Military Review

After START

42



31 March, on the eve of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Barack Obama called on Russia to further reduce nuclear arsenals. Such a statement - is it really an invitation to cooperate or a rhetorical device?

Nuclear rapprochement

During the seven years of Obama’s presidency, there have been significant changes in relations between Russia and the United States. In particular, the American president launched a “reset” of bilateral relations in 2009, which, however, ended with him. Regardless of the assessment of the reasons for the collapse of the "reset", it allowed to achieve certain goals, although at the same time could not overcome the root differences between countries.

According to some experts, the world has once again returned to the state of the cold war, but this time, the risk of a real confrontation is much higher. This is manifested in the Syrian war, and in the crisis in Ukraine, and in the patrol flights of the Russian Air Force over the Baltic States. If the cold war was characterized as a period of “long peace”, due to the fact that both blocks were in a certain balance and could not oppose themselves as a full-fledged alternative to each other, then Washington’s hegemony is evident in modern conditions. We can talk about reducing this hegemony, but the United States is still the only superpower.

During the “reset” period, nuclear security continued to dominate the Russian-American agenda. In particular, the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START III / New START) was signed and ratified, which was an important step towards the "nuclear-free world" and one of the greatest achievements of the latest stories relations of Russia and the United States.

The second important joint result in the field of international nuclear security was the development by Moscow and Washington of a common position around the Iranian nuclear crisis. In 2010, Russia supported the introduction of a new package of sanctions and, together with the United States, joined the group of negotiators from six countries to resolve the conflict. Iran’s subsequent refusal to create a nuclear weapons and agreement to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards can be considered the largest legacy of the “reset” period, which emphasizes the coincidence of interests and the role given by countries to the nuclear factor.

Alarmists and skeptics

Behind the “reset” failure there were many structural and political factors, such as the change in the political course of Russia, the war in Libya, and a different understanding of the outcome and timing of the end of the Cold War. For the United States, the war ended in victory and the establishment of a unipolar world with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, for Russia - in 1989, following the results of the Maltese summit, thanks to the joint efforts of the two countries. From a domestic perspective, the 1989 agreement of the year put an end to the bipolar confrontation between and marked the transition to cooperation. Hence the fundamental differences on a variety of issues, including foreign policy, international law and security. These conclusions come Yuval Weber and Andrei Cricovich, analyzing the causes and consequences of a new round of confrontation between the countries.

Researcher Ivan Safranchuk identifies four main coalitions in the American establishment in relation to Russia: alarmists, skeptics, realists, and supporters of unconditional cooperation. In both parties, alarmists and skeptics dominate, advocating the suppression of imperial ambitions and the containment of Russia, but differing in methods and tools. Alarmists are determined to take drastic measures, while skeptics prefer more moderate deterrence, especially in the foreign policy arena. Realists who advocate building relations with Russia on the basis of mutual interests, not values, today have no real power and are represented by a small group. Supporters of cooperation are even less represented; their opinion practically does not affect the current state policy.

Under such conditions, even if Donald Trump wins the election — the only one who tried to “flirt” with Moscow in time for election campaigning, any hypothetical attempts by the presidential administration to normalize relations with the current Russian leadership will be blocked by the US Congress, where supporters still dominate. Proof of this can be considered the victory of Mark Rubio, who occupies an alarmist position with respect to Russia, in the Columbia district primaries. For Moscow, this may serve as another alarming signal expressing the mood of the majority of the American political establishment.

Irreplaceable is

In such a political situation, it is not necessary to talk about further cooperation in the military sphere. This year, Russia did not attend the said Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, motivating its decision by the “lack of cooperation”.

But is effective policy possible in this area without Russia's participation? Now international nuclear security depends not only on the “old” nuclear powers, the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Nuclear testing was announced by India, Pakistan, and the DPRK. Israel is suspected of possessing a nuclear weapon.

Nevertheless, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the participation of Russia and the United States in it remain key factors supporting the non-proliferation regime. The fact is that these two countries account for 90% of all nuclear arsenals on Earth.

