Krasny-Volny wrote:These are not new.
I watched an interview from 2017 when President Putin basically repeated similar talking points. His major concerns, which he keeps repeating year after year, in every single interview I've watched in 2017, 2018, and then in 2020, are:
1. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union they would not expand NATO into Eastern Europe. They broke this promise. Russia doesn't actually care if Poland/Hungary/Romania joins NATO for domestic reasons, but for the reason that the US may then move strategic weapons into those countries, within easy striking distance of Moscow. It's the same reason the US didn't want nukes on Cuba in 1962, and the way current crisis is portrayed in Russia is eerily similar to the way the Cuban Missile Crisis was portrayed at the time in the states.
2. Going hand in hand with the above, the US placed strategic missile systems in both Romania and Poland after those countries became NATO member states. Putin's worst fears were becoming realized. He suspects Ukraine's next up for NATO membership, and the missiles will then appear there - less than a day's drive from Moscow itself.
2. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union that it would continue to be a party to the ABM treaty, which by mutual agreement carried on as a binding treaty with the Soviet successor states. The treaty was an arms control treaty that limited the number and type of nuclear capable missile systems the US and the ex-Soviet Union were allowed to stockpile. In 2002, Bush Jr announced the US was unilaterally withdrawing from that treaty.
Putin wants a return to the status quo of the early 2000s - no missile systems in Eastern Europe from either side, by mutual agreement. Also, a return to the ABM treaty. He told Megyn Kelly in 2017 and 2018 that he's flexible on how this is carried out, and at least he's willing to talk with US leaders and NATO about it. However, he was miffed that they kept telling him to shove it rather than negotiate. Partly because they consider Russia an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship they don't want to negotiate with, and partly because Russia has no bargaining chip other than its own military force (which is frankly not up to snuff against the US and NATO).
Putin admitted both of these things during both his interviews - he said Russia's capabilities simply cannot match those of the US, and the US doesn't want to work with him because it considers him an enemy of democracy. But you can't blame him for reacting the way he did (and continues to do). The equivalent would be Russia pulling out of an arms control treaty with the US in 2002 without giving a reason, building up its nuke stockpile for the first time since the Cold War, and then putting ICBMs in Canada and Cuba, and hinting on a future military alliance with Mexico, meaning possibly ICBMs there too, right across the border from San Diego.
The US has slowly driven Russia into a corner from 2002 to present, 2021. And a cornered enemy may start acting irrationally.
I'm all in favor of letting Eastern European nations join NATO. I'm opposed to the way the US decided to pull out of the arms control treaty with Russia and start putting ICBMs in Poland and Romania, in effect starting a new arms race with the Kremlin. It wasn't Russia that fired the first proverbial shot here. And I'm opposed to the way the US has continually snubbed Putin, forgetting this man controls the second largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world. If we don't want the risk of billions of people dead, I see no harm in compromising with him. Compromise doesn't have to be appeasement and surrender. It doesn't have to mean abandoning US allies in Eastern Europe. But it does have to mean doing a deal with somebody the majority of Americans find unpleasant. That's politics.
I certainly hope Putin does not believe this as it is based on several things that are objectively false, and is a rather confused mess.
To start the US has ZERO ICBMs in Europe. Placing ICBMs on your opponents border makes no sense whatsoever either, as your opponent could easily destroy it on the ground or shoot it down in the boost phase, which is when it is most vulnerable.
ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. ICBMs are classified as missiles with a range of 5,500km or greater. As the name suggests they are usually placed very far away from the target, when land based literally on a different continent! Why the Hell would the US put an ICBM in Europe? To hit Australia or North America?
The entirety of US land based ICBMs, which have a range of 13,000 km are place in the Dakotas and Montana. That is very far away from Russia.
That is in the middle of North America.
We also have ICBMS on Submarines but these while their exact locations are classified are going to be in safe waters near the US.
Like the Northeast Pacific. Certainly not Ukraine.
