The last soldier of the Cold War

Did the Kremlin "Small Cold War" with the West? Is it a new cold war or just a Kremlin “poker game”? Was Moscow got into a destructive exchange of sanctions and will the “Small Cold War” end with it as invisively as the “big”?

We are discussing these issues with employees of the Goverov Institute at the University of Stanford at California by economist Mikhail Burnstam and human rights activist Yuri Yarym-Agaev . ​

On Thursday, August 31, Washington announced the closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, two diplomatic facilities at the Russian embassy in Washington and the Consulate General in New York, where trade representatives of Russia, two diplomatic facilities. This decision followed a month after the unexpected demand of Moscow to Washington to reduce more than half the number of his diplomatic missions in Russia. It, in turn, was a kind of “combined” response of Moscow to expel from the United States 35 employees of Russian diplomatic enterprises suspected of espionage, the closure of two embassy cottages in New York and under Washington and to legalize the sanctions regime, which were introduced after the annexation of the Krimea and intervention of the Kremlin into the American presidential campaign.

Smoke over the Russian consulate in San Francisco, where, as observers believe, on September 1, Russian diplomats burned documents before the searches planned next week

Diplomats expulsion - the plot in the relations of the two countries is not a new, demonstrative large -scale reduction of American diplomatic personnel in Russia, the purpose of which was to violate the normal work of American diplomatic mission in Russia - a tool for rent from the Museum of the Cold War. More than thirty years ago, in 1986, Moscow for the last time tried to teach Washington with a similar scope, forbidding the United States to hire Soviet citizens who performed a wide variety of utility work there. The American Embassy and the Consulate lost their janitors, electricians, plumbers, cooks and other maintenance personnel.

The American reaction-the requirement to close the Russian consulate in San Francisco-also gives the Cold War, although the State Department announced that the United States is in the spirit of "Parity", reducing the number of Russian consulates in America to three-the number of American consulates in Russia.

A day earlier, the former Chancellor of Germany , Gerhard Schroeder , spoke about the danger of Cold War with Russia, who became a member of the Board of Directors Rosneft and accused his critics, including the current Chancellor Angel Merkel that they were drawing Germany into a cold war with Russia. Public alarm in connection with the onset of the "Ice Age" in relations with Russia was also scored by the German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel , a single -party Schroeder.

Similar warnings about the threat of a new Cold War with Russia began to sound mainly from the mouths of opponents of a tough response to the dismemberment of Ukraine immediately after the annexation of the Moscow Crimea. The subtext of warnings is obvious: it is ridiculous and dangerous to get involved in a large expensive confrontation, fraught with the war of "hot". However, from here the discrepancies in the wording begin. Many American analysts are convinced that the Cold War with Russia cannot be due to potential inequality, the Kremlin is too weak for this. Others say that in reality the Cold War is going on, but Russia in it is far from the main opponent of the West.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, what is it: the episode of the new Cold War?

- The Cold War in its traditional understanding between Russia and America simply cannot be. An exacerbation of a relationship may occur, ”says Yuri Yarym-Agaev . - What is happening now, a little reminds me of the game of poker, when the bets increase and it is not clear who will tear off the con. 35 people sent America, Russia-700 with something, now we close the consulate. There is a mutual check of nerves. I think Putin decided to test the Trump administration, he is more and more. On the other hand, he may not want to retreat either. The game is quite meaningless in this sense.

- Professor Bernsstam, our interlocutor, as I understand it, considers the conversation about a new cold war with Russia and, moreover, fears about this. But the German Foreign Minister is worried about the "new ice age" in relations with Moscow. How would you determine the current relations of the United States and the West with Russia?

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev put an end to the Cold War

“Here a lot depends on the definition of terminology,” says Mikhail Bernstam . -The concept of the Cold War had been wandering for a long time, back in the 30s, but he was introduced by George Orwell on wide everyday life on October 19, 1945 in the article in the newspaper Tribun, the article was called "You and the Atomic Bomb". The meaning is very simple: when there is an atomic bomb, the countries owning an atomic bomb are invincible. In this situation, all their hostile, conflict relations turn into a Cold War. By this definition, the Cold War has existed since 1945. It began precisely during the Japanese War in 1945 and lasted four decades, it was officially declared finished at the end of 1989. That Cold War can be called the "Big Cold War", I would call the current situation a "small cold war", would introduce such a term. The Cold War, in my opinion, has at least four criteria. The first criterion is formulated in the Drum of Truman: if there is a regime that is repressive inside and aggressive outside, then the countries of the free world are in a state of conflict. And the second sign is the ideological incompetition of existing regimes. This ideological incompatibility really exists, because there is a nationalist regime in Russia, which claims to restore the empire within certain borders. The situation arises of historical claims to some territories.

