Military Review

Flexibility doesn’t mean thoughtlessness

29
Flexibility doesn’t mean thoughtlessness

The mobile rocket complex Temp-S can now be seen only in the museum.



Suddenly, the discussion on the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF) and the need for the Russian presence in it is gaining momentum. Unfortunately, for the time being, all this is opportunistic in nature, being presented as a kind of “our answer”, a bargaining item for exchanges, and counter proposals for Barack Obama’s calls for further reductions in missile weapons, both strategic and non-strategic. And even the most sophisticated specialists, alas, all the time, in the course of their analysis, fall into the usual rut of examining this problem in the context of the former bipolar Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War.

The DSRMD is by no means the worst product of that era, it objectively worked to strengthen security and trust. But is it relevant today? Moreover, it is practically regulating a whole class of nuclear-missile weapons, which became widespread in the modern world, only for the Russian Federation and the United States, giving everyone else complete freedom. We agree with those who believe: the relations of the Russian Federation and the USA / West have undergone major changes compared with the times of the Cold War. Although the tasks of mutual deterrence as a kind of insurance, not only, we note, for the Russian Federation are still significant. At the same time, speculation about the “complete devaluation” and “uselessness” of the Russian nuclear missile potential in connection with the West’s expected creation of a multi-tier, integrated missile defense system, in our opinion, is provocative. But in any case, our relations should not be aggravated, for example, by an additional cluster of medium and shorter range missiles (RVMD). But what does the INF? If a new crisis suddenly comes in our relations, it is not because of the contract or because of its absence. But even if we consider the “western frontier” of Russia to be reliable and stable (we do not specifically add - friendly), one can’t say with the same confidence about other areas of the Russian Federation’s extensive security perimeter. And here, in our opinion, the possibilities for the effective use of the MISMD as a tool of deterrence may turn out to be significantly different.

Generally speaking, the meaning of owning an SSMD for the USA and the USSR / Russia was always different. The United States, in principle, could well dispense with the RSOM due to its geographic location. But this is not counting the tasks of ensuring umbrella security of partners and allies, projection of power, including in relation to the USSR. The USSR / Russia has a completely different situation, radically different from that of the USA, “continental” geography and geostrategy. But if during the times of the USSR, the southern and partly eastern frontiers were still reliably blocked and did not require reinforcement in the form of an SRMD, today such an increase is politically and almost inevitable. In general, it is surprising that the Russian Federation has not yet raised the question of withdrawing from the DDSAM, apparently due to inertia, faith in the “good old order”, in the Magic of the Great Treaties. And the fact that today it is time to review the past (and from the past) state of affairs, more than naturally, reasonably, in a timely manner. And not to “stab” America. For the Russian Federation, this “outcome” would be a step that fully meets the national interests of the country at the present stage and for the foreseeable future, the tasks of ensuring its national security.

At present, perhaps, RVMMD could be no less, if not more important, than a number of other large-scale, prestigious, costly spheres of military construction in Russia, to reliably ensure the security of the Russian Federation from certain directions. And it will not be just a waste of manpower and resources. Threats and challenges are not only purely military-force, in the “arc” south-southeast-east, diverse and numerous. There is not and cannot be a single, unified prescription for deterrence. And RVMD is objectively one of its most important tools. Moreover, the range of possible use of RVMD on these lines is very wide. From the actual implementation of strategic deterrence to solving problems of a different nature, in various equipment, in the course of the integrated security of the Russian Federation, with the implementation of RVMD in conflict scenarios of various types and levels, including the implementation of preventive measures. And in some cases, the role of RVSMD can be very significant, even decisive. And far from being replaced by other forces and means, including in their “shortened”, “facilitated”, modified version.

