Plus a quick global strike
New weapon for the USA as a world leader
After the arrival of the new, 44 President of the United States of America in the White House, some analysts believed that the “quick global strike” project (BSU, PGS - English) would soon be put into the basket. The rhetoric of the election campaign of Barack Obama and the line proclaimed by the new administration to move away from the foreign policy of George W. Bush would seem to give serious reasons for such assumptions.
We recalled the failure in 2007 to advance through the congress of financing one of the BSU areas - the creation of Trident-D5 modified ballistic missiles (SLBMs) equipped with conventional warheads instead of nuclear warheads: if during the Bush administration, when allocating money for development and production armament was almost a problem-free business, and the BSU project was tested not only politically but also doctrinally, the Pentagon could not “sell” it to legislators, then in the times of the liberal and peacemaker Obama the fate of BSU Yes. Other experts asserted nothing of the kind, the project will not only be preserved, but will be developed, the change of presidents will not affect it - America needs the BSU. They were right. Whatever the circumstances, the United States is not going to give up its place and role in the world, its interests and the conquered frontiers. The implementation of the “quick global strike” project fits into the foreign policy and military strategy of the Barack Obama administration as organically as in the policies of George W. Bush.
NON-NUCLEAR, BUT STRATEGIC
BSU is a long-standing idea of the United States Department of Defense. And in the Pentagon, according to one of its leaders, ideas do not die - they are transformed, adapted and sooner or later realized. The first trial launch of the Trident with conventional warheads was made from a Nebraska submarine in 1993, when the Clinton administration was in power, to demonstrate the possibility of hitting bunkers and command centers of alleged violators of non-proliferation weapons of mass destruction, and technical preparation for launching It began under George W. Bush.
“A quick global strike” is a well thought out and very promising project. It seems that its scale and influence on the military-strategic situation in the world are so far underestimated. Already, we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrence, the first samples of which are about to go to the US Armed Forces. If everything goes according to plan, by the 2024 year they will have an arsenal of BSU systems capable of non-nuclear warheads to perform the tasks of today's strategic nuclear forces, but with significantly lower costs and side effects: civilian casualties, environmental catastrophe, destruction, etc.
Military strategists and ideologists of Pax Americana were able to draw practical conclusions from the two global processes 80-x and 90-ies of the last century - the restructuring and collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp increase in the environmental factor: they were transferred to real projects in the interests of the United States. BSU - from among these projects.
The USSR’s withdrawal from hostile confrontation with the West, the perception of “democracy and common values”, the weakening and self-destruction of the Soviet state, on the one hand, and the active introduction of the environmental paradigm into the consciousness and practice of the world community, on the other, made the use of nuclear weapons less real and acceptable nationally and internationally, it was translated into the category of "political weapons". Disarmament initiatives, as well as agreements between the Soviet Union, and then the Russian Federation and the United States worked in almost the same way.
However, the goals and interests of the disarmament partners differed fundamentally. The Russian Federation, especially in the first half of 90, racked the problems of the collapse of the USSR, internal reforms, mastered the status of the former superpower, and tried to extract dividends from the brand of “new Russia”, which by definition did not imply ambitious projects on a global scale. The United States, on the contrary, actively secured a leading role and, in favorable conditions, formed a new world order.
Against this background, the concept of creating new, ultra-efficient non-nuclear weapons - with a decreasing likelihood of using nuclear weapons - could not have more suited the role of the United States as the undisputed world leader who, among other things, should have a unique non-nuclear means of deterrence and pacification.
EXCLUSIVE SIGNIFICANCE
The achievements of the Clinton administration era, when the terms "preemptive" and "preemptive" strike, "rogue state", etc., appeared, gained rapid practical development under Bush Jr., especially after 11 September 2001 of the year. The idea of a “preemptive-preventive” non-nuclear global strike on terrorists or the states that provide them with shelter, as well as on the states of the “axis of evil” (DPRK, Iraq, Iran, Syria) has acquired official status and has become a state doctrine. The technical feasibility of the BSU project was proven, its concept was approved, the Pentagon was tasked to develop and implement a program for equipping the US Armed Forces with ultra-fast, super-powerful and ultra-precise conventional weapons that would allow up to 2024 minutes after the order of the US President was received before the 2025-60. hit any target in any area of the globe. It was proclaimed that any challenge, that is, an attack or a threat of attack on the United States, would be followed by an immediate and effective response.