The third sign is the presence of a colossal military machine of a global scale, which can be used in a thousand different places. And the fourth sign, I would say, it is obvious: in fact, the Cold War is a metaphor. Because in fact there is a “hot war”, this “hot war” occurs periodically in various peripheral points where opposite forces collide. Now there have been reports that Russia supplies weapons to Taliban - this means that the Taliban will kill American soldiers with Russian weapons.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, does Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin act more defiantly, if not aggressively, on all fronts-from cyberspace to Baltic? For example, almost simulate air attacks on Stockholm, pushing Sweden and Finland in NATO. Are you not soft to interpret it when you are talking about the "Kremlin game in poker?"

- I am here not only as a researcher, an observer, but as a former participant and veteran of the Cold War, just as I think, Mikhail. Being dissidents, for many years we fought on her fronts. The Cold War in an expanded or narrower definition is still an ideological war between democracy and communism. In a narrower sense - between American democracy and Soviet communism. Why am I saying that there is no cold war now? Because there is no more Soviet communism. Another thing is, if we interpret the Cold War in a broader sense, as the war between democracy and communism in general, then it did not stop at all. Just when Soviet communism collapsed, the headquarters of the communist force of the Cold War transferred from Moscow to Beijing, where it is now. America is currently involved in two ideological wars - with unfinished communism and jihadism. Russia actually joined both of these wars, but I would say that on the second roles, not the first. She, together with China, with North Korea, she together with Iran united as an ally against America and the democratic West.

- Mikhail Bernsstam, as I understand it, you see in the Kremlin’s behavior the grounds for serious anxiety, despite the fact that he, as our interlocutor says, plays the second violin in this global confrontation?

Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles "Yars" on Red Square

“I'll tell you what bothers me.” I still believe that according to the criteria that I named, this is a cold war, only I call it a "small cold war." That "big Cold War", I would say, had three periods. The first is Stalin, when the Cold War has grown into a “hot war” and there was open hostility, they fought, there was a Korean war. The second period is the period of the so-called peaceful coexistence, that is, the period of Khrushchev-Brezhnevsky, to Gorbachev, when the doctrine triumphed that there should be no nuclear war-this is the doctrine of Malenkov. And the third period when the Soviet Union, led by Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, went to reduce all this tension, and the Cold War ended. So, it bothers me that now we are observing in the ideology and positions of the Russian leadership the feature of not only the second period, that is, the period of peaceful coexistence, but also the features of the first period.

Firstly, they abandoned the doctrine of Malenkov, in any case in words, and this is very important. They abandoned the unacceptability of the use of nuclear weapons, they go and threaten nuclear weapons. The second is the revival of that doctrine that everything that was won by the Soviet Union, and now Russia, in 1939–40, and then in 1945-this is some kind of influence, it will never be given, someday will be restored. That is, claims to some huge empire are outlined, and now it continues. They do not recognize the boundaries that were established in Europe after the Cold War and after the end of the Soviet Union. Therefore, although this is a “small Cold War”, but in its intentions, in the positions that the Russian leadership occupies, I believe that they are simple, as they say, “armed and very dangerous”.

- We must remember that Russia really behaves quite aggressively. More recently, even Sweden with Finland seriously spoke about the possibility of joining the NATO block, as they are afraid of Russian provocations. Sweden catches Russian submarines, Russians imitate air strikes on Stockholm. This situation is quite new.

There is a sect in power in Russia

- That's what bothers me. Old -timers remember, and Yuri, probably, remembers, OAS. It was a secret extremist officer and intelligence organization of former colonial French officers. The abbreviation in French, and in Russian will be deciphered by the "Army Secret Organization", "Organization of the Secret Army". The group that has now come to power in Russia is very reminiscent of the OS, because these are people who were thrown out of East Germany, but they still experience this loss in the Cold War, consider it some historical catastrophe. This organization tried to make a coup in France in 1962, these were colonial officers expelled from the abandoned empire. They had just complaints that they abandoned their own, that the French -speaking and French population in North Africa remained, they were abandoned. That is, this is a picture that is very reminiscent of what is happening in Russia. It is such a sect, such a group, it seems to me, is now in power in Russia.

- Yuri, many American observers say that the Kremlin, objectively speaking, cannot afford a new “cold war”, if only because it is economically not on the shoulder of a real confrontation with the West, because Russia in an economic sense is a weak small country. Or is Putin capable of buying a great influence for small money?