On the marked azimuths in the underbelly of the Russian Federation, in its surroundings and in close proximity to its vast and not too protected, rarefied spaces, there are significant countries claiming to have global and at least regional influence. At the same time, a number of them are actively developing their own missile weapons, including RVSMD. For example, the same "Carthage". Although not all boils down to quantitative balances and sub-balances, the preparation of which involved in the first place. Russian RVMDs, if they appear, will be called upon to restrain, among other tasks, missile weapons of other participants of the geopolitical equation. But not only, not at all. The “special role” of the RSMD factor in the implementation of deterrence, direct and indirect, military and non-military expansion in the southern, southeastern and eastern directions is due to the fact that this deterrence will inevitably have a pronounced asymmetrical character. This is also because the Russian general-purpose forces (CPF), despite significant financial commitments made by the state, most likely have not reached the optimum level of readiness. Well, given the length of the Russian perimeter of security, the construction of the country's defense should not turn into a remake of The Tale of the Golden Cockerel by the great geopolitics of Alexander Pushkin.

Of course, this does not mean at all that the creation of the now-new RVSMD class for the Russian Federation is easy and that we will be able to produce them, according to Khrushchev, “like sausages”. But here is one of the conclusions of the recent teachings in the east of the country, about which they do not want to speak out loud, in order “not to anger the skies”. The most realistic (compared to others) possibility of providing deterrence in the event of a large-scale conflict in this direction is not the movement of troop masses along a single track and not building up a network of points for jumping, receiving, gathering at a reliable crosshair. Namely, missile weapons, including, if not primarily, RVMD. In the end, on the geostrategic, like on the football, field “the ball flies” is always faster than the hustle and bustle of the players. In assessing the effectiveness of the possible use of the deterrent potential of Russian (possible) RVSMD in the foreseeable future, it is absolutely necessary to take into account the missile defense factor. However, he is likely to play at these frontiers a sensitive role in assessing strategic balances of deterrence, comparable to the US-NATO in the western direction, not tomorrow and not the day after.

Will the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the INF Treaty be an additional incentive for the nuclear missile arms race in the world? Will it affect the security of Russia itself dramatically? Surely not even a pretext, everyone who works in this direction, has long been engaged in "his own business." What really stimulates the nuclear-missile and strategic armaments race (RNSF) is a dramatic complication of the international situation, an increase in instability and uncertainty, not the fault of Russia. For that matter, much more progress in this regard is made by the missile defense factor rather destructive than stabilizing. As for the security of the RF itself, only naive idealists or hard-nosed demagogues believe that we live in a contrasting world of "good and evil." Unfortunately, in the system of "many evils" sometimes it is necessary to choose the smaller of them. And for the security of the Russian Federation in a certain time interval, the possession of the RVSMD potential can become just this “lesser evil” compared to its absence.

We emphasize that a possible withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the INF Treaty should be considered in no way in the development of confrontation between the Russian Federation and the United States. And just such a point of view today is actively and openly imposed, pedaling some domestic and American political scientists, politicians, and military, by the way, not only “hawks”, but also “pigeons”, each for his own intimate reasons. So, we repeat, this is not the case when “in spite of the American grandmother you need to freeze Russian ears”. It is the leadership of the national interests of the country to ensure its reliable, economical, non-provocative defense dictates for the Russian Federation the practical possibility of such a step.

And the last. Improving a country's security system is a continuous and continuous process in time and space. There is not and can not be anything "untouchable", the truth is born - as heresy and dies - as a prejudice, the wise men taught, and as Charles de Gaulle said, each construction has its own balance. In contrast to the times of the Cold War, today there are no truths and doctrinal constants frozen for decades. And it's not about lightness, shallowness of judgment or inconsistency, fragmentation of politics (although this is enough today) - first of all, this is our fast, too fast era. The United States simply understood this before Russia, in some situations clinging to convenient stencils. And the Russian side should not dramatize possible — and inevitable — transformations of the world, including assessing the prospects for Russian-American relations.

