Translated material
Old trump cards
Speaking at the Arctic Forum, Vladimir Putin once again spoke about the threats stemming from US attempts to deploy a strategic missile defense system (ABM)
The topic of American missile defense in the mouth of the Russian president is not new. But this time, Putin spoke about what is happening in the territory once sold by Russia: “What the United States is doing in Alaska is global in nature, a missile defense system is being developed there. And these systems, as you know, are one of the very serious problems of today's world in the field of security. This is not just a defense system, it is part of the nuclear potential, placed on the periphery. And this is not what prevents a nuclear missile attack, but this is what minimizes the so-called retaliatory strike. These are things that are already a postulate today, and all experts understand this very well.”
In fact, not all experts share the point of view of the Russian president and consider this a postulate. On the contrary, they point out that the American missile defense system will not be able to intercept Russian missiles. Firstly, because the Aegis missiles, which now form the basis of the American missile defense system, will simply not be able to catch up with Russian warheads due to the difference in speeds. As for the strategic interceptors deployed in Alaska, theoretically capable of carrying out such an interception, there are as many as 14 of them. Experts believe that at least three interceptor missiles will be required to destroy one warhead. It's time to remind: Russia has 1.5 thousand warheads.
In general, serious experts are well aware of the cost of Vladimir Putin's accusations. Therefore, in those places where knowledgeable people gather, for example, at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Russian representatives have to come up with some new arguments to prove the aggressiveness of the American missile defense system. Just speaking there, Deputy Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznikhir, said that the US missile defense at the same time threatens artificial Earth satellites and the space activities of other countries. “Practically all low-orbit spacecraft located in the area of destruction of missile defense systems fall under the threat of destruction. Given the global nature of the operation of missile defense ships, the space activities of any state, including Russia and China, are under threat.” The logic is remarkable: on the same basis, it can be argued that any owner of air defense means threatens the flights of civil aircraft.
Two months was enough for the Kremlin to understand: no breakthrough in relations with the United States, despite the arrival of Donald Trump, is expected. And, therefore, it's time to get old trump cards out of your sleeve - these are accusations against the American missile defense system, and "special" relations with Iran
It is indicative that talk about the threat posed by the American missile defense system has resumed after some interruption, which happened as a result of a change in the administration in the United States. Two months was enough for the Kremlin to understand that no breakthrough in relations, despite the arrival of Donald Trump, can be expected. And, therefore, it's time to get old trump cards out of your sleeve. It is no coincidence that right now Moscow has laid out its other important trump card - relations with Iran. Putin has just received Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the Kremlin. During his visit to Moscow, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif said that Russian aircraft could use airfields in that country to carry out missions in Syria. Pro-Kremlin commentators immediately announced the renewal of the strategic partnership. Trump, meanwhile, calls Iran "terrorist state No. 1." If such dynamics continue, then soon we will have to literally take the words of the Russian president, spoken in the hearts at the Arctic Forum: “What do we want, to completely break off diplomatic relations (with the USA. - NT)? Bring the situation to the sixties, to the Caribbean crisis? And then what?