Rockets are banned, but we will develop them. The second round of confrontation between the USA and Russia
Is it far from nuclear war? American congressmen are doing everything to make this war closer. Congress is preparing a bill to withdraw the United States from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles. US lawmakers believe that the time has come to go, because Putin "has already violated the treaty." Some foreign experts have no doubt that the US withdrawal from the INF would lead to a nuclear war.
On the magazine's website "Politico" published an article by Brian Bender. The analyst spoke about the preparation by the US Congress of a bill on the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF). In fact, congressmen are preparing Trump for the “second round” of the confrontation between the United States and Russia.
Senator Tom Cotton and other supporters of the provisions of the bill are confident that Russia's recent deployment of medium-range missiles in violation of the aforementioned treaty requires an adequate response from the United States. Congress forces the Pentagon to violate the treaty with Russia. If the congressmen succeed in meeting their demands, Washington’s relations with Moscow will become very tense.
Representatives of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate are ready to require the Pentagon to start developing medium-range missiles, which was prohibited by the agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the newspaper reminds. Supporters of the relevant bill say that such a step is “necessary”, since Russian President Vladimir Putin “has already violated” the treaty. But opponents of such an act fear the growing threat of nuclear war.
The bill may also cause new friction between lawmakers and Trump, who previously accused Congress of illegally interfering in its relations with Moscow. Mr Trump criticized the congressmen for the inclusion of "clearly unconstitutional provisions" in a bipartisan bill imposing new sanctions "on the Putin regime."
Interestingly, Trump is starting to support ... Democrats. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (one of those who, during Gorbachev’s time, voted to ratify the treaty) said that short-range and medium-range nuclear missiles have no deterrent effect. This was true before, true now. However, the presence of such missiles "increase the likelihood" of an incorrect assessment of the situation that will end in disaster.
US legal experts congress initiatives also disapprove. In their opinion, only the president can negotiate or withdraw from the treaties.
In the House of Representatives they insist on their own: the hawks want to launch a ground-based rocket development program. In the near future, the senators will also discuss the situation according to which thousands of kilometers of weapons (which both cold-war rivals stopped developing three decades ago) will be allocated 0,5 million for the creation of missiles with a range from 5,5 to 65. The bill, however, states that it is necessary to create a traditional (non-nuclear) rocket. This does not save legislators from breaching a treaty: the INF Treaty does not distinguish between the two types of weapons.
“This is beyond the authority of the congress,” said Mallory Stewart, who last year served as deputy assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of Arms Control. “And this ignores the separation of powers that was recognized from the very beginning of our constitution.”
“It’s not even clear whether this is constitutional,” Alexandra Bell, the former State Department official, agreed with him.
Senator Cotton, in his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated that the congressional actions would not violate the contract: “In accordance with the agreement, we cannot test, produce or have medium-range ground-based missiles. But we can do research on how to improve other missiles, for example, expanding their range or adapting them for different environments. For example, we could develop a ground-based version of Tomahawk, which we usually launch from Navy ships. ” According to the legislator, the research remains "within the framework of the INF Treaty," but at the same time they are preparing the United States and its allies "for the case when the treaty expires."
As to the military value of the type of armaments that the congressmen are talking about, then defense specialists “very much doubt it”, the article notes.
Air Force General Gen. Paul Selva, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Armed Forces that Russia's actions did not pose a threat to security at all. "Given the location of specific missiles and deployment, they do not receive any advantage in Europe," said Selva. He further noted that the INF Treaty covers only ground-based missiles, and not those that were fired from aircraft or ships at sea. From another point of view, the value of such weapons also does not matter. Taking measures to develop appropriate missiles banned by the INF Treaty “would hardly force the Russians to hold back”, moreover, such an answer to Russia can just lead to the type of nuclear arms race that the treaty limited.
As a result, funding for weapons systems will be allowed, laying the foundation "for a new nuclear weaponswhich will be deployed in Europe, ”believes Deyril Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Kimball, and with him, and other experts argue that no European ally of the United States, most likely, will not want to accept such weapons.
The opposition to the hawks among the senators is already underway. One of the proposals currently being considered by Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat from Massachusetts) is based on a specific requirement for the Pentagon. Prior to finding sources of funding, the military must first conduct an analysis of the need for a new medium-range missile.
Former member of the Democratic Party, John Tirney, who led the national security oversight team, and now the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, argues that the preservation of arms control pacts with Russia should be a top priority for the Trump administration. despite the differences between the two countries. This problem Tierney considers "existential." This issue should be resolved without delay, when the two states more or less “get along”.
