Military Review

Why did the American Democrats decide to oppose the US withdrawal from START-3?

17
After the United States unilaterally terminated the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the question arose about the future Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3). However, in the United States there were ardent supporters of its extension, and among those who cannot be suspected of sympathy for Russia.




Letter of the democrats


US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo received a letter from two prominent representatives of the US Democratic Party. Eliot Engel, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, and Robert Menendez, Senior Senate Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Senate, explained in a letter the need to extend START-3. Democrats believe that the State Department should make every effort to ensure that this important agreement was extended.

Both Menendez and Engel are difficult to suspect of sympathy for Russia. But in the letter, politicians emphasize the importance of the START-3 Treaty for strategic stability in relations between the two leading powers of our time. Deputies are concerned that Presidential Administration Donald Trump has provided very limited information regarding his plans for the future of START-3.

Why did the American Democrats decide to oppose the US withdrawal from START-3? In addition, Menendez (pictured) and Engel are also worried by the fact that in the modern composition of the US State Department there are no officials approved by the Senate responsible for negotiations in the field of nuclear weapons. There is also no post of assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance with agreements, which would also be approved by the Senate.

Thus, the US Department of State does not pay due attention to the issue of further maintaining agreements with Russia on the control of strategic offensive weapons. And in this, the American Democrats see very serious risks for the United States and the global political situation as a whole. Trump’s decision to reformat the current agreements also arouses great concern among the Democrats, since it is not known whether Washington will be able to conclude a new agreement not only with Moscow, but also with Beijing (as Trump plans to do).

Will START-3 extend?


In August 2019, the Donald Trump administration expressed a desire to transform the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction and Limitation Treaty (START-3) from bilateral to multilateral. This desire is connected with the fact that in recent years China has become a serious world power, its military potential is constantly growing, and in the United States they see in China no less, if not more, threat than in Russia.

Donald Trump expects that the new contract should be signed not only by the USA and Russia, but also by China. Behind the usual demagogy about the need to reduce and gradually abandon nuclear weapons the desire of the American elite to protect the United States from the risks of a clash with China lies. But this desire is issued for the good idea of ​​reducing nuclear weapons and related threats around the world.

Trump himself has repeatedly criticized START-3, calling the treaty a “one-sided” deal and urging it to withdraw from it, since it does not give the United States any advantages. A number of prominent representatives of the American elite share the same position. At the same time, the letter of the congressman and senator indicates that the US leadership does not have a unified point of view on this issue.

For example, criticism of the withdrawal from START-3 was made by US Air Force General John Heiten, who took the post of deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. True, not all share this position among high-ranking military men. Another thing is the US Democratic Party.

In the context of the Trump-initiated impeachment process, it is very important for party leaders to focus on miscalculations of the incumbent’s foreign policy. And in this case, not the extension of the START-3 treaty becomes an excellent reason to accuse Donald Trump of creating new risks for the American state, of neglecting national security issues. Of course, the Democrats simply could not help but take advantage of such a chic occasion to once again prick Trump as the president’s position regarding the extension of the START-3 treaty.



US-START 3 Disputes


At the same time, the concern of the representatives of the Democratic Party is indeed not without certain grounds. In recent years, the United States has significantly “launched” its foreign policy. The leadership of the State Department does not pay serious attention to the formation of a full-fledged personnel reserve, including nuclear weapons specialists.

But, on the other hand, if Washington is not configured to maintain agreements with Russia, then the presence or absence of experts on this issue is not any significant obstacle to the implementation of Trump's foreign policy.

Moreover, in the USA there has never been a shortage of analytical centers and scientific organizations that study the problems of the nuclear arms race. That is, there are enough specialists, but many of them are set up in the same way as Trump, being supporters of the United States withdrawing from existing agreements.

Many American political scientists, specialists in Russia and military experts who form the “hawk lot” speak out against the extension of the treaty. For example, John Bolton, who recently resigned as president’s national security adviser, noted that START-3 does not take into account the latest Russian developments and the very fact of the presence of short-range tactical nuclear weapons. And many American experts agree with his position.

Therefore, there is no doubt that START-3, especially if there is consensus in the American leadership, may well repeat the fate of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, in which the United States terminated at the beginning of the 2019 year. Indeed, both the INF Treaty and the START-3 limit the ability of the American side to build up arms, but at the same time do not include China, which is the main reason for Washington’s fears.

