No agreement with Washington: are there any prospects for START-3
Source: dating.org
Last line of containment
The confrontation between Russia and the United States of America seems to be reaching its deepest bottom in stories. With small nuances. On the one hand, Washington is arming our ideological adversary with the most modern weapons and provides all possible support at the moment. On the other hand, it does not interrupt trade relations, buying $1 billion worth of Russian goods every month.
In this story full of paradoxes, of particular interest are the prospects for the extension and even elementary compliance with START-3 (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). This is a unique document that regulates not just the reduction of nuclear weapons, but the lack of incentive for one of the parties to launch a first strike.
The possibility of inflicting the first disarming strike is the main danger of a nuclear confrontation between the two powers, which account for about 90% of all stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That is why strategic offensive arms in various generations had to ensure control over the enemy's defense so that it could not successfully parry the retaliatory strike of the second side. An interesting situation, given the fact that the United States withdrew from the multi-year ABM agreement in 2002. It was then that Washington finally believed in its technological superiority and decided not to bind itself with unnecessary agreements anymore.
An important provision of any strategic offensive arms (1991, 1992 and 2010) is the exclusion of the possibility of hitting several starting positions by one carrier at once. That is, one ballistic missile is not allowed to hang more than 10-12 autonomous warheads.
And finally, the third provision of the treaties - preference is given to systems of increased survivability, which are difficult to destroy with a first strike. It is difficult to imagine a structure capable of withstanding a massive nuclear strike, so the emphasis is on the mobility of carriers. Russia has wheeled missile carriers, aviation and nuclear submarines, the Americans - submarines and aircraft. However, even here it is difficult to imagine 100% invisibility for modern satellite reconnaissance and air defense systems. And inconspicuous submarine missile carriers are necessarily accompanied by hunter submarines of a potential enemy.
The moment of signing START-3 in the first edition. Source: petrograd1917.ru
Be that as it may, but thanks to the START treaties, the latest version of which was extended in 2021, now neither Russia nor the United States can carry out the first nuclear strike, which will radically weaken the enemy. Cardinally, it means that the answer will be reflected by the enemy's strategic defense forces.
Theoretically, both Moscow and Washington could start a nuclear war right now. But at the first strike, more warheads will be used up than the enemy will have to answer. And this is the most optimistic scenario for the aggressor, when the enemy will simply sit back and watch the warheads fall on his territory.
In reality, after the launch of the first missiles, the attacked side has several tens of minutes for a retaliatory strike. By the way, the position of China in this story is quite interesting, which, as you know, has not signed any limitation agreements.
Firstly, the PRC's nuclear potential is still so small that the Chinese have nothing to cut.
Secondly, Beijing is very comfortable. It's all about the Russian system of early warning of a missile attack, which is not able to distinguish between missiles going to the Russian Federation and China. Therefore, any American launch on China will receive a response from Russia.
In general, all stories about the reduction of foreign "decision centers" on both sides of the Atlantic to ashes should be taken with a certain amount of irony. The response will be guaranteed unacceptable damages. At least as long as the START-3 treaty is in effect.
coldest war
Degradation in the mutual limitation of the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States has been observed since the beginning of the 3st century. The initiative in this invariably belongs to the Americans. First, Washington withdrew from the ABM treaty, later from the INF Treaty (intermediate-range and short-range missiles), and now the only remaining one, START-XNUMX, is under attack.
The motivation of the Americans is officially the same - the world is rapidly changing, countries are intensively arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction, and there is no point in arranging "agreements" between the two powers. In fact, the United States once again felt especially keenly all the delights of a unipolar world and the opportunities that opened up in connection with this.
The conflict in Ukraine could give the US establishment false confidence that Russia is weakening. It looks tempting to finally formalize the much-desired total superiority in nuclear potential. How can I do that? Only by sabotaging the provisions of START-3, relatively recently prolonged by Joe Biden.
The most important principle of any treaty, especially on arms reduction, is the principle of transparency. That is, the Americans come to visit us for inspection and count the combat-ready missiles, and we fly to the United States with a similar mission. Without such mutual visits, any START is of little use. Who will guarantee that the United States strictly adheres to the established limit of 1 deployed munitions?
The first failure occurred in 2020, when coronavirus restrictions paused inspections of air bases, ICBM sites, and submarine bases. Since then, there has been virtually no mutual control - no one really knew how much the Americans had withdrawn from the reserve of warheads and carriers, or whether they strictly adhere to the provisions of the START treaty.
The current version of the agreement expires in 2026, and so far there are no options for its prolongation. There are only signs of rapid degradation.
Source: news.cgtn.com
In early August, Russia withdrew its nuclear facilities from US inspection control. It's all about the sanctions imposed on Russia. For example, the unilateral American flight ban actually puts an end to the Russian side's access to US arsenals. And Washington's allies also strictly follow the line of the main one, closing the airspace for the passage of inspection teams.
The Foreign Ministry emphasizes that the Americans
"Unambiguously achieve a restart of inspection activities on terms that do not take into account existing realities, create unilateral advantages for the United States and in fact deprive the Russian Federation of the right to carry out inspections on American territory."
In addition, difficulties were added with the issuance of visas to members of the Russian delegation. Up to the fact that the ban applies to individual members of the commission and the crew of aircraft. Pilots are simply not issued transport visas.
The Americans are quite provocatively insisting on access to the Russian nuclear arsenals, that is, they simply unilaterally want to see if everything is in order. Almost directly they say - "you first capitulate in Ukraine, and then we'll talk."
The step of the Russian diplomatic corps in this regard looks fair - either we all play in the dark, or open the airspace. The Foreign Ministry is ready to resume negotiations on the status of START-3 "from the most realistic positions." By the way, this is not the Kremlin’s tyranny, but work within the framework of the fifth paragraph of the first section of the fifth chapter of the protocol to the START-3 treaty, according to which one side can suspend the performance of duties if the other side creates obstacles.
In addition to freezing mutual checks, the consideration of the prospects for the treaty after 2026, when START-3 expires, has also been put on hold. And here again, the United States unilaterally refused dialogue, in connection with the events in Ukraine. Preparing the provisions of a new agreement, if one is planned at all, is not a quick process, and now every month of delay can play a key role.
However, on August 5, the Americans started talking about a possible start of a dialogue with Russia on a new treaty. They say they see prospects in the White House for extending the agreement. The height of cynicism, given the restrictions that have been imposed on the country. It remains, probably, to negotiate with the American "colleagues" in Skype. And then until the next limitation of the functionality in the framework of the "cancellation of Russia" in the West.
Here it is impossible not to quote the words of Dmitry Medvedev, which are already becoming immortal:
“Well, and most importantly ... Do we need it at all?”
Information