Expired Storage Contracts
And yet, a situation arose recently with the return to service of rockets of shorter and medium range. And to Europe, and on both sides. No, or rather, here the Americans defiantly left the very treaty on the elimination of the INF Treaty, well, ours pulled in there too. So what to do? Where to go to the "poor peasant"? What happened was to happen: at first, the Americans pointedly “didn’t give a damn and rubbed” on the ABM treaty. Now the same thing happened with the INF Treaty. In principle, it is logical and in principle expected.
At one time (before the most defiant cancellation of the ABM Treaty), George W. Bush even invited Vladimir Putin to his place in Texas. At the ranch. So to speak, the continuation of Yeltsin’s diplomacy without ties. Friend Georgie, friend Vladimir ... But not a ride. Not a ride at all. Volodya Putin did not understand the "joke of humor" and did not go about it. And the United States had to defiantly withdraw from the “epoch-making treaty”, which, incidentally, had no de facto negative consequences for them on the international arena.
That is, the agreement was key and basic, and a lot was tied to it in the military-political sphere, but its dismantling went virtually unnoticed by the world community living in the era of “the end stories". And the Americans “perked up." And now we are witnessing a sudden and unilateral withdrawal from the INF Treaty. And again, this does not have any negative consequences for them, and no one blames them for anything.
And neither the European Union, nor even the People’s Republic of China have any serious charges against them and are not going to put forward them. That is, in fact, the United States is taking unilateral actions in the nuclear missile sphere, without encountering practical problems in diplomacy. This, you know, must be realized. We are already somehow used to nuclear weapon limited to a system of international treaties. I.e first Undoubtedly, nuclear weapons themselves arose, and then, “to avoid”, humanity was forced to create a system of tough international agreements to limit its testing / distribution / deployment.
And today, this whole system of restrictions is “flying downhill,” because the “leader of the free world” decided to steer in this sphere completely unilaterally. By the way, the cancellation of a nuclear deal with Iran is just from the same series. This deal was approved, as it were, by all the leading world players, and then the Trump administration, acting in one-sided okay, I terminated this deal.
The consequences of the collapse of the USSR in the field of security
You know, but it would be better if the USSR won the Cold War (sad joke). It would be much better for humanity as a whole, at least the threat of a “nuclear bugabum” would have gone far to the fifteenth plan. Today, the same “leader of the free world” is unilaterally fueling passions around a completely nuclear missile North Korea. I understand that Trump, playing big and raising stakes, is trying first of all to solve his internal political problems, however ... however (and history confirms this to himself) sometimes in a tense situation the guns start firing on their own.
That is, oddly enough, but after the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the collapse of the USSR, the world became much more dangerous and unstable. If you think about it, that’s exactly it. The “second pillar” “left” and the world began to sausage and flatten. After 1991, the international system of checks and balances, so beloved by the European diplomats of the era described by Comrade Pikul, literally crumbled before our eyes.
There were no checks or balances. Former Eastern Bloc countries have joined NATO in large numbers. Including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that is, the former republics of the USSR! And how cool it would be (for the West), and how good it would be (for him). And how wonderful it would be. In the pre-nuclear era. After the defeat of the Invincible Armada (1588 year), Spain de facto gradually lost the status of a great sea power. After the 1814-th (and in fact, after the defeat of the Great Army in Russia), France lost the status of the military hegemon of Europe. After 1918, Germany lost both the best army in Europe, and sovereignty, and the ability to pursue an independent foreign and domestic policy.
However, the most interesting thing happened with the USSR / RF: in 1991, almost everything was lost. From the status of a superpower to the status of a third world country, the path turned out to be surprisingly short. But in a strange way, the SNF and TNW were not lost. In the Yeltsin era, this seemed like such a funny relic of former power ... although how to say it! Those same Americans very seriously pressured him in favor of “nullifying” the nuclear missile potential, and when the “first president of independent Russia” got too much criticism fell upon him - they began to accuse the Ural lover of democracy of “neo-tsarism”.
