“ Absence of joint projects strengthens mutual suspicions “Russian - the American Council about steady partnership with Russia (SUPR) has published yesterday the recommendations, concerning cooperation in sphere of nuclear non-distribution and antimissile defence which have been directed earlier a management of the Russian Federation and the USA. The president entering in SUPR Russian the FEAST - the centre VLADIMIR of EAGLES has told to the correspondent “” to VLADIMIR SOLOVEVU about, whether there is a chance that to these recommendations will listen and whether Moscow and Washington can basically to find common language concerning creation evropro.
SUPR the FEAST - the centre and Ploughshares Fund on April, 8th, 2010, in day of signing by presidents of the Russian Federation and the USA the new contract on reduction of strategic offensive arms (SNV) has been created Russian. The council Main objective - to promote efforts on adjustment of stable and long-term partnership between Washington and Moscow on two key questions of the international safety: To nuclear non-distribution and nuclear disarmament.
- in what an essence of offers which you suggest to study to a management of Russia and the USA and why you think, what they will be heard by official Washington and Moscow?
- Our group SUPR is joint Russian - the American initiative of experts which prepared recommendations about several directions. The first direction - what to do further in the field of reduction of nuclear arms and nuclear disarmament after coming into force of contract SNV. The second direction - Near-Eastern: as the Russian Federation and the USA to co-operate in the Near East, first of all in sphere of nuclear non-distribution can. It those processes which have now appeared a little in a shade, but are directly connected with the first point. When we speak “ antimissile defence “ it means defence against any rockets, instead of in general. What it is rockets? We while obshcho speak - rockets from the south, meaning Iran. Thus, it was important to us to define and movement as a whole, including the ABM, and our concrete sights in the Near East, including Iran.
as a result we have come to important conclusions. One of them is a presence of interrelation of strategic offensive and defensive arms. To me it is important that all experts of the group, all members SUPRa which was present at session, both Russian, and American, do not challenge this interrelation.
- experts - yes. But here the authorities of Russia and the USA treat the coordination of offensive and defensive arms mentioned in preamble SNV on - to a miscellaneous.
- it is exact. In Washington it do not perceive as legally obliging, and in Moscow treat as a part of legal obligations, a document part. But we in this case say that we have made a cut or, if want, gauging of temperature of moods in the expert communities close to the Kremlin and the White house to find out, whether there are directions on which positions of the Russian Federation and the USA have chance to coincide. After all even if experts in something do not agree, then the governments do not have almost any chance at official level to come to the arrangement. And if there are any general platforms, at least at experts, means, there is a dialogue possibility.
in our recommendations we left on possibilities of teamwork of the Russian Federation and the USA in the field of the ABM. We spoke about Russia and the USA, meaning that it can be and a track Russia-NATO, but first of all Russia and the USA. It is necessary to develop corresponding arrangements. A question, whether there can be they legally obliging? Here we have not found the consent. One members SUPRa believe that such restrictions should be and for the further nuclear reductions acceptance of restrictions on ABM systems can be demanded. Others are assured that the senate of the USA does not ratify any contract containing restrictions in sphere of the ABM. But is and konstruktiv. After ascertaining of divergences we specify that cooperation in the field of the ABM between the Russian Federation and the NATO through the decision of the governments of Russia and the USA can become the decision of this dilemma. It is a question of decision-making process integration, about the preliminary coordination of starts of interceptor missiles, Russian - the NATO reports defining in each specific case, whether the command on ballistic missile interception by NATO or Russian interceptors, and so on will be given.
- But concerning cooperation in sphere of the ABM of the party also cannot agree. The offer which has sounded in Lisbon of Dmitry Medvedev to create the sectoral ABM remains without the answer, and now we see rigid statements from the Russian side, including threats to leave contract SNV.
- it is valid. Russia, probably, has decided to remind that if we will not promote in cooperation on the ABM we will lose any possibility of an establishment of trust in this sphere. Absence of joint projects strengthens mutual suspicions. As consequence, any possibility of the further negotiations on reduction of nuclear arms of offensive character is blocked.
