Un commentaire est associé à cet article. Vous pouvez le consulter et réagir à votre tour.
20191erjuin 2018 – Il y a une décade (le 20 mai 2018 sur son blog dit La Parole Franche, ou usforeignpolicy.blogs.lalibre.be), l’excellent commentateur et historien Gilbert Doctorow a consacré un essai à deux hommes qu’il désigne comme les deux “pacificateurs”, ou “faiseurs de paix” (peacemakers) de l’époque, – que l’on pourrait d’ailleurs désigner plutôt comme des “mainteneurs de paix”, vaille que vaille : Donald Trump et Vladimir Poutine.
Certains pourraient dire qu’on s’en doutait depuis 2016 où Trump semblait nous promettre de bien meilleures relations des USA avec la Russie, et donc une démarche commune de paix ; sauf que, bien sûr, cette “promesse” du candidat républicain et surprise ne s’est jamais concrétisée et que les relations entre les USA et la Russie sont pires que sous la présidence Obama. Les relations personnelles entre Poutine et Trump sont restées épisodiques, incertaines sinon inexistantes. Il n’y a entre eux aucune entente particulière, aucune complicité ni quoi que ce soit de cette sorte quand on les compare à tant d'autres “couples” de dirigeants politiques, et leurs brèves rencontres ici et là n’ont débouché sur rien de commun qui fût assez constructif pour qu’on pût parler d’une véritable “paix” qui serait née d’une éventuelle proximité. Ceux qui attendent quelque chose de cette sorte seront, de l’avis de Doctorow, bien déçus ; il le dit clairement dans sa conclusion...
« C'est une caractéristique curieuse de nos temps confus et contradictoires, que certains de mes pairs gardent l’espoir qu'une réunion au sommet de Poutine et Trump pourrait fournir une percée dans les relations qui mettraient fin à l'impasse mondiale et ouvriraient une ère de paix. Ils vont même jusqu'à espérer un partenariat stratégique américano-russe.
» De ce qui précède, il devrait être évident que tout rapprochement possible entre les États-Unis et la Fédération de Russie n’est qu’un vague espoir pour un avenir lointain et dépend complètement d’un changement fondamental dans la conception de l’establishment US, passant de sa certitude que l’hégémonie mondiale lui revient “de naissance” et “de droit” à la fois à la volonté d’occuper une position au milieu de ses pairs, pour rechercher une paix par consensus, et nullement par diktat. Ce jour n’est pas pour bientôt. »
Ce pessimisme couronne ainsi très curieusement une analyse assez optimiste sur le maintien d’une certaine situation de paix (pour ce qui concerne le risque de grande guerre conventionnelle/nucléaire) entre les deux puissances nucléaires, on dirait par logique contradictoire, selon une analyse et un cheminement de pensée qui nous convient parfaitement. Ce cheminement passe par deux portraits psychologiques des deux présidents concernés, Trump et Poutine successivement, qui rencontrent également notre perception : deux présidents qui, contrairement à ce qu’on avait pu croire en 2016, ne sont pas faits pour s’entendre mais au contraire pour ne pas se comprendre : cela signifiant qu’ils ne s’entendront pas, moins par désaccord que par différence complète de façon de penser et d’agir.
Ce décalage de perception s’explique par le fait qu’en 2016, nous étions dans une situation tactique, voire démagogique(essentiellement sinon exclusivement du point de vue de Trump qui se battait pour l’élection) alors qu’aujourd’hui nous sommes dans une situation stratégique. Poutine est toujours resté dans une posture stratégique, d’abord pour observer qui était Trump et comment il évoluait (avec un espoir temporaire d’une entente stratégique), puis sans doute et sans trop de désespoir pour constater l’impossibilité d’une entente stratégique.
(Il faut noter que Doctorow n’accorde que peu de place aux influences extérieures, notamment le fameux DeepStateet le reste du côté de Trump. Il ne pense certainement pas qu’il n’y a pas de jeu d’influence, de pressions diverses, etc., du côté de Trump, mais il semble bien ne pas croire que l’attitude fondamentale de Trump soit forcée par ces influences.)