That is, as at the time (70-e) in the West it was decided to abandon the "convergence of systems" in favor of an alliance with China, so in the 90-e it was decided that we would not offer anything to Russia. A little aside - why did not our liberal democrats succeed in 90? But why? Did you steal? Yes, everyone is stealing! The fact is that the West did not cooperate with them and did not offer them money. And they all stood 90 “with an open mitt”: we did everything right, where is the investment?
And in response, they explained to them with a smile that “investment” is a purely private matter (that is, they will not be) and they demanded to disarm. To some extent, history laughed cruelly at our liberal democrats. It’s like Frederick the Great, being the most convinced francophile, was forced to constantly fight with France, so our “reformers” had to play some kind of patriots to some extent and save Russia's nuclear potential from the good Yankees in difficult political and economic conditions.
Russia's nuclear disarmament
Not that they expected from the West, not at all that. That is, in 90 and later real attempts were made to nuclear disarmament of the "losing Russia". By the way, yes, we were once told that the Cold War was over. They were informed that they had completely won this war, hence the difference in perception of the surrounding reality. Today, the western man does not respect and is not afraid of a third-rate country there. That's fine, damn it, but just now the nuclear weapons of this “losing country” remain. That is, "something went wrong." Not according to plan.
The West’s attempt to bring Khodorkovsky to power (by the way, using the protest left electorate!) Is not so much about oil (as many people think), but about nuclear weapons (and there is a lot of oil on Earth). And that was already after Yeltsin. And many do not remember this, but Mr. Khodorkovsky spoke quite to himself about the Russian nuclear potential.
That is, the “solution” of the Russian question (final) in the West was very simple: the disarmament of nuclear forces and the liquidation of the Russian state as an integrated structure. In this direction, they worked. But there was a mistake. No, they just succeeded in expanding NATO to the East and establishing a Russophobic consensus in Europe (we faced the results of this policy in the 2014 year), but something went wrong with "nuclear disarmament".
That is, from the point of view of "international security", just the world today is not just worse, but much worse than "the world of two blocks - two systems." The thing is that that world was stable. This one is not. To rock “that world” to a state of nuclear conflict just like that, for “you live great” was quite difficult. Without a solution from the “top”. There were clear rules of the game and clear restrictions.
Today, all this is completely absent: the West has taken the game upon itself and does not want to reckon with anything. A completely obvious marker is the indicative defeat of Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact, it was precisely Yugoslavia that did not threaten anyone at that time and was not going to attack anyone. And in general it was a European democratic country.
The war in Georgia and the war in Ukraine just very clearly outlined the prospects for the "future". That is, we have somewhat misunderstood the meaning of Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Syria. Those truly hellish realities in which we all ended up without the USSR do not understand and do not want to understand. Say anything, but within the framework of the USSR, there would simply be no war in the Donbass and South Ossetia. As well as attacks on anyone on the list. In our country, many still believe in some kind of “Western democracy”, but at the same time note that, they say, sometimes she is working in the “wrong mode”.
Everything is a little not so great. You just need to forget (completely forget!) About the realities of the 80's and perceive what has been happening for the past 30 years. As a given. By the way, moralizing, which many people like to do about the "aggressive West" (including on the pages of "VO") is unhelpful and even funny. Welcome to the “brave new world”, where no normal laws and regulations work.
That is, the whole trouble is that (from the point of view of the author) this world has become much more unstable and prone to slide into a nuclear conflict. And even if we take the situation with Ukrainian nuclear power plants, all our ears have already buzzed about Chernobyl. They’ve been buzzing for thirty years, but the catastrophic situation at nuclear facilities “independent” does not cause any interest in the EU or the IAEA. Not at all.
And, by the way, yes, Chernobyl hats are regularly held in the Republic of Belarus, which are directed against the new nuclear power plant in the Republic of Belarus, but the catastrophic situation in Ukraine’s nuclear energy industry is completely indifferent to the Belarusians. There is no such topic. It is clear that these accidents can be ignored for some time, but the political situation in the world is not a decree for a nuclear reactor. He may jerk. And yes, the transfer by the Ukrainian side of rocket / rocket technology to anyone who is willing to pay has not led to any sanctions.
