Bait for Russia: why NATO is ready to abandon missiles in Europe

The mention of this has already been included in the draft communiqué of the summit in advance, and there is no particular doubt that it will be adopted.

Victor Kuzovkov

Many Western observers believe that the decision should ease tensions with Moscow and be a bright gesture of goodwill ahead of the June 16 meeting between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden in Geneva. The American president himself, who is now in Brussels as part of his first foreign visit, will also take part in the summit. And this, again, is very symbolic precisely in the context of his imminent meeting with Putin.

Here, in Russia, this news was taken very positively. And this is natural - it seems that Washington is quite transparently demonstrating its desire to achieve some positive progress in relations with Moscow, and is even ready to make certain concessions for this. More precisely, if you look closely at this issue in a military and historical context, at the huge concessions. This means that many people think that the long-awaited warming in relations is not far off.

And at first glance, everything is exactly like that. But still, let's not rush - there are serious reasons to think that the current NATO initiative is nothing more than a decoy for Putin. But first things first…

First of all, let us note that the deployment in Europe of American missiles with nuclear warheads, whether ballistic or cruise, would be very painful for Russia. We all remember the times of the Cold War, when American Pershing-2 missiles and land-based cruise missiles were deployed in Western Europe. The flight time of ballistic "Pershing" to Moscow was about six minutes, and the accuracy allowed a nuclear warhead to be guaranteed to destroy, for example, the Kremlin or the building of the USSR Ministry of Defense. In fact, even then these missiles were perceived as a revolver put to the temple of Soviet Russia.

Now, alas, the situation has become even worse. If only because since then NATO has seriously approached the borders of Russia. Located somewhere in Poland, the modern ballistic heirs of the Pershing will easily reach the Urals, if necessary, in the first ten minutes, turning into ruins the military, industrial and transport potential of the entire western and Ural regions of Russia.

And if so, then it is obvious even to the blind that such a decision is extremely beneficial to Russia. And even if we are skeptical about the prospect of a real nuclear war between Russia and the United States, simply economizing on military measures to counter US missiles in Europe could be a huge diplomatic victory for Moscow.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the mood in the Russian expert community is close to euphoric. The State Duma spoke very positively about this initiative, and military commentators are full of restrained optimism. And everything looks like the Americans are finally tired of confrontation themselves and are ready to negotiate something with Putin. Which makes all of us, of course, good and pleasant in advance ...

It is separately mentioned that the implementation of this initiative may become a prologue to the resumption of a serious dialogue on further disarmament. Now, when several fundamental treaties in the field of international security have been torn apart (moreover, due to the fault of the Americans) or are close to that, the sudden peace initiative of official Washington may imply, among other things, the beginning of the reverse process - the signing of new fundamental treaties, like those torn apart by the United States INF Treaty or ABM Treaty. Believe it, of course, with great difficulty, because the past few years have not given the slightest reason for optimism. And yet, let's agree, you can see a glimmer of hope here ...

But let's not rush into victorious reports. In fact, the initiative in question looks like the perfect bait. A kind of candy for Putin, after swallowing which, he should become more kinder and rush to sign the agreements developed and put on the negotiating table by the American side.

First of all, let us note once again that the initiative discussed at the summit in Brussels really touches on a very delicate topic for Moscow. And this can have two interpretations - one positive, which is mentioned above, and the other negative. That is, in the context of a diplomatic game, the goal of which should be to globally deceive a negotiating partner, the bait should be something like this - appetizing, beautiful, wrapped in a shiny candy wrapper. After all, Putin, no matter how you treat him, is far from a novice in politics, and it is not so easy to feed him something second-rate, if at all possible - this is not Gorbachev, after all.

The trick of this initiative is that the Americans, while refusing to deploy missiles with nuclear warheads in Europe, are not actually refusing anything at all. That is, they abandon intentions that still need to be fulfilled - to find states that are willing to put their neck under the Russian nuclear ax, to process public opinion there, then spend huge sums of money on the missiles themselves, the infrastructure for them, transportation, maintenance, security, and so on. If all this had already been implemented earlier, and the United States would have abandoned missiles actually deployed in Europe, then it would be possible to say with confidence - yes, Washington is indeed making serious concessions to Moscow, donating something material.

For example, suppose that instead of intentions, albeit the best ones, the United States would declare its readiness to dismantle the European echelon of its strategic missile defense system. And they would put on the negotiating table such a real trump card - the rejection of a system that really destroys the strategic balance in the world. A real rejection of what has already been embodied in metal, on which many billions have already been spent, which is indeed a headache for the Kremlin “here and now”.

Would this be a real concession? Yes, absolutely. Would this improve bilateral relations between states? There is no doubt about it. Is the abandonment of intentions, albeit not very peaceful, a full-fledged alternative to such an initiative? Unfortunately no. With all the desire to believe in the best ...

It is also worth adding here a very important point - the low negotiability of the United States. Yes, it was this state that consistently rejected agreements that were the cornerstones in the global security system. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was abandoned just like that, for no apparent reason, citing an imaginary threat from Iran. The Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles was also abandoned, having found a dubious reason - allegedly, Moscow had developed a ballistic missile capable of flying further than the INF Treaty allowed. All the proposals of the Russian side to study the issue, provide some evidence and so on were simply ignored.

So, in fact, this is of fundamental importance. If such a "partner" in negotiations refuses to do something real, then his decision has no retroactive effect. But a certain communique, alas, can easily be shelved and in a year or two you can say that the situation has changed. You can again make Iran guilty - it's no stranger to it ...

One way or another, I sincerely hope that the Kremlin also understands the real cost of the NATO initiative. Yes, that's good, very good. But only in one case - if the good intentions of our negotiating partners are realized. If they turn out to be paper on which NATO strategists will then peel the herring, then they are worth a penny.

And, once again, we note the American lack of negotiation. Alas, even the signing of legally binding documents does not actually guarantee anything to us. Yes, the communiqué can turn into a treaty over time. But contracts, as we know, only work if they are beneficial to the Americans ...

Therefore, of course, I would like something more realistic. Refusal from the European missile defense echelon, for example. Or at least a legally formalized refusal to further expand NATO and curtail all programs aimed at this - rather weak, of course, but at least something ...

And a separate question, of course, is what the Americans want to achieve from us? It is clear that Biden wants a successful meeting with the dreaded Putin. He needs to show the voter - look, I went into the cage with the lion and came out wrapped in a lion's skin. Ok, we understand this, Putin probably understands this, journalists and experts from all over the world understand this. But does this mean that the Russian side must trade in state interests in order to "make a picture" for Biden's image-makers?

In addition, there is great doubt that Biden is driving for the picture. No, it looks like Washington needs Russia after all. For what? There is only one rational version - to be friends against Beijing. All the rest, frankly, for the Americans unnecessarily, with the rest they themselves will cope.

And if so, then as if reconciliation in the West did not become the beginning of aggravation in the East. We definitely don't need it.