- Yes, here it may be in this Mikhail and I partially diverge. Because I believe that Russia in this whole situation occupies a second place. Russia simply crawls forward, screams most and waving his hands. She, of course, has a very large nuclear potential and the army, but her role, in contrast to the role that was during the Soviet Union, when it was at the head of all ideological wars, faded into the background. Can she afford to aggravate relations with the West economically? Of course, no. She has no resources for this, and most importantly, the purpose of all this is incomprehensible. Here, in the West, they say that Putin is a good tactician, but a bad strategist. Let us clarify that all the tactics of Putin, all his tactical skill was formed at his KGB school and further work. He has the tactics of conducting ideological wars, in fact, this is the only thing he can do. This is a rather meaningless activity, by and large. He does this, people surrounding him, who are also many former Kagbeshniki, in my opinion, do this to a large extent, because this is the only thing they can do. But if you ask a question, what is the purpose of all, then it is completely meaningless.

- As many American observers will tell you, he does it in order to inflate the hysteria that helps him to stay in power. This stock of hysteria may be enough for a long time.

-For some time, of course, yes. There is a fundamental difference between Putin’s interests and his clique and the interests of the country, which begin to diverge more and more in this situation. Therefore, this discrepancy will ultimately catch it up somewhere.

- Probably, especially when you consider that the Kremlin intervened in the absurd exchange of sanctions with the United States, not realizing that it causes pins and received blows. Well, who will lose from the reduction of diplomatic missions? It is clear that the failure of sanctions will not be without changing the behavior of the Kremlin, but no, they provoke new sanctions? It looks absurd.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump

-When you bluff you in poker, you must increase the bets all the time, hoping that your partner will at some point be afraid and surrender. This is a bluff, this is a poker game, I think that it will not pass with the Trump administration, with Trump himself, with Mattis and all other people. Therefore, I believe that this will be an absolute loss. I do not see any win in this game. This is a dangerous game, I agree with Mikhail in this sense. A country with a giant nuclear potential, a large army and so on - with it any such games are dangerous. But for Russia, from my point of view, the situation is absolutely losing. I do not see any winning option in this situation.

- Professor Bernshtam, it is clear that it is impossible to give a clear answer to this question, but whether the Kremlin has enough financial reserves to stay such a strategy for a long time? They conduct a campaign in Syria, increase military potential, and now conduct the largest, as it is believed, for the post -Soviet era of military exercises, finance their customers in eastern Ukraine and in other places. Should all this be a burden on the country?

Moderately, they can really continue their aggressive and adventurous policy

- The question is whether the Russian leadership, the Russian government can afford the current military expenses, the modernization of its weapons and all kinds of adventures, subsidizing all kinds of seizures. In the current conditions, at the current prices for natural resources, they use existing reserve funds, stabilization funds of the Ministry of Finance to cover a budget deficit. She established the bar that the budget deficit should not exceed 3 percent of the gross domestic product. The economy is in a state of stagnation, they do not have to expect additional resources from economic growth. If the prices for natural resources are maintained at the current level, they will be able to replenish or maintain their budget with the help of stabilization funds, then for some time for several years, I emphasize several dangerous years, they can really affordat this purely arithmetic. Let's raise the question more sharply: can North Korea afford all this adventurism and his military expenses? Maybe as long as they can squeeze the population to the fact that if even millions of people they have to die of hunger, they will still build up their military machine. Allowing or not allowing is a question not only of economic arithmetic or budgetary, it is also the question of how the propaganda machine works and, above all, how the repressive machine operates, the terror machine. In Russia now there is no such system that was in the Soviet Union. Accordingly, they must somehow respond to the mood of public opinion, there are still some specific obligations, budgetary obligations to the population. And their budget capabilities are quite limited and are associated with world prices for natural resources. Now there are no more than $ 90 billion in stabilization funds, they have already spent half the stabilization funds. Пик платежей по внешним долгам пришелся на 2014 год, это совпало с санкциями, они примерно наполовину сократили долги, и сейчас у них щадящий график выплаты платежей. В умеренном виде они могут действительно продолжать свою агрессивную и авантюристическую политику.

– Юрий Ярым-Агаев, считается, что оригинальная холодная война, гонка вооружений подорвала Советский Союз, вынудила его пойти на попятный в противостоянии, хотя есть и другие точки зрения на этот счет. Но вот такая параллель между этой, малой, как называет ее наш собеседник, холодной войной и той холодной войной – она корректна?