That is, for a “revolutionary” Ukraine, they made an obvious exception to all and all kinds of treaties. She can ruin the reactors and “ban” engines to ballistic missiles. But hell, that doesn't happen. It does not happen that strategic arms treaties continue to operate if there is such a “white spot” on the map. There it came to the point that they seemed to help the North Koreans "threaten America."
All international treaties, like clockwork during the era of confrontation between the USSR and the USA, today went to the trash. That's all, they are no more! Because Ukraine has de facto left them. And there was nothing for her. Moreover, it is supported in every possible way ... Jokes as a joke, but the ambush was precisely that in Ukraine there remained both rocket production technologies, and technologies for producing engines for them, and nuclear reactors ...
But for the sake of the victory of the "revolution of dignity" they closed their eyes to this. And somehow people do not think about the consequences ... but they can be monstrous. And most importantly, the United States practically “in the same face” began to steer the nuclear missile sphere on the planet, and this, excuse me, is “complete atas”. Because they "will not succeed."
That is, the entire control system for nuclear missile technologies today already does not work in fact. On the example of Iraq / North Korea, the United States proved that in the modern world only the presence of nuclear weapons provides sovereignty, but nothing else. There is no evidence that Iran is spreading ballistic missile / nuclear technology. But sanctions were imposed against him, then the “nuclear deal”, then the cancellation of the US “nuclear deal” unilaterally. And what do you want to talk about in the field of nuclear disarmament after that?
And Ukraine was just actively spreading certain technologies ... but there was nothing for it. That is, the "hegemon" unilaterally decided to "ensure nuclear safety." But ... but that doesn't happen. The transition from the bipolar world to the unipolar world looks especially wild just in the nuclear missile sphere. You see, nuclear warheads somehow do not give a damn about the current political and economic situation, and the ratio of votes in the UN.
The agreement "it is not clear whom it is not clear with whom"
That is, today for Russia there is absolutely no sense in signing something with the United States in the field of nuclear missile restrictions. Just because we do not have that international status in order to demand anything from the USA there. It's like an honest game of toss with a gopnik. If you lose, you pay.
The situation is paradoxical here as well: all those who rely on American hegemony really do not like to notice the fact that from the beginning of the 0's the USA is slowly pouring in. As if in 90's, everything there (outwardly!) Was great. But over the past two decades, there has been a real collapse of US potential and economic opportunities, in particular. Today they have no opportunity to "play for long." All those who talk about American military potential in the 2040 year are engaged in nonsense.
We should generally see what remains of the USA by the 2040 year. That is why they today "go all-in" and "play big." Them now you have to win, understand? They will not reach the 2030 year in the current regime. Any problem must be considered comprehensively. By the way, about the US economy and its prospects at the end of the 2000s, the Adventurer from Omsk laid out everything very well. I recommend! At the very beginning of the zero (!) A wonderful book by Khazin / Kobyakov “The Sunset of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana” was published. And there everything was well laid out.
That is, at first the United States "took the game upon itself", and then began to energetically "fall into the ditch." That is, they can still “reset the economy” (collapsing global finances!), But at the same time, they will no longer maintain dominance on the planet. That is why the "Arab spring", which is why the war in Ukraine. That is why they prohibit Iran from trading in oil. That is why the situation around Pyongyang is escalated. That is why they place military biolaboratory at the borders of Russia.
How they can ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear technology and the absence of nuclear conflicts is a mystery ... The US withdrawal from the INF Treaty has led to the fact that in Europe again (as in 80!) The risk of a nuclear exchange of short-range strikes arose. But the USSR is no longer there, as is the ATS, but Russia's ability to plow European cities with nuclear warheads has just remained. For this very blow to Europe, in principle, not so much is needed, and it is not necessary to be a superpower.
