US, WASHINGTON (ORDO NEWS) — As the Fars news agency emphasizes, all major international players immediately responded to the decision of US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement.
Russia, in particular, called this decision by the United States to leave Open Skies a “frank blow to the entire system of international security,” and above all, a “blow to the security of Europe.”
The US European allies, usually silent in such cases, did not leave him unattended. Even NATO said that they would have to convene an urgent meeting at which they would “study this intention of the United States.”
The US government, led by Donald Trump, has notified its international partners of Washington’s desire to withdraw from the Open Skies treaty last Thursday.
What actually happened, and why can this step of the USA really have serious enough consequences?
Recall that the international agreement “Open Skies” allowed the countries that signed it to use the airspace of the partner countries under the treaty to study and monitor the state of armaments. But is it not in the 21st century, in the age of new tracking technologies and space satellites, an empty formality? Indeed, even without it, the presence of one or another dangerous weapon in one country or another can no longer be a secret! And is this step really important for Donald Trump, who has long shown the world that the essence of his policy is to free the United States from all international obligations that bind his country, and most importantly, from financial obligations?
However, not everything was so simple. At first, the United States made accusations against Russia, which allegedly “abused” this agreement, and thus undermined international security, and above all, the security of the United States itself, which for this reason announced that they were “forced” to leave the treaty.
Thus, a suitable “pretext” seems to be found. Russia was again to blame – it has happened so more than once under the presidents-democrats and under the republicans.
However, the United States is now in a very special political situation: the presidential election is approaching, and, moreover, more recently, Trump himself was at the center of a major political scandal when his opponents opposed him with charges of “ties with Russia.” And now this decision of the president has caused, first of all, a heated discussion in the American press, which, as you know, is mainly under the control of political opponents of Trump. And with his “unpredictable predictability” in politics, he has already gained a lot of such people, even among his own party members, not only among the opposition part of American society. The media unanimously started talking about the fact that leaving the Open Skies would entail tension in relations with Moscow (as if it wasn’t there already?), But also about
In general, all these assumptions were justified, although each had its own motives: Trump’s opponents in Congress do not miss the opportunity to once again criticize the president and gain extra points in the election confrontation. In Europe, they again started talking about concern, but not for international security, but that it was again abandoned by its American partner to its fate and was “face to face” with unpredictable Russia.
However, Russia, which is always “bad” in everything and not only for the United States, but also for Europe, has just criticized the United States, with the motives that it will suffer, first of all, the system of collective international security, built so hard after the cold war. And she did not say a word about the safety of her own. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the decision of the “overseas partner,” said that, according to experts who monitored the situation, the decision (on the US withdrawing from the Open Skies agreements) was made in advance, and that such assumptions “really had a certain part of reality. ” The head of the Russian diplomatic department added that his country also came to the same opinion, proceeding from all contacts of Russia with the USA, other NATO member states and other states parties to this treaty.
At the same time, the Russian Foreign Minister added that Moscow’s response to “probably a decision made by Washington in advance” will depend on how it will be implemented and how Washington’s NATO partners will behave – will they follow suit USA or not. And then, according to a senior Russian diplomat, the true meaning of the US decision will be revealed.
The agreement called “Open Skies” was signed, as you know, by far not only Russia and the USA – 35 states are parties to it, which, according to the agreement, have the right to conduct observation and inspection flights over the territories of partner countries under this agreement. Indeed – Russia and the United States were the first to sign and ratify it. It was signed in 1992, and from January 1, 2002 entered into force.
The purpose of this treaty is, in fact, more symbolic than real in the 21st century: indeed, with modern means of tracking, you can be perfectly aware of how, what weapons and where the partner country is concentrating, without any treaty. However, it has not lost its moral significance, since it is a very important symbol – a symbol of countries’ willingness to trust each other, readiness for mutual understanding and readiness for really “other relations” among themselves, not based on the language of threats.
As a result of this decision, the United States raises a really important question that has already been voiced by the Russian Foreign Minister: will there be other countries, first of all, his European partners, in the event of termination of membership in the Washington treaty? It is unlikely, since, on the one hand, what then are all their words about the need to build a new system of international relations, based not on mutual threats, but on collective security. Secondly, their withdrawal from the treaty following the example of the United States will in fact mean their recognition of the terrible and unpredictable right of Russia to continue to “uncontrollably arm” near their own borders.
There is another important question – does the likely withdrawal from the US treaty mean their desire in the very near future to actually unleash a real “hot war”? Also unlikely: Donald Trump has repeatedly had the opportunity to do this in about the same conditions when his predecessors decided on this. But he did not dare – for the first term of his presidency, and there is reason to believe that he will not dare to do this during the second term, of course, if he remains president. But to recognize the need for new international relations based on mutual trust, rather than deterrence and threats, the new or “new old” White House owner will still have to. It will have to because it does not turn out to be a “global outcast,” since the US has not been a global leader for a long time, and this is recognized even in the Trump team. As for the financial side of the issue,
Contact us: email@example.com