National interest magazine in Russian. The American magazine The National Interest called Russia the most powerful military force in Europe
A group of experts discussed US-Russian relations at the Center national interests. Given the toxic relationship between Washington and Moscow, the likelihood that the two great powers could engage in a military confrontation increases, writes Dave Majumdar in the publication The National Interest.
A few days ago, the United States expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, believed to be undercover intelligence officers, as punishment for the alleged attempted poisoning of a fugitive in the United Kingdom. former employee GRU of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, says the publication of the American publication The National Interest. — The Kremlin has promised to take retaliatory measures, and this means that relations between Russia and the United States have sunk to their lowest point. low level since the end of the Cold War.
"I don't think many of us would doubt that we are, in fact, dealing with a new Cold War," Dimitri Simes, president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, said at a luncheon this morning. March 26 panel discussion. - Currently cold war may differ in many aspects from the previous Cold War.
First, there is a completely different balance of power. Secondly, there is no attractive ideology on the Russian side. Third, Moscow is much more open to the West than it was during the original Cold War. There are also fewer rules, and perhaps more, I think, emotions on both sides, and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides."
Possibility of conflict
According to Simes, who recently visited Russia, the Kremlin does not enjoy much respect in Washington, but similar feelings find their way in Moscow. mirror reflection. In fact, tensions between the two nuclear-armed great powers are so great that analysts are openly talking about the possibility of an armed clash between Moscow and Washington. In response to Simes' question about the likelihood of any kind of potential military confrontation (though not necessarily nuclear) in Syria or elsewhere on a scale of one to ten, with ten being high probability conflict, a group of experts on Russia came to the conclusion that there was a real possibility of military confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
“My rating is a six,” George Beebe, director of intelligence and research studies, told the lunch crowd. national security Center for National Interests. “In my opinion, such a possibility most likely exists, but it is far from an inevitable option. Therefore, my rating is six - if we talk about a military clash between two countries that have the most capable nuclear forces, and this is an unacceptably high level of risk.”
Michael Kofman Researcher The Center for Naval Analyses, which also took part in the panel discussion held at the Center for the National Interest, agreed that the risk of a military clash between Russia and the United States does exist. Kofman's risk score is six or seven. “We will get there within a certain period of time,” Kofman noted.
If some crisis arises in which both the United States and Russia are involved, then the danger of confrontation becomes very high. “In times of crisis or confrontation, this option, in my opinion, is very likely,” Kofman said. — This confrontation does not appear like thunder among clear skies. First there has to be a crisis, and then people make choices, and their choices can lead to them shooting at each other.”
Paul Saunders, executive director of the Center for the National Interest, who spoke with Beebe and Kofman, doesn't think military confrontation with Russia is inevitable. Saunders rates the risk at about a five, but considering the stakes of a potential nuclear confrontation, he believes the situation is extremely dangerous. “I don’t think it’s very likely, but it’s still an unacceptable risk in my opinion,” Saunders said.
Putin has a strong position
Although many in Washington believe Russia will fold if the United States actively opposes the Kremlin, the March 18 Russian presidential election appears to indicate that Russian President Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers expected. As Beebe, a former head of the Russian division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), noted, Putin received a significantly better result in the election than analysts expected.
"Concerning political power, then this is actually good news for Putin,” Beebe said. “He, in fact, achieved an excellent 70/70 result, which the Kremlin called its goal before the elections - 70% turnout, and 70% of the votes received by Putin. In reality, turnout was just over 67%, and just over 76% of voters voted for Putin.”
Simes said Putin's performance was better than expected in places where he has traditionally performed poorly, including Moscow and among Russians living abroad. Part of Putin's strong showing is due to the alleged Russian attack on Skripal, as Russians generally don't believe their government was involved.
Russian liberals actually performed extremely poorly in the presidential election, and part of that is because Russians “rallyed around the flag,” Beebe noted. He says part of the reason is that neither the United States nor Britain has provided concrete evidence that Russia carried out the attack. The information available to the public gives rise to very serious suspicions that Russia may be behind these events, Beebe said. However, this in itself is not proof, he added.
