Posts
“Bolshaya Igra” Summary: Why has NATO conducted exercises near the
Russian border on the eve of the meeting between the Presidents of Russia and
the USA? Two generals will debate: Col.-Gen.Vladimir Shamanov, Chairman of the
Duma Defense Committee, and US Embassy Moscow Defense Attache (2012-2014) Brig.
Gen. Peter Zwack.
Topics actually covered:
(1) American encirclement of Russia/ global military exercises
(2) Biden’s aggressive approach to the Geneva Summit
(3) Putin’s June 9 statement outlining why NATO in Ukraine was a
red line [pretty scary stuff] and
(4) What would be necessary for the Geneva Summit to be a success
Experts:
Aleksey Pushkov, Federation Council committee chairman
Col-Gen. Vladimir Shamanov
BG Peter Zwack, Defense Attache, US Embassy Moscow 2012-2014
Moderator Dmitri Simes began the program by describing the panoply
of American and allied military maneuvers around Russia in the run-up to the
Geneva Summit, including exercises in Alaska, the Arctic, the Black Sea, the
Baltic States, etc. These maneuvers were unlike Russian military maneuvers
which took place on Russian territory (or in Belarus, he hastily added) and were
happening closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than Western capitals.
Co-moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov noted that only six days remained
until the Geneva Summit, and preparations were proceeding apace to prepare the
Villa LaGrange for the meeting, and while Vladimir Putin was coming to the
meeting with a constructive approach, Biden was adopting a position of strength,
as his statement on arrival in the UK at a US military base (RAF Mildenhall)
indicated (the key points of Biden’s speech were played on the big screen,
along with a picture of an angry-looking Biden and a solemn-looking Putin).
Nikonov noted Biden’s statement that “We’re back,” asking rhetorically where were
they are back from – Mars?
Pushkov explained that Biden was adopting the position that under
Trump the US had withdrawn from world affairs, and so now the US was back, but
in fact what he was really doing was renewing a claim of US hegemony. The US
was telling everyone that it would not tolerate dissenting views. Biden’s
message was that he wanted to dictate the conditions of the talks in Geneva. He would tell Putin what he should know. Perhaps
Biden even wanted to engage in a monologue, but Putin would not stand for this.
Nikonov added that Putin had never allowed anyone to speak to him in this way.
Shamanov then contrasted what he characterized as years of Russian
reasonableness and willingness to talk with American intransigence, starting
with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, ending with the usual
description of how the US and its allies were surrounding Russia.
BG (ret) Zwack responded (in English dubbed over in Russian) that
he was speaking as a private citizen, and not as a USG representative. He
stressed that no one wanted any sort of conflict with Russia – period. How could we find our way out of the current
dead end in our relations? He was not optimistic that there would be major
progress at the Summit, but at the least we needed to lower the temperature of
our relations. Russia spoke of being encircled, but our allies spoke of their
fears as well.
Nikonov said that nonetheless Russia felt surrounded, The US and
its allies had 400 military bases surrounding Russia. Russia had no such bases surrounding the US.
After the commercial break, Simes complimented Zwack on the fact
that he said the same thing to both sides and did not tailor his remarks for
his audience. That said, America did have significant forces surrounding Russia.
Simes was sure that the US did not intend to attack Russia, but you would have
to admit that Russian military figures like General Shamanov would have to view
these forces with concern (the big board then showed the forces arrayed in Sea
Breeze 2021 and Steadfast Defender 2021, as well as other exercises in
Scandinavia and Alaska).
Zwack said that the forces described were defensive in nature
under the meaning of NATO Article Five, and the forces were limited in size.
Nikonov grimaced and disputed this point, pointing out that some
of the forces (Estonia, Black Sea) were strategic and offensive in nature. He
then turned to Putin’s “very important statement” drawing a red line on
Ukraine. [the big board then played Putin’s June 9 statement, in which he
discussed how the military situation would change if Ukraine became a NATO
member. The flight time for a rocket from Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkov to Moscow would
be 7-10 minutes. Putin compared that to the flight time to Washington when
Russian missiles were stationed in Cuba (15 minutes). To get a flight time of
7-10 minutes, Russian rockets would have to be stationed on the US-Canada
border. Would the US consider that to be a red line or not?]. Then the big
board showed a June 8 statement by Secretary of State Blinken supporting NATO
membership for Ukraine.
Comment: Putin's statement uses dangerous and self-serving logic. Putin of course omits to mention that Russia could put its missiles within five minutes of Washington anytime simply by stationing subs off the U.S. coast. It's all a part of Russia's perpetual "we are surrounded" mantra which they hope distracts from their own transgressions and promotes popular support. This is not to say, of course, that Putin does not believe his own propaganda. It may be that he does.
Comment continued: Similarly, by changing the overall message to "Biden is aggressive, Putin is not," Russians seek to distract attention from issues that they would prefer never to raise at all, such as human rights and political freedoms. This is much more effective than the old Soviet "Everybody Does It" whataboutism defense, where the Soviets would seek to falsely equate their human rights abuses with criminal proceedings occurring in America (January 6 insurrection, et al). End Comment.
Pushkov noted that US strategic bombers were already flying in
Ukraine, even though Ukraine was not a NATO member. President Biden had said in
2015 that Crimea would be an excellent spot to deploy American troops. This is
not defensive. Isn’t this an attempt to cross a red line, he asked?
Zwack said that Washington well understood the complexities of
this question. Ukraine had the right to territorial integrity and to determine
its own future. Biden’s statement that “America is back” meant that America has
returned not just to Europe but to the entire international arena, including
Russia. This did not mean that we cannot have normal relations with Russia,
including mil-to-mil talks.
Pushkov expressed discontent with this answer. Ukraine was the key
question. How could there be cooperation with Russia through a policy of intimidation?
In response to Simes’ question, Pushkov said that Biden’s current tone could
indeed affect the Summit. He was attempting to make up for the US loss of
influence by adopting a more aggressive tone, as if we were still in the 20th
Century, by attempting to dictate what was said at the talks, presenting
complaints, and insisting on preconditions.
Nikonov then asserted incorrectly that the Ukrainian people were
against NATO membership, even though most of the leadership was for it, because they knew they would just be cannon fodder, and everyone
recognized that they would be run by the United States (Nikonov has a unique
way of looking at alliances as if they were all the Warsaw Pact). Shamanov
added that NATO could not admit Ukraine as long as the Donbas problem (LNR/DNR)
remained unresolved.
Nikonov then asked what would be necessary for the Geneva Summit
to be pronounced a success? Simes talked about his time as a CBS correspondent
35 years ago when Reagan and Gorbachev met in Geneva at their first summit.
Reagan took his responsibilities seriously.
He tried to learn all he could about Russian thought and culture, from
Suzanne Massie, among others. He came to
Geneva ready to work hard. He was an “iron
man” who was not interested in making concessions, but he wanted the summit to
be a success and he knew what he should not say, since it would interfere with progress
at the summit and what he should say. If
Biden approaches Geneva in a similar spirit, there will be success.
Nikonov propounded the dubious theory that the US was most interested in agreements only when they were most disturbed about the current state of affairs. The US was disturbed about Russian qualitative superiority in strategic arms, and they were also disturbed about the cuts in Embassy/Consulate staff, so there would probably be progress on those two issues. As for the rest, probably there would be no progress. Still, if the dialogue were not toxic, that would be progress in and of itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment