent in Europe by sending extra, though a "small" number of the U.S. troops in order to bolster NATO's eastern flank. 

The UK has just claimed that it is ready to deploy land, air and sea forces to protect NATO states in their northern and eastern borders. It adds to the earlier reassurances by London that its army leads the NATO battle group in Estonia – an Eastern European country bordering Russia. 

Britain has also supplied Ukraine with short-range anti-tank missiles amid the worsening security situation in the region. Moreover, three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which used to be part of the former USSR and now are known for strong anti-Russia sentiments, are shipping javelin anti-armor missiles and anti-aircraft missiles to Kiev after being granted permission by the U.S.

Though Russia has specified that it has neither the intention nor plans to launch a military attack on Ukraine or "any other country," the U.S. and the EU have upped the ante by warning Moscow of "massive consequences" should the crisis derail into war. Over the whole period of the escalation Washington has repeatedly threatened Moscow that any of its moves on Ukraine "is going to be a disaster for Russia." Economically, the U.S. has prepared a multitude of toolboxes to pressure Russia with the most recent restriction promising to roil the country's economy.

Washington has been building up on anti-Russia sanctions since December 2021 by progressing from options of targeting Russian banks and energy companies to the recent propositions of limiting Russian foreign trade by obstructing the country's access to dollar-cleared transactions as well as imposing direct limitations on the Russian president and other top officials.

The New York Times predicts that in combination the whole myriad of sanctions against Russia could "cause severe inflation, a stock market crash and other forms of financial panic." With Russia's substantial role in global financial markets as well as its possible countermeasures such as hobbling gas shipments to Europe, the overall consequences could destabilize the whole global economy.

So, the U.S. is most likely to limit the impact of measures by introducing a particular set of sanctions without enacting all the punitive instruments at its disposal. Hence, it would not contribute to de-escalation, but only alienate Moscow even further. Amid current geopolitical headwinds, one can only hope that the Olympic Truce, effective from February 4, could instill tranquility to the heads of global leaders preventing them from the worst-case scenario.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)