Let's admit: the Russian Federation still has a rather limited set of forces and means for carrying out security activities. And in these conditions, in fact, to impose upon oneself some kind of “religious self-restraint” in the form of abandoning the potential of the RVMD is obviously to deprive oneself of the possibilities of a more diversified and more effective policy.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. seller trucks
    seller trucks 9 September 2013 16: 09 New
    18
    The discussion on the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missile Treaty (INF Treaty) and the need for the Russian Federation to be present in it has suddenly escalated, and is gaining momentum.


    Duc, and what I mean, if I'm not mistaken, Kazakhstan and Belarus are not members of the agreement (INF Treaty). And therefore, no one forbids them to place bases with SD and MD missiles and it is not necessary to withdraw from the treaty in their territory and from the agreement. In general, Gorbachev, only for signing this shameful agreement should be put to the wall.
    1. elmi
      elmi 9 September 2013 19: 19 New
      +5
      What prevents us from withdrawing from the contract? if the Americans withdraw from the treaties, if the exit is beneficial to them, then why shouldn’t we? Now it’s not Gorbachev’s time and not 90. It is necessary to revive the Oka complex and get out of the contract that is disadvantageous to us.
      1. NEMO
        NEMO 9 September 2013 20: 06 New
        +2
        Quote: elmi
        What prevents us from withdrawing from the contract? if the Americans withdraw from the treaties, if the exit is beneficial to them, then why shouldn’t we?

        Political correctness smile moreover, the Americans are openly and flagrantly violating key articles of the INF Treaty by developing medium- and shorter-range target missiles in order to test elements of the global missile defense of the United States and Euro-missile defense. We are already on the site, in July we discussed http://topwar.ru/31053-amerikanskie-narusheniya-dogovorov-o-rsmd-i-snv.html
        1. the polar
          the polar 10 September 2013 11: 41 New
          0
          Quote: NEMO
          Quote: elmi
          What prevents us from withdrawing from the contract? if the Americans withdraw from the treaties, if the exit is beneficial to them, then why shouldn’t we?

          Political correctness smile moreover, the Americans are openly and flagrantly violating key articles of the INF Treaty by developing medium- and shorter-range target missiles in order to test elements of the global missile defense of the United States and Euro-missile defense. We are already on the site, in July we discussed http://topwar.ru/31053-amerikanskie-narusheniya-dogovorov-o-rsmd-i-snv.html

          To put it mildly, the lack of professionalism of government officials who make decisions at this level is hindering. It is not necessary to hold discussions and discussions, it is enough to hold a meeting with the chief designers of the rocket and space industry. After all, it is enough to organize the production of mid-flight engines for the INF, and to unify the warheads and electronics. While accumulating in the warehouse storage mode. Tests carried out under the program "flights to Mars."
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 9 September 2013 21: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: elmi
        What prevents us from withdrawing from the contract? if the Americans withdraw from the treaties, if the exit is beneficial to them, then why shouldn’t we? Now it’s not Gorbachev’s time and not 90. It is necessary to revive the Oka complex and get out of the contract that is disadvantageous to us.


        It seems to me that this indecision can be expressed with the catch phrase - "yes, I’ll give a sharp point." Purely my opinion is that this argument is for the failure to withdraw from this agreement.
    2. Civil
      Civil 10 September 2013 06: 45 New
      +1
      I have long been a supporter of withdrawal from all these non-working agreements.
  2. Russ69
    Russ69 9 September 2013 16: 11 New
    12
    One of the most stupid treaties signed by Gorbachev ....
    1. Ruslan_F38
      Ruslan_F38 9 September 2013 17: 28 New
      10
      Quote: Russ69
      One of the most stupid treaties signed by Gorbachev ....

