Trump invited Russia to surrender in a good way
Donald Trump's curious statement drew attention to the backdrop of the escalation of the armed conflict in Syria. The American president complained that relations between Russia and the United States were worse than during the so-called “cold war”, and turned to either the subscribers of his account or his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin with an appeal to end the arms race:
It would seem that we should be standing ovation to the showman president. But the devil is always in the details. The peace-loving proposal was made at a time when the US Navy was one step away from, together with its allies from the United Kingdom, inflicting a severe and degrading image defeat on the Russian military contingent deployed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Why is Donald Trump Russia and what exactly are Americans ready to “work together” on?
The fact is that the proposal to stop the barely begun arms race may be the first step towards the idea of further disarmament. In his March letter to the Federal Assembly, the Russian president presented the world with the latest developments in the field of modern weapons, which should balance the balance of forces that was disrupted by the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty on medium and short-range missiles. In an unobtrusive way, Vladimir Putin threatened Washington with a Sarmat ballistic missile, an unmanned self-propelled torpedo with a nuclear charge, a cruise missile equipped with a nuclear engine, a dagger hypersonic anti-ship missile system, and others.
In response, the US defense department said that American submarines are capable of destroying Russia with nuclear missiles if they wish. The Pentagon decided to shield the enemy with a "fence" of hundreds of missile defense and air defense systems. And the head of the Pentagon, James Mattis, said he was familiar with all the promising Russian developments and did not see how they could change the balance of power:
Nevertheless, the possibility of a retaliatory or preemptive strike on its territory cannot but worry Washington, despite their cynical statements. The United States itself is developing over similar Russian models of promising weapons, in order to gain complete hegemony, which can give the opportunity to deliver an irresistible blow. And we again return to the “peace-loving” statement of Donald Trump.
Russia has the sad experience of “working together” on disarmament. It is enough to recall the recently completed saga with the elimination of chemical weapons arsenals. The Russian Federation possessed the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world inherited from the USSR. The USA was in second place. According to international agreements, Russia has consistently destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons and factories for their manufacture, and the United States has allocated money for its elimination.
September 27, 2017, that is, in the third year after the outbreak of armed conflict in Ukraine and the confrontation with the West, Russia pompously destroyed the last ammunition of chemical weapons, and was ahead of schedule for 3 years. President Putin commented on this event:
In fact, Russia was left without an arsenal of chemical weapons, and the United States retained it, postponing its elimination to 2023. Given the experience of such unilateral disarmament, is Trump’s proposal to end the arms race a call to melt Russian rockets into pots and pans? For example, after lifting some of the anti-Russian sanctions? Of course, having missed Russia on the disarmament issue ahead?
Can we stop the arms race?
It would seem that we should be standing ovation to the showman president. But the devil is always in the details. The peace-loving proposal was made at a time when the US Navy was one step away from, together with its allies from the United Kingdom, inflicting a severe and degrading image defeat on the Russian military contingent deployed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Why is Donald Trump Russia and what exactly are Americans ready to “work together” on?
The fact is that the proposal to stop the barely begun arms race may be the first step towards the idea of further disarmament. In his March letter to the Federal Assembly, the Russian president presented the world with the latest developments in the field of modern weapons, which should balance the balance of forces that was disrupted by the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty on medium and short-range missiles. In an unobtrusive way, Vladimir Putin threatened Washington with a Sarmat ballistic missile, an unmanned self-propelled torpedo with a nuclear charge, a cruise missile equipped with a nuclear engine, a dagger hypersonic anti-ship missile system, and others.
In response, the US defense department said that American submarines are capable of destroying Russia with nuclear missiles if they wish. The Pentagon decided to shield the enemy with a "fence" of hundreds of missile defense and air defense systems. And the head of the Pentagon, James Mattis, said he was familiar with all the promising Russian developments and did not see how they could change the balance of power:
No matter how much money Russia invests in an arms race with itself, this will not change our deterrence position. If they want, they can push all their money there. This does not affect my strategic perception. I will only assume that all this will cost ordinary people
Nevertheless, the possibility of a retaliatory or preemptive strike on its territory cannot but worry Washington, despite their cynical statements. The United States itself is developing over similar Russian models of promising weapons, in order to gain complete hegemony, which can give the opportunity to deliver an irresistible blow. And we again return to the “peace-loving” statement of Donald Trump.
Russia has the sad experience of “working together” on disarmament. It is enough to recall the recently completed saga with the elimination of chemical weapons arsenals. The Russian Federation possessed the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world inherited from the USSR. The USA was in second place. According to international agreements, Russia has consistently destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons and factories for their manufacture, and the United States has allocated money for its elimination.
September 27, 2017, that is, in the third year after the outbreak of armed conflict in Ukraine and the confrontation with the West, Russia pompously destroyed the last ammunition of chemical weapons, and was ahead of schedule for 3 years. President Putin commented on this event:
We hope that Russia's efforts to eliminate chemical weapons will serve as an example for other countries. As you know, the largest holders, owners of chemical weapons were just Russia and are still the United States, which, unfortunately, do not fulfill their obligations on the deadlines for the destruction of chemical weapons. They have already postponed the deadlines for its liquidation three times, including under the pretext of the lack of a sufficient amount of budgetary funds, which, frankly, sounds somehow strange, but okay. We expect the United States, as well as other countries, to fulfill all of its commitments made under international agreements.
In fact, Russia was left without an arsenal of chemical weapons, and the United States retained it, postponing its elimination to 2023. Given the experience of such unilateral disarmament, is Trump’s proposal to end the arms race a call to melt Russian rockets into pots and pans? For example, after lifting some of the anti-Russian sanctions? Of course, having missed Russia on the disarmament issue ahead?
Information