The expert called a way for Washington to return to the INF.

40
To return the United States to the INF Treaty, it is necessary to make the Americans feel the direct threat of a strike on their territory, writes in its article for publication MIC Head of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov.



According to Ivashov, Russia is capable of causing serious damage to the United States with medium-range missiles that are subject to the prohibition of the INF Treaty, in particular, from the territory of Chukotka, from which the distance to the American territory is only 80 km.

He recalled that during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the USSR declared its intention to deploy the Pioneer PC-10 complexes on its eastern borders. This immediately reinforced Washington’s desire to start negotiating with Moscow.

Another option proposed by Ivashov is to enhance interaction with China. In his opinion, countries need to unite efforts to ensure security, perhaps even in the SCO format. In particular, to conclude an agreement on countering the US missile defense system. And in the event of a strike on one of the countries, the Americans will receive an answer from both states.

The expert believes that the possibility of obtaining a joint strike sober the American authorities, who are very afraid of such a union.

He also proposes to intensify political work with the countries in which the Pentagon is most likely to deploy its missiles. This refers to the countries of Europe and Japan.

In addition, it is necessary to consider the option of targeting Russian missiles not only to US military facilities, but also to objects of the Federal Reserve System that underlies the US leadership.

Such an integrated approach may well cause Americans to change their policies,
writes Ivashov.

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on the eve that the alliance wants to keep the INF Treaty and "strengthen arms control." He called for strengthening the treaty and attracting to it other countries with medium and shorter range missiles. The Secretary General recalled that such weapons are, including China, India, Pakistan and Iran.
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    7 February 2019 10: 58
    The Secretary General recalled that China, India, Pakistan and Iran have such weapons.

    And why did we forget about Naglia and France? ... there is also no agreement there ... and there wasn’t ....
    1. +1
      7 February 2019 11: 03
      And why on earth should states join the treaty at all, do they need it? This is another crazy American idea.
      1. +4
        7 February 2019 11: 08
        It seems that the proliferation of medium and short-range missiles will not stop the treaty. There are too many who want to have them and have the ability to produce them.
      2. +4
        7 February 2019 11: 23
        Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
        This is another crazy American idea.

        This idea is based on the American
        that the alliance wants to keep the INF Treaty and "Strengthen arms control."

        They just can't come to terms with the loss of the role of "the most important" in the world ...
        1. +5
          7 February 2019 11: 35
          Hi, hello! hi
          Quote: helmi8
          In any way, they cannot come to terms with the loss of the role of "the most important" in the world.

          Exactly . That is why both Stoltenberg and Trump "sing" about the agreement in an expanded format. Another question: does China need this treaty?
          1. +3
            7 February 2019 11: 52
            Hello Pasha!
            The fact of the matter is that they went out, but what it starts to turn into for them - they did not think about it. So they are looking for loopholes how to return to this agreement again so as not to "lose face." In and out of all sorts of "conditions" ...
            1. +4
              7 February 2019 11: 59
              As recently as yesterday (if I’m not mistaken), I said that Putin’s decision to suspend Russia’s implementation of the INF Treaty turned out to be for the United States a Faberge sickle. The mattresses were clearly counting on something else. Now they seem to want to return everything back, but they don’t refuse their ultimatums and Wishlist. I recall the catch phrase from S.V. Lavrov. wink
              1. +2
                7 February 2019 12: 01
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                I recall the catch phrase from S.V. Lavrov.

                And to her in addition to the phrase M. Zadornova. laughing
                1. +3
                  7 February 2019 12: 04
                  Quote: helmi8
                  And to her in addition to the phrase M. Zadornova.

                  good I completely agree ! drinks
          2. 0
            7 February 2019 12: 11
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Another question: does China need this agreement?