In 2008, the Special Committee on the Prospects of the BSU of the US National Research Council issued a report in which he emphasized the importance of the military potential of high-precision non-nuclear means of “rapid global strike” and called for the immediate development and early transfer to production of the tested systems.
The big advantage of the BSU project is the fact that its armaments are not subject to any restrictions under international legal agreements and allow to maintain freedom of action, of course, relative, which takes into account the reaction of Russia, China and regional leading states. It is assumed that the problems associated with the use of "rapid global strike" means in crisis-conflict situations, such as launch alerts, can be easily solved in negotiations with other states.
WORK IS IN FULL SWING
Creating BSU systems adequate to the tasks set is, of course, not easy. Observers note problems with the high cost of R & D and the financing of work, the organization of research, interdepartmental coordination of programs, skepticism of the project by some officials, and lobbying in favor of alternative projects. There are difficulties with technical solutions.
However, despite criticism and claims to the project, the Pentagon sought funding opportunities for work in all areas: ballistic missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, strategic bombers, space platforms and vehicles. It is expected that in the near future such BSU weapons as hypersonic aerospace missiles with a range of 6 thousand km and the ability to deliver penetrator warheads within 35 minutes, hypersonic cruise missiles with a flight speed of about 6500 km / h, SJX-61 missiles of the company will become a reality. Pratt & Whitney (the engine was tested in the spring of 2007, it is planned to be put into service in 2017), modified Trident-II SLBMs with conventional warheads (acceptance into service has once again been postponed indefinitely), as well as non-nuclear warheads of strategic bombers and US-launched ICBMs for use in critical situations.
In 2010 and the following years, according to the media, there will be an increase in budget financing of the project, which suggests that by the 2014-2015 years, new types of weapons capable of carrying out the combat tasks of BSU may be available to the Pentagon.
Simultaneously with the formation of the concept and research, the search for an optimal organizational solution was going on, and temporary command structures were created within the framework of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM). The forces of a “fast global strike” as part of STRATKOM or (as it is now) as part of the United States Air Force must act in close coordination with other types of US forces as part of the strategic triad (Bush described the new conventional weapons as part of the deterrent potential).
In August 2009, the United States announced the launch of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), which in addition to BSU operations from December 1, 2009 includes the use of 450 ground-based intercontinental missiles and strategic aviation. The practical implementation of the project can take place in the organizational structure of the Global Air Force strike command, combining ICBMs and strategic aviation. Other options are possible.
WHAT IS CHARMING BY BSU
For Russia, the commissioning of the “fast global strike” forces can have very specific practical consequences.
First of all, the BSU factor may mean a breakdown of the relative strategic stability that still exists. Yes, nuclear deterrence and intimidation quickly become obsolete, becoming an unacceptable vestige of the East-West confrontation era. Even the modernization of the US and Russian nuclear arsenals and the doctrinal confirmation that nuclear warheads remain in service and can be used do not remove the expectation that they will never be used and that in the foreseeable future states will abandon this type of weapon. Obama’s line is obviously designed for this: initiate negotiations and reduce nuclear weapons, powerfully propagandize such reductions until the nuclear potential of rival competitors, that is, China and Russia, goes down so that the subsequent rapid deployment of the BSU forces creates a complete US global military superiority.
Obama himself has repeatedly stated the need for overwhelming technological superiority over any adversary. And 18 February 2010, a typical statement made at the National University of Defense, US Vice President Joe Biden: "... we develop conventional warheads with a global range ... allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons ... With such modern weapons, our power will remain indisputable even in the case of far-reaching nuclear reductions. "
Thus, with a high degree of certainty, it can be predicted that the weapons of the US BSU will soon be unique, and the creation of effective means of protecting them will require adequate costs, effort, and, above all, political will from other states.
The purpose of the “quick global strike” project will be revealed as it develops. Born under the brand of protection against terrorists who acquired weapons of mass destruction and the malicious and unpredictable states of the “axis of evil”, the potential of BSU clearly means globality not only in terms of the range of action of weapons of impact, but also of influence on geopolitics and geostrategy. Terrorists, extremists, violators of non-proliferation regimes and other outcasts are likely to be a temporary cover for the more distant future targets of a non-nuclear global strike.