Le portait que Doctorow fait de Poutine est net et droit. Ce “mainteneur de paix” ne veut pas la guerre, ni des enchaînements menant à la guerre, — on parle ici d’un affrontement au plus haut niveau, – et pour cela il n’a de cesse d’assurer et de renforcer la posture militaire de la Russie, comme l’ont montré son discours du 1ermars et les révélations sur les nouveaux armements stratégiques russes qui produisent désormais un effet considérable même si les “gens sérieux” du domaine (le Pentagone) ne s’épanchent pas trop à cet égard.
Il est clair qu’avec les efforts de modernisation de l’outil militaire russe, Poutine a quasiment renversé la position d’infériorité stratégique nucléaire de la Russie de 2007-2008 ; il se garde bien, lui Poutine, de parler de “supériorité stratégique” et il lui préfère la notion de “rétablissement de la parité stratégique”. En vérité, il ne fait aucun doute à nos yeux que dans cette situation où les normes, la coopération et les ententes sont remplacées par la concurrence, il y a renversement (l’élément chinois s’inscrivant en plus mais n’étant pas nécessaire à la position nouvelle de la Russie) :
« C’est une situation assez étonnante que la lenteur du système de la communication américaniste dans ce débat qui implique, non pas un “rétablissement de la parité stratégique” avec les USA comme le disent poliment Russes et Chinois, mais un renversement radical de la supériorité stratégique dans les domaines conventionnel et nucléaire, en faveur de la Russie et de la Chine. »
... Pour autant, répétons-le, Poutine est bien un “faiseur/mainteneur de paix”. Le plus simplement du monde pour un stratège, – et la grande stratégie est celle qui se nourrit de simplicité, – il n’a fait qu’appliquer la maxime archi-connue du “Si vis pacem, para bellum”.
Trump, lui, est “mainteneur de paix” par inadvertance, et même par contradiction. Le portrait qu’en fait Doctorow est certainement celui que nous affectionnons nous-mêmes : le créateur de désordre au cœur de la puissance US par affirmation brutale de cette puissance sans prendre la moindre précaution vis-à-vis des composants de cette puissance, et encore moins de ceux qui subissent les effets de cette brutalité. Doctorow ne pense pas que Trump avait comme ambition spécifique et stratégique de se rapprocher de la Russie lorsqu’il exposait ce programme au long des élections de 2016, mais plutôt de réaliser un rapprochement tactique pour stopper sinon contrecarrer le rapprochement entre la Russie et la Chine. Doctorow estime que l’influence du vieil Henry Kissinger a été fondamentale sur ce point, et c’est effectivement pour accroître décisivement l’opposition entre la Chine et la Russie (alors URSS) que Kissinger justifie le rapprochement décisif des USA avec la Chine, avec la visite de Nixon à Pékin en 1971 que le même Kissinger organisa dans le plus grand secret qui était l'une de ses pratiques favorites.
(Il n’est pas assuré du tout que cette conception de Kissinger ait été celle de Nixon, comme il est loin d’être acquis que l’idée d’un rapprochement des USA de la Chine soit de Kissinger et non de Nixon comme le premier l’a souvent laissé entendre. Nixon avait largement développé cette idée avant de devenir président, et il l’avait développée selon une logique empruntée au général de Gaulle, qu'il admirait profondément, qui repose sur le simple constat de la légitimité et de la souveraineté, de l’impossibilité de ne pas reconnaître l’existence d’une entité de cette taille et de ce poids historique pour mieux organiser les relations internationales en lui donnant la place qui lui revenait. Pour Nixon, qui pensait en termes de diplomate soucieux de rechercher des équilibres, il s’agissait de renforcer l’équilibre des puissances en reconnaissant celle de la Chine et en l’intégrant dans un grand système de compromis que certains ont nommé “détente”.)