Another look at nuclear war
And it is not necessary that this strike should be “counter-retaliatory”. Now it’s somehow not customary to discuss one such interesting topic: what if the Russian economy collapsed under sanctions? Economic? What does it mean: “well, you lost?” We have the experience of “dissolving the internal affairs bodies” and “glorious 90's”. Somehow political concessions did not lead to positive results for us. Who ever said that Russia (a country capable of burning the planet) simply had to “withstand sanctions”? You know, I don’t feel any responsibility for the "future of all mankind." This went with the collapse of the USSR and the "holy 90-mi."
“Well, everything - you lost?” - “No, we all lost ...” That may be the answer. There, I remember, the USSR still assumed "increased socialist obligations" not to use the first nuclear weapons. Something does not remember the political return from this step. For some reason, introducing sectoral sanctions, our neighbors on the planet proceed from the unobvious fact that in the event of the collapse of its economy, Russia will be obliged to capitulate in the likeness and model of the 91 year.
For some reason, the Gorbachev call to Washington in December 91 was considered as the “finale” of this epic. The trouble with such “forecasters” is precisely that this time, not Gorbachev will sit in the Kremlin, but a slightly different politician. And will make slightly different decisions. In particular, it was formulated as follows: “... of course, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe. For the planet, it will be a global catastrophe too. But as a citizen of our country and as the head of the Russian state, in this case I want to ask one question: “Why do we need such a world if Russia will not be in it?”
The author of this maxim does not quite resemble the idle "talker about anything." For some reason, this phrase is perceived by many in an ironic manner. Say, mankind has overcome the fear of nuclear war. Overcome? What is it like? They also like to say that such a war will not happen, since nobody wants it. A strange enough statement - did the Europeans really want the beginning of World War I? And just like that and right now the question was posed not at all by chance. The USA is introducing new sanctions against Russia and is actively leaving the arms limitation treaties, and indeed they wanted to spit on all sorts of "checks and balances."
In the pre-nuclear era (with the existing balance of forces) this inevitably led to the defeat of Russia. Into the nuclear ... this leads to a situation where we will have “minus one planet”. That is, paradoxically, the modern world turned out to be much more dangerous and unbalanced than the world of 80's. Just because interests one of the nuclear superpowers it is not categorically taken into account.
That is, if in 80 we proceeded from the not-so-obvious premise that “nations need peace,” today this situation can be completely called into question. Somehow, at the time of the Ukrainian crisis, a large anti-war movement in Europe was not observed. Although it smelled of gunpowder. And when it came to deploying smaller and medium-sized missiles in Europe, here German diplomacy finally woke up and offered to remove Russian missiles beyond the Urals. In exchange for "inspections" of American facilities in Romania.
An interesting suggestion. In general, the EU (under the leadership of Germany) of the “quasisuperpower” type, at least the economic one. But even the issue of nuclear security on of my own EU territory does not control in any way. After Germany (and the EU as a whole) fully supported the anti-Russian sanctions, their role as a possible mediator was reduced to zero. And here it turns out that the matter is not limited to sanctions / counter-sanctions. Not at all. And it was then that the German diplomats leaped zealous ...
Another look at nuclear weapons
In general, the logic that we need to have a powerful economy and a powerful conventional army is certainly good, but it can be implemented on the basis of the restoration of the USSR and the Warsaw block, which, of course, is pure fantasy. Yes, and why, in principle? In the event of the inevitable defeat of NATO forces on the continent in the 70-e / 80-e, the Americans would simply use nuclear weapons, goals stop the Russians at all costs Tanks without nuclear weapons nobody put there. And even with their (and allies!) Industrial, financial and demographic potential. That is, in principle, they could, but somehow they didn’t bother much about it (because the best ATGM is TNW).
Why we (at the current balance of power) need to think about it today is absolutely incomprehensible. It is quite obvious that even with the most favorable development scenario, Russia will not “pull out” full-fledged “conventional forces” with respect to NATO, Japan, and China. Well, is that obvious? Why then discuss? And if our economy is twice as efficient, all alone will not pull.