With the aggravation of the contradictions between the US and Russia, which is observed today, the importance of the nuclear factor as a political argument increases. Such a vision is especially characteristic of the Russian side. Since the potentials of countries in the economic sphere are not comparable, Moscow needs to switch to areas where it has an advantage or strategic parity with the United States. Russia and the United States still exist in a situation of mutual assured destruction (mutual assured destruction, MAD) in the event of a first strike of one of the countries. Paradoxically, it was MAD that was the foundation of the world for decades.

However, it is not in the interests of Moscow to allow a return to a protracted tough confrontation, which has already once led to the collapse of its economic system. It is necessary to consistently respond to possible attacks, reserving room for maneuver and demonstrating readiness for constructive negotiations.

In the long term, the two countries have points of convergence of security interests. First, the Korean card has not yet been played. After the resolution of the Iranian issue, the DPRK remains the only nuclear state disturbing the international order. Secondly, against the background of the destabilization of the Middle East, the problem of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of international terrorists is becoming increasingly serious.

Today, the current US administration objectively has neither the time nor the political will to resume active cooperation with Russia. The events of recent years, starting with operations in Libya in the 2011 year and ending with the annexation of the Crimea in the 2014 year, have finally undermined trust between countries.

In 2017, Barack Obama will leave his post, and a new head of state will enter the White House. So far, none of the main candidates have been set up for a new “reset”. Thus, Obama’s March statement is more likely a confirmation of the president’s commitment to nuclear disarmament policies announced by him in Prague’s 2009 year, rather than an expression of openness to dialogue with Moscow.
Author:
Originator:
http://politicaexterna.ru/2016/07/start/
Photos used:
Ian Abbott / Flickr
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 12 July 2016 05: 43
    +10
    Obama then called, but I would have sent him. Only he did not call me, here is an ambush.
    1. Shick
      Shick 12 July 2016 07: 20
      +1
      do not be a diplomat to you)
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 12 July 2016 13: 35
        0
        Observer2014
        And what about the treaty babbled in Washington? What is not all OK with the delivery of nuclear patent? That's why they immediately remembered all sorts of contracts.

        You, Sergey, well done! You are looking right at the root of the US nuclear disarmament initiative with Russia!
        For the United States, this is just a TACTICAL move to achieve the US Strategic Objectives in their planned US war against Russia. Washington is by no means removing the war from the agenda between the United States and Russia by Washington. The question is about removing for themselves the risks of a retaliatory nuclear strike from the Russian Federation.

        Let me remind you, in addition, that the possibility of a transient reconstruction of its nuclear weapons in the United States is provided by Washington by the presence of almost completely all Soviet corresponding uranium weapons stocks from Russia, exported from the Russian Federation to the United States - by personal "secret" agreement from the people under Yeltsin.

        See “Gore-Chernomyrdin Uranium Transaction 1 / 4”. Part 1. Upload date: 5 Sep 2010

        Gore-Chernomyrdin nuclear deal. The sale by Russia of the USA of its stock of weapons-grade uranium is a betrayal of national interests. The position of the Revival Party of National Social Justice in Russia - a criminal case should be instituted upon the conclusion of this transaction. Persons guilty of betraying the national interests of Russia must be punished in accordance with the gravity of the crime.

        See “Gore-Chernomyrdin Uranium Transaction 2 / 4”. Part 2. Upload date: 5 Sep 2010
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 12 July 2016 13: 49
          +1
          See “Gore-Chernomyrdin Uranium Transaction ¾”. Part 3. Upload date: 5 Sep 2010

          See “Gore-Chernomyrdin Uranium Transaction 4 / 4”. Part 4. Upload date: 5 Sep 2010
          1. Operator
            Operator 12 July 2016 14: 20
            +1
            At the beginning of the 1992 year, Russia owned about 1400 tons of weapons-grade uranium and 155 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, the United States - 600 and 85 tons, respectively.

            The sale of 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium in the United States was made after it was diluted with natural uranium to the 4,4 percent level in order to make it impossible to use in nuclear weapons.

            The Gor-Chernomyrdin deal was carried out for two reasons - the establishment of approximate parity with the United States for weapons-grade uranium reserves and a reduction in the stockpile of unpromising (compared to plutonium) fissile material for nuclear weapons.

