Как предотвратить ядерный конфликт в Европе

Feb 15, 2018 Des Browne , Wolfgang Ischinger, Igor S. Ivanov, and Sam Nunn

МЮНХЕН – Когда на этой неделе лидеры стран Евроатлантического региона встретятся на Мюнхенской конференции по безопасности, наступит уже пятый год отношений между странами Запад и Россией, определяемых принципом «или победа, или поражение». И чем дольше это будет продолжаться, тем туже будет затягиваться возникший узел недоверия – и тем выше будет угроза реализации финального сценария, в котором проиграют все: военный конфликт. Мы обязаны вместе работать, чтобы разрубить этот узел, причём начать немедленно.

Четверо авторов этой статьи, вместе с группой бывших и нынешних высокопоставленных официальных лиц и экспертов из стран Евроатлантического региона (Группа лидеров евроатлантической безопасности, EASLG), уверены, что, несмотря на значительные разногласия, США, Россия и Европа могут и должны сотрудничать в сферах жизненно важных общих интересов. В Мюнхене мы вместе будем представлять и обсуждать наши идеи по улучшению безопасности всех народов, живущих в этом регионе, начиная с сокращения ядерной и другой военных угроз.

Сокращение и ликвидация ядерной угрозы – это жизненно важный интерес, которые разделяют все страны. Мы вступили в новую эру, в которой роковая ошибка, спровоцированная случайностью или просчётом, может привести к ядерной катастрофе.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Henk Crop Feb 19, 2018

It is great that EASLG in Munich tries to improve the security of all people in the region concerning nuclear weapons.

Many people in the region are also concerned about another major development in the region which receives much less attention.
That is the clash of civilizations between the Islamic world and the Western world (including Russia).
The Islam is a movement with a religious and a political component.
It makes 1,4 billion people happy in the world. However the Islamic values are not compatible with many of the most basic western values such as: freedom of speech, civil law, seperation between State and Religion, womens rights. There are 56 Islamic countries, cooperation in the World Islamic Congress.
The interface between the West and the Islamic World has two sides, apart from trade relations.
The EU has a considerable moslim population. Countries like Turkey and Saoedi-Arabia are influencing these people.
The NATO, and Russia, are interfering in the Moslim world. With at best a questionable success, but more often making matters worse.
Our leaders in Washington and Brussels have demonstrated that they do know what they are facing. If they would have known a bit about Islam they would have made many decisions ( such as Nation building, bombing of Lybia) on policies in the Middle East differently.
In the EU the increasing number of Moslims will ultimately have political consequences.
However most EU leaders, are naive, and refuse to see that.
The western world has no answer to the, dedicated, Islam and underestimates the long-term strategies of some of their leaders.
Relevant is also that the population of the Western world (incl.Russia ) is declining while the population in the Moslim world is growing fast.
My suggestion is that the EASLG develops expertise and ideas to accomodate the relationship between the Western and Islamic world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 19, 2018

BELIEVERS IN BRUSSELS
The belief in Brussels that The Single Market is for France n Germany alone.
The belief in Brussels that Economics can be isolated from Security.
The belief in Brussels that The Anglosphere can be economically punished.
The belief in Brussels that Migration is the price for Markets - ignores Security.
The belief in Brussels that despite punishments, The Anglosphere will protect.
Britain's articulated the need for New Security Architecture with EU after Brexit.
Should America+Britain+Canada leave NATO, France n Germany cannot deliver.
Bravado in The Infallibility of Brussels is brinkmanship best avoided.
Security and Economics are Two Sides of the same coin.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 17, 2018

"a majority in certain segments of the population, such as those living in South Eastern Ukraine and Crimea supported Russia's cause. The ties to Russia...were too strong to reject and abandon...complex sociocultural, ethnic, and geopolitical realities which are often overshadowed by simplistic American rhetoric of freedom versus authoritarianism...the US projection of its values onto other cultures contributes to a misreading of the intentions behind Russia's policies...The United States would benefit from taking a more nuanced perspective of the realities on the ground (Julia Sinitski's book review, YaleGlobal Online)."

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/near-abroad-putin-west-and-contest-over-ukraine-and-caucasus.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 16, 2018