Toit cela nous vaut une explication de Doctorow concernant Trump, où le facteur psychologique tient une importance considérable : « Pourquoi alors catégoriser Trump en tant que pacificateur? Cela vient du faut de son action de destruction perverse et par ignorance de l'hégémonie mondiale américaine par son abandon de ce qu’on nomme le “soft power”, notamment avec l’usage tactique des “valeurs partagées”, pour s’appuyer entièrement sur la force, sur le chantage ouvert pour “négocier/imposer des accords” avec les alliés américains en Europe et en Asie. Cela vient directement de la personnalité du Président, de son ADN, de son expérience avec ses anciens partenaires d'affaires où l’on cherche une “position de force” pour imposer ses conditions plutôt que de rechercher des compromis pour des solutions où les deux négociateurs emportent quelque choses (situations dites “gagnant-gagnant”).
» La vulgarité grossière de Trump, sa tendance à trahir sa parole, sa volonté d’humilier publiquement ses interlocuteurs complètent sa façon d’agir qu’on retrouve dans des affaires, comme les divers retraits d’accords existants, de l'accord nucléaire iranien, de l’accord sur le changement climatique, sur le Partenariat transpacifique, sur le Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement et sur ALENA.
» L'establishment washingtonien comprenait bien que Trump était un désastre pour l'édifice d'un ordre mondial régi par des règles qu'il avait si méticuleusement cultivé ces dernières décennies et qui ont payé de beaux dividendes financiers aux classes dirigeantes américaines, qui ont festoyé aux frais du reste du monde. Mais il était et reste incommode d'expliquer précisément ce qui n'allait pas avec lui [Trump]. Il y a ici et là des balivernes à ce propos, comme cette observation d’un commentateur-Système comme Roger Cohen, dans son dernier feuilleton du New York Times où il nous parle d'une “pourriture morale qui menace l'Amérique” émanant du Bureau ovale.
» La pensée dominante parmi les analystes politiques des médias alternatifs – que ce soit TheDuran, Consortium News ou Peter Lavelle de Russie Today sur Cross Talk – est que cet odieux président américain fera son chemin et que l'emprise américaine sur le monde continuera malgré ses excès. Ils nous disent que l'Europe va “caner” devant Trump à propos de l’Iran et finalement imposer les sanctions que demande Washington. On fait valoir que les dirigeants européens peuvent certes parler haut et dur mais que la réalité des affaires est telle que les bons rapports avec Washington sont trop précieux compte tenu de la divergence dans les volumes de commerce avec les États-Unis par opposition à l'Iran.
» Cependant, ces analystes négligent non seulement les effets possibles de l'humiliation totalement indécente de Trump envers les dirigeants amis, mais aussi la question de la sécurité nationale existentielle, qui, partout et à tout moment, l'emporte sur l'avantage commercial pour déterminer les relations interétatiques. Le simple fait est que l'Europe a horreur de l’idée d’un Iran nucléaire que le traité actuel empêche efficacement, ou plus généralement d’un Moyen-Orient équipé d’armes nucléaires qui peuvent menacer l’Europe. Ainsi l’Europe s'oppose-t-elle fermement à un risque catastrophique dans ce domaine, comme la révocation du pacte nucléaire par Trump avec les Iraniens. Ce sont des préoccupations qui rendent impossible une “capitulation” [des Européens], quelle que soit la piètre mesure du courage personnel des dirigeants européens. »
Ainsi nous explique Doctorow, Trump, par ses habitudes comportementales de businessmande choc, “à l’américaine“, pousse le système de l’américanisme (de l’hégémonisme américaniste) à son extrême. Il fait fonctionner à fond l’équation surpuissance-autodestruction, notamment parce qu’il utilise un instrument dont l’efficacité est à son extrême limite (la puissance américaniste sur-étendue) et qu’il se heurte alors aux “gardiens du temple” qui savent parfaitement ce qu’ils risquent et qui disposent à Washington d’une puissance d’influence énorme (« Les derniers, et peut-être les seuls vrais réalistes dans l'establishment du pouvoir américain, le commandement militaire du Pentagone, ont pris une claire mesure de la puissance et de la détermination de la Russie. »)
Le résultat n’en reste pas moins que la poussée de Trump met en évidence les limites de la puissance US et détruit l’énorme influence hégémonique ce pays-continent exerçait sur le reste du monde, de ce fait mettant sa puissance militaire sur la défensive, sinon sur la voie de la retraite presqu'en déroute... Et le résultat final, paradoxal, étant effectivement qu’en agissant de la sorte Trump éloigne les risques de guerre que la puissance militaire US aurait été plus tentés de courir si elle avait disposé du champ et de la méthode pour pouvoir mieux utiliser ses moyens, – et par conséquent, oui, Trump “faiseur/mainteneur de paix”sans le savoir et même, pourrait-on dire, en s’en fichant bien.