            At the same time, the Yeltsin-Chernomyrdin government caused economic damage to Russia by selling 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium for 11,9 billion dollars at its market value of 405 billion dollars, based on a calorific value equivalent to 675 million tons of oil at a price of 80 dollars per barrel.

            https://regnum.ru/news/1733223.html
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 12 July 2016 15: 52
              0
              Operator
              The sale of 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium in the United States was made after it was diluted with natural uranium to the 4,4 percent level in order to make it impossible to use in nuclear weapons.

              The fact of the matter is that in the former USSR this was done locally not everywhere and not always. Even the Americans wrote about this!
              See David Hoffman "Dead Hand": The Unknown History of the Cold War and Its Dangerous Legacy / David Hoffman; per. from English - M .: Astrel: ORPUS, 2011 .-- 736 p.
              The collapse of the USSR caused the loss of control over weapons of mass destruction. The once powerful Soviet empire turned into a kind of supermarket that sells enriched uranium and strains of deadly bacteria and does not know the end of customers. The Americans tried to quickly intercept all this for themselves.
    2. Pavel1
      Pavel1 12 July 2016 07: 28
      +3
      March 31, in anticipation of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Barack Obama called on Russia to further reduce its nuclear arsenals.


      America is looking for all the fools, everyone is arming themselves, Nat climbs almost into the window, and we need to disarm. I hope our minds will send him away.
      However, it is not in the interests of Moscow to allow a return to a protracted tough confrontation, which once already led to the collapse of its economic system.

      how stupid, a common cliche for general use, that "confrontation" can cause a collapse continues to rotate among such "observers." It was not confrontation and sanctions that had a positive effect on the economy that caused the "collapse", to the enemy, the internal an enemy who, like a worm, undermined the foundations of our state.
    3. Vend
      Vend 12 July 2016 10: 03
      +1
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Obama then called, but I would have sent him. Only he did not call me, here is an ambush.

      Why send. It is necessary to put forward counter conditions that will reduce US ambitions and interference in the affairs of other states, for their own benefit, to nothing. I think it will be so. And Ukraine will be featured there, and Transnistria, and maybe something else that we don’t know. Geopolitics is a complicated thing. There is not enough information.
  2. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 12 July 2016 05: 45
    +14
    At the moment, to reduce our nuclear potential for suicide is equal .. Send them to a hot hair dryer with this WWS
    1. Shick
      Shick 12 July 2016 07: 21
      -2
      what are you saying ?? these are our partners, as they are called in the Kremlin
    2. mitya24
      mitya24 12 July 2016 08: 43
      +3
      I agree. But what happens? YOU (Russian) warheads cut, and we will move a couple of battalions to your border.
  3. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 12 July 2016 05: 46
    +12
    You can’t believe the USA, you can’t !!! As long as there is a risk of getting an answer from us, they will behave exactly.
  4. Bramb
    Bramb 12 July 2016 05: 49
    +8
    Old Anglo-Saxon tactics: say one thing, do another.
    Talk about disarmament and peace, and prepare for war and capture.
    Why ask empty questions of the level "is it worth believing the Anglo-Saxons"? Just study history and all such questions will disappear by themselves.
  5. EFA
    EFA 12 July 2016 05: 50
    +6
    Flirting with the United States will not lead to anything good; they, as before, will not give a damn about the agreements, and even more so, with Russia. I believe that you need to adhere to current agreements and think, first of all, about yourself and your safety.

    This is especially true against the backdrop of statements by NATO’s chief officers and the alliance’s corresponding actions. No agreements leading to a reduction, at least not in our time, otherwise shut up.
  6. Sergey333
    Sergey333 12 July 2016 05: 53
    +5
    How much of this junk in the photo! Fall and fall! And at the same time we want to agree on disarmament with them? They themselves do not write off anything, they use the presence of deserts, where nothing itself decays, but lies for decades in its original form.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 12 July 2016 16: 00
      +1
      Quote: Sergey333
      How much of this junk in the photo! Fall and fall!
      fool

      The fact that in the photo it really is junk, and will never fall because it will never take off. Photo from the cemetery of planes flying off their resource. In the best case, they are suitable for disassembly for parts.
      And by the way, in English-speaking forums, they do not gloat when something falls in Russia.
  7. PKK
    PKK 12 July 2016 05: 56
    +7
    Already reduced, enough. The nuclear weapons are the main deterrent to NATO, so it’s advisable to build up these weapons. Moreover, many warheads will be needed for updated PIONEERS and STYLES.
  8. Revolver
    Revolver 12 July 2016 05: 58
    +5
    With Trump, as they say, options are possible. And with Clintonsha without options - she designed the foreign policy of the Obama administration, and this policy will be continued.