In terms of its parameters, the BSU forces will be able to carry out more ambitious than the destruction of extremist groups in remote areas, military tasks: hit any strategic - military and non-military - objects of states, act as a deterrent and achieve military-political goals in crisis-conflict situations, and so on. For the time being, there is no mention of all this, but this side of the project may begin to manifest itself in the near future as soon as the Belarusian State University forces receive arms.
In order to forecast the development paths of BSU, it will be important to follow the changes or the immutability of its political and legal substantiations. Received after the events of September 11 2001, the de facto legitimacy challenged by no one, the BSU project is based on the Bush doctrine of preemptive preventive strikes. The criticality of the threatening situation and the compressed time for making a vital decision as factors preventing the use of the UN statutory procedures (Security Council resolution) are understandable, but the international legal moment in the doctrinal provisions of the BSU should have been present nevertheless, and to put it mildly , no reflection received.
In short, by ordering a “quick global strike” on targets (targets) in another state, the US president actually acts as an accuser, judge, and bailiff of a decision of a national American court regarding a situation within the jurisdiction of another state. At the time of the "crusade against terrorism" and the promotion of the concept of a unipolar world, the consent of the world community with such a statement was implied. And although Bush’s junior foreign policy was assessed as a failure in his own country and abroad, during Obama’s presidency, there were no statements about the departure from the “preemptive-preventive strikes” doctrine and the concept of BSU, international organizations or NGOs in the legality of these principles.
The political and legal legacy of the neoconservatives remains intact, possibly due to the lack of courage of politicians in other states and the misunderstanding that if the “quick global strike” is wrongfully inflicted on the unjustly suspected, it will appeal to law, responsibility, etc. late. The consequences of an erroneous BSU will most likely be such as now in Afghanistan with the defeat of the civilian population instead of militants - letters of command with regrets and apologies.
IS THIS AN INVITATION?
For the same reasons, other political and legal aspects of BSU remain unnoticed.
First of all, the passage of high-precision strike weapons over the territories of other countries to the intended target. With such a violation of the airspace of a non-nuclear state, specific legal, political and military consequences arise, the severity of which does not need to be commented upon. As for the nuclear powers, including Russia, since in the absence of (and even if available) notifications about targets and launch parameters, it is impossible to determine the actual (nuclear or ordinary) warhead of the carrier, the state over whose territory the carrier flies will be forced to decide degree of threat and possible response in the conditions of extreme shortage of time. In the short time span and in the absence of reliable data on what kind of warhead the missile is equipped with, the choice of the response of the nuclear state, especially in the conditions of the international crisis, can be quite predictable. A “quick global strike” can lead to a lightning military escalation.
The relationship of BSU with the problems of the demilitarization of space deserves serious attention.
It seems legitimate to raise the question of the conformity of certain types of armaments developed by BSU with international humanitarian law, although this branch of international law is not in fashion now. An ordinary high-precision kinetic weapon capable of striking tungsten tips all life on large areas without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants can hardly be considered to conform to the laws and customs of war.
And there is also no reason to doubt that while maintaining the strictly monopolar, one-sided, successive from the time of Bush junior, the doctrinal-conceptual basis of the Belarusian State University, the deployment and development of the US global strike forces will lead to a non-nuclear strategic arms race and appropriate defenses. This process has practically already begun.
According to the author of this article, the most significant thing for Russia in the impending military-political problems of BSU is the interconnection of the “global strike” with the American missile defense deployed around the Russian perimeter. The combination of two potentials - the shock-preventive BSU and the restraining missile defense system - can create a situation for our country in which ensuring its security, sovereignty and independence can face serious challenges. Of course, this is the worst-case scenario, it will not come to this, but it needs to be considered - if only taking into account the statements made by representatives of the American military command that Russia is not an opponent, but not an ally, it is a rival. And it is well known what policy is in the neoconservative installations that continue to operate is intended for America’s rivals.
Or, maybe, the BSU in addition to the missile defense will be a weighty argument in the yet unofficially voiced proposal for Russia to drop doubts and join NATO? A proposal that, in the opinion of the inviting, will be impossible to refuse?
