Military Review

Extension of START-3: US position and conditions for bargaining are determined

18
As is known, the United States does not yet have a clear position on the issue of extending the duration of the START-3 Treaty (START-3), which expires in 2021. It is worth recalling that the limits specified in the Contract came out, as planned, in 2018 d. More precisely, they have ceased to exceed them, as was the case with Russia: America has long since dropped below the designated bar and is there. And from various mouths in the top military-political leadership of the United States, statements of various kinds are heard.




Recall Donald Trump, who at the only "official" summit of the leaders of the two superpowers in Helsinki expressed support for the extension of the Treaty. A joint decision was made to establish working groups to discuss issues related to the extension of the Treaty. But practically no work is being done. It seems that the fact is that within the American leadership there is no consensus on what to do, what to do, what requirements to put up to Russia under this Treaty and what can be renounced during bargaining and discussion. And whether to extend the Treaty at all. From here a number of contradictory statements.

The most inadequate positions are occupied by the “guys from the dusty closet” - these are the old men of the time of Bush Junior, and even the eldest, whom Trump somehow brought to the light of God, instead of giving them plenty to play with their grandchildren and play golf, until their health there is. Or these same “people with diplomats” imposed the Trump of these grandfathers, as our president and commander-in-chief called representatives of the “shadow government”. This is, of course, about people like John Bolton, who are very tough and extremely incompetent in current politics, but who obviously consider themselves quite experienced, with such a track record to shake up US relations with other countries and the treaty system as they see fit.

At the same time, they obviously do not take into account the reality somewhat: now is not the 1992 year, when the USSR and Russia crumbled, there was nothing at all, and not even the 2001 year, when Russia only started to get out of the "democratic swamp". The United States is not omnipotent, but they do not take this into account. It was these people from the casket who organized Trump for a series of staggering successes such as strikes against Syria, which ended in general ridiculously, if not shamefully, attempts to put pressure on the DPRK, Iran, attempts to draw closer to the DPRK and attempts to fool the leadership of this country like whites cheated the Indians . Equally successful was the project with the overthrow of Maduro. Well, the INF Treaty was largely accomplished thanks to the wise advice of Bolton and the company, although the way out of it unties the hands of Russia in the first place, and not the United States. They also advocate such a "wise" move with regard to the START-3. Sometimes their actions are such that you begin to believe in stories about Russian agents at the very top of the United States - their actions are completely subject to malicious intent regarding their own country. Although many of the actions of the United States over the past 20 years fall under this - the agents simply could not keep themselves "in the cage" for so much time, so they do it all themselves, without outside intervention.

The most appropriate positions on this issue are the military. It would seem that they should be the most “hawks” - the higher the level of tension in the relations between the two leading world forces, the higher the funding, the more it can “stick to hands”. But no - in matters of the SNF, the US military is, of course, behind various programs of nuclear rearmament, but they realize the difficult situation in the nuclear-missile sphere, into which the leaders of the “exclusive nation” have driven themselves in the wake of their “exclusiveness”. They realize the real possibilities of the country and the real possibilities of the main potential adversary both now and in the short and medium term. At least, the sensible part of them, and not the oakish guys with a cap from the cap instead of the convolutions and a few big stars in a row, released from West Point. The author adheres to the point of view that it is desirable to have more such sensible leaders in the leadership of the US Armed Forces, because this is better for everyone, not just for the US. A good quarrel and a great war is probably not bad, but a thin world is clearly better.

Air Force General (four-star, that is, Army General, if in our opinion, or Marshal aviation) John Heiten West Point did not finish, of course, and is considered a sane person. He commands USSTRATCOM - the Strategic Command, thereby, whose newest bunker was recently flooded during a flood at the Offut Air Force base, along with a bunch of reconnaissance aircraft and all air command posts of the E-4B top military-political leadership. Yes, because of the publicity of his position, he has different statements, because he needs to somehow fit into the "trends" of US public opinion, which is not distinguished by rationality and knowledge, because the Americans themselves, let's say, are not very versed in the world around them, and those who tell them about it, are also, in general, far from the heights of knowledge and intelligence (just listen to all that nonsense that American journalists ask at press conferences). He needs to please the senators and congressmen. As an example of the latter, one can recall a small one, there was one figure in the Senate who did not part with his father’s clock even in captivity in Vietnam in an original way - the same intellectuals from Kiev named the street in his honor. Therefore, Hayten sometimes made statements that contradict each other and common sense. For example, in the question of the latest Russian weapons of that same “Putin’s magnificent six” (“Vanguard”, “Dagger” and others), he first stated that they did not affect the balance of power between the superpowers, and in general, they say, did not pose a serious threat, but the Russians do not know where the American SSBNs are located, which can destroy Russia (he did not specify what would happen to the United States and all its allies). But then Haiten acted on the contrary - he stated, and more than once, that there was no protection against the latest Russian systems and was unlikely to appear soon. We will not remind Heiten that even with single missiles, even with single strikes, America does not have protection either, he cannot admit it, although he declared that there is no defense against a massive attack. Or, say, he stated that all communication with Russia should be "from a position of strength." Although it is precisely such communication with Russia that is unpromising and dangerous, which teaches история - however, he said this in response to the question of that same crazy guy with his father’s clock (of course, it’s about McCain, who was recently called by his master to the underworld report). At the same time, he stated at the same time that the communication channels between the politicians and the military of the two countries should still be.

