If in the near future the White House or the US State Department do not make a statement of intention to extend the START III treaty (called the New START in the USA) without any changes, we can assume that the 2010 strategic agreement is dead. Because the United States special envoy for arms control Marshall Billingsley has recently put forward conditions for its extension or renegotiation that are obviously impossible.
The contract expires in February 2021. Moscow has repeatedly come forward with the initiative to extend it without any changes for three to five years (which would not require ratification by the US Congress), and then use the time remaining to resolve the differences that the two countries have regarding the containment of the strategic nuclear arms race. Washington did not like this approach.
The Donald Trump administration from the very beginning insisted that the United States would not benefit from bilateral nuclear deterrence treaties with Russia, as they left China’s strategic arsenal beyond international control. Objectively speaking, this logic has its own truth.
But what have we got to do with it? China's closeness is the result of public and tacit agreements with the United States in 1970-1990, and not of our actions. China's space program, the prospective development of its Navy, the One Belt, One Way initiative, the fifth generation wireless technology (5G) from Huawei Corporation - all this is by and large secrecy with seven seals. China is so much more comfortable, it has acted this way for the past decades, and it has been successful. Why on earth should the Celestial Empire refuse what works? Just because it is "bad," according to the "stronghold of world democracy"? Funny, is not it?
But just as ridiculous, it would be expected that the United States would humbly watch China turn into a threat to their world domination. The desire of the current administration to abandon the role of the global gendarme does not mean that the White House agrees to lose to Beijing in the competition for sales markets, primacy in the development of spaces, resources and technologies. Therefore, the United States will continue to put pressure on the PRC, and China will resist by all means available to it.
One of the fields of this game has long been the agreement on strategic stability. Let me remind you that the treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty) between Moscow and Washington was unilaterally terminated by the United States with reference to China’s non-participation in it.
Even then, our American partners had the "brilliant" idea - why not blame Russia for Chinese transparency on nuclear safety issues? Like, since you so want the agreement to be preserved, do something with your southern neighbor - let him join.
Surely you have encountered such a marketing move on the part of commercial organizations - bring a friend and get bonuses and discounts. In our country, very often they appeal to the fact that Trump is a business man and behaves in politics as a negotiating trader. Attempts to explain the Donald Trump phenomenon exclusively to his business past look, to put it mildly, doubtful, however, in this particular case, the commercial analogy is quite adequate. Moreover, Truman, Reagan, and Bush Jr, and Obama resorted to such a reception.
But Washington has greatly overestimated the importance of the INF Treaty and START III for Moscow. Our calls for not returning the world to the state before the Caribbean crisis, when there were no agreements at all in the field of strategic weapons, were for some reason perceived by the United States as proof of the vital importance of the treaties of the 1960-1980s for Russia.
The US special envoy mentioned at the beginning of the article, Marshall Billingsley, in his detailed commentary for The Washington Times (and this is a commentary and not an interview in terms of style) poses a reasonable question: why, in fact, does Moscow insist on keeping START III? But instead of critically assessing the situation, Billingsley concludes that there is some kind of terrible military secret that should certainly be revealed. Here is a direct quote from an American diplomat: "We want to understand why the Russians are so desperate for an extension (of the contract), and we want the Russians to explain to us how this suits our interests."
That is, if it is not possible to logically explain the benefit of Moscow in maintaining START III, one should not abandon the assumption that this treaty is exclusively beneficial to Russia, but make the additional assumption that “these Russians” are hiding something. And if so, they are insidious and non-contractual.
This has nothing to do with the “commercial” approach to negotiations. There is cyclic logic and mythological thinking. And here we see the deepest chasm dividing the pragmatic, albeit sometimes eccentric, Trump and Billingsley staff functionary, who has long been accustomed to living in the distorted reality of the “Washington swamp”.
When the new special envoy on arms control was only nominated for the post (this candidacy must be approved by the Senate, but due to a pandemic, approval is delayed), the president’s decision was met with fierce criticism in Congress. However, Trump stood his ground, explaining his confidence with the loyalty of the candidate for an important international position.
Marshall Billingsley and the truth is almost one hundred percent loyal to Trump. In January 2017, he was part of the transitional administration of the 45th president of the United States and led his transfer of affairs on national security matters. Later, he received a very modest position, but on January 20, he almost without misfire led the acceptance and handover in one of the most sensitive areas in Washington, and not in the most friendly atmosphere.
