If anyone doesn't remember, let me remind you. This is a quote from the unforgettable novel by Ilf and Petrov "12 chairs". It is with this phrase that the great strategist Ostap Bender forces the intimidated Kislyarsky to fork out, suggesting to the "chairman of the stock exchange committee" that he will have to shoot back at an imaginary safe house from fictitious enemies in order to save the "giant of thought and father of Russian democracy" Kisa Vorobyaninov from death. “We will give you parabellum,” NATO says to its allies, referring to military bases and anti-missile installations. The situation is almost mirror image - except that the enemy is still fictional, but the weapon is quite real. And a thousand times more powerful and incommensurably more dangerous.
By the way, about the deployment of anti-missile defense assets of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe. Initially, the noble goal of the military-political bloc was declared to be the protection of the states located in the Mediterranean Sea from ballistic missile strikes by a potential enemy within the framework of the American doctrine of a phased adaptive approach to the creation of a European missile defense system. The United States, as the main instigators and suppliers, in 2002 officially withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Missile Defense Systems, thereby freeing both itself and its allies. At the same time, the image of the enemy from which it is necessary to defend itself changed depending on the geopolitical situation. So, in 2004, Iran was declared as such. The UK, Poland and the Czech Republic were the first European countries to sign up for hosting missile defense missiles.Their list has since expanded significantly as more and more countries have joined NATO. And the “main threat” is no longer masked. This is our country.
It must be understood that the anti-missile system that the alliance uses is, by its nature, dual-purpose. And, in addition to repelling a nuclear attack, it has offensive functions and is intended, among other things, for the first crushing strike with a flight time shorter than that of the well-known Pershing missiles. So, under the guise of a protective umbrella, deadly aggressive weapons are approaching the borders of Russia more and more densely, making in some cases a retaliatory strike almost impossible. And it is very difficult to put up with it.
Much water has flowed under the bridge since Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, despite obvious contradictions, managed in 1987 to stop an unprecedented arms race after talks in Reykjavik. The gigantic stockpiles of the world's nuclear weapons have since dwindled significantly. As for joint agreements, today almost everything needs to be started practically from scratch.
On February 1, 2019, US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced that Washington was unilaterally suspending its obligations under the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Russia's response was not long in coming.
After completing all the formalities associated with the approval of the State Duma and the Federation Council, Vladimir Putin signed a law on the suspension of this document.
The painstakingly built relations in the Russia-NATO format also crumbled before our eyes.
The dialogue has virtually ceased.
In October 2021, the leadership of the bloc announced the expulsion of eight employees of the Russian permanent mission to the North Atlantic Alliance and the reduction of the posts of two more. The composition of our mission was halved. In response, Russia itself abolished it altogether and closed the NATO information bureau in Moscow.
Nevertheless, the consistent foreign policy of the Kremlin, aimed at de-escalating international tensions, building up diverse cooperation with those countries that showed mutual readiness to develop relations based on mutual respect and consideration of interests, has borne fruit. Russia energetically contributed to the normalization of relations between Baku and Yerevan. In coordination with Turkish and Iraqi partners, she participated in resolving the situation in Syria. An important result of the work in the field of maintaining strategic stability was the five-year extension of the Russian-American treaty on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms. There are many other obvious foreign policy successes. Vladimir Putin's dialogue with Joe Biden confirms the new realities of the bipolar world.
It can be ironic to compare the powerfully equipped and generously fueled sprawling structure of NATO with the rather modest Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in terms of numbers and financial investments, but its role in the geopolitical landscape can hardly be overestimated. The latest events in Kazakhstan are proof of this. In addition, Russia plays a key role in this scenario, being for the West the main connecting link of the entire vast Eurasian space. Let's not discount the particularly important place of our country in such international associations as the SCO, BRICS, the EAEU and others.
It was against this background that a new round of negotiations between Moscow and Brussels began within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council. The Kremlin is trying to get the North Atlantic Alliance to refrain from eastward expansion, return to the bloc of the 1997 era, not accept Georgia and Ukraine into its ranks, and not deploy military systems near the Russian border. Moscow’s constant demand, which it never tires of talking about (including through the mouth of the president), is the need to sign fundamental documents that guarantee bilateral security.
The importance of what is happening can be judged by the representation at the talks: from our side - Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Grushko and Deputy Minister of Defense Alexander Fomin, and from NATO - Secretary General of the organization Jens Stoltenberg and high-ranking military representatives of the states of the alliance. Nobody expects miraculous results. But most importantly, there is a painstaking, equal and respectful dialogue going on. And any, even so far small, results can only be welcomed. The same Stoltenberg, in a statement after the end of the talks, noting the remaining significant differences, especially stressed that Russia and NATO will restore the work of their missions in Moscow and Brussels. According to the Secretary General, the alliance and the Kremlin will spare no effort to find ways to move forward.Including new agreements in the field of security and transparency of military preparations.
And I keep thinking, what would have happened if Kislyarsky had not been afraid of Bender's proposal and agreed to take parabellum?
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.