This time, Heithen, speaking at a symposium on outer space in Colorado Springs, said that he wants the START-3 to be preserved and extended.

We give an approximate quote:
"I wish my country to continue to be in START III with our opponents, in particular, with Russia. My advice as a military man, which I give to my colleagues in the State Department and the White House: I like the arms limitation treaties that concern nuclear weaponsI think it's good for the world and for the country. "


He stated that he would like the State Department employees to meet with their colleagues from Russia as soon as possible and enter into consultations on this issue in order to extend the Treaty, and he believes that there is more than enough time for that. He also spoke in the spirit that the START-3, "in contrast to the DDRMD", "is practically respected by the parties."

General Heithen has repeatedly spoken out exactly this way. In February, he spoke in the Senate almost word for word in the same way. He also added that the START-3 is beneficial for the US military because it "restricts the Russian strategic nuclear forces" and allows for obtaining an "incredibly important understanding of Russia's actions through inspections." Notice, Heithen correctly placed the accents: inspections and some kind of transparency are definitely needed, they reduce tensions and reduce the likelihood of a desire to preemptively try to strike just by not knowing the situation and intentions of the opponent. And he really understands that Russia has the capacity to build up its nuclear forces, and that they need to be limited, because it will be difficult for the United States to resist.

However, Heithen both then and now put forward additional ideas about the Treaty. So, in February, he called for the inclusion of "new nuclear weapons" of Russia in the discussion and in the Treaty. It is clear that the 15А28 "Sarmat" ICBM is already included there, the planning winged avant-garde 15Ü71 "Avant-garde" also being placed on the 15А35-71 ICBM, will take into account that the laser combat complex has no side, as well as hypersonic PCs. ) "Dagger" and "Zircon", which can not be attributed to the strategic types of weapons. But Americans are very worried about the "self-propelled underwater vehicle" 9М39 "Poseidon" and the combat system itself with this device, and to a lesser extent (including due to less readiness) the cruise missile from the Yard Burevestnik. They do not take into account START-3, being undoubtedly a strategic and very dangerous weapon. Americans will try to either convince Russia to abandon these weapons, or to somehow limit them or develop and introduce measures of such a level to reduce the threat from these systems. And hypersonic systems, carriers of nuclear warheads, will probably also persuade us to curtail, since they themselves are very bad with this issue, and Heiten himself, saying that the USA "also develops" hypersonic systems, even if it is lagging behind Russia, that "such weapons will not be used to build up nuclear potential" (will be non-nuclear). It is reasonable to believe that they will also try to transfer us to "non-nuclear rails" in this matter. If you can not catch up or win - persuade! However, the non-nuclear variant of Avangard is possible, and certainly will be. But Russia is unlikely to agree to such options: in return, we should also get something, but why? The United States does not have analogs of our systems, the rejection of US missile defense is no longer possible purely at the level of ideology, they themselves so convinced themselves and the people that they needed such a system, how should they refuse? And Russia does not consider this threat so significant that for the sake of it to abandon hypersonic systems or torpedoes with a nuclear engine. This will thus exchange the ground for a rusty knife and beads.

Heiten also said in February that the START-3 should be “expanded and include all the nuclear weapons of the parties,” including the tactical nuclear forces. How cunning he is! The whole arsenal of tactical nuclear waste is many times smaller than ours and, most unpleasantly, far less useful and delivered to the goal, so they are once again trying to bring us to their own level! It is not the first time that this happens, but all attempts at all to conduct negotiations on TNW are rejected by the Russian side from the threshold. Occasionally, for a change, we report that a conversation about this can be conducted when all nuclear countries are involved in the negotiations, which is as real as flying to the stars at the present time. Americans simply have nothing to offer us in return on this issue.

This time the general put forward another idea: China should be included in the Treaty, he, he said, is also dangerous. At the same time, he "forgot" about England and France. But if the Americans could (even if they needed) drive England to England, and could press France on France, then China has nothing to offer them. China will immediately tighten the old song that their arsenals are negligible and have nothing to do at the table with nuclear heavyweights. And in general, he will be right: he has everything from 280 to 450 charges, according to the most optimistic estimates. The idle stories about the secret thousands of Chinese missiles and charges hiding in the depths of Chinese ores should, in general, be left to the writers of Game of Thrones or something similar — these are things of roughly the same level of reality. And to blackmail China to the Americans, in general, is also nothing. Russia, being in a completely different relationship with the PRC, already possesses information that suits her about the arsenals of a friend and neighbor, and will not insist on such a step. Unlike England and France. In addition, START-3 with China and someone else, or without, will be a new treaty, practically very different from the current one, and negotiations on it, even if it could be achieved, would be multi-year. In general, science fiction is in a bookstore, not on the negotiating table.

Equally unrealistic could be the idea of ​​lowering the limits on SNS warheads, which is highly relevant for the United States: it has also been expressed many times. Russia has repeatedly stated that talking about this is impossible without taking into account the arsenals of Britain and France, along with the United States, without giving up the missile defense system, and without a number of other extremely serious conditions. Moreover, this was stated before relations between Moscow and Washington began to seriously deteriorate. Now and even more so about this speech can not be.

It is curious that the Secretary of State Pompeo also spoke practically in unison with Heithen: the START-3 should be extended, it is respected "as a whole, unlike the PRSMD", the parties should agree and work out an option that suits everyone.

Quote:
“We are at the very beginning of the discussion on the extension of the treaty. If we can reach an agreement as it should, if we can guarantee that it is suitable for the 2021 year and beyond, then President Trump said clearly that if we can work out a good reliable arms control agreement , we have to get it. "


However, he also spoke in favor of including China in the negotiations. Meanwhile, Pompeo is considered to be the same hard-hitting line supporter as Bolton. Apparently, he changed the "camp" on this issue, which suggests that some signs of an emerging consensus in Washington on the extension of the START-3 and the conditions for bargaining with Russia are already showing. It remains to wait for the statements of Trump, but, unfortunately, he can slander and write to everyone who contradicts each other.

We, of course, understand that there will be bargaining, as in any negotiations, including those that went under this Treaty in due time. But the Americans should now work out much more realistic requirements for Russia than these: Moscow is unlikely to agree to everything like that and even to some of that. And China, and even more so it is not necessary. Although, probably, a certain Treaty for the nuclear powers of the "second and third category", of all powers, without exception, is needed. Yes, just how to get them all together at the same table? China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, the DPRK ... And with such a policy that the USA is leading in recent years, their number may increase.

And you can bargain with Russia and negotiate, but on a reasonable basis, and not in the style of "I want everything to be free of charge for me, and for me to have nothing for it". Get down from Olympus, gentlemen Americans, you are not the inhabitants of heaven, you dreamed it! And do not forget about the time, it is not so much, and the desire to agree with you on the issue of the START-3 may disappear in Moscow.
Author:
Photos used:
Depositphotos.com
18 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Newven
    Newven April 13 2019 05: 07
    +5
    And you can bargain with Russia and negotiate, but on a reasonable basis, and not in the style of "I want everything to be free of charge for me, and for me to have nothing for it". Get down from Olympus, gentlemen Americans, you are not the inhabitants of heaven, you dreamed it! And do not forget about the time, it is not so much, and the desire to agree with you on the issue of the START-3 may disappear in Moscow.
    Nothing more to comment on!
    1. Mixalson
      Mixalson April 13 2019 08: 31
      +2
      US position and trading conditions are determined

      Russia has never been and never will be a trading and usurious state ..
      We do not know how to bargain and take profit (sorry on the one hand)
      We are a mysterious country and do not like building walk in the global process of economics and politics
      Not a single world fight takes place without us, we have such a fate to beat the muzzle with the presumptuous "exceptional" .. And how you want peace and stability, as in the USSR! soldier
  2. Sars
    Sars April 13 2019 05: 29
    +5
    No arms limitation treaties are needed. And to develop the army on the principle of sufficiency and necessity.
    1. Fedor egoist
      Fedor egoist April 13 2019 14: 45
      +3
      Quote: SarS
      No arms limitation treaties needed