Rumor has it that he is a man of Vice President Mike Pence (which means, as many experts say, he was more a "bushist" than a "tramp"). But this is just speculation.
Unlike many members of the new administration, he did not intrigue behind the president (like many now dismissed employees) and tried to “fit in”. As the American saying goes, when the owner of the White House told him to jump, he only asked: "How high?" He also served George W. Bush, the younger, having worked in his administration from call to call from 2001 to 2009.
Billingsley got a good school. Prior to joining the Bush administration, he was a staff member of Republican Senator Jesse Helms, a staunch conservative and foreign policy hawk. Helms almost became vice president of the Reagan administration. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Policy, he earned the nickname Senator No. Jesse was an outstanding politician who supported Reagan even when it was unfashionable (namely, at a party conference in 1976), but he was completely at a loss when in 1987-1988 Ronald Reagan changed his strategy and abandoned the term "evil empire."
Like many “Reaganists” of that time, Helms was faithful to his leader, but he was completely incapable of perceiving his ideas in development. For him, Reagan remained a “cowboy with a gold colt,” who successfully led the party, and therefore earned loyalty, but not a thin player and pragmatist, who should learn a special, non-Washington logic.
The student, alas, did not surpass the teacher. Marshall Billingsley deliberately followed Trump and served him faithfully. I think he still thinks that he is doing everything right. The president threw up the idea that Russians cherish international strategic agreements, and we should try to play this. The goal is simple - to try to force Moscow, if not to put pressure on Beijing, then at least (albeit partially) to take the logic of China’s "lack of control" in matters of strategic arms and thus create another discomfort factor for the Celestial Empire. Together with a tariff war and charges of responsibility for the coronavirus pandemic.
But Billingsley clearly overdid it. And failed the whole thing. Well, please tell me, why blame Moscow for non-compliance with “almost all the agreements” if you need its cooperation? But the nominated special representative says: “We are talking about two countries that are completely unable to comply with the treaties. Russia violated almost all the agreements that we signed with it. ” Trump ordered him to give the Russians the impression that they should be with Washington at the same time, and what is he? Here, even the facts are not so important as an absolutely failed tactic.
A very pale potential chief negotiator begins to look, talking about the latest Russian strategic weapons (Sarmat, Vanguard, Dagger, etc.).
He simply devalued the entire American negotiating position, saying: “We are not going to make any concessions to include or exclude (from the contract) these (newest Russian) systems. They (Russians) simply have to curtail these five new programs and abandon them. ”
And this despite the fact that Trump repeatedly in his speeches before the press rather accurately "pranced" around the new Russian weapons. He said that the United States "very soon" will put into service similar systems, as well as the need to take into account "at least some of them" in the new treaty.
One could talk about this, but why should the Russians completely abandon these systems, and without any preconditions? Here is how Billingsley answers this question: “They (the Russians) simply do not have money. Their economy is in ruins due to the outbreak of the virus. It should also be borne in mind that their entire budget process depends on a high oil price, which now is not and will not be in the foreseeable future. ” So, he said, Russia's economic difficulties put the United States in a strong negotiating position. But wasn’t that the same thing Barack Obama claimed in 2014-2015, speaking of our “torn to shreds” economy?
We have something to rule (and rule seriously) in our socio-economic mechanism. None of our achievements in the era of counter-sanctions give us the right to rest on our laurels. A lot needs to be changed. And after defeating the coronavirus, we still have to build a new system of international security together with our partners in the west and east.
But if these partners prefer, instead of honest negotiations, to drag us into bilateral showdowns (as if there were nobody in the world except them), then we will have to politely refuse to participate in this process and engage in our own security and our own development tasks, defiantly not paying attention to their "arguments."
As for Mr. Billingsley, he is a clear example of how difficult it is for Donald “our” Trump to select a team. It seems that Putin is able to talk with him with complete understanding, but the level below, in the White House and the State Department, is a complete disaster. And this factor will have to be taken into account when communicating with colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic. Perhaps for them we will have to become (at least temporarily) a Country of No.
Apparently, the same applies to our Chinese friends. But here a word to orientalists ...
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.