Both scholars within international relations and top-level politicians have expressed their concern about the current worsening of the relationship between Russia and the United States. In Western media, the blame for the escalation of both Russian and American military presence in Europe is solely put on Moscow. This is a dangerous approach to an already unstable situation, and it needs more self-reflection. Whether one supports the Russians or not, it is crucial to understand the reasoning behind their military build-up if the NATO allies want to avoid further escalation of the conflict. The mutual understanding becomes even more important as both the US and Russia plan to modernise and enhance their nuclear arsenals. In order to preserve the low level on armed conflicts in Europe, a new set of treaties must be negotiated. These agreements need to recognise the new political landscape of Eastern Europe, both from the perspective of Moscow and Washington.
The Americans' withdrawal from the INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces) treaty of 1987 came into effect on February 1st this year. In response, the Russian government decided to withdraw the following day. This is just the latest example of judicial framework between the great powers from the Cold War era or its aftermath being discarded as a culmination of new military deployments and alliances throughout Eastern Europe. In 2008, Russia withdrew from CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) treaty with one of the reasons being the claim that the US violated the ceilings in military equipment and troops set in the treaty. The accusations of breaking the bilateral agreements followed by a withdrawal go both ways.
Both of the treaties mentioned above was set in place to avoid a new arms race caused by the constant threat from each towards the other. Mitigations and limitations of military presence and nuclear arsenals were to improve the relationship between Moscow and Washington. Furthermore, the treaties held the prospects of ensuring a stable long-lasting balance of power on the European continent. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the United States, as well as Russia, have seen the new countries from the former Eastern Bloc as their sphere of influence. The quick expansion eastwards of the NATO and the EU was seen by Russia as compromising their sphere of influence, a view which the West needs, not to submit to, but to acknowledge. Without admitting the rapid movement of NATO forces into the Baltic states along with their ascension to the alliance, the United States and its allies will not be capable of re-establishing a framework similar to the one of the INF and CFE treaties. Likewise, the Russian government must acknowledge its part of the responsibility of the rising tensions with NATO member states.
Both of the treaties mentioned above was set in place to avoid a new arms race caused by the constant threat from each towards the other. Mitigations and limitations of military presence and nuclear arsenals were to improve the relationship between Moscow and Washington. Furthermore, the treaties held the prospects of ensuring a stable long-lasting balance of power on the European continent. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the United States, as well as Russia, have seen the new countries from the former Eastern Bloc as their sphere of influence. The quick expansion eastwards of the NATO and the EU was seen by Russia as compromising their sphere of influence, a view which the West needs, not to submit to, but to acknowledge. Without admitting the rapid movement of NATO forces into the Baltic states along with their ascension to the alliance, the United States and its allies will not be capable of re-establishing a framework similar to the one of the INF and CFE treaties. Likewise, the Russian government must acknowledge its part of the responsibility of the rising tensions with NATO member states.
Sources:
Douglas Barrie (2017). Allegation, Counter-Allegation and the INF Treaty, Survival, 59:4, 35-43.
Michael Fitzsimmons (2018). Russian Strategy and the End of the INF Treaty, Survival, 60:6, 119-136.
“Russia Argues Enhanced Military Presence in Europe Violates NATO-Russia Agreement; United States Criticizes Russian Military Maneuvers over the Baltic Sea as Inconsistent with Bilateral Treaty Governing Incidents at Sea.” American Journal of International Law, vol. 110, no. 03, 2016, pp. 562–567.
“For Decades, the United States and Russia Stepped Back From the Brink. Until Now.” NY Times, Feb. 10, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/opinion/trump-putin-inf-treaty.html
No comments:
Post a Comment