      Indeed, why limit yourself? Let's imagine what happens if you break ALL the treaties that limit arms and their use:
      1. The emergence of warheads and projectiles with chemical and biological weapons ("virus bombs").
      2. Based on the first paragraph (and the understanding that the enemy has all this too), mass dressing of all aircraft in chemical protection suits with a closed breathing system (filtering gas masks do not save from modern warheads, especially from war viruses).
      3. Tests of nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction in all environments, leading to a fouling of the global ecology and a reduction in average life.
      4. Mass introduction into the ground forces and their saturation with all types of WMD at the tactical level, increasing the likelihood of an inadvertent escalation of a local conflict to a global one.
      5. An avalanche-like and exhausting global arms race, reducing the level and quality of life of the population due to the transfer of the global economy to military tracks.
      6. The inevitable violation of the strategic balance of one of the parties with the subsequent use of WMD by all who have it. With a predictable outcome.
      ______________
      Better not.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse April 13 2019 23: 13
        +2
        Aren't you embarrassed that the Americans easily and unconditionally break the treaties that stop them arranging them at the moment? After all, the examples are still smoldering .. PRO .. DSDR .. Do you understand that we are obviously lagging behind and just do not have time to compensate for these sudden gaps with something serious?
        1. Fedor egoist
          Fedor egoist April 14 2019 12: 12
          -2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          You understand that we are obviously lagging behind and just do not have time to compensate

          Explain in which particular area we (that is, the Russian Federation) - are we "obviously lagging behind"? I can't keep up with the flight of your thoughts :)
  3. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx April 13 2019 05: 34
    +2
    Extension of START-3: US position and terms of trade determined

    In such an intimate topic, not a position plays a greater role, but a mutual desire and opportunities for partners. So I want to say all these from the State Department:
    DO NOT USE - DO NOT BROWSE!
  4. Vzhuk
    Vzhuk April 13 2019 07: 31
    0
    How long do they want to extend?
    1. soul
      soul April 13 2019 08: 06
      0
      Quote: VZhuk
      How long do they want to extend?

      Five-year extension.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 13 2019 07: 48
    0
    In conclusion, the author correctly said that Russia was ready to extend, but on mutually equal and favorable terms. And the one-goal game, all the more so with arms reduction treaties, is the blue dream of the Americans, but today it’s not a sale, because at the negotiating table will be Russia, not the 90s, but 2019.
  6. Evil echo
    Evil echo April 13 2019 08: 14
    +3
    Let them already learn how to sign, by chemical weapons, for example, and only then offer something else.
  7. Simferopol
    Simferopol April 13 2019 11: 01
    +1
    The United States will not survive until 2021, there is no point in the negotiations. Just take out nuclear weapons from the Nevada Republic and neighboring microstates, and the end
  8. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 13 2019 23: 16
    +2
    It is completely incomprehensible why we insist on maintaining START-3. The problem is not even in quantity, but in the qualitative structure of these agreements. We cannot fully develop the weapons options that suit us best. At the same time, Americans easily and naturally break any treaties that at least slightly limit them. The same ABM treaty, medium-range missiles, on the way to a gap, an arms treaty in space .. Well, why do we need to renegotiate the Gorbachev strategic offensive arms?
  9. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller April 13 2019 23: 17
    -1
    Quote: NewOven
    And you can bargain with Russia and negotiate, but on a reasonable basis, and not in the style of "I want everything to be free of charge for me, and for me to have nothing for it". Get down from Olympus, gentlemen Americans, you are not the inhabitants of heaven, you dreamed it! And do not forget about the time, it is not so much, and the desire to agree with you on the issue of the START-3 may disappear in Moscow.
    Nothing more to comment on!
    And if we don’t agree, then the United States will respond with sanctions ...
  10. viktorish007
    viktorish007 April 13 2019 23: 41
    -1
    happy Americans will squeeze medveputs to the nail, we are waiting for the nightingale to tell the zomboyer about a new victory and a tricky plan
  11. lopvlad
    lopvlad April 14 2019 08: 58
    0
    although the way out of it is first and foremost untying Russia, and not the United States.


    withdrawal from the INF Treaty first of all unties the hands of the United States (they were able to freely load hundreds, if not thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles into MK41 launch containers at missile defense bases in Europe, as well as deploy medium-range missiles developed in recent years in Europe). armed with neither long-range land-based cruise missiles nor medium-range missiles, they have yet to be created.
    So the existence of the INF Treaty, subject to compliance by the Americans, was beneficial to Russia.
    But the existence of START is primarily beneficial to the United States, as it essentially limits Russian nuclear retaliatory weapons that threaten US territory and allows them to control it.
    At the same time, the United States also wants more concessions to preserve START 3. Well, what can they demand? Yes, simply give up the Sarmat missiles or cut the Vanguard.
    In general, destroy or abandon one of the new types of weapons.