MRBMs are a potential issue. They have a range of 1,000 to 3,000km. The issue with them is they can theoretically hit their targets with very little warning, from directions early warning radars do not generally focus . US and Russian early warning systems are focused north, as an intercontinental attack would come from over the North polar regions.
The US however has zero MRBMs in Europe. In fact we do not have any at all.
We destroyed all of them.
However with the collapse of the INF treaty, we could in theory place MRBMs in Ukraine (although it would be silly to put them right on the border) which would be a legitimate threat to Russia. However there is zero evidence we have any plans to do so.
But I did state from the beginning this is about the only thing in the mess of mostly completely unreasonable demands that has any validity.
We can and should work out a deal in which NATO and the CSTO would agree to not place or supply MRBMS, in striking distance of each other’s territory, in the North Atlantic region (Europe, the Mediterranean and Caribbean, parts of the Middle East).
That would address that issue, the US is seemingly quite willing to go along with such a thing. So all these theatrics, hysterics and threats by Russia are unnecessary and counterproductive.
Now onto to some other issues. First of all the US has not increased its total nuclear stockpile. And if we pissed of Mexico or Canada so badly they felt compelled to enter into an alliance against us that would be OUR FAULT for being so stupid…
And herein lies Russia’s problem. Russia’s worst enemy is the Kremlin. Russia does not seem to understand threats and claims to override the sovereignty of other places, do not make allies. They make enemies. Russia’s bad strategic position is self inflicted by Russia’s cartoonishly bad behavior. If Russia cleaned up its act, stopped with the threats, the assassinations, occupations, cyber attacks, etc. its situation would improve.
Before you say “but Iraq” Iraq was a self inflicted wound that seriously harmed our international standing. Russia does not have a monopoly on stupid, but they have been really pushing it.
Russia needs to stop blaming everyone else and consider why so many places view Russia badly. And completely change its behavior. And then things will improve. If Putin is unhappy with Russia’s strategic position he should stop making it WORSE!
Now on the “promises”, Russia should know better. The US is not a one man dictatorship. And we have the rule of law. There is international and US law governing treaties and international agreements. This is not secret, presumably Putin can read. Why he never bothered to look it up is beyond me, unless he is merely feigning ignorance.
Although that would still not make him right.
First of all a treaty must be in writing and signed. And made public. Secret treaties are illegal under international law.
If a U.S. president or Secretary of State verbally and in private says they will do something it is not the US agreeing to be forever bound by it. It is at best a gentleman’s agreement that solely applies to the person making the statement subsequent US administrations and presidents are obviously not bound by and have no obligation to follow.
For a treaty to count as a treaty under U.S. law it must also be ratified by the Senate. If a treaty lacks a withdrawal clause it is assumed it can be canceled by any party at any time as well.
Now on the ABM Treaty it was quite clear in the treaty either side could unilaterally withdraw it, after providing the required 6 months notice. That was EXPLICITLY in the text of the treaty. Putin is presumably literate. That is obviously NOT an agreement it would last forever.
That is what we ACTUALLY agreed to, as the US, to give them 6 months notice. We followed the treaty, and withdrew from it in clear accordance with what the treaty said we could do.
The black letter if the law obviously is superior any real or imagined private verbal statements made by past presidents.
However the systems in Romania and Poland are air defense systems. Not ICBMs, not MRBMs, not ballistic missiles at all. In theory we could stick a surface to surface missile in them, but it would make absolutely zero sense to do so. So the argument they somehow are going to be used for that purpose is not convincing. It would make far more sense to stick said missiles on a mobile vehicle. Placing them in a fixed location that is open and obvious would negate using them for a hard to detect surprise attack.
But obviously Putin should know this too. Given Putin should know better he is clearly making several bad faith arguments.
But to sum up, sure we should and are seemingly quite willing to engage in talks on limiting hypothetical future MRBM deployments in the North Atlantic area. Russia however need not resort to to these hysterics however to get this done, and it is not some immediate pressing issue as again we are taking hypothetical future weapons we currently do not possess and have no plans to deploy to Ukraine anyways.
And this still would not justify the other demands.