Game with fire

Yuri Fedorov - O unsuccessful messages

Comments of independent from the Kremlin and simply adequate experts regarding the message of Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly came to the same word - "Void". However, the international section of the message looks depressing even on its generally dull gray background. Putin managed not to say a word about the key problems facing Russian diplomacy: about the very spoiled relations with the West, a failed “turn to the East”, a new arms race; About Ukraine, which he with his own hands turned from a friendly country into a hostile, and so on. He did not say no coincidence. Even the current rulers of the Kremlin understands that there is nothing to say about foreign policy successes, and it is a shame to recognize failures. Therefore, Putin focused on ritual curses against Ankara - without this it is impossible today, and calls for the creation of a worldwide coalition to combat international terrorism.

The speaker, however, missed some piquant details. For example, he mentioned a special danger to Russia , which comes from militants in Syria, among whom "many immigrants from Russia, from the CIS countries. They receive money, weapons, accumulate strength. And if they get stronger ... they will inevitably be with us to sow fear and hatred, to explode, kill people." Well said, strongly, intelligibly. But these militants were in Syria in many ways because the FSB opened the "green corridor" , according to which the jihadists left the Caucasus to the Middle East. I wonder if the Russian president knows about this? Or does not attach importance: well, the Chekists of militants from Russia to Syria pushed out, where they are now "gaining strength", and they have to bomb Russian pilots with whom it does not happen. Each, in the end, has their own work.

Putin’s main thesis - “We need to discard all disputes and discrepancies, create one powerful fist, a single anti -terrorist front”, similar to the anti -Hitler coalition in the Second World War. Under the “discarding of disputes and discrepancies”, this refers to the recognition of the Russian annexation of Crimea and the lifting of sanctions, and ideally, a certain “New Yalta”, after which Russia will decide the fate of the world on equal terms with the United States, and the West recognizes its “legitimate interests”, that is, dominance in the former USSR and, preferably in central and eastern Europe.

The idea is primitive, but in the USA and Europe the voices of those who maintain cooperation with Putin Russia in the fight against terrorism have intensified despite the annexation of Crimea and a hybrid war in eastern Ukraine. To this end, Moscow, for example, was visited by French President Francois Hollande. You can understand it. He must expose and punish the terrorists who arranged a massacre in Paris, and their inspirers, to prevent the repetition of something like this in the future. To do this, it is necessary to use any opportunity, negotiate not only with the Kremlin, but also with the devil itself. Otherwise, his and his party awaits a political catastrophe. Voters do not forgive this.

However, calculations for cooperation with Moscow may not be justified. It was not by chance that Putin mentioned the Islamic State in the Epistle, preferring to talk about international terrorism in general. Radical weakening of the IG is not included in the interests of the Kremlin. In this case, the Syrian opposition, which today fights against Assad and the Islamic State, will direct all its forces against Damascus, and Moscow will have to choose between alternatives unattractive for it: either to refuse to support Assad, or, more and more drawing into the war, saving the bankrupt Syrian regime, finally contrast itself and the west and the most influential Arabic countries.

And most importantly: how fair are the analogies between the current situation and the Second World War, when the leading democratic states were forced to unite with the Stalinist regime in the struggle against the general threat? Can cooperation of Russia and the West against international terrorism, so far, are more likely to lead to the "New Yalta"?

Putin, perhaps, sees himself equal to St. Vladimir, Peter the First, Catherine the Great or even Stalin of the 21st century. But its potency is completely different

Nazi Germany posed a mortal danger to the UK, and for the United States a great threat than the USSR, a purely regional power before the war. The alliance with Moscow for London was a necessity, and for Washington, involved in the exhausting war in the Pacific, the optimal strategy. But the “Islamic state” and similar terrorist groups, with all their disgust, still cannot destroy European states and the United States cannot. And, finally, in Yalta and Potsdam the USA and Great Britain were forced to agree with the section of Europe - because the multimillion -dollar Stalinist armies were located in its very center; The Communists entered the governments of Italy and France, were ready to "take Paris by phone" and fought in Greece against the pro -Western government; Soviet troops stood in Northern Iran, and the emissaries of the NKVD recruited the leaders of the Kurdish tribes. In other words, Stalin at that time acted from the standpoint of strength.

Putin, perhaps, sees himself equal to St. Vladimir, Peter the First, Catherine the Great or even Stalin of the 21st century. But its potentials are completely different. The Kremlin can provoke a nuclear cataclysm in Europe, but is not able to defeat NATO and even Turkey in non -nuclear conflict, cannot decisively affect the outcome of the Civil War in Syria. Putin, however, mentioned the effectiveness of modern Russian weapons and the "invaluable practice of its use in combat conditions." But this practice is as “priceless” as the hunting for deer from helicopters equipped with heavy machine guns: Russian aviation in Syria bombing civilian population and armed groups that do not have anti -aircraft weapons. And, in general, no one managed to win in the counter -partisan war airstrikes.

In other words, the value of cooperation with Russia in Syria for the West is small, even if Moscow refuses the bombing of the “moderate” opposition and focuses on the fight against the “Islamic state”. Another thing is important. The existential threat to the West, like humanity as a whole, is generated by a nuclear war. Therefore, the categorical refusal of Moscow to establish any control over nuclear weapons in Europe and more than transparent hints of the Kremlin to the possibility of its use give rise to concern not less, and maybe greater than international terrorism. And the stronger Putin waving a nuclear baton, the tougher the West is forced to react to this. His leaders, with all their apparent softness, cannot and will not risk the survival of their countries.

Here is a specific example. A month ago, US Secretary of Defense , Astton Carter, said that six months ago it seemed absolutely incredible. "At sea, in the air, in space and in cyberspace, Russia behaves defiantly. And the most alarming: rattle of nuclear weapons, Moscow raises the question: whether Russian leaders respond to obligations arising from the requirements of strategic stability; norms prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons; and deep concern of the leaders of the nuclear eyeliner. Technologies that are most responding to Russian provocations: automatically controlled systems, a new strategic bomber and innovative technologies, for example, electromagnetic guns, lasers, new radio electronic warfare systems, wars in space and cyberspace, including very unexpected ones, which I will not talk about here. ”

American defense ministers do not pronounce such speeches without coordination with the president and do not throw words into the wind. Otherwise, they will have to explain with Congress. In other words, instead of the exhortations of the Kremlin, the United States goes to actions. But Putin’s message once again testifies that, being in a “different reality,” he does not understand that, playing with fire, in this case, nuclear, plays the fate of Russia.

Yuri Fedorov-Military-Political Expert