After the arrival of the new, 44 President of the United States of America in the White House, some analysts believed that the “quick global strike” project (BSU, PGS - English) would soon be put into the basket. The rhetoric of the election campaign of Barack Obama and the line proclaimed by the new administration to move away from the foreign policy of George W. Bush would seem to give serious reasons for such assumptions.
We recalled the failure in 2007 to advance through the congress of financing one of the BSU areas - the creation of Trident-D5 modified ballistic missiles (SLBMs) equipped with conventional warheads instead of nuclear warheads: if during the Bush administration, when allocating money for development and production armament was almost a problem-free business, and the BSU project was tested not only politically but also doctrinally, the Pentagon could not “sell” it to legislators, then in the times of the liberal and peacemaker Obama the fate of BSU Yes. Other experts asserted nothing of the kind, the project will not only be preserved, but will be developed, the change of presidents will not affect it - America needs the BSU. They were right. Whatever the circumstances, the United States is not going to give up its place and role in the world, its interests and the conquered frontiers. The implementation of the “quick global strike” project fits into the foreign policy and military strategy of the Barack Obama administration as organically as in the policies of George W. Bush.
NON-NUCLEAR, BUT STRATEGIC
BSU is a long-standing idea of the United States Department of Defense. And in the Pentagon, according to one of its leaders, ideas do not die - they are transformed, adapted and sooner or later realized. The first trial launch of the Trident with conventional warheads was made from a Nebraska submarine in 1993, when the Clinton administration was in power, to demonstrate the possibility of hitting bunkers and command centers of alleged violators of non-proliferation weapons of mass destruction, and technical preparation for launching It began under George W. Bush.
“A quick global strike” is a well thought out and very promising project. It seems that its scale and influence on the military-strategic situation in the world are so far underestimated. Already, we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrence, the first samples of which are about to go to the US Armed Forces. If everything goes according to plan, by the 2024 year they will have an arsenal of BSU systems capable of non-nuclear warheads to perform the tasks of today's strategic nuclear forces, but with significantly lower costs and side effects: civilian casualties, environmental catastrophe, destruction, etc.
Military strategists and ideologists of Pax Americana were able to draw practical conclusions from the two global processes 80-x and 90-ies of the last century - the restructuring and collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp increase in the environmental factor: they were transferred to real projects in the interests of the United States. BSU - from among these projects.
The USSR’s withdrawal from hostile confrontation with the West, the perception of “democracy and common values”, the weakening and self-destruction of the Soviet state, on the one hand, and the active introduction of the environmental paradigm into the consciousness and practice of the world community, on the other, made the use of nuclear weapons less real and acceptable nationally and internationally, it was translated into the category of "political weapons". Disarmament initiatives, as well as agreements between the Soviet Union, and then the Russian Federation and the United States worked in almost the same way.
However, the goals and interests of the disarmament partners differed fundamentally. The Russian Federation, especially in the first half of 90, racked the problems of the collapse of the USSR, internal reforms, mastered the status of the former superpower, and tried to extract dividends from the brand of “new Russia”, which by definition did not imply ambitious projects on a global scale. The United States, on the contrary, actively secured a leading role and, in favorable conditions, formed a new world order.
Against this background, the concept of creating new, ultra-efficient non-nuclear weapons - with a decreasing likelihood of using nuclear weapons - could not have more suited the role of the United States as the undisputed world leader who, among other things, should have a unique non-nuclear means of deterrence and pacification.
EXCLUSIVE SIGNIFICANCE
The achievements of the Clinton administration era, when the terms "preemptive" and "preemptive" strike, "rogue state", etc., appeared, gained rapid practical development under Bush Jr., especially after 11 September 2001 of the year. The idea of a “preemptive-preventive” non-nuclear global strike on terrorists or the states that provide them with shelter, as well as on the states of the “axis of evil” (DPRK, Iraq, Iran, Syria) has acquired official status and has become a state doctrine. The technical feasibility of the BSU project was proven, its concept was approved, the Pentagon was tasked to develop and implement a program for equipping the US Armed Forces with ultra-fast, super-powerful and ultra-precise conventional weapons that would allow up to 2024 minutes after the order of the US President was received before the 2025-60. hit any target in any area of the globe. It was proclaimed that any challenge, that is, an attack or a threat of attack on the United States, would be followed by an immediate and effective response.