In turn, Beijing does not want to be constrained by contractual obligations, especially against the backdrop of a rather aggressive US policy in the Asia-Pacific region. But if China does not sign the treaty, then for Washington the continued existence of START-3 loses all meaning. Naturally, upon termination of the contract Russia will be blamed, as was already the case with the INF Treaty. Therefore, American representatives are probing the soil, constantly noting that Russia is developing the latest weapons, supposedly threatening the security of the American state.

The arms race could be one way for the United States to maintain dominance in world politics. Given the economic opportunities of the United States, the Trump administration expects Washington to win the race with Russia and China. Therefore, a way out of all existing agreements on arms limitation fully fits into the general thrust of American foreign policy and perfectly correlates with Trump's other actions.



The very proposal to attract China to START-3 indicates that Washington does not plan to maintain the agreement, since it is clear that Beijing will not agree to sign a new deal. If suddenly China would agree to the proposal of the American side, then this would be a good result for Trump. The incumbent president would imagine what was happening as a global foreign policy victory for his administration, would enter history as the person who forced Russia and China to sign an arms reduction treaty.

Russia's reaction to a possible exit from START-3


Moscow does not approve of the position of the Trump administration, aimed at refusing to extend the agreements. No wonder Vladimir Putin called the START-3 the last remaining document limiting the arms race in the modern world. In an interview with RT Arabic, Sky News Arabia and Al Arabiya, Vladimir Putin drew attention to the fact that if START-3 was not extended, then there would be no tools left in the world that could prevent the buildup of offensive weapons.

According to the Russian president, the world is becoming increasingly complex and dangerous. And this is true - the weapons are developing, the military potential of states is growing, therefore START-3 allowed at least control the situation. After its abolition, the United States and Russia will not be even more intense than before to resume the arms race.

Other risks are also worth noting. If fifty years ago only the USSR and the United States possessed truly dangerous military potential for the world, today the capabilities of other states have grown. And even not so much with the confrontation between Russia and the USA, or China and the USA, the main risks of the nuclear arms race are connected, but with the buildup of nuclear power by other countries.

India and Pakistan are rapidly increasing their nuclear power, as well as conventional weapons, and this is a very dangerous trend. After all, India and Pakistan are not just nuclear powers. They are in a state of very long smoldering conflict, which periodically “revives” and takes the form of Indo-Pakistani wars.

Both India and Pakistan have strong nationalist sentiments, and their foreign policy towards each other is characterized by increased aggressiveness. Recently, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, speaking at the UN, openly stated that in the event of a large-scale armed conflict with India, his country, which, they say, is seven times smaller than India, will have no choice but to use nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the presence of nuclear weapons in both states is in itself a great danger, and against the backdrop of the US refusal to extend START-3, both India, Pakistan and China will consider this position of Washington as evidence of the beginning of a new arms race.

If the United States or Russia tries to exhort them, the termination of START-3 will always be an iron argument: they say how you can exhort other countries if you yourself could not agree among themselves and extend the treaty.

Of course, Washington is well aware of all the international risks associated with the fate of START-3. But American politicians and Trump are primarily characterized by a belief in the more substantial capabilities of the United States to influence the current situation. These ambitions do not allow American politicians to soberly assess all the advantages of START-3 and imagine that suddenly the dominant role in the United States will be seized - whether Russia, China, or some other countries, does not matter.
Author:
Photos used:
rbc.ru, iz.ru
17 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. Thrifty
    Thrifty 5 November 2019 06: 08
    -3
    Two senators probably just couldn’t put anything in their pocket so far, so they decided to lobby themselves. A contract, just a piece of paper, and it’s time for the Kremlin not to look at the papers, but to the sides, otherwise we’ll forever be catching up.
    1. Civil
      Civil 5 November 2019 08: 13
      +1
      START-3 is not a tenant right now. Spin the flywheel of the new Cold War and the Arms Race. There is no reason for the parties to abide by this agreement.
      1. bessmertniy
        bessmertniy 5 November 2019 09: 35
        0
        The arms race is getting out of control. Control is increasingly becoming ineffective, and therefore it makes no sense. Moreover, today countries that are of no great importance in the world are striving to arm themselves to the teeth. Modern lethal weapons for them are a means of self-assertion.
      2. Greg Miller
        Greg Miller 5 November 2019 12: 09
        +3
        I do not agree. US will keep START-3, as it is written by them for themselves and to a greater extent limits not the American, but the Russian strategic nuclear forces. Plus, the United States has a global missile defense system, which, whatever one may say, is still improving in the future, it is quite possible that it will be able to repel the blow of the amount available to the Russian Federation today, limited by START-3, of ballistic missiles.
      3. Stils
        Stils 5 November 2019 20: 00
        +3
        Quote: Civil
        START-3 is not a tenant right now. Spin the flywheel of the new Cold War and the Arms Race. There is no reason for the parties to abide by this agreement.

        Uh-huh. Only Russia will have a minus arms race. The fleet is heading straight into a deep ass, the Sarmatians and Poseidons and other Zircons have not yet rolled a horse, the terms of the Stilettes and Voyevod are endlessly prolonged ... and only blablabla ... "how much new technology will enter the troops" ... but some drops, mockery of chickens, some talk, window dressing and noodles on the ears of "patriots".
        And all this against the background of the fast-growing army of China, but of the same Japan, the fleet of Yapons is already head and shoulders higher than the Pacific Fleet. And against the background of a stable army of the USA, Britain, and other NATO countries.
  2. Far B
    Far B 5 November 2019 06: 14
    0
    However, in the United States there were ardent supporters of its extension, and among those who cannot be suspected of sympathy for Russia.
    But they can be suspected of antipathy to Trump. The usual Byzantine Empire is undercover, nothing but.
  3. Vadmir
    Vadmir 5 November 2019 07: 10
    0
    However, in the United States there were ardent supporters of its extension, and among those who cannot be suspected of sympathy for Russia.
    And where does sympathy for Russia - START-3 is more profitable than the United States than Russia. They invested in missile defense, without START-3, the cost of missile defense is a waste of money, since missile defense can be overcome by cheap false targets, which are now under restriction due to restrictions on carriers.
    1. Chit
      Chit 5 November 2019 11: 59
      -2
      To make new media, you need new money. Do you recall the military budgets of Russia and the USA?
      Who can afford to make an unlimited number of carriers without much damage to their economy? So who benefits from START-3?
      As for missile defense, against the backdrop of laudatory odes about the S-400 and other complexes, it is difficult to say that Russia also did not invest in missile defense.
    2. dauria
      dauria 5 November 2019 20: 33
      +1
      And where does sympathy for Russia - START-3 is more profitable than the United States than Russia.


      Not anymore. They really care about China, which is not bound by anything. No checks, no "Open Skies", owes nothing to anyone. And the economy rushes forward like a tank. And Russia? It's funny for Americans. Itself will not attack, well, let him sit, trade gas with oil. Even the Saudis are allowed to trade it. But the Chinese swung at the sacred - a DOLLAR !!! And the colonial system built on the dollar, aircraft carriers and "vigorous bonbs".
  4. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 5 November 2019 07: 12
    +4
    I will express my subjective opinion. The START-3 treaty is no longer needed by either the United States or Russia. The treaty was signed between the two countries with offensive nuclear weapons, which did not include Britain, France, China and the DPRK and India, which was added to this "club", and possibly Israel. Now the situation is as follows - there is no guarantee in the world that any "Houthis or Taliban" will not deliver a "nuclear strike" tomorrow and provoke an atomic apocalypse. We need a new treaty covering all countries - whether they have nuclear weapons or not. And the information in the article is an internal showdown of US politicians and should not be given special attention.
  5. Alien From
    Alien From 5 November 2019 08: 33
    -5
    They put in panties after a sober calculation and not populist statements. The king is right, we are in paradise, and they will simply die!
  6. soul
    soul 5 November 2019 08: 37
    +4
    Trump himself has repeatedly criticized START-3, calling the treaty a “one-sided” deal, as it does not give the United States any advantages.

    Overt cynicism. A bilateral agreement does not give advantages to either side. He also needs a "multilateral" treaty that gives the US an advantage.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi 5 November 2019 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: alma
      A bilateral agreement does not give advantages to either of the parties.