            Of course not. And China will never agree to this
            1. +3
              7 February 2019 12: 30
              Therefore, words from the West about the expansion of the INF Treaty. Maybe they hope that Russia will persuade China? wink
              1. 0
                7 February 2019 12: 40
                No one can persuade
                1. +3
                  7 February 2019 12: 43
                  The question is: who really needs an INF Treaty? Let him persuade him. Yes
      3. 0
        7 February 2019 12: 10
        But if the room will be very beautiful, maybe they will sign
    2. +1
      7 February 2019 11: 08
      India, Pakistan and Iran are the main type of missile for them. They do not join the new treaty, this is well understood in the SGA. But we proposed (the states) and you didn’t want to, that is, everyone is so soft and fluffy, but allies are sacred.
    3. 0
      7 February 2019 18: 05
      Quote: nPuBaTuP
      And why did we forget about Naglia and France?

      In service with France (and on alert duty) since May 1986 is APACHE AP / ASMP
      (ASMP)
      Type: rocket air-to-ground with medium-range nuclear warheads
      warhead: TN 81 nuclear warheads, 100 to 300 thousand TNT (variable yield)

      Operating range 140/300 km (500 + km for ASMP-A version)
      speed up to Mach 3

      In service with England (and on alert) since 2001 there is a Storm Shadow / SCALP - aircraft cruise missile air-to-ground
      Distance: 560 km
      WHAT SIDE is an air-based KR to INF Treaty?
      Shl.
      Storm Shadow / SCALP export (basic APACHE AP and Black Shaheen (Black shahin), with a range of 140-400 km are (or will be) in service

      Egypt
      Qatar
      Saudi Arabia
      United Arab Emirates
      LET'S AND THEIR "Let's not forget"?
      So much so drinks
      and BR SD England (PGM-17 Thor) and France - (S2, S3) there are none
  2. +3
    7 February 2019 11: 04
    The Russian plan was presented to Shoigu by Putin under the INF Treaty, and the President approved. In general, do not pay attention to Amer kooky and do your job faster. In the end, they themselves will come running with offers, as if they would.
  3. +3
    7 February 2019 11: 25
    Leonid Ivashov has finally lost touch with reality - why the hell should we return the United States to the INF Treaty?

    It is the abandonment of the INF Treaty that will allow us to reorient many of our ICBMs and SLBMs, currently aimed at Europe, Japan and South Korea, towards additional targets in North America. In this case, the deployment of a number of domestic MRBMs at a missile base in Chukotka (the Portal facility in the Anadyr region) in order to cover the entire western coast of the United States and Canada will be nothing more than a cherry on the cake.

    In addition, we should not forget that the composition of Russia's allies is limited by the Army, Navy, Aviation and Strategic Missile Forces, so the presence of ballistic missiles with a range of 5500 km will allow us to keep under our control all of Eurasia and part of Africa, including all non-European states with nuclear weapons.
  4. +1
    7 February 2019 11: 44
    Russia is capable of causing serious damage to the United States by medium-range missiles falling under the ban on the INF Treaty, in particular from the territory of Chukotka, from where the distance to American territory is only 80 km.

    Alaska? Who is there to fire? Two and a half bases and a forest? Kamchatka is not the best place for our bases, only logistics will eat a dozen Kamaz money.
    Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on the eve that the alliance wants to keep the INF Treaty and "strengthen arms control." He called for strengthening the treaty and attracting to it other countries with medium and shorter range missiles. The Secretary General recalled that such weapons are, including China, India, Pakistan and Iran.

    Lies on vegetable oil. None of these countries will abandon the RSD; this is their main deterrence weapon.
    1. +1
      7 February 2019 12: 14
      Quote: Wedmak
      Alaska? Who is there to fire? Two and a half bases and a forest?

      Alaska does not need to be bombarded, and the western coast of the United States, the same overdeveloped, rich and populated state of "California" is an extremely tasty target Yes

      Quote: Wedmak
      Kamchatka is not the best place for our bases, only logistics will eat a dozen Kamaz money.

      A good place. A medium-range ballistic missile from there will reach all of the United States, except for the east coast and Texas
  5. 0
    7 February 2019 11: 47
    Perhaps Anadyr-2 will enlighten America?
  6. -1
    7 February 2019 12: 09
    I fully support everything stated. Very competent, although this is not an exhaustive list.
  7. 0
    7 February 2019 12: 12
    The INF Treaty was successful for Russia, rest Leonid. Take care of yourself.
  8. +1
    7 February 2019 12: 23
    The Secretary General recalled that China, India, Pakistan and Iran have such weapons.

