Instagram @ soldat.pro
military experts
EnglishРусский
 Edit Translation

Konstantin Kosachev: The new US national security strategy is not original

Konstantin Kosachev: The new US national security strategy is not original

Biden administration publishes Interim National Security Strategic Guidance Report

In, with regard to external problems of more interest to us, strategy is not original: strengthen US leadership in the world, strengthen the "enduring advantage" of the United States and "triumph in strategic competition with China or any other country.".

Main competitor - China, because only he, breakwater, able to unite economic, diplomatic, military and technological strength, to "pose a significant challenge to a stable and open international system".

And so that there is no doubt, exactly how this "open and stable system" looks like, it was said quite frankly: "Asserting global leadership, we will do so, to America, not China, set an international agenda, работая вместе с другими над формированием новых глобальных норм и соглашений, которые будут продвигать наши интересы и отражать наши ценности».

That is, while the system reflects the interests and values ​​of the United States, it is "open and stable", everything else is a threat to the system. Not the USA. How to say: you asked, gentlemen, what is the difference between “order, rule-based ", from order, based on law?

Got, of course, and Russia: "And Beijing, and Moscow invested heavily in efforts, aimed at containing the advantages of the United States and, to prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world ".

For some reason, both competitors of America do this instead of, in every way to support the "advantages" and interests of the United States around the world.

Of the positive: White House highlights, what is going to confront the threat, from nuclear weapons, avoid costly arms races and regain leadership in arms control. This is why Washington, breakwater, came to that, to extend the START-3 treaty with Russia, and is also going to take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons. The strategy promises, that the United States will “engage in constructive dialogue with Russia and China on a number of new military technologies, which imply strategic stability ".

One side, this reflects the principled approach of Biden and his main foreign policy associates, that, unlike Trump's team, have always been in favor of arms control agreements.

On the other hand, reducing the role of nuclear weapons does not at all mean abandoning the goal of achieving superiority in other powers as a whole. Washington obviously, that in the nuclear sphere this cannot be achieved, and therefore it is better to reduce the value of this weapon as a whole, otherwise, the role of Russia looks at least equal to that of the American.

Besides, it is no coincidence that the emphasis is placed on dialogue in the areas of new military technologies: The United States is clearly concerned about the successes of Russia and China in non-nuclear weapons, and therefore will strive to limit competitors in promising developments, and at the same time to conduct "reconnaissance by negotiations" - in the process of dialogue to find out, how far the counterparts have progressed in the development of new weapons.

However, this by no means prevents us from "catching" them at their word and starting substantive negotiations on the entire range of arms control problems, including - in space or cyberspace, etc..

A legally binding settlement is long overdue here, and it is Washington that is so far more interested in the absence of rules and the situation of the "Wild West", when it is possible to attribute various kinds of cyberattacks and violations to any opponent of their choice without proof, to justify their allegedly defensive actions by this.

So that, if the United States wants to regain leadership in initiating disarmament negotiations, we will only support. That case, when it’s not a pity to share fame, would be the result.

Konstantin Kosachev

A source