      It greatly depends on the text of the contract. START-3 provides for an inspection of Russian strategic forces, but does not have such an item with respect to the US. What a squeal was in the US Congress when Obama allowed Russia to inspect ONE object in the United States.
  7. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 5 November 2019 09: 26
    +1
    It would be very strange if China agreed to participate in any agreement with the United States. And there are huge doubts about India. The United States is non-negotiable, it is now clearly visible to everyone. Therefore, such serious treaties can appear only when the United States forces China and India to sign. And how can this happen to the Americans?
    When the USSR was, the agreement of the two superpowers on this issue would be a decisive factor. What now? Firstly, Russia will not help the United States without simply receiving huge concessions that the Americans are not able to make at all, in principle. Secondly, we are not the USSR, not even close. The pipe is lower, the smoke is thinner ...
    In general, both sides in the United States are engaged in internal political struggle. And Trump, and the Democrats are simply eating each other, and the fact that the whole world is staggering from this is for them small details. This is what the unipolar world means ...
  8. Operator
    Operator 5 November 2019 10: 47
    +1
    It is not clear what the author wanted to say - for the health or repose of START-3? bully
  9. Old26
    Old26 6 November 2019 13: 51
    0
    Quote: Thrifty
    Two senators probably just couldn’t put anything in their pocket so far, so they decided to lobby themselves. A contract, just a piece of paper, and it’s time for the Kremlin not to look at the papers, but to the sides, otherwise we’ll forever be catching up.

    And the option that people have brains and they are not blocked, are not ready to look into the President’s mouth and applaud everything that he said you are not considering?
    And a contract is not just a piece of paper. But looking around in such matters is not recommended. And especially take into account all existing and non-existing opinions. The task of the contract is to create conditions. A treaty cannot be "unilateral" and take precedence only in relation to one of the countries. This is a compromise. And I don't see where we are catching up in the context of this treaty.
    The verification system is up and running. A compromise has been reached. We agreed on their number of carriers, they are on our number of warheads. What are we catching up on?

    Quote: Civil
    START-3 is not a tenant right now. Spin the flywheel of the new Cold War and the Arms Race. There is no reason for the parties to abide by this agreement.

    He is still a tenant and does not allow precisely to spin the flywheel of the arms race, since the parties are limited in quantity.
    There is no reason to comply with the contract? Prefer to be as before? When were we forced to withdraw from service the systems that had worked out all the terms of operation, but our opponent did not? And so that the number of carriers and warheads is reduced unilaterally in favor of the enemy? Or maybe you should think before writing this?

    Quote: bessmertniy
    The arms race is getting out of control. Control is increasingly becoming ineffective, and therefore it makes no sense. Moreover, today countries that are of no great importance in the world are striving to arm themselves to the teeth. Modern lethal weapons for them are a means of self-assertion.

    Can you give an example of the ineffectiveness of control? Like a race getting out of control? At the same time, one should not forget that the agreement between the two countries, and what the third ones do, is equally unpleasant for the USA and Russia.

    Quote: Greg Miller
    I do not agree. US will keep START-3, as it is written by them for themselves and to a greater extent limits not the American, but the Russian strategic nuclear forces. Plus, the United States has a global missile defense system, which, whatever one may say, is still improving in the future, it is quite possible that it will be able to repel the blow of the amount available to the Russian Federation today, limited by START-3, of ballistic missiles.

    Do not consider our diplomats, negotiators and, in general, the country's leadership so stupid that they signed an agreement written by the United States "for themselves." I will repeat myself. A contract is always a compromise. Somewhere we conceded, somewhere the Americans. But in total, the agreement is still valid and verifiable. But to break it is easy. Probably you will not care at the same time that without any restrictions, our enemy will begin to build up his potential, without looking back at any restrictions, will "load" his carriers beyond the restrictions, and while we will be seriously limited in such events ... ?

    Quote: Stils
    Quote: Civil
    START-3 is not a tenant right now. Spin the flywheel of the new Cold War and the Arms Race. There is no reason for the parties to abide by this agreement.

    Uh-huh. Only Russia will have a minus arms race. The fleet is heading straight into a deep ass, the Sarmatians and Poseidons and other Zircons have not yet rolled a horse, the terms of the Stilettes and Voyevod are endlessly prolonged ... and only blablabla ... "how much new technology will enter the troops" ... but some drops, mockery of chickens, some talk, window dressing and noodles on the ears of "patriots".
    And all this against the background of the fast-growing army of China, but of the same Japan, the fleet of Yapons is already head and shoulders higher than the Pacific Fleet. And against the background of a stable army of the USA, Britain, and other NATO countries.

    That's right, comrade. Either the race will be with a minus sign, or if not completely with a minus sign, the build-up parameters for us will be much less than for our opponent ... Even if only because of the inequality of industrial potential ...
    On the "Stilettos" you can already put a big and bold cross. Even if they are still there, their age is prohibitive. Two new regiments, which are going to deploy in the PR of the 13th taxiway, will not do the same. And in Tatishchevo they have been considered undeveloped for a couple of years.