In 2008, the Special Committee on the Prospects of the BSU of the US National Research Council issued a report in which he emphasized the importance of the military potential of high-precision non-nuclear means of “rapid global strike” and called for the immediate development and early transfer to production of the tested systems.
The big advantage of the BSU project is the fact that its armaments are not subject to any restrictions under international legal agreements and allow to maintain freedom of action, of course, relative, which takes into account the reaction of Russia, China and regional leading states. It is assumed that the problems associated with the use of "rapid global strike" means in crisis-conflict situations, such as launch alerts, can be easily solved in negotiations with other states.
WORK IS IN FULL SWING
Creating BSU systems adequate to the tasks set is, of course, not easy. Observers note problems with the high cost of R & D and the financing of work, the organization of research, interdepartmental coordination of programs, skepticism of the project by some officials, and lobbying in favor of alternative projects. There are difficulties with technical solutions.
However, despite criticism and claims to the project, the Pentagon sought funding opportunities for work in all areas: ballistic missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, strategic bombers, space platforms and vehicles. It is expected that in the near future such BSU weapons as hypersonic aerospace missiles with a range of 6 thousand km and the ability to deliver penetrator warheads within 35 minutes, hypersonic cruise missiles with a flight speed of about 6500 km / h, SJX-61 missiles of the company will become a reality. Pratt & Whitney (the engine was tested in the spring of 2007, it is planned to be put into service in 2017), modified Trident-II SLBMs with conventional warheads (acceptance into service has once again been postponed indefinitely), as well as non-nuclear warheads of strategic bombers and US-launched ICBMs for use in critical situations.
In 2010 and the following years, according to the media, there will be an increase in budget financing of the project, which suggests that by the 2014-2015 years, new types of weapons capable of carrying out the combat tasks of BSU may be available to the Pentagon.
Simultaneously with the formation of the concept and research, the search for an optimal organizational solution was going on, and temporary command structures were created within the framework of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM). The forces of a “fast global strike” as part of STRATKOM or (as it is now) as part of the United States Air Force must act in close coordination with other types of US forces as part of the strategic triad (Bush described the new conventional weapons as part of the deterrent potential).
In August 2009, the United States announced the launch of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), which in addition to BSU operations from December 1, 2009 includes the use of 450 ground-based intercontinental missiles and strategic aviation. The practical implementation of the project can take place in the organizational structure of the Global Air Force strike command, combining ICBMs and strategic aviation. Other options are possible.
WHAT IS CHARMING BY BSU
For Russia, the commissioning of the “fast global strike” forces can have very specific practical consequences.
First of all, the BSU factor may mean a breakdown of the relative strategic stability that still exists. Yes, nuclear deterrence and intimidation quickly become obsolete, becoming an unacceptable vestige of the East-West confrontation era. Even the modernization of the US and Russian nuclear arsenals and the doctrinal confirmation that nuclear warheads remain in service and can be used do not remove the expectation that they will never be used and that in the foreseeable future states will abandon this type of weapon. Obama’s line is obviously designed for this: initiate negotiations and reduce nuclear weapons, powerfully propagandize such reductions until the nuclear potential of rival competitors, that is, China and Russia, goes down so that the subsequent rapid deployment of the BSU forces creates a complete US global military superiority.
Obama himself has repeatedly stated the need for overwhelming technological superiority over any adversary. And 18 February 2010, a typical statement made at the National University of Defense, US Vice President Joe Biden: "... we develop conventional warheads with a global range ... allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons ... With such modern weapons, our power will remain indisputable even in the case of far-reaching nuclear reductions. "
Thus, with a high degree of certainty, it can be predicted that the weapons of the US BSU will soon be unique, and the creation of effective means of protecting them will require adequate costs, effort, and, above all, political will from other states.
The purpose of the “quick global strike” project will be revealed as it develops. Born under the brand of protection against terrorists who acquired weapons of mass destruction and the malicious and unpredictable states of the “axis of evil”, the potential of BSU clearly means globality not only in terms of the range of action of weapons of impact, but also of influence on geopolitics and geostrategy. Terrorists, extremists, violators of non-proliferation regimes and other outcasts are likely to be a temporary cover for the more distant future targets of a non-nuclear global strike.
