A real gift! What is behind the US intention to extend the new START-3 treaty for 5 years at once

Analytics
A real gift! What is behind the US intention to extend the new START-3 treaty for 5 years at once
A real gift! What is behind the US intention to extend the new START-3 treaty for 5 years at once
27 January, 09:33
Despite the fact that the new US administration is not talking about any "reset" of relations with Moscow, Joe Biden's decision to extend the treaty proves that, having got rid of "our" Trump, America has become more pragmatic and rational.

Victor Kuzovkov

Probably the most surprising thing in the entire American electoral epic happened now, after its completion: the newly elected American President Joe Biden, without postponing the matter indefinitely, agreed to extend the current Treaty on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3) for five years. And, what is most surprising, without any additional conditions and agreements. The latter, however, still requires clarification, but nevertheless the probability of a favorable (for the whole world) development of events is very high. That is, it seems that the "anti-Russian" US President Biden agreed with the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry and at once canceled all the anti-Russian efforts of the "pro-Russian" President Trump.

For a better understanding of the situation, remember that Trump and his administration formally linked the extension of the treaty to the inclusion of other nuclear powers, primarily China. What is somewhat strange, you must admit that the PRC is an independent state that has long been implementing a policy of non-alignment. Of course, this primarily concerns participation in various kinds of military blocs and alliances, but it is also obvious that Beijing has strong nerves, and it is extremely problematic to force it to assume obligations that it considers unprofitable for itself. Moreover, it is strange to demand that Russia exert pressure on Beijing - Moscow has no leverage for this for a long time. That is, it is obvious that this was a formal reason the United States needed not to look too negative in the eyes of the whole world when it withdraws from the treaty, which is most important for world stability.

True, there were also informal demands that were voiced by both the American side and the Russian side. They concerned, first of all, new types of weapons announced by the Russian leadership in recent years. These are intercontinental ballistic missiles "Sarmat", capable of reaching the American continent from any direction (which means that completely devaluing the advanced areas of the American missile defense system, on which the Pentagon makes the main stake in a possible nuclear conflict with Russia), and the maneuvering hypersonic blocks "Avangard", which are an insoluble problem already for an on-site missile defense in the United States itself, and cruise missiles with an unlimited flight range "Burevestnik" - in general, practically all breakthrough solutions of the Russian defense industry in recent years. The Trump administration, of course, would like to include all these types of weapons in the updated START-3 treaty, while Russia had its own view on this matter.

The main problem is that Moscow was not going to go beyond the quantitative framework prescribed in the current START-3 treaty. That is, all these types of weapons were planned to be adopted not in addition to the existing ones, but with the replacement of the latter. That is, the Sarmat missiles were supposed to be put into service instead of other missiles, the Avangard warheads would change the existing warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the Burevestnik cruise missiles would replace other cruise missiles in service. That is, everything is absolutely honest and legal, in strict accordance with the spirit and letter of the agreement.

But Trump and his advisers did not like this position of Moscow. And we can say with almost complete certainty that it was these points of the proposed agreement that were the main ones for the Americans. Simply put, we were given to understand that either Russia would abandon its new developments, or America would initiate a new round of the nuclear arms race, which Moscow, given the current state of the Russian economy, would be very difficult to master.

Probably, one should not be surprised that Moscow, gritting its teeth, allowed a discussion of the inclusion of some new types of weapons in the updated text of the START III treaty. The details, of course, were not given to us, and we cannot say for sure whether it was a question of a quantitative restriction of some of them, or a complete ban on their production, but it is obvious that the twisting of the arms, undertaken by the Trump administration, did lead to certain results ... More or less reliably is known about Moscow's readiness to discuss two types of weapons: the Sarmat ICBM and the Avangard hypersonic maneuvering unit. And this was a very serious concession, the necessity of which many experts still have great doubts about.

At the same time, Moscow agreed to an automatic extension of the contract for just a year. During this time, it was assumed, the parties will be able to conduct full-fledged negotiations with the participation of experts and, probably, work out a joint position that suits both parties. But even this, the previous administration did not want to go: probably, the “all or nothing” position was more in line with the “Make America great again” concept, that is, America's greatness can be ensured by weakening its competitors and opponents.

And against this background, Donald Trump remains out of work and Joe Biden comes in his place. The one with whom only children in our country are not yet frightened - he is an insidious democrat from the "deep state", he staged a coup in Ukraine, and his son plundered almost all of Ukraine... And what is he doing? That's right - he makes a real gift to Moscow, while agreeing in absentia to extend the START-3 treaty for 5 years at once! Mystic? Fantasy? Let's not rush, but it sounds like it.

So what could be the problem? Moreover, some American politicians close to the new administration have already rushed to assure that there is no talk of any "reset" of relations with Moscow. Biden is in no hurry to sign up for “Vladimir’s friends” and is likely to continue a generally very tough course towards Moscow.

The reason for this softness is probably primarily because Biden does not need to prove anything to the American establishment. He does not bear the heavy burden of accusations of collusion with Moscow; American politicians of all stripes will accept any turn in relations with the Kremlin (naturally, within the framework of reasonable pragmatism) without undue suspicion. It was Trump, who really wanted to appear pragmatic and focused only on the interests of America, was forced to prove that all the rumors about his adventures in Moscow, recorded by Russian intelligence, are just rumors. And precisely by proving this, he was forced to defend, often, extreme positions in negotiations with Moscow.

This means that the American political system has proven its effectiveness and stability. Now we can say with confidence that even if Trump was indeed an agent of the Foreign Intelligence Service (and the probability was still not zero), at the highest government post he absolutely did not succeed in harming American interests. Probably, it is simply pointless to compare this with the Russian or even the Soviet political system: we all remember how tragically our country was affected by the efforts of some of its leaders, who were not even someone's agents, but simply were not competent enough for such a position.

Probably, this is a rather strange transition from the START III treaty to the functioning of the political systems of the state, but I am sure this is only at first glance. The technical aspects of the new strategic offensive arms treaty are still under discussion, and it is highly likely that the negotiations will be complex, lengthy and not very pleasant. Most likely, they can take all five years that we have, thanks to Biden, at our disposal, and this is not surprising - the topic is indeed very sensitive. But this, throughout the entire process, is precisely the technical and expert level of the discussion, the results of which we will most likely find out only at the moment of signing the agreement.

Now the main thing is that the parties have the will and desire to find a common language and sit down at the negotiating table. That America, having got rid of "our" Trump, has become a little more pragmatic and rational. That diplomat Biden, although he does not promise to make America great again, does not seem to want to turn the whole world into dust.

Well, how the stability of the political system and the turnover of power are connected with this, the reader, I am sure, will figure it out for himself….

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter