Предотвращение кризиса в американо-российских отношениях в XXI веке: вызовы и перспективы

“For over 40 years the United States led the West in the struggle against communism and the threat it posed to our most precious values. This struggle shaped the lives of all Americans. It forced all nations to live under the specter of nuclear destruction. That confrontation is now over. The nuclear threat, while far from gone, is receding… For our children, we must offer them the guarantee of a peaceful and prosperous future… free from the specter of global conflict.” 1
U.S. President George H.W. Bush, December 25, 1991
“The Russo-American dialogue has gone through many a dramatic moment, but the peoples of Russia and America have never gone to war against each other. Even in the darkest period, our affinity prevailed over our hatred.”2
Boris Yeltsin Addressing Congress, June 17, 1992.
U.S.-Russian crisis prevention is a multifaceted and complex issue. For many, the concept of U.S.-Russian strategic risk reduction and crisis prevention may recall the historical enmity between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. Increasingly, however, contemporary experts and decision makers in both nations have advocated the contemporary importance of crisis prevention, as well. That the hostility in diplomatic relations between the United States and Soviet Union did not dissolve into open conflict or nuclear war during the 20th century is undoubtedly an historical triumph. To presume, however, that the threat of accidental or unintentional conflict does not continue to exist today is a presumption the leadership of the United States and Russian Federation cannot afford.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, political and military relations between the United States and Russian Federation have indeed changed. The desires of United States President George Bush Sr. and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, as well as many of their contemporaries, to view the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact as the end of the threat of U.S.-Russian conflict ultimately hasn’t been reflected in the diplomatic relationship between both nations since, however. As Russia has
1 “Address on Gorbachev Resignation.” Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN). December 25, 1991. https://www.c-span.org/video/?23549-1/address-gorbachev-resignation
2 “Boris Yeltsin Address to Congress.” Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN). June 17, 1992. https://www.c-span.org/video/?26640-1/boris-yeltsin-address-congress sought to restore its global influence and rebuild its strategic capabilities throughout the decades following the Soviet Union’s collapse, the United States has grown increasingly uneasy of its old Cold War rival. Following the perceived expansion of Russia’s military influence by the United States and contemporary Western experts in the 2010s, both nuclear powers again find themselves in contention over one-another’s global military presence.
Today, however, the post-Cold War globe is no longer clearly delineated by spheres of influence, and the shifting foreign policy interests of the United States and Russian Federation have gradually come into conflict. As a result, military personnel of both nations increasingly find themselves rubbing shoulders amidst the crisis-affected regions of Syria, maneuvering across the high seas, and along the NATO-Russian border. The modern, nuclear-armed, and organizationally complex military organs of two of the world’s preeminent military powers again frequent the same skies, seas, and mutually-held strategic objectives. In other words, without effective trust- and confidence-building, communication, and established conflict prevention protocols, two of the world’s largest militaries could be just a misunderstanding or accident away from an unintentional crisis.
Crisis prevention between the United States and Russian Federation has taken on new dimensions and faces unique challenges as the political relationship between both nations grows more uncertain. Where Cold War-era memorandums and treaties once safeguarded the 20th century against nuclear catastrophe, the political and military relations that bore them have since changed or no longer exist between the United States and Russia in the 21st century. Revisiting the history of U.S.-Soviet crisis prevention efforts to understand the historical mechanisms that prevented conflict and determining if, and how these systems still assist in mutual U.S.-Russian risk reduction today is a critical step in understanding the current state of U.S.-Russian crisis prevention. Based on the analysis of existing crisis prevention protocols, what 21st century risks do experts believe challenge the scope and effectiveness of current U.S.-Russian crisis prevention measures?
This thesis seeks to address the following research question: can today’s possible military crises be prevented by decades-old Cold War agreements, or are new U.S.-Russian crisis prevention protocols and measures needed to address and reduce 21st century risks? The aim of this graduate research thesis is twofold. First, it will determine, with the help of expert opinion and historical documentation, whether current crisis prevention agreements sufficiently address the contemporary concerns of experts of U.S.-Russian strategic relations and strategic stability. Then, according to an analysis of 21st century strategic risks, what new protocols or additions to existing strategic agreements could be suggested to better reflect contemporary risks to U.S.-
5

Russian strategic stability? This research will review both current and historical U.S.-Russian crisis prevention protocols, diplomatic agreements, and strategic behavior in the 21st century. The subjects for analysis are the development of U.S.-Russian crisis prevention measures, whether experts determine that current crisis prevention protocols and agreements continue to effectively address 21st century strategic risks, and possible approaches to improve or modernize U.S.-Russian strategic crisis prevention in the 21st century. To achieve this, several research and analysis steps were formulated:
1. A survey of historical crisis prevention memorandums, treaties, and political agreements between the United States and Soviet Union and determination of the objectives of these agreements and how were they implemented.
2. An analysis of recent expert opinion and commentary regarding contemporary U.S.- Russian strategic relations, strategic crisis stability, and whether existing crisis prevention measures continue to address 21st century risk factors.
3. An analysis of the effectiveness of existing crisis prevention agreements and assessment of the current the scope and limitations of existing agreements to reduce contemporary risks in U.S.-Russian strategic relations.
4.
A determination of whether new protocols or updates are needed for existing measures, and if so, based on expert suggestions, to ascertain how future crisis prevention measures could be implemented to reduce 21st century risks to U.S.-Russian strategic stability.
This analysis includes the opinions and commentary of a diversity of experts and decision makers, as well as an examination of historical crisis prevention measures between the United States, Soviet Union, and Russian Federation. It ultimately reveals areas of possible improvement in the approaches and protocols of crisis prevention that exist, or should exist according to expert scholarship, between the United States and Russian Federation. This research and analysis of existing crisis prevention efforts is not intended as criticism of particular decisions made by Russian or American leadership, but rather an investigation into the real measures that prevent future strategic crises between the United States and Russia, and how they may be iterated upon or improved. In almost three decades since the conclusion of the Cold War, U.S.-Russian political and strategic relations have seen fundamental change in many respects. The possibility of an unintentional crisis or escalation to conflict remain real concerns for Russian and American leadership, however. Can Washington and Moscow risk relying upon Cold War-era protocols to sufficiently prevent crises resulting from a political environment and military innovations almost thirty years later?
6

Research Framework
This research analyzes two chronological phases in the development of U.S.-Russian crisis prevention, historical U.S.-Soviet strategic relations and current U.S.-Russian strategic relations. Current, as well as Cold War-era strategic relations are quantifiable based on historical evidence and documented bilateral U.S.-Russian agreements. The approach of this research to evaluating suggestions for future decision-making in crisis prevention between the United States and Russia is derived from contemporary expert scholarship and discourse. The history of U.S.-Soviet strategic relations and crisis prevention development is useful in understanding the framework of current U.S.-Russian crisis prevention measures. Suggestions regarding the future of U.S.-Russian crisis prevention development can then be made based upon a knowledge of existing measures and, according to experts, what 21st century risks to U.S.-Russian strategic stability exist.
Geographically, this research identifies different global areas of interest to U.S.-Russian strategic relations, but the subjects for research are the United States, Russian Federation and the various bilateral strategic agreements between both nations that pertain to crisis prevention. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact are throughout this research wherever the United States, Soviet Union or Russian Federation are also parties to diplomatic agreements specific to both nations, within their respective alliances. Generally, however, as the strategic relationship between the United States and Russia are the focus of this research and analysis, the scope of the scholarship surveyed is largely limited to expert discourse related to one or both nations.