- Undoubtedly. Любая авантюра стоит очень дорого. При слабой экономике. Сейчас у России на самом деле относительно Советского Союза экономика сильнее, потому что там уже нет коммунизма, а когда нет коммунизма, экономика всегда лучше. Безусловно, непропорциональная внешняя политика, которая не соответствует уровню этой экономики, эту экономику подрывает. Как Михаил совершенно правильно говорил, это баланс между абсолютным экономическим исчислением, количеством денег и настроением населения, которое готово принять или не принять какой-то уровень бедности в стране. В этом смысле у Путина возможности очень слабые, потому что население уже привыкло жить гораздо лучше, они уже не так боятся. Надежд на то, что они будут терпеть очень долго и много, особых нет, ему с этим приходится считаться.

Он блефует, он играет против Запада. Он это делает неслучайно. Просто политика Обамы это спровоцировала в большой степени. Обама показал, что Америка слаба, можно ее запугивать и блефовать. Путин вошел в раж и продолжает это делать. Америка изменилась, этот блеф тоже закончится. Так что это действительно совокупность экономических, психологических, социологических вещей. Перспектив этой политики в данной ситуации я не вижу. Я согласен с Михаилом, что это напоминает в какой-то степени ОАС – это группа людей, в данном случае мы говорим просто о КГБ, это не один Путин, а целая группа людей, которая пришла к власти неожиданно для самих себя, между прочим, которая ничего другого не знает, которая пытается реализовать эту вещь. Один из мотивов, которым они руководствуются, – это восстановление былой якобы славы Советского Союза, а для Путина это приобретение его новой славы, причем любыми способами, лишь бы его заметили. Этим он мне напоминает Митю Кулдарова из чеховского рассказа "Радость", который был счастлив от того, что о нем напечатали в газете, когда он напился пьяным и попал под лошадь. Этот элемент, к сожалению, в российской политике присутствует, когда они из кожи лезут вон, чтобы в любом случае их заметили и признали, потому что о них до этого сильно забыли. Но это все оборвется, это совершенно бесперспективная политика.

– Юрий, есть американские историки, которые оспаривают общепринятую точку зрению о том, что США одержали верх в холодной войне и скажут вам, что конец той войне наступил, потому что у власти в Советском Союзе оказался разумный лидер Михаил Горбачев, который разорвал путы идеологии, отказался от противостояния, и в результате победили все.

В холодной войне демократия одержала абсолютную победу над советским коммунизмом

– В холодной войне демократия одержала абсолютную победу над советским коммунизмом, который просто потерпел крах и распался, исчез. То есть победителем в холодной войне оказалась демократия, а коммунизм проиграл. Что касается стран, то в результате все оказались в выигрыше, и в первую очередь Россия, даже в большей степени, чем Америка. Потому что коммунизм, если кому-то хуже всего делал, то в первую очередь России и другим республикам, частям Восточной империи. Америке стало тоже лучше жить без советского коммунизма, но в первую очередь от этого стало гораздо лучше жить российским людям. Что касается стран, то они все выиграли, что касается идеологий, то была абсолютная безусловная победа демократии над коммунизмом.

– Если мы признаем наличие "малой холодной войны", возьметесь ли вы предсказать, как она закончится?

– Я думаю, что ее нельзя рассматривать вне контекста более широкой идеологической войны, в которой по-прежнему участвует недобитый китайский, корейский коммунизм и исламский джихадизм. Я думаю, что закончится она поражением обеих этих тоталитарных идеологий. Эта кагэбэшная клика слетит. России от этого станет в итоге лучше, хотя ей придется платить дополнительную цену за то, что она соучаствовала во всех этих войнах и преступлениях вместе с самыми отъявленными идеологическими режимами. Главная, я думаю, теперь уже единственная мотивация у Путина и не только у него, а у окружающей его клики бывшего КГБ, каких-то олигархов и так далее – это просто сохранить свою власть любой ценой. Все, что они делают, они делают только для этой цели. В этом смысле они, может быть, даже действуют последовательно и логично, потому что они, может быть, действительно на какое-то время такими действиями свою власть могут продлить. Единственное, что важно, что с каждым таким шагом их интересы продления власти и интересы России, которой они правят, все больше и больше расходятся. Именно это в конечном итоге их и достанет.

– Профессор Бернштам, что говорит нам опыт истории по поводу такого явления, как нынешнее российское руководство и по поводу его будущего?

Это последние солдаты бывшей империи

– Это последние солдаты бывшей империи. Это похоже на ОАС, это напоминает как раз ситуацию во Франции в 1961–62 году, группа офицеров-разведчиков из бывшей империи, которые никак не могут смириться с тем, что этой империи нет и никогда уже не будет. Они верят в какое-то ее возрождение, предпринимают все более и более агрессивные, насильственные, авантюристические действия – это такая группа последних солдат империи. Пока она есть, они будут действовать таким образом.