    Agreeing on such terms for Russia is tantamount to military surrender, and therefore START3 will be sent to the trash, without any damage to Russia's security.
  12. Old26
    Old26 April 14 2019 13: 11
    +2
    Auto RU
    1. "self-propelled underwater vehicle" 9M39 "Poseidon"

    does not have an index of 9M39. 9M are the indices of missiles (ground) along the GRAU line. I met the 2M39 index - this is at least more natural

    2. Of course, the US will try to include both "Petrel" and "Poseidon" among the types of weapons. In principle, this is quite real.

    3. However, the non-nuclear variant of the Vanguard is possible and even likely to be.

    Not sure. All these years, Russia systematically resisted equipping American ICBMs and SLBMs with conventional warheads, which the Americans planned to use against rogue countries so as not to start a nuclear conflict. We have always argued that we demand that these missiles be in limited numbers, on ground-based launchers (and not in silos) and the missiles should be different from those in service. And now we ourselves are planning a non-nuclear "Vanguard" ??? But then it should be in the quality of combat equipment on only a few missiles, different from those that we have now ...

    Quote: Saxahorse
    It is completely incomprehensible why we insist on maintaining START-3. The problem is not even in quantity, but in the qualitative structure of these agreements.

    What you are not satisfied with the quality structure of this agreement. Desirable by points ...

    Quote: Saxahorse
    We cannot fully develop the weapons options that suit us best.

    What kind of weapons can we not develop because of this agreement? Unlike all previous treaties, this one has no "internal ceilings" for types of weapons. If earlier, for example, it was said that we have the right to 1390 ICBMs (OSV-2), of which only 820 are equipped with MIRVs and the number of BBs should not exceed 10 blocks on ICBMs and 14 on SLBMs, now there are ceilings in the number of ICBMs and SLBMs no. There is a common ceiling. The number of BBs should also not exceed 10 and 14, but now the scoring rules do not require counting the maximum number of BBs on missiles with which it passed the test. That is, on the same "Bulava" there can be 1 block, and 2, and 6. This also gives its advantages. What cannot we fully develop?

    Quote: Saxahorse
    At the same time, Americans easily and naturally break any treaties that at least slightly limit them.

    A contract termination shall be considered when the contract is terminated by the decision of one party. For example, the INF Treaty would cease to exist on March 2. That would be a break. But in each agreement there is an article in which it is written that in the event of a situation where the agreement ceases to be in the interests of the parties, it MAY quit it having previously notified the other party for 6 months. What has been done with the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty.
    The ABM treaty, in principle, did not work, because the authorized missile defense base around the capital or one of the American missile bases had not operated since the 1976 EMNIP. The priorities of the Americans have changed, the threats have changed - they are out. This is also a plus for us. We have removed the "gap window" in the unified field of the early warning radar station.

    Quote: Saxahorse
    Well, why do we need to renegotiate Gorbachev's strategic offensive arms?

    the agreement concluded in 2011 suddenly became Gorbachev’s ???

    Quote: lopvlad
    withdrawal from the INF Treaty first of all unties the hands of the United States (they were able to freely load hundreds if not thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles into MK41 launch containers at missile defense bases in Europe.

    Your grass is picky, however. At 2 missile defense bases in Europe, the Americans have 24 missile cells for each, and you are going to deploy hundreds, if not thousands of missiles, in them. Sorry. Take care of your health, do not smoke such clogged grass

    Quote: lopvlad
    as well as deploy medium-range missiles developed in recent years in Europe) ..

    And you can name these missiles by name indicating their performance characteristics, at least such as length and diameter ???

    Quote: lopvlad
    But the existence of START is primarily beneficial to the United States, as it essentially limits Russian nuclear retaliatory weapons that threaten US territory and allows them to control it.

    That is, we can’t control them? Do you know the number of inspections per year? And of course the contract is beneficial to the United States. It turns out that we didn’t write off hundreds of missiles (under the agreement, they also wrote off). It is beneficial to the USA. Of course, if we were to write off, but they weren’t, then another thing
  13. Viknt
    Viknt April 14 2019 20: 28
    0
    "Within the American leadership there is no consensus on what to do, what to do, what demands to make to Russia under this Treaty, and what can be waived in the course of bargaining and discussion."
    Well yes! The United States is demanding from Putin .... as if by the year 21 you did not have to ask Putin!