I remember that in the still Soviet elementary school, before February 23, we centrally, as we did a lot at that time, drew home-made greeting cards for our fathers.
The text was allowed to be made original, but for those who found it difficult, the teacher offered a certain template for constructing suitable phrases.
One of them - the wish for “a peaceful sky over your head” - attracted my attention with its poetry combined with an accurate reflection of the essence of the matter.
Used.
Not 75 years have passed since the war, as it is now, but half as much.
Many veterans and civilians who remembered the bombing were still alive.
The wish for peace was not an abstraction as it looks to many now.
And this is how it seems to look.
And if in Russia, where the memory of victory has been regularly maintained all these years, things are better, then among our Western allies in the past there is discord.
Part of their establishment is clearly not averse to trying fate again.
This is the only way to interpret the line taken by the American Republicans to withdraw from the basic international treaties that ensure strategic stability.
George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was followed by the withdrawal of the current administration from the INF Treaty, the withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty (OST) and, apparently, the non-extension of START III, which ends at the beginning of the coming year.
The world is being held hostage by the United States.
The fact that America had finally withdrawn from the Don became known on November 22, when the formal procedure was completed.
And if six months ago, warning of its intention to leave the treaty, Washington whirled, nodding to Moscow, but now he admitted the truth: Trump, his aide said, “never stopped putting America in first place, taking us out of outdated treaties and agreements that were beneficial our opponents to the detriment of our national security. "
Prior to that, the same adviser had complained that Russian planes were preventing Trump from playing golf.
"They flew over the White House, they flew over civilian infrastructure, they tracked where the president might be: Camp David or Bedminster (Trump's residence and golf club)."
It sounds a bit comical, but this game is really very important for the current US president.
It is known that he prefers it both to the counting of votes in the past elections and to the G20 summit.
The Kremlin hasn't been surprised at anything for a long time.
“Russia regrets the withdrawal of the United States from the Don, believes that this makes the treaty no longer viable,” Dmitry Peskov said (perhaps with a sigh).
The Russian Foreign Ministry referred to its position, expressed six months ago (they say, they are tired of repeating).
Its essence is that from poorly thought out US actions, not only its own security will suffer, but also the security of its European allies.
And who will get better from it?
At the same time, traditionally delicate Russian diplomats listed their claims to their partners related to unfair observance of the Don.
Among them are the failure to provide a sufficient number of intermediate landings for the Russian An-30B aircraft, the restriction of the Russian Federation's ability to observe the Aleutian and Hawaiian Islands, a decrease in the flight range over Alaska, Georgia's incitement to violate the DON, unlawful delays in issuing visas to our people, and more.
However, an exchange of claims can also be constructive if both sides have a desire to remove rough edges in interaction.
DON provides all the necessary mechanisms for this.
There would be a desire.
But if we are talking about a purposeful course to break, then no arguments will help here.
Against the background of the shameless actions of the American side, Moscow is only trying to show the world who started it first, worrying about the future of the treaty.
And the future is fraught with the emergence of a situation where the risks will multiply due to the action of DON in a new, twisted paradigm.
Having left the treaty, the United States is striving to continue receiving information from flights over Russian territory from its NATO allies.
And at the same time to force them to refuse Russian missions of the open skies to make their flights over American military installations in Europe.
called it a "one-sided game."
“Other states participating in the OON, which are at the same time members of the North Atlantic Alliance, must, in a legally enforceable form, clearly guarantee that Moscow will not transfer to Washington the data obtained from observation flights over Russia.
When analyzing, and on the basis of this, I think our further steps regarding the Open Skies Treaty should be determined, "said Leonid Slutsky, head of the State Duma's international affairs committee.
This position has already been voiced by the head of our delegation at the Vienna talks on military security and arms control Konstantin Gavrilov.
But the reasonable demand of the Russian side will most likely be ignored.
Signals about unwillingness to give any guarantees are already coming from the NATO countries.
However, Gavrilov does not exclude in the future a turn of Washington and re-accession to the Don.
In this case, the United States will have to go through all the necessary procedures again.
The return of the United States to the camp of sane countries is theoretically possible.
After all, this is a whim of only a part of the American establishment.
"This [exit from DON] is insane," said former CIA chief Michael Hayden.
“President Trump is rapidly moving on a path that will put us in a more perilous position,” says Gene Shaheen, member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee.
"DON has supported transatlantic security for decades," said Elsie Hastings, chairman of the bipartisan Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe at the US Congress.
In Europe, all the more, they do not crave additional tension in relations with Russia.
According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Washington's excuses are inconclusive.
“We regret the announcement by the US administration of its intention to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty,” cry in a joint statement by the Foreign Ministries of Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, France, Czech Republic and Sweden.
"The treaty is one of the pillars of security in Europe," OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger concludes the controversy.
It is possible that Joe Biden, who replaced Trump in the White House, will decide to return to the Open Skies Treaty.
It is known about his adherence to international agreements regulating strategic stability (also START III, in the development of which Biden took part).
Another thing is that this decision must be re-ratified by the US Congress, which will not be easy for Biden to achieve.
Of course, time will be lost, but strategic stability will be at least partially saved.
The countries participating in the VNR could make a non-standard move - "freeze time", having agreed late on November 21 that November 22 does not come for the treaty and the United States does not withdraw from it.
And on January 20, when Biden takes office, continue cooperation as if nothing had happened.
Nothing fancy - this move, proposed by the Canadian expert Peter Jones, is sometimes used in diplomatic practice.
However, judging by the fact that no news on this topic was received on the morning of November 22, a miracle did not happen.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.