« En surjouant sa main, Donald Trump accélère l'effondrement de l'hégémonie mondiale des États-Unis et du triomphalisme qui a guidé le comportement belliqueux qui risquait de déclencher la guerre par calcul ou erreur de calcul. De cette façon, Trump a involontairement encouragé la paix mondiale. »
La démonstration théorique est tout à fait satisfaisante pour l’esprit, combinant d’une façon très originale deux caractères et deux comportements si étrangers, pour aboutir à ce paradoxe : nous qui attendions tant de la rencontre Poutine-Trump pour nous éviter un conflit, c’est l’impossibilité de cette rencontre qui, par annihilation réciproque, nous éviterait ce conflit. (Lorsque nous parlons d’“impossibilité de rencontre“ Poutine-Trump selon Doctorow, nous voulons parler bien entendu et d’abord d’une “rencontre d’esprit” mais également de rencontres tout court parce qu’inutiles, comme si Poutine et Trump vivaient dans des mondes parallèles qui, par définition euclidienne, ne se rencontrent jamais...) Bien entendu, il s’agit de deux personnes, de deux dirigeants, et la concentration de l’observation sur eux deux ne résout pas le problème, ni des relations entre la Russie et les USA, ni encore moins du Système lui-même.
A cet égard, Doctorow reste assez vague et ne nous convainc certainement pas lorsqu’il conclut : « Ceci [l’absence de communication au niveau des deux dirigeants US et russe] passera. Peut-être le résultat de l’élection de 2020 ouvrira-t-il de nouvelles perspectives. » Pour ne pas être abrupt, nous dirons que “sans doute les résultats de l’élection 2020 n’ouvriront-ils aucune nouvelle perspective”, et c’est sans aucun doute en cela que notre point de vue diffère de celui de Doctorow.
Quoi qu’il en soit, l’essai de Gilbert Doctorow, – c’est en effet plus un essai qu’un article, – mérite sans aucun doute la lecture.
_________________________
Though I have been practicing the art of political science these past ten years as essayist and journalist, my professional training as an historian comes to the fore occasionally as I ponder chains of causality and in particular, the fine interrelationship of deep-lying social-economic-geopolitical currents that carry us along and the determining forces of powerful individuals on the surface of the ocean of time.
Events of the past several weeks if not months going back to 1 March put these issues into high relief. By largely unforeseeable and counter-intuitive developments, the world is a much safer place than it was before 1 March 2018, and none of this is thanks to the efforts of me, my colleagues in the alternative news or of you, the reader. To our shame, we, the People have been silent witnesses of the daily news, often left scratching our heads at the way history is lurching forward before our eyes.
I involuntarily think back to the standards of thirty or forty years ago, when less threatening demarches and counter-demarches of the leading actors in the Cold War than those of today brought tens of thousands of demonstrators out onto the streets in Europe and in North America. I have in mind the Soviet deployment of SS-20 intermediate range missiles and the counter-deployment of US nuclear armed cruise missiles in Germany. Civil society then protested loudly at the seeming march towards the abyss of mutual annihilation by sleep-walking heads of state. By contrast, the near catastrophic weekend of 14 April 2018 when Donald Trump sent 103 cruise missiles crashing into Syrian targets amidst dire Russian warnings against crossing their red lines in the country came and went with civil society on both sides of the Atlantic at the edge of their seats, but still sitting in comfortable armchairs, not out and about venting its opposition to approaching Armageddon.
So much for “progressive humanity,” not to mention specifically women or minorities whom our present-day historians like to think are shaping the course of destiny while they play down the role of “great men.” Indeed, we are being led precisely by our heads of state and, to name names, by two men of destiny, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. In this essay I argue that whether by volition or by circumstance, they have both turned out to be the peacemakers we need to survive the present bumpy road of transitioning the world order from the failed US global hegemony or unipolar configuration to the coming but still not arrived multipolar configuration. In time present, we are neither here nor there but in a special, if ephemeral bipolar world of US-Russian confrontation that has turned quite ugly and dangerous.
***
Given the latest exchange of barbs between Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, their summit planned for Singapore in early June may never take place. However that may be, the very thought of its happening, explained by some in the West as resulting from the tough sanctions regime, still tougher talk of Donald Trump from late autumn into the early spring of this year appeared to justify nominating the American President for a Nobel Peace Prize. To be sure, this hypothetical nomination has more justice to it than the actual award of a Nobel to Barack Obama in 2009 for his not being George W. Bush. In both cases, the award was/would be prescriptive rather than actually earned.
At the same time, the notion of Trump as peacemaker can be traced back to his speeches during the 2016 electoral campaign when he repeatedly said that he would seek normal relations with Russia while berating those who insisted on Cold War rhetoric. That was politically courageous in the context of overheated Russophobia within the US political establishment representing both parties. Since it added nothing to the candidate’s popularity while presenting a red flag to his critics, the policy had all appearances of deep conviction in pursuit of peace. It was on the basis of this issue alone that I and several acquaintances cast our vote for candidate Trump.
Of course, once in office Trump’s policy on Russia took a markedly different turn, and in recent months he has boasted that his administration is much tougher on Russia than Barack Obama had been. The generally accepted explanation for this has been the mad pursuit of a “Russian connection,” of “complicity” between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin that allegedly threw the election his way. This is the line of attack on Trump led by the Clinton faction of the Democratic Party, and it finds support from some Republicans as well. Their common objective is to turn Trump out of office by impeachment. The consequence, it is believed, was that Trump has been forced to abandon his pursuit of accommodation with the Kremlin and to align himself with those who describe Russia as the greatest threat to American security.
However, this explanation may be too facile and misses an important strategic consideration that probably underpinned Trump’s pro-Russian stance during the campaign: namely, that at the time Henry Kissinger was de facto one of his key policy advisers, and Henry clearly urged a re-set with the Kremlin in order to undo the forming Russia-China axis facilitated by Obama’s misguided policies of simultaneous containment of America’s two global rivals that spelled the undoing of his own lifetime achievement from the time of Nixon’s détente. A rapprochement with Russia, Henry advised, would make it possible for the US to deal firmly and decisively with the perceived greater strategic threat to American worldwide hegemony that China represented
Very early in the new administration, Vladimir Putin made it clear that no “come hither” look from Washington could prompt a strategic re-alignment against China. This was a scenario imaginable only to someone lacking a firm grasp of Putin’s thinking and behavior, of his loyalty to friends and disdain for treachery. But then again, Henry Kissinger was never very interested in Russia, never studied the country with any seriousness and enjoyed an undeserved reputation as expert in this domain.
Accordingly, with no benefits to realize by pursuing accommodation with Russia and a lot of political grief to pay domestically for doing so, Donald Trump changed his stripes on Russia in spring 2017 and went with the flow, went even beyond Obama in his truculent punishment of the Kremlin for its refusal to submit and follow the dictates of Uncle Sam.
Why then do I categorize Trump as a peacemaker? That comes from his perverse and ignorant destruction of the American global hegemony by his dispensing with Soft Power, with “shared values” and relying instead entirely on force, on open blackmail to “negotiate deals” with America’s allies in Europe and Asia. This comes directly from the President’s own personality, his DNA, his experience in dealing with past business partners from “a position of strength” rather than as a seeker of compromises and “win-win” solutions.
Trump’s vulgar familiarity, his open treachery, his public humiliation of his interlocutors complement his reversal of long-standing shared policy decisions on the Iran nuclear deal, on Climate Change, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and on NAFTA..
The establishment understood correctly that Trump spelled disaster for the edifice of a rules-driven world order they had cultivated so meticulously for the past many decades which paid handsome financial dividends to America’s ruling classes, who have been eating the world’s lunch. But it was and remains inconvenient to explain precisely what was wrong. And so we read balderdash written by such iconic commentators as Roger Cohen whose latest feuilleton in The New York Timesspeaks of a “moral rot that threatens America” emanating from the Oval Office.
The prevailing thinking among political analysts in alternative media – be it The Duran, Consortium News or Russia Today’s Peter Lavelle on Cross Talk – is that this obnoxious US president will have his way and that the US grip on the world will continue despite his excesses. They tell us Europe will “cave in” to Trump on Iran and ultimately impose the sanctions that Washington demands. It is argued that the European leaders may talk tough now, but that the business reality is such that flaunting Washington comes at too high a price given the discrepancy in volumes of trade with the USA as opposed to Iran.
However, these analysts overlook not only the possible effects of Trump’s altogether indecent humiliation of friendly leaders but also the issue of existential national security, which everywhere and at all times outweighs commercial advantage in determining interstate relations. The simple fact is that Europe abhors the notion of a nuclear Iran which the existing convention prevents effectively, or, more generally, of a nuclear-armed Middle East at its doorstep. Europe also firmly opposes a wider conflagration in that area such as Trump’s revocation of the nuclear pact with Iran heralds. These are concerns which make a “cave-in” impossible, whatever the measure of personal courage of European leaders.
Trump utterly lacks discernment and is being egged on to commit unpardonable blunders in foreign policy by the “mad dog” civilian advisers like John Bolton whom he appointed to look and sound tough. His pursuit of primitive mercantilist policies such as the promotion of overpriced US liquefied gas to Europe to replace Russian pipeline gas through Nord Stream II, which he is pressing Merkel to scuttle, make a mockery of shared Atlanticist interests and values, and expose to ridicule at home any European leaders who might be tempted to stand by his side.
One cannot overestimate the significance of the harshly condemnatory statements addressed to Trump and the USA this past week by both European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker and by European Council President Donald Tusk. Tusk said trenchantly about Trump “with friends like this who needs enemies.” Juncker called for activation of a 1990s EU “blocking law” to protect European business from the effects of secondary US sanctions for continuing to do business with Iran. The given mechanism was launched the next day, this past Friday.
It must be recalled that both of these leaders were installed by Angela Merkel. Their firmness in repudiating Washington’s bullying and wrongheaded position on Iran represents not merely their personal views but the views coming from Berlin, which for the last decade at least is the guiding force in EU policy, both foreign and domestic. Moreover, by an irony of fate, the harshest denunciation of the United States is coming precisely from the Pole Tusk, former head of the ruling party in Warsaw. It has to be recalled that Tusk’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, acknowledged his country had been giving Uncle Sam “a blow job.” For these reasons, I think the US game is up thanks to the good work of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
The problem of non-compliance with US sanctions against Iran is multi-dimensional and it is clearly too early to say how this will play out. Experts agree that in any case the financial infrastructure for trading with Iran, SWIFT, will this time, unlike the last US-led sanctions on Iran imposed in 2012, remain in place. The “blocking law” offers some financial compensation to European companies facing penalties in the United States, though Chancellor Merkel has said this is unlikely to be sufficient.
