Worse than a crime

On April 1, the nuclear security summit ended in Washington. Neither President Putin nor a representative of the Russian Federation with a lower rank was in the hall

Just three examples (and there are many more in reality): North Korean missiles will not reach the United States, but they can explode halfway - this often happens to them (so far, however, without a nuclear filling, but for now). And even if a certain number of atomic megatons explode on the Korean Peninsula itself, on purpose or through negligence, the radiation will not reach America, and it will definitely reach the Russian Far East. If, God forbid, Jehovah (or Allah), a nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East, then America is again far away, but it will happen in dangerous, close proximity to the Russian southern borders.

One of the problems discussed at the forum was the fear that tactical nuclear weapons, manufactured in large quantities by Pakistan, could fall into the hands of members of the Taliban * and be used both in this country itself and in neighboring Afghanistan. For whom is this problem fraught with greater danger: for Russia or for the United States? The answer is apparently obvious.

And finally, the most terrible and at the same time very real threat: the jihadists are hard at work on the manufacture of a “dirty atomic bomb”, and it is already clear that if not the powerful coordinated efforts of the international community, they will achieve their goal sooner or later. Is anyone really capable of seriously suggesting that this problem concerns only the West?

There are fears that tactical nuclear charges, manufactured in large quantities by Pakistan, may fall into the hands of members of the Taliban movement * and will be used both in this country itself and in neighboring Afghanistan. For whom is this problem fraught with greater danger: for Russia or for the United States?

Then why Russia refuses to participate in the common effort. For what? To "punish" America? I don't want to believe this either. And what to believe? What other rational explanations are there for the fact that more than fifty states of the world, including, by the way, China, considered the topic of the summit to be vital for themselves, except for a single nuclear power? All these fifty, apparently, are out of step, only Russia is in step. By myself.

Instructed political scientists explain: on many agenda items, Russia's opinion was not taken into account. But what is so catastrophic about this? What happened so incredibly unbearably offensive to bite the bit? I recall the Bretton Woods conference, where, despite the colossal international prestige of John Maynard Keynes, who represented Britain, the opinion of the United Kingdom on important points was eventually ignored or swept aside. In London, they were very worried and offended, but they understood that it was impossible because of insults, even just ones, to miss the chance to create an arbitrarily imperfect, but still working international monetary and financial system.

The most rational of all explanations for the Russian boycott is that Moscow wants to demonstrate that without it, without a country that has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (several hundred warheads more than the United States, which is in second place), any attempts to ensure nuclear security are meaningless. . And if you want our participation, forget about the Crimea, Donbass and the murder of Litvinenko, which you always strive to call "an act of international nuclear terrorism." And do not try to criticize us, especially our proud president personally. We react asymmetrically to such criticism.

But if you care about the long-term interests of the country, and not about how to teach offenders a lesson, Russia's participation in the summit was necessary. His boycott is a huge mistake. Of those about which the main Napoleonic legislator Boule de la Meurthe said that they are worse than a crime.