Recall, the INF Treaty, which entered into force in the 1988 year, in the midst of “perestroika”, forbade the parties to have ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that have a range from 500 to 5500 kilometers. Washington hinted for the first time in the summer of 2014 of the year for Moscow to violate the terms of the treaty. The Kremlin did not agree with the claims of the White House. In March, 2017, the Americans officially accused Russia of deploying ground-based missiles. According to Pentagon officials, this rocket violates the INF Treaty. “We disagree and reject any accusations in this regard,” they cite "Vedomosti" the response of the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov. - In the situation with the Russian Federation and our Eurasian geopolitical position, we have a completely different architecture of possible threats to our security. Nevertheless, Russia still remains committed to its obligations. "
Washington’s accusations against Russia are mainly about the RS-26 “Yars-M” mobile lightweight ICBM, writes on its website IA "REGNUM" analyst Leonid Nersisyan.
The named rocket has the qualities of medium-range missiles and ICBMs: it can be launched at a distance from 2000 km to 10000-11000 km.
Americans have another claim: Russian deployment of long-range 9М729 cruise missiles for Iskander-M complexes. The range of missiles in 2000 — 2600 km assumed by Western experts coincides with the sea-launched cruise missile 3М-14 Caliber. To create a land-based modification of the 3-14 "is not a big problem," Nersisyan points out, but there is no evidence that such missiles were created, tested and put into service. When the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty, such a move “will most likely be one of the first and very effective, since it will jeopardize any static military targets in Europe (airfields, ports, warehouses, bases, etc.).” In addition, another component of the response could be the creation of mobile medium-range ballistic missiles based on the Soviet "Pioneer". With the use of new technologies and the element base, the analyst believes, the characteristics of the rocket can be significantly improved. The third direction of response could be the development of anti-ship MRBM like the Chinese DF-21D, designed to destroy carrier-based strike groups at a distance of 1500 — 2000 km.
Quite possible US withdrawal from the treaty will force Russia to fork out. Considerable funds will be required for the implementation of probable response programs. Given the current budget cuts and a marked reduction in military spending in 2017, such programs would create a significant burden on the budget and would later lead to a new round of endless arms race. The threat, the answer to the threat, the answer to the answer, and so on in a circle, more precisely, in a spiral. However, this race may well have an end. Any nervous military at the button at any time can make a fatal mistake.
On the magazine's website "Politico" published an article by Brian Bender. The analyst spoke about the preparation by the US Congress of a bill on the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF). In fact, congressmen are preparing Trump for the “second round” of the confrontation between the United States and Russia.
Senator Tom Cotton and other supporters of the provisions of the bill are confident that Russia's recent deployment of medium-range missiles in violation of the aforementioned treaty requires an adequate response from the United States. Congress forces the Pentagon to violate the treaty with Russia. If the congressmen succeed in meeting their demands, Washington’s relations with Moscow will become very tense.
Representatives of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate are ready to require the Pentagon to start developing medium-range missiles, which was prohibited by the agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the newspaper reminds. Supporters of the relevant bill say that such a step is “necessary”, since Russian President Vladimir Putin “has already violated” the treaty. But opponents of such an act fear the growing threat of nuclear war.
The bill may also cause new friction between lawmakers and Trump, who previously accused Congress of illegally interfering in its relations with Moscow. Mr Trump criticized the congressmen for the inclusion of "clearly unconstitutional provisions" in a bipartisan bill imposing new sanctions "on the Putin regime."
Interestingly, Trump is starting to support ... Democrats. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (one of those who, during Gorbachev’s time, voted to ratify the treaty) said that short-range and medium-range nuclear missiles have no deterrent effect. This was true before, true now. However, the presence of such missiles "increase the likelihood" of an incorrect assessment of the situation that will end in disaster.
US legal experts congress initiatives also disapprove. In their opinion, only the president can negotiate or withdraw from the treaties.
In the House of Representatives they insist on their own: the hawks want to launch a ground-based rocket development program. In the near future, the senators will also discuss the situation according to which thousands of kilometers of weapons (which both cold-war rivals stopped developing three decades ago) will be allocated 0,5 million for the creation of missiles with a range from 5,5 to 65. The bill, however, states that it is necessary to create a traditional (non-nuclear) rocket. This does not save legislators from breaching a treaty: the INF Treaty does not distinguish between the two types of weapons.
“This is beyond the authority of the congress,” said Mallory Stewart, who last year served as deputy assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of Arms Control. “And this ignores the separation of powers that was recognized from the very beginning of our constitution.”
“It’s not even clear whether this is constitutional,” Alexandra Bell, the former State Department official, agreed with him.
