Oleksandr Khara: Trump Has Deadly Tools Against Russia

This can bring down the Russian economy.

US President Donald Trump ordered the creation of a missile defence system in the United States, similar to the Israeli Iron Dome. Is it possible to draw analogies with Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative? Journalists of Charter97.org spoke about this with Ukrainian diplomat and political scientist, expert of the Center for Defence Strategies Oleksandr Khara:

— Partially — perhaps, but it's important to begin by noting that since the Cuban Missile Crisis and beyond, when the USSR and the United States signed agreements on arms limitation, testing, and so on, there was a mutual understanding: to prevent an arms race, both sides agreed to deploy only one missile defence system. The Americans, respectively, covered their nuclear arsenal, and the Soviet Union covered Moscow.

However, it should be noted that the Russian Federation has broken these old agreements. The final days of the START treaty [the bilateral agreement between the United States and the USSR on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons — Ed.] are nearly over, and Russia shows little interest in extending it. And since the Russian Federation violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and so on, the Americans withdrew from it.

The United States is now in a new security situation, when, in addition to the Russian Federation with its strategic weapons aimed at the United States, there are also North Korea, Iran and China, which is significantly increasing its armaments. Therefore, of course, it is necessary to respond to this in some way.

If we are talking about the Strategic Defence Initiative during the Cold War, it, by and large, was a kind of special operation, the purpose of which was to draw the Soviet Union into a losing competition. And this, in fact, happened, since the Soviet Union was an economically and technologically backward state and was unable to allocate additional money for such projects.

Therefore, I would not say that there is any direct parallel here, since the threats, first of all, now come from China. Beijing has increased the number of its warheads from 200 to 300 in a few years, and, in my opinion, by 2027 they plan to bring this number to 1,000 in order to achieve parity with the Americans. Thus, Trump's order is an adequate response to the changed situation.

I would say that the right approach for the United States would be not only to strengthen the missile defence system, but also to weaken its adversaries. In the case of Russia, the best way to do this is by supporting Ukraine to get Russia out of the race. Then Washington could focus on the Indo-Pacific region, where China and North Korea remain the main challenges.

Trump also has big plans for the Middle East, which suggest a change in the situation and the approach of Saudi Arabia and other states to Israel. In this context, elements of a national missile defence system could also be deployed there. However, these projects will cost trillions of dollars, and considering the US external debt of $34 trillion, along with Trump's goal to reduce it, the feasibility of these plans remains uncertain.

And, of course, there is the question of time frame. If we're looking at the next 5-10 years, it sounds great, but China is already preparing to address its issues with Taiwan by 2027. As a result, a conflict could arise where such a system would need to be operational by then. That is, roughly speaking, the United States does not fit into such a schedule. Therefore, there are many financial, technological and, of course, domestic American political issues.

— On the part of Trump, we heard about two tools to put pressure on Russia — oil prices and the arms race. How effective are these tools?

— These are killer tools. Unfortunately, since the time of Obama, there has been an approach that sanctions against Russia should not harm the United States, the second — the allies, the third — should not harm ordinary Russian citizens, because only Putin and his oligarchs are bad, and all other Russians are good. And the last point — sanctions should be an instrument of pressure, their gradual increase should somehow change Putin, affect his behavior.

It is clear that this is a failed and wrong approach, but it actually migrated to the Biden administration. They paid less attention to Russian citizens and attempted to change Putin, but still feared drastic steps against Russia's energy sector. And we know that this is Putin's key asset, the true source of his power. They did not try to strike such a blow for two reasons: the possibility of a nuclear escalation and the fear that rising oil prices would hit Americans.

We understand that every ordinary American assesses the president's actions on issues such as unemployment, gasoline prices, and food. Accordingly, Biden did not want to do this. Also, he had extremely bad relations with Saudi Arabia in connection with the murder of journalist Khashoggi in Turkey.

Trump does not have such a restriction. In my opinion, there was a meeting of OPEC ministers last week, and they are not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of increasing production. Perhaps they just think that Trump's public statement is one thing, and what he can promise them and provide in return is another. So far, this has not happened, there has been no conversation with them.

It's one story. The second story is “drill, baby, drill”, that is, what Trump is now going to do is unblock energy projects in the United States. This can reduce prices for the Americans themselves and allow them to make money on exports. But ramping up production takes time and investment. This tool is very powerful, it can collapse the Russian economy, but still requires time.

In the meantime, of course, Trump needs to decide what to do with Ukraine. It is necessary to unfreeze the support that they have now suspended, primarily through the State Department. Then you need to decide what types of weapons and in what volumes they are ready to provide so that Ukraine can withstand and not lose key battles until the Russian economy begins to specifically collapse.

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail charter97@gmail.com