Kudos to President Obama
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 24 April 2009
by Sergey Karaganov (link to original)
Sergei Karaganov is the Dean of International Economy & Politics at the State University of Higher Economics.
President Barack Obama is doing positive things. With his glib manner, pragmatism, and his willingness to reexamine the ineffective or the obsolete elements of American policy concerning either Iran, Cuba or the anti-missile defense, he is improving America’s image. It is making life difficult for those who rely on anti-Americanism, often trying to justify their failures, mistakes and complexes.
America, or poor American policy, created many of the world’s problems. Some of these problems were not created in America specifically, but due to lack of constructive American policies can not be resolved. It is unknown how successful Obama’s presidency will be; however, he has already reached one accomplishment. It is becoming less and less popular to criticize America.
This is great for everyone, including Russia.
Another positive demand from the American president is to renew the negotiation process on limitation and reduction of strategic offensive arms. Simultaneously, the American president stated his support to liberate the world from nuclear weapons, a nuclear “zero.” Thank you for such a productive idea, however, this idea is not so new.
As I understand, the previous U.S. military and political leaders, in the process of leaving office, also began a call for total disarmament. The idea that it is necessary to control a potential enemy under a threat of obliteration of hundreds of thousands people, our priceless humanity, is intolerable.
When leading officials were obligated to make the decision to launch or not to launch nuclear weapons or advise the president to do so, they were terrified by the theoretical moral abyss staring back at them. It is known that at least twice German chancellors refused to participate in combat studies when the idea to use nuclear weapons to stop an advancing “aggressor” was introduced.
I support the idea of moving towards a nuclear-free world. Moreover, I was one of the Russian citizens who signed the declaration of a “nuclear zero,” published last year. My heart accepts it, but my mind rejects this idea. It is thought that nuclear weapons are the vestige of a Cold War. It is partly true that the weapons were created at that time and they broadened our distrust for each other. But they also cooled off our heads and didn’t allow our conflicting disagreements to turn into a “hot” war.
In Europe, as well as the entire world, kings and nations ruthlessly killed each other for centuries. During the 20th century alone, it happened twice where tens of millions died. If it weren’t for nuclear weapons, there would have been a third world war. I can document incidents where a possibility of a nuclear retaliation effectively held back America from unleashing full scale wars and from applying its nuclear weapons during the period of its superiority.
The question of using nuclear force has not reemerged since the Cuban crisis in 1961. When Americans, in order to demonstrate their determination, were increasing their forces, at the same time they were sending signals to the other side not to worry. The confidence in effectiveness of American nuclear weapons held off the hotheads of the Soviet Kremlin.
The possession of nuclear weapons was a powerful factor in civilization, beating the elite of both countries of radicals and radical thought. And when the danger of nuclear war began to dissipate, opportunities of large scale aggressions against Yugoslavia or Iran became possible.
Discussion about the role of nuclear weapons, initiated by the president of the USA, is constructive because it will regain the civilizing importance of nuclear weapons back to the center of our consciousness. Nuclear arsenals, besides the obsolete and ineffective components, should not be completely reduced because it will not give a positive example to countries trying to achieve a nuclear status.
I have written about this several times in many publications, including Rossiyskaya Gazetta. The idea that new countries are aiming to join the nuclear club along with nuclear power holders such as the U.S. and Russia, because the superpowers are not reducing those arsenals, is a mistake and self-deception.
Israel, Pakistan and India are interested in nuclear weapons not because the Russians and Americans are not reducing theirs, but because these countries are interested in securing their own safety and increasing their world status. If the Russians and Americans disarm to the minimum in order to achieve peace, I am certain that these countries will conceive additional arguments for nuclear weapons.
The idea is that the political weight and prestige of microscopic countries with nuclear potential will grow substantially. We are grateful to the American president for the fact that he returned nuclear weapons back into our thoughts. We should support his idea of a nuclear free world. It is morally right and it makes us think. Even the Russian president supported this idea, though he is not as determined as the American president.
But seriously, I would not recommend reducing nuclear weapons, especially the contemporary strategic arms, neither to the Russians nor the Americans until the nature of men changes. Nations and kings killed each other in thousands and millions when they still believed in God and feared hell. Today, they barely believe and in no way fear. I do not agree with the American president who wished that in 21st century humanity we would become free from fear of nuclear destruction. It is better to live in fear of this hell than to be destroyed, banished, or bear the judgment of its people.
Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” can only be reached when the nature of man changes. We will hope that it will happen someday. Until then, let the nuclear sword of Damocles hang over our flawed heads.