A major question is what the European companies will actually do. First indications are not encouraging, with Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company and French oil giant Total indicating they are closing operations with Iran, the former, or will do so if they are not given explicit exemptions by Washington, the latter. But these are just straws in the wind. The European blocking law is likely to give more comfort to small and medium sized European companies than to the very largest companies with heavy US involvement. So only time will tell whether ongoing trade and investment with Iran will be sufficient for Teheran to continue to honor the nuclear deal.And then there is the question of how much assistance will actually be rendered by the two countries standing most resolutely by the side of Iran: Russia and China.
The possible failure of the US sanctions on Iran because of noncompliance would not stand by itself. It comes in the context of multiple disputes between the US and its allies in which trade and sanctions figure heavily.
America’s policies of global economic gendarme and issuer of unilateral sanctions on its competitors, not to mention adversaries is uniting opposition to sanctions regimes as a tool of foreign policy overall. The opening skirmishes of a US-initiated trade war with Europe over steel and aluminum has focused minds.
Meanwhile, it is notable that a new government about to be installed in Italy has made the lifting of US-led sanctions on Russia one of the several key policies of their coalition. And while it is easy to say that Europe has heard this before, from Austrians, from Czechs, from Slovaks, from Greeks who did not and do not share the enthusiasm of Brussels in applying sanctions to Russia, they were all two-bit countries who lacked the demographic heft and the economic weight to go up against the 28 and enter a veto. Italy has that scale and as a founding member of the EU, its intended veto of the sanctions may well be the game changer so many of us have waited for. But this is ignored or discounted by Donald Trump’s administration which has announced plans to implement still tougher sanctions on Russia over the vaguely termed “malign influence” they say Russia exerts on Europe.
By overplaying his hand, Donald Trump is hastening the collapse of US global hegemony and of the triumphalism that has guided bellicose behavior, risking war by intent or miscalculation. In this way, Trump has been unwittingly fostering global peace.
***
If Trump is a peacemaker by his promotion of policies destructive of US power, Vladimir Putin is a peacemaker by conscious choice. This is not to say that Putin is being dovish. Quite the contrary is true. Putin is the living embodiment of the principle of ensuring peace by preparing for war.
In his recent debate with Ambassador Michael McFaul at Columbia’s Harriman Institute, Professor Stephen Cohen noted that Vladimir Putin has a demonstrable long record as “reactive” to American and other Western encroachments on Russia’s national interests and is in no way the aggressor, as our governments and media insist. Those of us with open minds and clear vision have long noted Putin’s characteristic restraint, refusal to respond to provocations in haste or in an intemperate manner.
This behavior pattern goes straight back to his early days in power, when Russia was shocked to receive as reward for its generous support to the United States following 9/11 back of the hand treatment from Washington. From the Russian perspective, the US decision to abrogate the ABM Treaty in 2002, removed one of the key features of global security dating back to the early 1970s. It was plain to see that the US objective now was to achieve strategic superiority over Russia in the one area that justified its claims to a seat on the governing board of international affairs, its nuclear triad. With the planned construction of anti-missile bases in Europe that could also serve as launchers of attack missiles, the United States would obtain a first strike capability.
At the time, Putin strenuously objected to this US program, which he said would require Russia to make counter moves to ensure its security. However, Russian warnings went unheeded and in 2004 Putin informed Washington that his country would now proceed on its own to develop asymmetrical systems of defense against the US anti-ballistic missile infrastructure developing at its perimeter. This message only evoked derisive commentary among NATO officials behind closed doors. After all, they reasoned, the much diminished technical and financial levels of the Russian Federation rendered the country’s come-back as a military equal improbable.
