By Vestnik Kavkaza
Director of the Institute of USA and Canada Studies, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor Sergei Rogov gave a press conference after the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama, which was held within the G8 summit in Ireland on June 17.
During the press conference a commentary was given on the current state of relations between Russia and the U. S., the agreement reached at the meeting and acute issues on the agenda of bilateral Russian-American relations. Also a comment was given about the possible statement by Barack Obama to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, as well as on sharp questions on the conflict in Syria.
According to Sergei Rogov, the emphasis is primarily on the differences between Russia and the United States and U.S. allies on the Syrian issue. “I think that one cannot deny the existence of such differences. But, in my opinion, this is not the main thing. This is very important. I would like to say a few words about the positive outcome, which, in my opinion, outweigh those differences that existed before, and, of course, emerged at the summit in Northern Ireland - it would be naive to expect that the group would reach full consensus on all the issues.
Three very important US-Russian statements were signed. In fact, these are not legally binding contracts but agreements for cooperation in several areas. First of all, we should note the agreement on the cooperation of the services of the two countries in the fight against terrorism. The second very important and unique agreement at international level between the two countries is an agreement to combat cyber threats”, he said.
According to him, today cyberspace is becoming a new battleground, and the value of it, not only in the civil sphere, is cyber espionage and hacking, but in the military sphere, when there are ways to virtually, without the use of physical force, paralyze, neutralize and actually destroy military facilities and weapons systems with cyber weapons. “The parties agreed to maximize the development of trade and economic relations. This is one of the main weaknesses between the U.S. and Russia. We have too small a trade area, too little investment. It has negative economic consequences, and politically there is no economic stabilizer when there are all sorts of disagreements. Still, when there is economic interdependence, this places a certain limit. When there are no limits, the rhetoric and political confrontation may also be unlimited.
As for missile defense, the Obama administration has made a very important decision three months ago. You remember that Obama promised flexibility a year ago. He abolished the fourth stage, including the creation of an SM-3 missile. But the Russian side considers this insufficient, still shifting demands of the legal guarantees and directions. I think this will require serious negotiations to resolve this problem. Just the third joint statement should provide for a job in the 2 +2 format - two foreign ministers and two ministers of defense, who should discuss the full range of military and strategic issues, including air defense.
The Obama administration had to submit to Congress a report on the implementation of nuclear policy and to say how many nuclear weapons America needed. According to U.S. official data, America has about 5,000 nuclear warheads. Under START it is permitted to hold 1550 of them for intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. In Russia there are different estimates, we do not give the official figures, but it is also believed that there are somewhere around 5-6 thousand nuclear warheads. Our strategic nuclear forces have declined to a level lower than 1550, we now have less than 1500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The U.S. proposal would be to reduce the potential to about 1000 nuclear warheads. I think we will have a very serious discussion about what to do in this situation – whether we have to agree with the reduction of nuclear weapons to 1000 strategic units or not”, Sergei Rogov said.
As for situation in Syria, according to director of the Institute of USA and Canada Studies, “there is a bloody civil war with very active foreign participation on the side of the opponents of the regime, and not only with money, but also with weapons and people”.
“Sunni monarchies are involved, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and indeed since the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, a Mojahed International has developed, which roams from Afghanistan to Kosovo, then to Iraq, Chechnya, Libya. It has now moved to Syria. And there is the Syrian government, which receives support from the Shi'a, especially Iran, Iraqi Shiites, you know that the Lebanese 'Hezbollah' is now also taking part in the fighting.
The Obama administration’s position is ambivalent on the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, the United States as a power driven by a very powerful ideological impulse will always support those who are considered a supporter of American ideas about democracy and human rights. It is clear that in Syria on the side of the opponents of the Assad regime the most ardent Islamist extremists linked to al-Qaeda are active. And here the question arises on the forms and limits of military intervention in Syria.
At the G8 summit, where there were seven Western countries and Russia, no China, no other BRICS countries, the quantitative advantage was 7 : 1 - but you can see the resolution - that was quite neat. There were no demands for Assad's resignation from the post of president in it. It contained support for the political decisions of the conference in Geneva. Russia and the United States should take the initiative to hold such a conference. I think that the Obama administration's decision to announce that they will be supplying arms to rebels, insurgents, whatever you want to call them, was largely due to the fact that Assad's forces managed to seize the initiative, and there was a prospect that Assad could crush his opponents on the battlefield.
For two years the situation was neutral, and here there is the prospect of a decisive victory by Assad and the defeat of the forces that support the States and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That's what the Americans do not want to admit. Such agreements, for example, as the agreements on missile defense, nuclear weapons or Syria require very serious compromises. Compromises are unavoidable here. Does Obama have enough political capital for this trade-off? In my opinion, Putin has enough such capital. As for Obama, time will tell”, Sergei Rogov concluded.
