UNITED STATES (VOP TODAY NEWS) — The process developed in recent years around the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (DSRMD) finally came to its natural and long-expected decoupling.
The United States notified Russia of the suspension of its participation in the agreement, which was followed by a lightning-like mirror reaction from Moscow.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin demanded no longer initiate negotiations with the United States on disarmament and supported the Defense Ministry’s proposals on using Caliber missile-launched sea-based launchers and on creating ground-based systems of medium and short-range hypersonic missiles.
The news gave rise to numerous comments that, judging by the reaction of Moscow, it did not upset the actual liquidation of the largest treaty of its kind in history.
This point of view has even more the right to exist, given that the INF Treaty critically linked the hands of Russia, since, because of its limitations, it did not have the right to oppose anything to the elements of the missile defense system deployed in Europe.
This, in turn, raises a legitimate question: why did the States then take this step at all? Yes, Russia has found legal ways to weaken the “stranglehold” of the treaty, in particular, the same “Gauges”, but in general, the INF Treaty still imposed serious restrictions on Moscow and provided a number of problems. What is the point of Washington actually pouring water on the mill of a global political rival?
The versions about Trump, an agent of the Kremlin, of course, are funny, but still belong to the field of unscientific fantasy, but in reality the current owner of the White House is an American patriot, an experienced businessman and a very tough negotiator.
The solution to the decision of the United States, most likely, should be sought precisely in this.
The main victim of the decision of Washington, which entailed a cascade of Moscow’s retaliatory actions – and this is quite obvious – Europe. It was her who first of all covered the INF Treaty, and the new missiles that will be developed by Russia after the termination of the treaty will target her precisely.
However, even this is not the worst for Europe. The main problem is in another, much closer perspective.
Relationships between transatlantic partners in recent years are an extremely fascinating subject for observation.
It has been repeatedly noted that Europe – the old Europe – has chosen a rather original way of liberation from vassal dependence on the States. For a number of issues — those where primarily “ideologically sustained” rhetoric is required, she retains full commitment to American-European unity. But in the mass of topics, so to speak, of practical orientation, they stubbornly oppose an independent line that comes into frank contradiction with the interests and plans of the USA
The relation to Russia is the brightest example here. On the one hand, Europe, as before, mercilessly denounces the deeply undemocratic nature of the Russian political system and the ominous encroachments of the Kremlin, and also diligently fears the Russian aggression against the public.
On the other hand, there is a full-scale restoration of cooperation with Moscow, and for any attempts to prevent the construction of the Nord Stream 2, the Old World hits playful hands and firmly declares that this is a purely economic project.
By the decision to suspend US participation in the INF Treaty, Trump dealt a serious blow to this very EU-friendly construction.
Just because the threat of the appearance of Russian tanks in Estonia, Sweden or in any Netherlands is purely fantasy in nature – and in Brussels, Berlin and Paris they understand this perfectly well.
However, when new Russian medium-range and shorter-range missiles take up combat duty, this will already be a situation from which the EU has lost the habit of thirty years ’DMRM and it cannot reduce it, because NATO military bases and the same missile defense infrastructure on the European territory.
As a result, a very serious argument has emerged in Washington’s hands, with which Trump can now put pressure on partners, demanding both additional financial investments in NATO and in the US military-industrial complex (which they have so far successfully avoided) and certain political concessions including in relation to Russia.
In this section, the frankly upset, but surprisingly tidy and restrained rhetoric of Europe over the suspension of the INF. Loud statements and scathing slogans are good in situations that actually do not affect you. It is quite another thing when what is happening threatens you with real problems – then you inevitably begin to choose words.
A natural question arises: wasn’t it worth it for Russia to slow down with the suspension of the INF Treaty to preserve the freedom of maneuver for Europeans?
In the end, not only Nord Stream 2 and other Russian-European projects are at stake, but the fate of Europe as a whole is trying to break free from American dependence, and Russia is extremely interested in this.
The answer to this question is very simple.
The attainment (or restoration) of independence and sovereignty is impossible without overcoming the succession of challenges to each other more difficult, and no one can do it for the other.
In recent years, the EU has taken several serious steps along this path, and the forthcoming pressure from Washington after the actual liquidation of the INF Treaty will become another test in this series.
If Europe copes with the new attack of the Americans, Russia will only rejoice for it – and for itself. Well, if not, then Russia will have to sympathize with those who are forced to play forever with a brazen hegemony in a giveaway. There is no reason for Moscow to join in this game – the security of the country is more important than the phantom hopes of “they will appreciate our peacefulness and go forward”.
Therefore, the development of ground-based “Calibres” is the only correct answer to this challenge.
This article is written and prepared by our foreign editors writing for VOP from different countries around the world – edited and published by VOP staff in our newsroom.
Support The VOP from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.
We are the Voice of People — the only funding and support we get from people – we are categorically not funded by any political party, any government somewhere or from any grouping that supports certain interests – the only support that makes VOP possible came from you.
VOP Today News — Breaking news source, real-time coverage of the world’s events, life, politics, business, finance, economy, markets, war and conflict zones.
Contact us: email@example.com