President Barack Obama is doing positive things. With his glib manner, pragmatism, and his willingness to reexamine the ineffective or the obsolete elements of American policy concerning either Iran, Cuba or the anti-missile defense, he is improving America’s image. It is making life difficult for those who rely on anti-Americanism, often trying to justify their failures, mistakes and complexes.
America, or poor American policy, created many of the world’s problems. Some of these problems were not created in America specifically, but due to lack of constructive American policies can not be resolved. It is unknown how successful Obama’s presidency will be; however, he has already reached one accomplishment. It is becoming less and less popular to criticize America.
This is great for everyone, including Russia.
Another positive demand from the American president is to renew the negotiation process on limitation and reduction of strategic offensive arms. Simultaneously, the American president stated his support to liberate the world from nuclear weapons, a nuclear “zero.” Thank you for such a productive idea, however, this idea is not so new.
As I understand, the previous U.S. military and political leaders, in the process of leaving office, also began a call for total disarmament. The idea that it is necessary to control a potential enemy under a threat of obliteration of hundreds of thousands people, our priceless humanity, is intolerable.
When leading officials were obligated to make the decision to launch or not to launch nuclear weapons or advise the president to do so, they were terrified by the theoretical moral abyss staring back at them. It is known that at least twice German chancellors refused to participate in combat studies when the idea to use nuclear weapons to stop an advancing “aggressor” was introduced.
I support the idea of moving towards a nuclear-free world. Moreover, I was one of the Russian citizens who signed the declaration of a “nuclear zero,” published last year. My heart accepts it, but my mind rejects this idea. It is thought that nuclear weapons are the vestige of a Cold War. It is partly true that the weapons were created at that time and they broadened our distrust for each other. But they also cooled off our heads and didn’t allow our conflicting disagreements to turn into a “hot” war.
In Europe, as well as the entire world, kings and nations ruthlessly killed each other for centuries. During the 20th century alone, it happened twice where tens of millions died. If it weren’t for nuclear weapons, there would have been a third world war. I can document incidents where a possibility of a nuclear retaliation effectively held back America from unleashing full scale wars and from applying its nuclear weapons during the period of its superiority.
The question of using nuclear force has not reemerged since the Cuban crisis in 1961. When Americans, in order to demonstrate their determination, were increasing their forces, at the same time they were sending signals to the other side not to worry. The confidence in effectiveness of American nuclear weapons held off the hotheads of the Soviet Kremlin.
The possession of nuclear weapons was a powerful factor in civilization, beating the elite of both countries of radicals and radical thought. And when the danger of nuclear war began to dissipate, opportunities of large scale aggressions against Yugoslavia or Iran became possible.
Discussion about the role of nuclear weapons, initiated by the president of the USA, is constructive because it will regain the civilizing importance of nuclear weapons back to the center of our consciousness. Nuclear arsenals, besides the obsolete and ineffective components, should not be completely reduced because it will not give a positive example to countries trying to achieve a nuclear status.
I have written about this several times in many publications, including Rossiyskaya Gazetta. The idea that new countries are aiming to join the nuclear club along with nuclear power holders such as the U.S. and Russia, because the superpowers are not reducing those arsenals, is a mistake and self-deception.
Israel, Pakistan and India are interested in nuclear weapons not because the Russians and Americans are not reducing theirs, but because these countries are interested in securing their own safety and increasing their world status. If the Russians and Americans disarm to the minimum in order to achieve peace, I am certain that these countries will conceive additional arguments for nuclear weapons.
The idea is that the political weight and prestige of microscopic countries with nuclear potential will grow substantially. We are grateful to the American president for the fact that he returned nuclear weapons back into our thoughts. We should support his idea of a nuclear free world. It is morally right and it makes us think. Even the Russian president supported this idea, though he is not as determined as the American president.
But seriously, I would not recommend reducing nuclear weapons, especially the contemporary strategic arms, neither to the Russians nor the Americans until the nature of men changes. Nations and kings killed each other in thousands and millions when they still believed in God and feared hell. Today, they barely believe and in no way fear. I do not agree with the American president who wished that in 21st century humanity we would become free from fear of nuclear destruction. It is better to live in fear of this hell than to be destroyed, banished, or bear the judgment of its people.
Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” can only be reached when the nature of man changes. We will hope that it will happen someday. Until then, let the nuclear sword of Damocles hang over our flawed heads.
Next article![]( "Off Their Trolleys")
