Vladimir Putin interiviewed by Financial Times

Whitestrake Pelinal

Like a dream without a dreamer
Video: Vladimir Putin: the full interview
Transcript: Interview with The Financial Times

I found this interview to be a good read. Particularly interesting were the comments about America's withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the possibility that America is on track to abandon the START treaty. I have a hard time imagining us benefiting from another arms race, though I imagine there are deep state allied military-industrial firms that could profit handsomely. Is there any good reason for our withdrawal from these treaties? Or is it more likely that there is some shady motive behind this?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Most weapons are like a condom; better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The ABM and IRNF weren't exactly be respected by anyone other than the US and NATO the last decade or so, and START won't survive long either. The arms race never really ended, it just went into an off-season.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Video: Vladimir Putin: the full interview
Transcript: Interview with The Financial Times

I found this interview to be a good read. Particularly interesting were the comments about America's withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the possibility that America is on track to abandon the START treaty. I have a hard time imagining us benefiting from another arms race, though I imagine there are deep state allied military-industrial firms that could profit handsomely. Is there any good reason for our withdrawal from these treaties? Or is it more likely that there is some shady motive behind this?
Those bilateral treaties were doomed the moment that world's hotzones started shifting from Russia's "sphere of influence" (former, current or desired) towards other places. They are terrible for Russia, USA, and allies of both, and adventageous for enemies and competitors of either, as those are not bound by such treaties. They both know it, and both know that the other knows, it's surprising it took so long, it's just a matter of incentives growing big enough to shift the status quo and a little secondary play for optics.
These treaties need to go, or at very least be expanded to include other countries of interest that are currently getting a completely free competitive advantage from them.
This problem with such treaties is not even some rumors or secretive implication, it's openly talked about.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
It’s important to remember that post-Stalinist USSR/Russia is a deeply rational entity committed to power politics. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But if you read B. Bruce Briggs’ The Shield of Faith you will see that treaties like this were driven by a leftist nihilism convinced that nuclear weaponry was a power that would destroy the world. They made decisions to make it unthinkable to use nuclear weapons by actively making the US vulnerable to attack.

The Soviets signed the treaties and then implemented massive civil defence. Why? They were the weaker power, so the treaties reduced the amount of damage their homeland would suffer and improved their negotiating posture in the future. Putin is trying to do all he can to preserve that legacy of leverage well above Russia’s real power. In his place, I would do the exact same thing, but as an American I must say it is in our best interest to end these unequal treaties.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top