Nonetheless, Putin persisted in his plans and on 1 March 2018, in his annual Address to the joint session of the Russian parliament which also served as the key speech of his electoral campaign, Vladimir Putin revealed publicly what Russia has done in the past 14 years to restore strategic nuclear parity with the United States for the present and for the foreseeable future. He presented the functional characteristics of some eight new and technologically unrivaled weapons systems including hypersonic cruise missiles and drones operating at the ocean depths. These systems all have in common virtually unstoppable delivery of nuclear payloads which, in the cutting analysis of Russian commentators in the following days, turn the entire US anti-missile infrastructure which cost hundreds of billions of dollars, into a modern-day Maginot Line. That is to say the Russians had used some of the best minds on the planet, scientists who did not go overseas in pursuit of comfortable jobs in Silicon Valley working on the latest i-Phone but instead worked with dedication and patriotism to ensure the country’s survival. They had effectively managed these technical teams in tight budgets measured in orders of magnitude less than comparable programs in the United States to produce game-changing defense systems that are already deployed (the Dagger) or will soon be put in serial production (Sarmat).
“You did not listen to us before. Now hear this.” Those were the words of Putin after he presented the new systems. But instead of threats to “bury” the West, as Nikita Khrushchev once used, Vladimir Putin used his announcement to call upon the Americans and others to enter into new arms control negotiations.
Was anyone listening? To judge by the mainstream American media, the frivolous discounting of Russian capabilities continued unabated after Putin’s speech of 1 March. We were told that this was only an electoral stratagem to get additional votes, that no such systems exist, that Putin was bluffing. However, American political leaders with an inside knowledge of defense realities, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (California-D), long-time chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were listening. She and three other Senators issued a public call to then Secretary of Defense Rex Tillerson to immediately reopen arms control talks with the Kremlin. Then the President himself in his congratulatory message to Vladimir Putin on his successful re-election said that it was important to meet in the not too distant future to talk about arms control because the arms race was “getting out of hand.”
One may object that talk is cheap, and that these recognitions of new Russian might were largely kept from the American public. In this case, American actions speak louder than words. In the cruise missile attack on Syria on 14 April to which I alluded at the start of this essay, the United States scrupulously took measures to ensure no harm would be done to Russian military personnel in Syria, so that the military impact of the attack was essentially nill. In short, the Russian President’s speech ensured full attention was given in Washington to the threats of Chief of the Russian General Staff Gerasimov to shoot down ships and planes launching missiles at Syria if Russian red lines were crossed.
The last, and perhaps the only true realists in the US power establishment, the military command in the Pentagon clearly no longer disdain Russian capabilities and determination.
In a broader sense, it is also salutary and helpful to the maintenance of global peace that Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia is ready to press the nuclear button, even if it spelled collective suicide, in case it came under attack from the United States. This came out in the course of a special film on Putin that was released during the campaign. He explained to the interviewer that he did not want to live in a world in which the Russian Federation ceased to exist and would respond to attack accordingly.
This clarity compares favorably with the wishy-washy position of British military and civilian top leadership that came out in a BBC pseudo-documentary entitled “World War Three. Inside the War Room,” February 2016.
Equal military power, readiness to use it in the face of existential security threats, clarity of thinking and restraint: these are all the elements which combine to make Vladimir Putin a major contributor to global peace.
***
It is a curious feature of our confusing and vexing times, that some of my peers remain hopeful that a Summit meeting of Putin and Trump might provide a breakthrough in relations that would end the global stand-off and usher in an era of peace. They even go so far as to hope for a US-Russian strategic partnership.
From the foregoing, it should be obvious that any possible rapprochement between the United States and the Russian Federation is a project for the distant future and cannot come earlier than a fundamental change in thinking of the US establishment from global hegemony to positioning the US as just one of several peers at the table working on the basis of consensus, not Diktat. That day will not come soon.
In the meantime, arm’s length relations between the two heads of state will be entirely sufficient and justified. All that is needed is mutual respect, and as Trump’s recent meetings with foreign leaders demonstrates, respect for others is not part of his mindset. It will be far better if any negotiations with Russia are held at the working level to ensure open lines of communication and clear understanding of the other side’s red lines.
This, too, will pass. Perhaps the outcome of the 2020 US elections will open new perspectives.
Forum — Charger les commentaires
-