The idea that Russia was under siege by hostile foreign powers contributed greatly to the high voter turnout in the presidential election, which led to significantly greater support for Putin himself. “At the post-election special event for journalists, many representatives of the opposition, candidates and their proxies were present, and they all said: “In last days before the election we lost a lot of votes because of the British incident,” Symes said.
Moreover, the West's attempts to influence Russian youth have ended in complete failure. Saunders, who previously worked at the State Department, noted that one of America's goals in Russia in the 1990s was to win over young people and create an attractive image of the West. However, this did not happen. Russia's youth grew up in a period of relative prosperity at a time when Putin began to rebuild Russia's position abroad.
“They are among the people who most support Putin today,” Saunders emphasized. “This is largely due to the fact that they were formed during a period of relative prosperity, at the same time Russia was increasingly strengthening its role in international affairs.”
According to Beebe, during presidential elections in Russia there was no talk of electing a new president—Putin’s victory was predetermined. They were supposed to measure the level of political power of the Russian president. While Russian elections are neither free nor fair, the level of fraud in them is a testament to how popular the country's leadership is among the population. "By Russian standards“It was a relatively free election, and perhaps even fair,” Beebe said. - Everyone understands what this is correct results. This good sign for Putin in terms of his political power."
Melian Dialogue of Russia
With his political power secure, Putin can turn his attention to restoring Russia as a great power. The conclusion that Putin and the Kremlin elite drew from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the 1990s during a period of Moscow's weakness is that Russia must be strong. “(Putin) says Russia needs to be strong,” Beebe said. “If we boil it all down to one sentence, it would be: “The strong do what they want, and the weak get the suffering they deserve.”
According to Beebe, Russia's problem is that there is tension between its for various purposes. To have a strong economy, the Kremlin must loosen its control over society, which will weaken the power of the state, Beebe said. However strong army requires a strong economy, and this means that Russia will be forced to carry out these kinds of reforms. And a strong army is part of Russia’s own image as a great power. “He will need to find a balance, and this task cannot be called easy,” Beebe emphasized.
Given the situation in Russia, these competing factors are pushing Putin toward a more nationalist position emphasizing military power, Beebe said. And this, in turn, forces Russia to pursue a more confrontational policy. Therefore, according to Kofman, in the event of a crisis that pits Washington and Moscow against each other, the Russians will not timidly step aside and submit to the demands of the United States.
Russia was weak after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that period is long over. Russia today, with its modernized military, is much more confident than it was in the 1990s, and it is willing and ready to fight back against the United States.
The Kremlin's determination
According to Kofman, in last weeks The head of the Russian General Staff, General (Army) Valery Gerasimov, also warned the United States that Moscow would respond if its forces were attacked by the US military in Syria. As Kofman noted, Gerasimov, unlike most Russian political figures, does not make empty threats and strictly follows the instructions given to him by Russian President Vladimir Putin. “If the head of the Russian General Staff says something, but he needs to be listened to, because someone told him what he should say,” Kofman emphasized.
It would therefore be a mistake to assume that the Kremlin will simply give in to the United States at a critical moment, as many in Washington are inclined to believe based on their experience of dealing with a weak Russia in the early 1990s. “The Russians are pretty confident in their abilities, they are willing to fight back, and they have to make more and more efforts to withstand confrontation,” Kofman said. — People in the United States are very aggressive - they want to put pressure on Russia and push it back different ways, and this is a large system, striving only for its own reproduction, located in the place of the feedback loop.”
Forgotten lessons of the Cold War
And herein lies the danger of a conflict with the possessing nuclear weapons Russia. According to Kofman, the Washington national security community has largely forgotten the Cold War concept of nuclear deterrence and managing confrontation with a nuclear-armed rival.
