Donya-e eqtesad (Iran): trump leaves “open skies” — Russia is to blame?

As stressed by the Agency “Farce”, the decision of the President of the United States Donald trump on withdrawal from the agreement “open sky” immediately responded to all major international players.

Russia, in particular, the US decision to leave the “open skies” called “a blatant attack on the entire system of international security”, and primarily “a blow to the security of Europe.”

Not left unattended and is usually silent in such cases, the European allies of the United States. Even NATO stated that it had to collect urgent meeting, which “will study the intention of the United States.”

The US government led by Donald trump informed its international partners about Washington’s desire to withdraw from the Treaty “open sky” on Thursday.

What exactly happened, and why this step the United States can really have serious consequences?

Recall that an international agreement “open skies” allows signatories to use the airspace of the countries of the contract partners to explore and monitor the status of weapons. But isn’t it in the XXI century, in the age of new tracking technologies and satellites are a mere formality? Because without it can not be a secret, the presence of one or another country or other dangerous weapons! And so it really is important this step of Donald trump has long been shown to the world that the essence of his policy is to liberate the United States from all international obligations that bind his country and, more importantly, from the financial obligations?

However, all was not so simple. First, the United States made accusations against Russia, which allegedly “abused” by this agreement, and undermined, thus, international security, primarily the security of the United States that precisely because of this reason announced that they are “forced” to leave the contract.

Thus, any “excuse” seems to be found. The blame was once again Russia — it happened already more than once that when presidents-Democrats, that the Republicans.

However, the US is now a very special political situation: the upcoming presidential elections, and, in addition, more recently the trump was in the center of a major political scandal when his opponents spoke against him with accusations of “relations with Russia.” And now the President’s decision caused primarily heated discussion in the American press, which, as you know, is largely under the control of political opponents trump. And he is his “unpredictable predictability” in politics made there are already many, even among its own party members, not only among the opposition-minded part of American society. In the media in one voice talking about the fact that the output of the “Open sky” will entail tensions with Moscow (as if it was not already?), but that will be unhappy in Europe and in the us Congress.

In General, all these assumptions are fulfilled, although each had their reasons: opponents of trump in Congress never miss a chance to once again criticize the President and to score extra points in the pre-election confrontation. In Europe, however, again talking about the concerns, but not international security, and that she again remained abandoned American partner in the lurch and finds himself one-on-one with an unpredictable Russia.

However, Russia is also always the “bad” not only for USA but also for Europe criticized the United States, with the motives that will be affected, first of all, the system of collective international security, so painstakingly built after the cold war. And not a word is said about the security of their own. Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the decision of “overseas partner”, stated that, according to monitoring the situation of experts, decision (on the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement on “Open skies”) was adopted in advance, and that such assumptions “was indeed a certain part of reality.” The head of the diplomatic agencies of Russia added that in his country came to the same opinion, based on all of Russia’s contacts with the United States, other States members of NATO and other States parties to the Treaty.

The Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia added that Moscow’s response to “probably a foregone Washington’s decision” will depend on how it will run and also about how to behave in Washington’s partners in NATO — whether they will follow the U.S. example or not. And then, according to a senior Russian diplomat, and to identify the true meaning of the decisions of the United States.

The agreement called “open skies” was signed, as you know, not only Russia and the United States — its members are 35 States that, according to the agreement, have the right to exercise Supervisory and inspection flights over territories of partner countries under this agreement. Really — first it was signed and ratified by Russia and the United States. It was signed in 1992, and from January 1, 2002 came into force.

The purpose of this Treaty, in fact, in the twenty-first century is more symbolic than real: in fact, with modern tracking facilities you can be perfectly aware of how, what equipment and focuses where the partner country, without any contract. However, it has not lost its moral values is a very important symbol, a symbol of the willingness of countries to trust each other, willingness to mutual understanding and willingness to do “other relationships” between themselves, not based on the language of threats.

Following the U.S. decision arises a really important question, already voiced by Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia: will it follow, in the event of termination of membership in the Treaty of Washington, and its example to other countries, primarily its European partners? It is unlikely, as, on the one hand, what then are their words about the need to build a new system of international relations based on mutual threats, and collective security. Second, their withdrawal from the Treaty following the example of the United States actually would mean recognition of the terrible and unpredictable Russia the right to continue “unchecked arm” in close proximity to their own borders.

There is another important question — does the probable withdrawal of the US they desire in the very near future to actually unleash a real “hot war”? Also unlikely: Donald trump has repeatedly had the opportunity to do it in about the same conditions when its predecessors is resolved. But he did not dare — for the first term of his presidency, and there is reason to assume that will not dare to do it during the second term, of course, if I remain President. But to recognize the need for new international relations based on mutual trust, not control and threats, a new or “new old” the White house still have. Have therefore, not to be a “global pariah” as a global leader, the US are no longer, and this is recognized even in the team’s trump. As for the financial side of the question, what is going through the trump, in any case, membership in the Treaty “open sky” or some other name, but similar in purpose, in any case, will cost US far less than a real outbreak of “hot war”.