Senator Cotton, in his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated that the congressional actions would not violate the contract: “In accordance with the agreement, we cannot test, produce or have medium-range ground-based missiles. But we can do research on how to improve other missiles, for example, expanding their range or adapting them for different environments. For example, we could develop a ground-based version of Tomahawk, which we usually launch from Navy ships. ” According to the legislator, the research remains "within the framework of the INF Treaty," but at the same time they are preparing the United States and its allies "for the case when the treaty expires."
As to the military value of the type of armaments that the congressmen are talking about, then defense specialists “very much doubt it”, the article notes.
Air Force General Gen. Paul Selva, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Armed Forces that Russia's actions did not pose a threat to security at all. "Given the location of specific missiles and deployment, they do not receive any advantage in Europe," said Selva. He further noted that the INF Treaty covers only ground-based missiles, and not those that were fired from aircraft or ships at sea. From another point of view, the value of such weapons also does not matter. Taking measures to develop appropriate missiles banned by the INF Treaty “would hardly force the Russians to hold back”, moreover, such an answer to Russia can just lead to the type of nuclear arms race that the treaty limited.
As a result, funding for weapons systems will be allowed, laying the foundation "for a new nuclear weaponswhich will be deployed in Europe, ”believes Deyril Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Kimball, and with him, and other experts argue that no European ally of the United States, most likely, will not want to accept such weapons.
The opposition to the hawks among the senators is already underway. One of the proposals currently being considered by Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat from Massachusetts) is based on a specific requirement for the Pentagon. Prior to finding sources of funding, the military must first conduct an analysis of the need for a new medium-range missile.
Former member of the Democratic Party, John Tirney, who led the national security oversight team, and now the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, argues that the preservation of arms control pacts with Russia should be a top priority for the Trump administration. despite the differences between the two countries. This problem Tierney considers "existential." This issue should be resolved without delay, when the two states more or less “get along”.
Recall, the INF Treaty, which entered into force in the 1988 year, in the midst of “perestroika”, forbade the parties to have ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that have a range from 500 to 5500 kilometers. Washington hinted for the first time in the summer of 2014 of the year for Moscow to violate the terms of the treaty. The Kremlin did not agree with the claims of the White House. In March, 2017, the Americans officially accused Russia of deploying ground-based missiles. According to Pentagon officials, this rocket violates the INF Treaty. “We disagree and reject any accusations in this regard,” they cite "Vedomosti" the response of the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov. - In the situation with the Russian Federation and our Eurasian geopolitical position, we have a completely different architecture of possible threats to our security. Nevertheless, Russia still remains committed to its obligations. "
Washington’s accusations against Russia are mainly about the RS-26 “Yars-M” mobile lightweight ICBM, writes on its website IA "REGNUM" analyst Leonid Nersisyan.
The named rocket has the qualities of medium-range missiles and ICBMs: it can be launched at a distance from 2000 km to 10000-11000 km.
“It’s hard to say whether such a missile violates the INF Treaty, but even for Americans, things are not going smoothly: the AegisAshore missile defense system deployed in Romania can quickly be re-equipped to the Tomahawk cruise missile positioning area. This is possible thanks to the versatility of the Mk 41 vertical launchers, which can be charged with both anti-missile and Tomahawk. To control this process is very difficult and theoretically it is possible to replace anti-missiles, while maintaining secrecy. ”
Americans have another claim: Russian deployment of long-range 9М729 cruise missiles for Iskander-M complexes. The range of missiles in 2000 — 2600 km assumed by Western experts coincides with the sea-launched cruise missile 3М-14 Caliber. To create a land-based modification of the 3-14 "is not a big problem," Nersisyan points out, but there is no evidence that such missiles were created, tested and put into service. When the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty, such a move “will most likely be one of the first and very effective, since it will jeopardize any static military targets in Europe (airfields, ports, warehouses, bases, etc.).” In addition, another component of the response could be the creation of mobile medium-range ballistic missiles based on the Soviet "Pioneer". With the use of new technologies and the element base, the analyst believes, the characteristics of the rocket can be significantly improved. The third direction of response could be the development of anti-ship MRBM like the Chinese DF-21D, designed to destroy carrier-based strike groups at a distance of 1500 — 2000 km.
* * *
Quite possible US withdrawal from the treaty will force Russia to fork out. Considerable funds will be required for the implementation of probable response programs. Given the current budget cuts and a marked reduction in military spending in 2017, such programs would create a significant burden on the budget and would later lead to a new round of endless arms race. The threat, the answer to the threat, the answer to the answer, and so on in a circle, more precisely, in a spiral. However, this race may well have an end. Any nervous military at the button at any time can make a fatal mistake.
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information