The Russian-American interdepartmental meeting on arms control and strategic stability, held in Vienna, from the very beginning did not cause optimism on either side. The main issue - the extension and preservation of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) - has already been discussed earlier, but it is still there. And the situation looming in this regard is clearly unsafe.
As the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, estimated that “we see that there is practically no security architecture today. There is an START, which lives on for several months. I’m quite pessimistic, because so far I’m not looking at any positive signals on this issue. ”
In fact, the American side is sabotaging the process, making unreasonable accusations against Russia on the one hand and impossible conditions on the other. For example, demanding from Russia that it would take over the involvement of China in the negotiation process, which, looking at the position of the United States, is also in no hurry to limit itself to any obligations.
It turns out that besides Russia, which is on guard of preserving at least the remnants of international law and the international agreements and treaties based on it, no one needs anything. Russian maybe now taken into service rather by our counterparts.
As a result, the situation today is as follows. The United States in the person of Trump withdraws from all agreements concluded at the previous historical stage, in exchange offering a set of bilateral deals to more or less strong players. And in this, oddly enough, there is a certain logic.
The desire of the Russian side to maintain the previous formats and international treaties is understandable. They worked for the most part, this is some kind of legal base, therefore it is easier and calmer to leave things as they are, from time to time prolonging the previous agreements. It is at least stable, and the approach aimed at maintaining this stability is understandable. Especially to us, the inhabitants of Russia.
But there is another side: the current system of relative stability, which is based on the system of international law that emerged as a result of the Second World War, is a consequence of the long-existent bipolar Yalta world, which has been said more than once. Therefore, the system of deterrence by two poles - Western and Soviet (now Russian) - does not correspond to each other objective reality.
Well, really, the USSR, which controlled half the world, is no more. There is no atlantic unity of the USA, Europe and their allies, who controlled the second half of the world, no matter how much you conjure and convince yourself of the opposite.
Russia cannot force the United States to anything, and we have been observing this for a quarter of a century. Unless by chance, by luck. The USA, too, is already incapable of forcing us to anything contrary to our state interests. In fact, the United States over the past 25 years has violated everything they want, and the rest of the world can only shrug its hands.
Such a situation, when there seems to be international law, but one of the subjects of this law does not comply with it, leads in general to legal nihilism on a global scale. If one does not comply, then the other can. One contract is not respected - which means that you can not comply with the other, do not observe anything at all. And the one who observes - the loser is himself to blame.
This situation suited American globalists from the previous administration: Russia is conscientious, complies with agreements - that’s why it loses, and we don’t comply - that’s why we are winners, “sign here.” And if we get caught on this, we will blame the Russians themselves in response.
In Russia, too, they understood this, but for the sake of world peace, in the interests of stability, they turned a blind eye to this, trying to preserve at least what is. Coming to the presidency of the United States, Donald Trump began to break this model, although by and large it suited everyone. American globalists felt their power, deceiving the gullible Russians. In turn, the Russians used the prevailing status quo to delay aggravation, gaining strength and strengthening geopolitical subjectivity. But therein lies the peculiarity of temporary measures that they once end.
In fact, Russia and the United States are no longer the main holders of nuclear weapons, there are others, for the most part - allies of the United States. China now seems to be an ally of Russia, which means that its US nuclear arsenal is uncontrollable, that the US side is very nervous, but they can do nothing about it. And even if the START-3 is extended, what to do with China?
In the usual American manner, the United States is trying to hang a question that they themselves cannot solve, to someone else, for example, to us. But it would be logical to assume that if China is included in the negotiation process on nuclear deterrence, then it will be necessary to include other holders: Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and even (“Oh my God, Mr. President!”) North Korea. And this is not bilateral, but multilateral agreements.
By and large, the only country to use nuclear weapons in the fight against its adversary is the United States itself, which bombed Japan without any good military reasons. And the entire subsequent history of the development of nuclear weapons was aimed at containing US nuclear aggression.
At some point, it seemed to the Americans, especially after the collapse of the USSR, that they were already taking over the whole world, without using nuclear weapons, using soft power. And everything seemed to be going on like this: Russia surrendered voluntarily (in the 1990s), “color revolutions” threw one state after another at the feet of America, and among the American military, the concept of a lightning fast non-nuclear strike was in fashion.
In these conditions, it was really possible to go on to limit oneself. But now everything is not so - Russia is sovereign, and the unipolar project of the American world is completed. So they remembered the last argument - nuclear weapons.
And if for Trump, the way out of treaties and agreements is an invitation to fix the contours of the emerging multipolar world, then for his opponents of the Democrats - an appeal to the last argument, nuclear pressure. And who knows if America, once already using nuclear weapons, will repeat its criminal trick?
So, maybe you should pay more attention to the reality of US nuclear aggression and start not bilateral negotiations, trying to extend what is outdated, but multilateral consultations on American nuclear deterrence?
And if what is happening now continues in the United States itself, then it will also be done under international control over the American nuclear arsenal. After all, who knows who ultimately has in their hands US nuclear weapons? It is high time to hold not Russian-American, but international, interagency meetings on the control of American arms. I would not want American nuclear weapons at the most inopportune moment to come under the control of some extremist antifa or armed BLM activists.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.