    Quote: Vadmir
    However, in the United States there were ardent supporters of its extension, and among those who cannot be suspected of sympathy for Russia.
    And where does sympathy for Russia - START-3 is more profitable than the United States than Russia. They invested in missile defense, without START-3, the cost of missile defense is a waste of money, since missile defense can be overcome by cheap false targets, which are now under restriction due to restrictions on carriers.

    Vadim! And with START-3, missile defense costs are essentially down the drain. Having only missiles as an anti-missile weapon, and not weapons based on other physical principles, it is very presumptuous to talk about the reliability of missile defense. Deploying new missile defense systems is much more difficult than "overloading" this system by overloading it with a number of targets.
    And START-3 in this case is also beneficial for the United States, since under the cover of this treaty they are quietly working on reforming their own nuclear weapons complex ...

    Quote: dauria
    And where does sympathy for Russia - START-3 is more profitable than the United States than Russia.


    Not anymore. They really care about China, which is not bound by anything. No checks, no "Open Skies", owes nothing to anyone. And the economy rushes forward like a tank. And Russia? It's funny for Americans. Itself will not attack, well, let him sit, trade gas with oil. Even the Saudis are allowed to trade it. But the Chinese swung at the sacred - a DOLLAR !!! And the colonial system built on the dollar, aircraft carriers and "vigorous bonbs".

    China, for them, Alexey, is still a potential problem that does not require an immediate solution. In any case, the state of China's strategic potential will not be able to give the United States a "toothache" in the coming years. The number of ICBMs they have is about 80-90. Most of these ICBMs have not been tested either at maximum range or with a maximum number of warheads. What is the reason? I do not know. But the Chinese, from all their intercontinental missile potential, tested at the maximum range only their already rather old DF-5 missile. And the number of BB, despite the declared 8-10 during tests, rarely exceeds 2-3
  10. Old26
    Old26 6 November 2019 13: 51
    -1
    Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
    I will express my subjective opinion. The START-3 treaty is no longer needed by either the United States or Russia. The treaty was signed between the two countries with offensive nuclear weapons, which did not include Britain, France, China and the DPRK and India, which was added to this "club", and possibly Israel. Now the situation is as follows - there is no guarantee in the world that any "Houthis or Taliban" will not deliver a "nuclear strike" tomorrow and provoke an atomic apocalypse. We need a new treaty covering all countries - whether they have nuclear weapons or not. And the information in the article is an internal showdown of US politicians and should not be given special attention.

    AK can argue your subjective opinion, even if it is not needed. What, when it was signed in 2011, did France or Britain have no marine component of strategic forces? Or the number of boats and missiles over the years increased tenfold?
    China, in fact, if it increased its missile potential, then by one and a half dozen ICBMs and a dozen SLBMs
    To believe that the DPRK has joined the club of "strategic powers" is rather stupid. The creation and testing of 2-3 missiles, which theoretically can be considered intercontinental and it is not known how many deployed (in the amount of 2, 4 or 6) - this is not a reason to rank North Korea in this club.
    India does not yet have intercontinental missiles in service. It has two other adversaries - China and Pakistan, and for the United States its potential is a "dead poultice".
    There will be no new treaty covering all countries in the coming years. It is naive to think that someone would sacrifice their potential for the sake of some mythical treaty, which is unknown how it will be checked. Here it takes 5-10 years to develop an agreement between the two countries, and to create an agreement that will unite a dozen countries - UNREAL
    And the United States needs this agreement, if only because of the need to reorganize and reform, and in some places, reanimate its weapons and nuclear complex. They have problems and they can be solved without much effort only by being within the framework of the agreement, so that Russia also has restrictions

    Quote: Alien From
    They put in panties after a sober calculation and not populist statements. The king is right, we are in paradise, and they will simply die!

    Well, if there are no brains, count on getting to heaven. I do not care. If anything we burn, and they. And leave the motivation "heaven-hell" to the priests

    Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
    Quote: alma
    A bilateral agreement does not give advantages to either of the parties.

    It greatly depends on the text of the contract. START-3 provides for an inspection of Russian strategic forces, but does not have such an item with respect to the US. What a squeal was in the US Congress when Obama allowed Russia to inspect ONE object in the United States.

    You ABSOLUTELY NOT RIGHTS. The number of inspections from our side and from the American ABSOLUTELY EQUAL. . Both we and they can attend ANY STRATEGIC OBJECTS. Moreover, unlike the previous ones, the time interval is reduced. Now such inspections may be SUFFICIENTLY SUDDEN