- I correctly understand, what the joint project in ABM sphere was at all unessential can realisation of the sectoral approach?
- When we at session SUPRa discussed questions of the sectoral ABM, has been noticed that basically the idea sounds not bad, and to turn away from it only because the Russian sector can cover Baltic or Finland, it is not necessary. And here with it just problems because Russia has not presented the detailed developed offer. As far as I understand, the situation now changes, and last week Medvedev has directed to the western partners of decoding of ideas in the field of the ABM.
the idea that the sectoral ABM, maybe, and quite good idea, but let`s look and at other mutually acceptable projects on this direction with reference to Europe has been come up with. Partly efforts of the Kremlin have been directed on showing that the corridor for mutual arrangements all - taki is present. After all the conclusion could be other: let`s not spend for this time, all the same it will turn out nothing. And such impression is not present. On the other hand, there is no impression and that we can construct together with the NATO something grandiose that will be, as a matter of fact, uniform system of the ABM. Such too it is not built.
But at dialogue between Russia and the USA it is possible to leave on the joint project in the field of the ABM, for example on integration of the given American and Russian systems of the prevention and an estimation into the uniform centre in common operated the NATO and Russia, or in two centres. Certainly, at understanding as this system can provide absence of threat for the Russian Federation. After all being got involved in something joint, we need to know that it does not substitute us. Idea that if we are got involved, it already guarantees against any risks. Especially if on a paper it will be defined, about what in this case rockets we speak - that we intercept, rockets of what range. It will help to understand that the ABM system of which Americans think, is not directed against Russia.
- you have already transferred your offers to the Russian and American parties. What probability, what will consider them?
- They have left to the Kremlin both in the White house and to other key players to presentation. I would not like to make comments on a question on, whether their any elements have been included in current documents, but we see that some of these offers are claimed by the Russian officials. The part from them is already used.
- as you consider, why the Russian officials - at first the deputy minister of defence of the Russian Federation Anatoly Antonov, and then and the assistant to head the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Rjabkov - right now began to react roughly to absence of progress in negotiations about joint system EvroPrO?
- I would not began to dramatize it. Simply that period which Russia has measured for itself, expecting positive reaction, has passed. Reactions were not any. Moscow has waited and now reminds of it. As in the beginning of June discussion of a problematics of the ABM at level of Ministers of Defence of the Russian Federation and the NATO will take place. Now there is a corridor of possibilities for achievement of joint arrangements. And probably, Russia would like to make active this process right now. If to look at a calendar, we will see, as at Russia, and at the USA remains not so a lot of time. In the autumn Russia enters the pre-election cycle - dumsko - presidential. It will influence definitely possibility or impossibility of large decisions in the field of Russian - the American dialogue. And as soon as at us elections in presidents will come to the end, full-scale election campaign in the USA which can already connect hands to Barack Obama starts. Therefore there is an understanding that would be desirable to make something before. Here to you and the corresponding period: June-September, a maximum October.
- but unless forthcoming election campaigns do not narrow a field for the compromise? Hardly Obama before elections will dare to sign with Moscow any legal document on the ABM as that is demanded by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- Possibilities for achievement of arrangements are. But I will state the personal point of view. I do not see real preconditions for an exit on legal obliging documents. Recently at me consultations of representatives of the congress of the USA on this question have taken place. Among them there were much those who, imagine, rigidly criticises the ABM concept, considering that it is expenditure of money, derivation of means and where - that an irritant for Russia. But even these people who consider that this all certain feint, say that idea legally the binding agreement concerning the ABM not checkpoint. But there are also other formats of arrangements. I, for example, see possibilities for the joint statement of presidents of Russia and the USA and - in addition to they be declarations at level of Council Russia-NATO on cooperation in the field of the ABM in Europe.
(is more detailed about recommendations SUPRa the FEAST - the centre http see a site:// www. supr. pircenter. org.)