Over the past 25 years, Washington has become accustomed to a world devoid of challenges from other great powers, a world where the main danger comes from terrorism. “People here have an immature, superficial understanding of great power confrontation,” Kofman said. “In fact, many people today do not even understand what a nuclear deterrence strategy and escalatory dynamics are. You often hear this kind of talk - we've been in the counter-terrorism/insurgency game for too long and people don't understand who they're dealing with when they're now playing for more high level. I hear this kind of talk all the time. These are all recipes for the type of interaction with another great power that existed in the period 1950-1960.”
Perhaps the American foreign policy establishment will indeed need a new version the Cuban Crisis of 1962 in order to fully understand how dangerous a confrontation with a rival nuclear great power could be. “I hate to say it, but maybe it would be a good thing, noted Kofman. “In fact, I think it would be helpful to have this kind of crisis for everyone to grow up.”
Despite the tensions, there is no new Cold War today, nor will there be a hot one, unless Washington continues to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in areas that Russia considers vital to itself.
As The National Interest writes, Russia is too much important country, to treat her as an enemy, and no one will benefit from a new conflict.
In the United States, Europe and Russia there is talk of a new Cold War, and the parties are expelling diplomats from their countries.
However, as The National Interest writes, despite this diplomatic spiral, there is no new Cold War, nor will there be a hot one, unless Washington provokes confrontation by pursuing an increasingly aggressive foreign policy in areas that Russia considers vital to itself.
As the publication continues, the first and perhaps most important element of the Cold War is missing today: ideological rivalry. America is still acting aggressively international arena, determined to transform the world in his own image.
In contrast, Vladimir Putin has clearly learned the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union. His government's greatest desire is to maintain control, to enforce Russian interests and state border security.
Secondly, foreign policy Russia is essentially conservative and restrained, although not pacifist, while US foreign policy, on the contrary, is characterized by intemperance and outright militarism. The United States sees NATO moving closer to Russian borders natural evolution global American dominance, while Moscow sees it as a threat.
“Washington would think the same thing if Mexico decided to join the Warsaw Pact.
According to the Americans, Moscow is greatly exaggerating this danger - after all, the idea of a European attack on Russia is similar to a scenario from a fantasy film. But the United States was not subject to numerous attacks from its European neighbors, unlike Russia,” the author of the article notes.
In his opinion, even the Syrian campaign shows the limits of Putin's ambitions. Moscow does not at all seek dominance in the Middle East, but simply wants to maintain a small role for itself in this region, which has long been dominated by America, which has created an alliance with Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Persian Gulf countries.
And only the “arrogant Washington politicians” who, through military intervention, overthrew the legitimate governments in three Middle Eastern countries and advocated the invasion of a fourth country, had the audacity to accuse Russia of aggressive plans, although it simply supported the legitimate government in one of these countries.
Also, the absence of signs of a Cold War is evidenced by the fact that the world is no longer bipolar. The Europeans have sided with America while the People's Republic of China supports Russia, but the division is much more complex nature than during the Cold War.
Some European states oppose anti-Russian sanctions, which are introduced at the initiative of the United States, as well as against other American initiatives. And the PRC and Russia are friends by necessity, because they are brought together by Washington’s hostile attitude.
“Such an alliance (if it can be called an alliance) will be of little use if it is seriously tested. There is no “evil empire,” as President Ronald Reagan once called the Soviet Union and its satellites,” writes The National Interest.
And if there is any conflict, it is the eternal desire American politicians impose its will on everyone in the world, including on issues that have long been of interest to Russia.
As the publication concludes, Russian-American relations can be pulled out of the current tailspin, but for this the United States needs to stop interfering in order to assist its foreign friends. Washington also needs to end the diplomatic practice of mirror responses.
Additionally, the United States must address the Kremlin's security concerns and stop NATO expansion. In exchange, Russia will have to give up its support for Donbass.
You need to understand that Russia will not return Crimea, since it is historically part of Russia, so the United States and Europe must recognize this and lift sanctions if Moscow stops undermining territorial integrity Ukraine.
“The state of Russian-American relations is disgusting, but this is not a cold war. Washington must ensure that relations do not deteriorate further.
Russian Federation- this is too important a country to be treated as an enemy. No one will benefit from a new conflict, both hot and cold,” the American publication sums up.