Memorandum of Conversation between Brandt and V. Semyonov on 11 December 1980

Dr. Thomas Mirow

December 12, 1980

Memorandum

Topic: Conversation between Willy Brandt and Ambassador Semyonov on December 11 in Bonn

Additional Participants: Egon Bahr, Leonid Grigorievich Ussytschenko, Thomas Mirow, Soviet translator

Amb. Semyonov began the conversation with a detailed appraisal of the Treaty of Moscow which was concluded 10 years ago and tied this with thanks to the chairman as the architect of this policy. 

In his reply, W.B. made clear that he expected more with regards to the aftereffects of the treaty. That this did not occur was firstly a result of the personnel configurations that had presented themselves on the part of the Soviets’ Western negotiation partners in the 1970s. But secondly, this was chiefly because attempts to create an equilibrium between distinct advances on political and economic matters on the one hand and very meagre success in efforts towards effective agreements on military matters failed. This disparity had not been predicted. At any rate, he and Brezhnev had proceeded in discussions in Crimea in 1971 from the idea that this complex displayed unity. The arms race was the real question, and the threatening developments in this area brought him to the assessment that a new ice age was looming.

In response to the question of his impressions from discussions in the USA, W.B. determined that it was good that the USSR had taken a calm stance vis-à-vis the change in the United States. He feared however that bringing about negotiations would not succeed fast enough to avoid to a new round in the arms race spiral. If this does not succeed, a new ice age looms. Ultimately, however, the USA and the Soviet Union must sit again sit down at the same table. He understands that those in power in the USSR are of the opinion that with SALT II they have a form of legal title in hand. But this will likely not be of further help. Now perhaps the only solution is for both parties to the treaty to strive for adequate behavior. Some aspects of SALT II could be arranged by “executive order” on the American side. It would depend on seeing the connection to the euro-strategic weapons. A year has passed since the Brussels decisions. Now further time must not be allowed to pass. To be sure, discussions have formally begun in Geneva, albeit without pushing forward to the substance. The problem is likely that for the USA, the first part of the double-track decision is more important and for the Europeans, the second part.  

Not the CSCE process as such, but rather the final document from Helsinki was a mistake. Formulaic compromises had whitewashed existing differences and, through this, created illusions. Humility is therefore to be preferred. The beginning of the review meeting in Madrid was dire. They will likely have to start anew. 

Semyonov determined that it would be difficult for him to decide whether 1970 or 1972 is more important, although he was significantly involved in the events of 1972. One cannot overstate the importance of the USA. The Federal Republic of Germany has an important position. It is good that Egon Bahr now wants to deal with disarmament in a strengthened manner. He is gladly ready to meet with him frequently.

Willy Brandt underlined that Egon Bahr’s new assignment is of central importance. The USA is a continent like the Soviet Union and still has great vitality. The new administration could possibly be somewhat isolationist and rail against Europe. This does not worry him greatly though because it could also lead the Europeans to become more self-sufficient. Above all, France and Germany must band together for this.  But one also must know that France is currently undertaking great efforts towards rearmament and is seeking a certain backing from the USA. The Federal Republic of Germany will also not be able to separate itself from the USA. 

Semyonov explained that he views such a perhaps more detailed discussion at a higher level as important. There are both subjective and objective factors in this story. The objective reasons for SALT are stronger than those dividing them and the USA. That also holds true for the events of 1970. There is, with regards to the assessment of the Soviet Union, much irrationality and infeasibility in the USA. But the objective interests would in the end lead back to cooperation. It is important that the cooperation between the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany be further intensified to support the process of détente. He doesn’t believe in a new ice age. He just recently spoke with Kosygin. He assured him with reference to the USSR’s great investments in the north of their country that they in Moscow do not believe in new risks. They rule out a new ice age. 

In response to this, Willy Brandt said that it would be possibly better to speak of a new cold weather period or a frost period. The question arises of what would become of German-Soviet relations in such a period. Our interest is in shaping the bilateral and European relations as well as possible, but it is not certain whether this will work. W.B. pointed to the intensive trade and to human easing [in relations]: there is already not much understanding to be found in France for what meaning this has for the Federal Republic of Germany. In the USA more than ever not. But it could be that we would come under pressure. We are not as autonomous as the Soviet Union. Hearts and minds and interests speak however for the continuation of this policy. 

Semyonov: Relations must be further developed, independent of the other international relations. One must continue the course of détente because there are no alternatives to this. He concerned himself for nine-and-a-half year with strategic armaments. The “first strike” thesis is an illusion. Similarly, the aspiration for nuclear superiority. Only a marginal potential capacity is required to put the superiority of the other side in question. The insistence on these illusions is leading to a great global impoverishment but not to a solution of the problem. The SALT course must be continued and quickly. One knows to value the contribution of the Socialist International at the Madrid Congress. There are differences in the details. But one does not refuse these considerations but rather searches for new points of contact. Science is leading the world into a new age. Humanity could solve its nutrition problems today. The development of research in matters of genetics presents a great hope, but also a terrible danger. 

Willy Brandt thanked him for the reference to systemically overarching problems in this context. He had often determined that scientific experts in East and West had matching analyses. There is however a most cumbersome process to incorporate these analyses into policy. The USSR must know that they will be associated with a strong military potential. He has understood that, from the perspective of the USSR, there are four opposing poles: America, Europe, China and Japan. The people in power in the USSR would do well to adjust themselves to the fact that a linkage would be attempted by the future American government, in other words, the combination of various problems. This could even be useful if it is understood correctly. World powers must speak more about world politics. It is also important to strengthen political dialogue again in German-Soviet context. Bilateral relations have become somewhat anemic, too routine, too book-keeper-ish. 

Semyonov: He is in complete agreement with this. What counts now is to continue the work and to bring all levels in as well: Helsinki and Madrid as well as the disarmament efforts that Egon Bahr wants to deal with. One must understand the following correctly: the Soviet Union’s disarmament proposals have been made out of a position of strength. One wants equilibrium. It is important to look carefully at the program for the 26^th Party Conference of the CPSU. Important tasks have been given out: above all to improve the supply of food stuffs and consumer goods. The Soviet Union is building on continual progress that would have to be carried by many millions of generations. All problems can be solved without war. It is likely necessary to follow the example of the sciences and bring new categories into politics. It is sometimes more difficult to raise understanding on one’s own side as it is to reach agreement in negotiations with the opposite side. 

He expressed his sincere thanks for the discussion and wanted to emphasize how highly Willy Brandt’s opinion was valued in Moscow. 

Willy Brandt expressed thanks from his side, also for the friendly appraisal of Madrid. He places great value on not only being identified with that which is in the past. He would like to emphasize again how importantly he views Egon Bahr’s new assignment. Furthermore, he hopes to see Semyonov again soon. 

Semyonov: He will report this back to Moscow. Brezhnev has called the arms race the greatest danger of our time. He would be happy to be able to continue the discussion after his return.