      What a hunchback, such and treaties. He is a traitor, Judas.
    2. alone
      alone 9 September 2013 23: 06 New
      +1
      where did you see at least one smart document that Gorbachev signed?

      smart wouldn't betray his country !!
  3. Airman
    Airman 9 September 2013 16: 11 New
    +9
    It’s time to get out of this unequal treaty, I don’t understand why we’ve been taking so long. The Americans, however, withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and nothing.
  4. repytw
    repytw 9 September 2013 16: 13 New
    +3
    I completely agree with the author of the article. Under the ban on medium-range missiles, the United States is now developing its military strategy, deploying missile defense, the issue of withdrawing from the INF Treaty may be a trump card in diplomacy. Even within the framework of the agreement, we can develop and produce these missiles for arming the countries of the CSTO or the Customs Union, so that, if necessary, they could be made like sausages or taken from the allies from their warehouses. America itself is assisting in the development of such missiles to Israel and nothing.
  5. Rus2012
    Rus2012 9 September 2013 16: 14 New
    +8
    Many times already wrote and proved RSD and RMD - the necessary components for the Russian armed forces. There is no getting anywhere - there must be a point!
  6. S-200
    S-200 9 September 2013 16: 19 New
    +2
    Maybe we should consider not the withdrawal from the INF Treaty with the United States, but the conclusion of a multilateral regional (continental) INF Treaty ...
    And as an asymmetric measure, the creation of the S-500 and the modernization of the S-400, as mixed air defense systems to neutralize potential threats of the use of RSD and RMD.
    but, in general, for concern article +
  7. 006 Feliks
    006 Feliks 9 September 2013 16: 34 New
    +5
    The author calls (and I agree with him) to return the INF. America is constantly shouting about its national interests, about creating a missile defense system in Europe against Iran, and so on ..
    So why don't we really think about our interests and get out of this shameful agreement?
  8. Pharao7766
    Pharao7766 9 September 2013 16: 38 New
    11
    Resurrect and upgrade complexes:
    - RSD-10 "Pioneer"
    - RK-55 (3M10) "Relief"
    - OTR-22
    - OTR-23
    And let the development of the RS-26 "Frontier" be the first sign of the revival of the RSMD
  9. Druid
    Druid 9 September 2013 16: 43 New
    +6
    Article plus, for the thought - the Russian Far East is not protected. Although the USSR has collapsed, it somehow does not smile at almost bordering China, due to the mistakes of the Russian Federation and its loss of the Far East and the expansion of China into Central Asia.
  10. Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 9 September 2013 16: 58 New
    +7
    Now is not the time to talk about restrictions, "the enemy is on the doorstep." It was necessary to withdraw from the contract the day before yesterday. And we all discuss which year already. Usa generally do not care about any contracts, do what they consider necessary and do not ask anyone.
  11. Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 9 September 2013 17: 03 New
    +5
    Well, it’s not so simple with this INF Treaty. We can get in the EU a group of RMSD pieces of such .... up to 1000 and this is only ground-based. What will we fight back, given that this all can take off within 1 minutes. I would not touch the contract , but would develop air and sea-based RSMD, KR with a range of up to 5600km. what does not fall under this contract.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 9 September 2013 17: 04 New
      +2
      About air there is a separate agreement.
  12. Nitup
    Nitup 9 September 2013 17: 46 New
    +5
    I think the new Rubezh complex (supposedly ICBMs) is not a medium-range missile: as many bridges as the Soviet Pioneer complex, the test launch was carried out from the Kapustin Yar training ground at Balkhash in Kazakhstan, i.e., at a distance of about 2- 2,5 thousand km?
  13. sub307
    sub307 9 September 2013 18: 02 New
    +3
    And what are we going to do now? "Lazarus sing," or still fill the "vacuum."
  14. VadimSt
    VadimSt 9 September 2013 18: 15 New
    +5
    + The more this issue is raised in society, the faster politicians and diplomats will wake up!

    International law does not provide for the prohibition of medium-range missiles. The UN Charter clearly states: - "As a means of self-defense, the use of any types of weapons not prohibited by international law is permissible."