Des Browne, Wolfgang Ischinger, Igor S. Ivanov and Sam Nunn warn leaders on both sides of the Atlantic against a "nuclear conflict," ahead of the Munich Security Conference, which brings together global leaders to discuss security policy. Together with the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) – the four "believe that, despite significant differences, the United States, Russia, and Europe can and must cooperate on areas of vital common interest."
The authors - former ministers in defence and foreign affairs - say we are in "a new era, in which a fateful error " - an accident, miscalculation, or blunder - "could trigger a nuclear catastrophe." Given the "heightened tensions" between Russia and NATO, and "little communication" between leaders, the "risks of such an error" can not be ruled out. They urge for "some positive initiative" that could contribute to "reducing and eliminating nuclear risks."
At the Conference, UN-chief Antonio Guterres said the world faces the threat of a nuclear conflict for the first time since the end of the Cold War because of North Korea's nuclear programme. He stressed the need for a diplomatic solution and urged for global pressure on ensuring that the U.S. and North Korea can “come together and have a meaningful discussion.” In this respect the US needs to be ready for diplomacy, while it is essential to keep the pressure on North Korea and convince the regime that it is in its interest to come to the table.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reminded of the fact that not only the US, also Europe is now within the range of North Korean missiles. He said all nations need to continue with economic sanctions and diplomatic measures to “put maximum pressure” for the North to abandon its nuclear programme. Stoltenberg upholds NATO's goal - a world without nuclear weapons. However as long as the threat persists, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. “A world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons but NATO does not is not a safer world,” he said.
Apart from the nuclear threat, other pressing issues, like cyber security, the fighting across the Middle East are also on the agenda. Chief among the attendees are the NATO member states. The American delegation is led by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, including National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and CIA head Mike Pompeo. Other participants include Benjamin Netanyahu, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko and foreign ministers of Russia and Iran.
That Sergei Lavrov attends the conference shows Russia's awareness of the tensions. It remains to be seen whether the EASLG will get the governments work together "to mitigate the risks of nuclear conflict." It is not difficult to "reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." But it is more difficult to "preserve and extend existing agreements and treaties that are crucial to sustaining transparency and predictability."
Dismantling "the arms control architecture will dramatically increase nuclear risks for all Europeans and indeed the world." The authors call for "preserving the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia," and the "full compliance by the parties to that agreement. Similarly, all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region have a stake in the full implementation of the 2010 US-Russia New START Treaty and its mutual extension through 2026."
Not to ignore is to uphold the nuclear deal with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is "a crucial bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons" in the Middle East. It is true that "actions by any country that precipitate the JCPOA’s demise or violate its terms will increase nuclear dangers in the region and weaken the international community’s ability to address nuclear dangers around the world" - like the one in North Korea.
The author points out how cyber capabilities can "transform nuclear risks by increasing the probability of accidents, miscalculations, or blunders." It is crucial to identify the "cyber dangers" posed to "nuclear facilities, strategic warning systems, and nuclear command and control," and guard them against attacks and "theft of nuclear materials, sabotage" etc. by state or non-state actors. Indeed, this is a Herculean task, much more difficult to handle than a potential "nuclear conflict" with Russia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 16, 2018

Russia is no longer a big power, in almost all aspects, that can hope to have much influence on world politics. Where Russia is a big, world power if it is at all lies in its nuclear force, and yet the West sees its relations with Russia predominantly in terms of nuclear arms and so is provoking it in its strongest, least disadvantageous aspect.
- Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 16, 2018
  
  The Russian delegates looked enjoying talking with their counterparts from the West at a reception of the Geneva Conference in 1954; it appeared as if they forgot the treaty of friendship and mutual assistance with China and the presence of their Chinese friends there. Zhou En-lai said something to a Russian, perhaps Bulganin. Bulganin said to him, "Premier Zhou, you speak fluent Russian. Why don't you speak it?" Zhou was still angrier and said, "Now you come to our embassy in Moscow. We'll give you Chinese lessons."
  Shigeru Yoshida, ex-Prime Minister, wrote his memoirs in 1956 and predicted the Sino-Russian split. Henry Kissinger says in his Diplomacy that Adenauer told him emphatically in 1958 not to be deceived by the appearance of a monolithic communist block...a break between China and the Soviet Union was inevitable.
  People like George F. Kennan and David Riesman noted Russian inferiority complex to Europe or that they want to be European.
  I do not see any point in not hitting at Russia in its many weak points instead of its only strong point.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Feb 15, 2018

The best way to prevent any militairy conflict is to develop normal relations.
The west has not done a great job since the end of the cold war.
It has moved to the east in breach of agreements. The EU fueled the conflict in Ukraine.
It also provoked the Crimea occupation by venturing the idea of a NATO fleet in the Black Sea.
In the Crimea the Russians have their fleet. Legally it was not correct but it is understandable they took it. I doubt they will ever abandon it. The boycot seems not very effective.

For better relations it is perhaps useful to look at history.
Until 1917, the Communist Revolution, Russia was a normal ( altough large ) part of Europe.
Today 78 % of the Russians live on the European side. Many consider themselves europeans.
Many also know more about the West than westerners do about Russia.
From an economic point of view the EU and Russia would make natural partners.
My suggestion is that more should be done about normalisation of the relation between Russia and the West.
- Robert Bruce Feb 18, 2018
  
  The corrupt hierarchy that runs Russia will never cooperate with the West so long as they can extract more personal wealth and power from fossil fuels, than they could from cooperative economic growth. This is why they went to such great lengths to get #Trump installed in the Whitehouse hoping he would wreck the Paris Agreement. The best thing we can do now is to accelerate decarbonisation until Russia finally realises that its economic future lies in genuine international cooperation, instead of nationalist isolation and aggressive interference programs.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.