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