Another scenario: they pulled! And the United States, with a hybrid invasion of Russia, received a powerful "shit"! Yeah! Not yeah. They will immediately use nuclear weapons. To repel Russian aggression against the free world. Does anyone doubt this? That is, conventional armed forces are certainly needed, but following the Soviet model, counting on two separate (nuclear and non-nuclear) wars is pretty stupid. And quite expensive.
In general, a strange situation has developed in Europe (with respect to the 80): there is no longer any ideological confrontation between systems (which was blamed for nuclear confrontation). Not at all! But the nuclear confrontation itself has not gone anywhere. And it seems like even Russia was part of the OSCE! And it seems like we have tried to harmonize legislation with the European one. However, it all ended exactly with what ended. That is, what a big hidden meaning lies in this very rapprochement with Europe with an obvious military confrontation, it is difficult to understand.
Another look at “international law”
That is, the “question of sanctions” is not only and not so much the “economic issue”, oddly enough, as military-political. That is, European countries have de facto demonstrated their readiness to “accept” любые US decisions. The same can be said about the attitude towards the US withdrawal from missile defense and INF. As a result, the system falls apart. A kind of "system of international law." That is, it turns out that it is absolutely unprofitable for us to go to the signing of some documents on nuclear missile weapons.
Since the United States can come out of them on its own initiative. At any convenient moment. While we will be forced to build the entire military-industrial complex and army under these "treaties". You know, frankly stupid situation. That is, the Americans in this case can play very simply: they prescribe restrictions that are favorable to them in the treaty ... Russia takes them into account when creating their nuclear arsenal ... And then the Americans "suddenly" leave the treaty and put us in check and checkmate. Such are the "one-time contracts."
That is, from an American point of view, Russia is by no means a “worthy partner” with whom relations must be built. In principle, they do not today consider their obligations towards someone as something solid and unchanging. The Iranian example here is simply "archetypal." And yes, right after the withdrawal from the "nuclear deal" the US started talking about the need to create some kind of "new, better agreement" with Iran. Very interesting. Just insane.
And, in fact, the better is Russia? Yes, practically nothing. Roughly speaking, any restrictions on nuclear missile weapons in Russia are not very beneficial. We, unlike America, live in the center of Eurasia, we have many neighbors, and we can’t pull an army of 4,5 million. Roughly speaking, the very Russian Navy needs no less than the United States, if not more. The development of such missiles is conducted by Pakistan, Iran, India and China ... By the way, we need them even morethan the same to China. With our long borders.
The United States simply does not have such neighbors. And given the balance of conventional forces, in the European theater of war, we need them much more than the NATO. Such matters, no one is to blame. Complicating over the fact that we can’t forehead butt with NATO conventional weapons is rather strange. “This is not exactly the Olympic Games.”
Given the deployment of US missile defense systems, some restrictions on strategic nuclear forces look no less strange in terms of providing nat. security of Russia. Yes, let the United States have at least 100 thousand warheads. What is it to us? If we are guaranteed to be able to destroy them? Especially striking first?
The USSR is no more (and for a long time!), As well as the ATS. Therefore think in terms the contractual obligations strange enough: nobody considers us as a "guarantor of peace and stability on the whole planet"Sorry, but these are unnecessary illusions. And we don’t need “world peace” (we can’t afford it!), Rather, we need the security of our own country. No more, but no less. Acting as a quasi-USSR, we are subject to unnecessary restriction, but, being not a superpower, we do not have any bonuses as a result - here you have the “international agreements”. By the way, why does China not participate in them? A growing superpower?
On the one hand, we are limiting the nuclear potential in the interests of international “community” with the dignity of a global player, on the other hand, this community does not hesitate to impose sanctions against us with the aim of destroying our economy (as against a rogue country). Don't you find these to be “mutually exclusive paragraphs”? That is, according to the American model, we need complete confidence in our own rightness and readiness to use the nuclear arsenal if necessary (taking into account exclusively our own national interests). Well, it’s understandable - this arsenal itself. Nuclear arms treaties were good in the era of the two superpowers. Today they are meaningless and even dangerous for us.