    In my understanding, this agreement is not binding on Russia, because:
    - limits the right to protection from aggression;
    - It is not international, it is an interstate agreement;
    - concluded between the non-existent USSR and the USA;
    - concluded on the basis of the existence of other military-political conditions;
    - ignoring the United States and NATO of all agreements with the USSR, regarding disarmament and security in Europe;
    - the balance of forces, means and the "geography of threats" have changed dramatically.
  15. Nitarius
    Nitarius 9 September 2013 18: 38 New
    +4
    I'm all for it! exit this FUCKING AGREEMENT! WHAT THE HELL DO WE IT ???
    We have so many friends along the BORDERS who wish us death! that there is no where to go!
    EXIT the contract and that's it!
    1. picnic
      picnic 10 September 2013 02: 52 New
      0
      Correctly. Russia has only two allies - its army and navy. Other partners. We must proceed from this.
  16. zennon
    zennon 9 September 2013 19: 13 New
    +2
    Damn !!! Forum users, I have never seen such a thing! Absolute unanimity! I’ve been tired of putting the “pluses”! good drinks
  17. Maks-80
    Maks-80 9 September 2013 19: 14 New
    +2
    Definitely get out of it!
  18. Indifferent
    Indifferent 9 September 2013 20: 14 New
    +4
    I think we currently lack the ability to quickly launch the production of medium-range missiles. We and the Iskanders do a couple of dozen a year. No capacity, no people. Who is retired and who has already rested in the Bose. Starting out of the blue is expensive. In addition, to be honest, all kinds of lobbies are strong in our government structures, both Israeli and American, which will interfere with all means available to them.
    Until it really comes to the release of the first missiles, you can take your time shouting about withdrawing from the treaty. And when politicians understand that it was necessary to start “yesterday”, I don’t know!
  19. varov14
    varov14 9 September 2013 20: 58 New
    +3
    The only thing that can possibly save us from our closest friends and neighbors is precisely medium and short range missiles. The rest is from the evil one. We will not do any ordinary weapons or military personnel in the near future - these are fairy tales for our complacency. And whoever lies is the direct enemy of the state, since he misleads everyone. 41 years will be repeated again, is it necessary?
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. picnic
    picnic 10 September 2013 02: 58 New
    0
    Remember the prophecy of Wang? What about the last black US president? Most likely we will witness the epic fail of the USA. And he himself and his country are inexorably pulling towards this.
    Wait. Not long left.
  22. picnic
    picnic 10 September 2013 02: 59 New
    0
    Remember the prophecy of Wang? What about the last black US president? Most likely we will witness the epic fail of the USA. And he himself and his country are inexorably pulling towards this.
    Wait. Not long left.
  23. Hort
    Hort 10 September 2013 09: 10 New
    0
    I never really understood the meaning of any arms limitation treaties, well, except for chem. and biological WMD unless.
    Anyway, after signing up, one way or another, they begin to look for loopholes to circumvent the provisions of these treaties.

    Amers want to make new missiles or missile defense - let them do it. We, too, will come up with something in return. National security should be above all. And the world will be stronger when everyone knows that the enemy’s equipment of the army is all right and that you can get it by the horns.
  24. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 10 September 2013 17: 45 New
    0
    The issue of withdrawing from the INF Treaty is very important and needs to be addressed. But this will require certain legal actions. The agreement is international. But to revive the development and production of medium and shorter-range missiles of the new generation is possible and necessary now. Many countries are already ahead of us in developing these missiles. So what you need to catch up.
    1. zennon
      zennon 10 September 2013 18: 06 New
      0
      The agreement is international.

      Not international, but bilateral. The rest is correct.
  25. Nayhas
    Nayhas 11 September 2013 07: 24 New
    0
    Well, in general, everything is correct. If such an agreement was to be signed, then it should have been a tripartite USA-USSR-China. But China did not participate and is working hard on the INF Treaty, but we have nothing to adequately answer. Therefore, the withdrawal from the INF Treaty is long overdue.
    1. Hort
      Hort 12 September 2013 14: 28 New
      0
      at that time, they didn’t seem to have the technology to rivet the RSMD, and therefore did not participate