    As usual, he forgot Britain, France, Israel, possibly KSA ...
    And, after the American feint with your ears, is there any point in negotiating with them, cutting rockets, disassembling warheads, and then, when they again withdraw from the treaty, do it all over again? recourse
  9. 0
    7 February 2019 13: 06
    Professor Ivashov is a competent and intelligent military specialist. It is necessary to increase the production of missiles with a range of up to 5000 km. London, too, must feel Moscow’s bony hand on its throat. And Cuba should not refuse to strengthen its capabilities.
    1. 0
      7 February 2019 13: 22
      Cuba as a missile base was needed only in the 1960-ies, when the USSR had no more than a dozen intercontinental missiles (P-7 on liquid oxygen).

      Now the number of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs is about 1000 units, plus Poseidons and Petrels are on the way, so we do not need Cuba, which is being fired through by US tactical, cruise and aircraft missiles, and also blocked at any time by the US Navy.
      1. 0
        7 February 2019 13: 31
        If Cuba starts at least a national tactical nuclear weapons, this will increase pressure on the United States - we need this.
        Yes, and the DPRK is stuck in the development of rocket technology, a mess ...
        IMHO hi
        1. 0
          7 February 2019 13: 57
          Cuba and the DPRK are the same "allies" of the Russian Federation as all other countries - for any sneeze they will demand full maintenance for themselves at our expense.

          Russia's weapons-grade plutonium production capacity is an order of magnitude higher than the total capacity of the rest of the world. Our rocket ("Sarmat"), space ("Vanguard"), aviation ("Burevestnik") and underwater ("Poseidon") technologies have no analogues in the world. We do not need anyone's help in eliminating any aggressor / aggressors.

          Therefore, cubes, North Korea and other trifle pot-bellied somehow smoothed without our nuclear weapons.
          1. 0
            7 February 2019 14: 07
            I do not propose placing our nuclear weapons there; you just need to help in training national personnel.
            1. 0
              7 February 2019 14: 20
              Only in terms of conventional weapons.
              1. 0
                7 February 2019 15: 01
                I do not agree, the more mutual nuclear missile threats we create in the world, the easier it will be for us to live.
                1. 0
                  7 February 2019 15: 13
                  The Russian Federation in itself (with the overwhelming potential of the nuclear complex and missile technologies) is a global threat to each and every aggressor - why the hell are we to help in this matter?
                  1. 0
                    7 February 2019 15: 29
                    The stability of potential allies is increased and the resources of opponents (military, political, intelligence, information, etc.) are dispersed.
                    1. 0
                      7 February 2019 17: 08
                      Quote: engineer74
                      enemy resources are sprayed (military, political, intelligence, information, etc.)

                      For spraying there is China.
                      1. 0
                        7 February 2019 17: 40
                        In addition to China, we need our own "Baltic", "Georgia", "Ukraine", "Poland", etc. The bigger, the better! fellow
                      2. 0
                        7 February 2019 18: 12
                        Our nuclear weapons will be enough for everyone.
                      3. 0
                        7 February 2019 18: 20
                        I would have been more comfortable with the democratic transformations in the USA according to the Libyan scenario.
                      4. 0
                        7 February 2019 19: 21
                        Bingo - in 2050 in the USA the number of non-white population will exceed the amount of white laughing
                      5. 0
                        7 February 2019 19: 44
                        This is the future "barrel of gasoline", and it's time to prepare the "matches" ... wink
  10. 0
    7 February 2019 14: 02
    I put it correctly VVP - (not literally) let them cuddle, offer, and we will consider. And that US missiles will appear in Europe - it is unambiguous, even if not even in all states. So we rivet and deploy, all the more, we need to "take care" not only of Europe, the Asian region is more extensive and has these missiles.