    Hillary for Prison 2016!
    1. Bramb
      Bramb 12 July 2016 06: 08
      +1
      And here is Clinton ?!
      Or what, under some president, the states disarmed? Or granted the rights to the Indians? Or apologized to Iraq and compensated them with trillions of stolen goods?)))))
      Leave your empty rhetoric for Ukrainians: these slaves will believe their master. We do not need to rub this bullshit here.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 12 July 2016 06: 12
        +3
        Quote: Bramb
        And here is Clinton ?!

        Nagan, and I told you, write in Russian! Those in English do not boom at all, you think you're campaigning for her laughing
        1. Bramb
          Bramb 12 July 2016 06: 24
          +4
          In Russian.
          Clinton will NOT become president. And here is she and the clownish agitation?
          In the states, everything has been painted for a long time. It was arranged for citizens by a circus: type, democracy and freedom of choice! )))))))
          Clinton has, by the way, a joint business with us, and much more.
          But all this is empty rhetoric.
          PS. Moreover, the gun is either thoughtlessly or deliberately lying. Politics, he says ... Politics has strategy and tactics. The strategy will NOT change in the states ever. No need to build illusions! They have an entire economy built on capture and colonies. Take them away - and that’s it! There is no Omerigi. Tactics can only delay one or another event, nothing more. For they have nowhere to go but to conquer someone else's. Politics-ah ...))
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 12 July 2016 06: 45
            0
            Quote: Bramb
            In Russian.
            Clinton will NOT become president. And here is she and the clownish agitation?

            You first translate what he wrote, then write!
            1. Bramb
              Bramb 12 July 2016 06: 50
              0
              You’re giving advice! )))
              Did you conclude that I didn’t translate one word in English? )))
              Your conclusion is wrong, young man. I immediately translated my work into English. For publication in magazines. This is customary if you are not in the know. Where can I translate one word! )))
              But he draws conclusions !!!
              leave this thing to: think. It is clearly not for you.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 12 July 2016 06: 44
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Those in English aren’t booming at all, you think you're campaigning for her

          For such I can translate

          Hillary in Prison 2016!lol





          Such are the stickers on cars now in fashion
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 12 July 2016 06: 55
              +6
              Quote: Bramb
              Made a statement - justify. You can’t - shut up the bread!

              Firstly, I didn’t drink with you, and judging by your manners, this will not even happen virtually.
              Secondly, it is not accepted to be rude on the site here.
              Then accept the assurances of my complete disrespect to you.fool
  9. SeregaBoss
    SeregaBoss 12 July 2016 06: 08
    +2
    The "reset" from the very first days was doomed to "overload", that in principle, the states themselves achieved their exclusivity in the sphere of the arbiter of destinies and the hotbed of democracy, according to simple rules, the "overload" should be followed by "disintegration", the disintegration of relations with the Russians already exists , we are waiting for the collapse of the union of the United States.
  10. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 12 July 2016 06: 09
    +3
    "Is such a statement really an invitation to cooperation or a rhetorical reception?"
    But why ask about what has long been proven practice long ago? Any agreements, treaties with the USA and NATO are not worth the paper on which they are written. Accordingly, yes, definitely a rhetorical device.
    Even at the proposal stage, they know how they will deceive, circumvent this agreement, and we know that.
    Well, well, let's play another show for the Papuans who believe in "democracy" ... yes
  11. Knowing
    Knowing 12 July 2016 06: 19
    +1
    In general, the semi-ruberoid has a desire to "inherit" in the end ... laughing
  12. Abbra
    Abbra 12 July 2016 06: 29
    +3
    I have been analyzing this crap for years, dear colleagues, and come to a strange conclusion ... Obama, in my humble opinion, is a very good president. And he tried to do all the good with us, starting with the reboot, ending with all kinds of deterrence of the one behind him. And behind him - an angry and muddy crowd called the military-industrial complex and hawks.