In terms of its parameters, the BSU forces will be able to carry out more ambitious than the destruction of extremist groups in remote areas, military tasks: hit any strategic - military and non-military - objects of states, act as a deterrent and achieve military-political goals in crisis-conflict situations, and so on. For the time being, there is no mention of all this, but this side of the project may begin to manifest itself in the near future as soon as the Belarusian State University forces receive arms.
In order to forecast the development paths of BSU, it will be important to follow the changes or the immutability of its political and legal substantiations. Received after the events of September 11 2001, the de facto legitimacy challenged by no one, the BSU project is based on the Bush doctrine of preemptive preventive strikes. The criticality of the threatening situation and the compressed time for making a vital decision as factors preventing the use of the UN statutory procedures (Security Council resolution) are understandable, but the international legal moment in the doctrinal provisions of the BSU should have been present nevertheless, and to put it mildly , no reflection received.
In short, by ordering a “quick global strike” on targets (targets) in another state, the US president actually acts as an accuser, judge, and bailiff of a decision of a national American court regarding a situation within the jurisdiction of another state. At the time of the "crusade against terrorism" and the promotion of the concept of a unipolar world, the consent of the world community with such a statement was implied. And although Bush’s junior foreign policy was assessed as a failure in his own country and abroad, during Obama’s presidency, there were no statements about the departure from the “preemptive-preventive strikes” doctrine and the concept of BSU, international organizations or NGOs in the legality of these principles.
The political and legal legacy of the neoconservatives remains intact, possibly due to the lack of courage of politicians in other states and the misunderstanding that if the “quick global strike” is wrongfully inflicted on the unjustly suspected, it will appeal to law, responsibility, etc. late. The consequences of an erroneous BSU will most likely be such as now in Afghanistan with the defeat of the civilian population instead of militants - letters of command with regrets and apologies.
IS THIS AN INVITATION?
For the same reasons, other political and legal aspects of BSU remain unnoticed.
First of all, the passage of high-precision strike weapons over the territories of other countries to the intended target. With such a violation of the airspace of a non-nuclear state, specific legal, political and military consequences arise, the severity of which does not need to be commented upon. As for the nuclear powers, including Russia, since in the absence of (and even if available) notifications about targets and launch parameters, it is impossible to determine the actual (nuclear or ordinary) warhead of the carrier, the state over whose territory the carrier flies will be forced to decide degree of threat and possible response in the conditions of extreme shortage of time. In the short time span and in the absence of reliable data on what kind of warhead the missile is equipped with, the choice of the response of the nuclear state, especially in the conditions of the international crisis, can be quite predictable. A “quick global strike” can lead to a lightning military escalation.
The relationship of BSU with the problems of the demilitarization of space deserves serious attention.
It seems legitimate to raise the question of the conformity of certain types of armaments developed by BSU with international humanitarian law, although this branch of international law is not in fashion now. An ordinary high-precision kinetic weapon capable of striking tungsten tips all life on large areas without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants can hardly be considered to conform to the laws and customs of war.
And there is also no reason to doubt that while maintaining the strictly monopolar, one-sided, successive from the time of Bush junior, the doctrinal-conceptual basis of the Belarusian State University, the deployment and development of the US global strike forces will lead to a non-nuclear strategic arms race and appropriate defenses. This process has practically already begun.
According to the author of this article, the most significant thing for Russia in the impending military-political problems of BSU is the interconnection of the “global strike” with the American missile defense deployed around the Russian perimeter. The combination of two potentials - the shock-preventive BSU and the restraining missile defense system - can create a situation for our country in which ensuring its security, sovereignty and independence can face serious challenges. Of course, this is the worst-case scenario, it will not come to this, but it needs to be considered - if only taking into account the statements made by representatives of the American military command that Russia is not an opponent, but not an ally, it is a rival. And it is well known what policy is in the neoconservative installations that continue to operate is intended for America’s rivals.
Or, maybe, the BSU in addition to the missile defense will be a weighty argument in the yet unofficially voiced proposal for Russia to drop doubts and join NATO? A proposal that, in the opinion of the inviting, will be impossible to refuse?
Information