The latest developments between Russia and the US have raised a lot of question and it appears that the Russian president has raised the stakes to another level.
Two Russian ultimatums — “plutonium” and “nuclear” caused shock in the US. “It’s a real tragedy because we had successful cooperation in these areas,” – Forbes quoted a confused State Department rep Mark Toner.
What made Vladimir Putin raise the stakes in a geopolitical game so suddenly and sharply?
The confusion of Americans was evident almost immediately after the publication of decree that Russia suspends the intergovernmental agreement with the United States on weapons-grade plutonium.
“I read the third paragraph of the decree of the President of Russia, which clearly stated that those materials will not be used for the production of nuclear warheads, or for any research in this direction. For me it was a great relief,” – Rose Gottemoeller, the Undersecretary of State in charge of non-proliferation and disarmament shared her anxiety with Interfax.
Judging by the reaction, it was really a punch in the stomach, carefully planned and thought out. Many have noticed that the decree on plutonium was accompanied by the seemingly impossible demands, furnished as an ultimatum: cancelling all sanctions, complete disarmament in Eastern Europe and – the icing on the cake – compensation for losses.
I am surprised Putin did not demand to return Alaska. However, the global confrontation is not over yet, so we still have a lot of surprises in store.
But Americans took the ultimatum seriously. It has been a long time since Washington experienced such humiliation. To which it simply has nothing to answer.
There are many reports that Americans are forever behind us in plutonium technology. Most likely, this is true — I am not a judge. But I don’t think that the reason for the ultimatum is the technical backwardness of the States.
In my opinion, the reason is different. In the presidential decree the key part is not demands for the US, but completely different words: the contract is suspended in connection with the “fundamental change of circumstances, the threat to strategic stability as a result of hostile actions.”
It is doubtful that the “fundamental changes of circumstances” is Washington’s violation of obligations. Is it the first time?
On September 20, three days after the American attack on Syrian positions, our “Kalibers” destroyed the command post of the Western coalition in Deir ez-Zor, killing 30 officers — employees of the American, Israeli, British, Turkish, Saudi and Qatari intelligence services.
That is, we quite deliberately attacked NATO troops and their allies, causing very serious damage. And methodically. However, the Americans for some reason didn’t say a word about their losses.
And we are silent. Why?
It seems to me, there is only one logical explanation for our silence about the attack on the coalition headquarters, and a sharp deterioration of relations with Americans: our Russian soldiers were killed in the treacherous bombardment by the coalition of Syrian positions on September 17.
In this case, everything falls into place — the death of 30 Western spies was an act of retaliation, which the US was forced to swallow, leaving no response.
But at the same time Putin came to the conclusion that the there is nothing more to talk about with our American ‘partners’. And soon raised the stakes to an unacceptable for Washington level, presenting the ultimatum. These are the fundamental changes of circumstances, the emergence of “threats to strategic stability as a result of hostile actions,” as states the decree on suspension of weapons-grade plutonium agreement.
An American tragedy is not that we have suspended the cooperation in sectors sensitive for the U.S. Apparently, the first direct clash between Russia and NATO had taken place in Syria. And NATO, in front of everyone had lost this local, but so important for the prestige of the United States battle.
The halo of power No. 1 around the White house went out.