    God forbid, if Clintonsha comes to power. This one has EVERYTHING written on her face. If in BROTH-2 a famous actor, having shot a Ukrainian bandit in the toilet, said a well-known phrase, then ETA would start World War III without hesitation. And at the same time, like any empty-headed woman, he says to himself: - And for the blowjob in the White House - you will answer! And IT will turn to any state.
    1. midivan
      midivan 12 July 2016 09: 26
      +2
      Quote: Abbra
      I have been analyzing this crap for years, dear colleagues, and come to a strange conclusion ... Obama, in my humble opinion, is a very good president.

      you did not make a reservation? maybe he is a good person? how can you be a good president? if others decide for you and often not related to the legitimate authority
  13. V.ic
    V.ic 12 July 2016 06: 31
    +1
    Skin color and gender of the mattress president for the Russian Federation is the tenth thing! We have "our" enemies of the Russian Federation in the upper echelons of the scattered power. Once the USSR was already "bent" by the "tovarischi" Yakovlevs, Shevardnadze, Gorbachevs, Yeltsins "and other trash ... An internal enemy is always more dangerous than an external one!
  14. midivan
    midivan 12 July 2016 06: 39
    +3
    March 31, in anticipation of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Barack Obama called on Russia to further reduce its nuclear arsenals
    somewhere I already heard this, only someone disposed of it and even built a station working on scrap, and someone put it in the basement, we won’t show anyone with a finger, otherwise the niggas think it's a bad gesture
  15. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 12 July 2016 06: 39
    +1
    In general, I summarize - for that Obama will not undertake, everything at random! Either he doesn’t know how to do anything, or his hands grow from the backside, or both.
  16. VICTOR-61
    VICTOR-61 12 July 2016 07: 04
    +3
    We can’t reduce nuclear weapons, since we are alone opposed to the NATO bloc. And because we have nuclear weapons, we are still not attacked by NATO. The most reliable deterrent.
  17. Observer2014
    Observer2014 12 July 2016 07: 08
    +3
    And what did Washington so much about the treaty? That everything is not OK with the delivery of nuclear patent? That's why they immediately remembered all sorts of contracts.
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 12 July 2016 12: 46
      0
      Observer2014
      And what about the treaty babbled in Washington? What is not all OK with the delivery of nuclear patent? That's why they immediately remembered all sorts of contracts.
      You, Sergey, well done! You are looking right at the root of the US nuclear disarmament initiative with Russia!
      For the United States, this is just a tactical move to achieve the strategic objectives of the United States in their planned war with Russia. Washington is by no means removing the war from the agenda between the United States and Russia by Washington. The question is about removing for themselves the risks of a retaliatory nuclear strike from the Russian Federation.
      Let me remind you, in addition, that Washington's ability to quickly recreate its nuclear weapons in the United States was ensured by Washington by the presence of practically all Soviet corresponding uranium reserves from Russia, exported to the United States by a personal "secret" agreement from the people, almost completely under Yeltsin.
  18. Million
    Million 12 July 2016 07: 09
    +1
    Already reduced, that's enough!
  19. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 12 July 2016 08: 07
    0
    The nuclear umbrella of the Russian Federation is the basis of our security and peace. There should not be any bidding with the USA and no discussion of this topic at all. Otherwise, there will be many times more problems.
  20. aba
    aba 12 July 2016 08: 33
    0
    Firstly, the Korean card has not yet been played.

    Yeah! A new goal for democratization is emerging
  21. nekot
    nekot 12 July 2016 09: 33
    +1
    "After the resolution of the Iranian issue, the DPRK remains the only nuclear state of concern to the international order."
    But what about the United States? Or is it just that the author of the article believes that the states are the "international order"?))
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 12 July 2016 10: 06
      0
      The Anglo-Saxon elite has a sore head.
  22. NordUral
    NordUral 12 July 2016 10: 06
    0
    No cuts, just upgrade!
  23. sieras
    sieras 12 July 2016 11: 37
    0
    But doesn’t NATO want to disarm? ok, Russia and the USA let's say they destroy all their nuclear missiles so what? and those missiles that the Americans have already hid on all the bases on the planet, what to do with them? NATO budget is how many times higher? at 11, like, well, rightly, one Russian missile against 11 NATO missiles, etc.