"Seven minutes of flight of rockets to Moscow"
One of the most important Soviet-American treaties 80-ies of the last century - on medium and short-range missiles (INF) - can again be the subject of negotiations between Moscow and Washington. The United States is worried about the possibility of Russia’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty. However, such a decision, if it is made, is likely to hit primarily the interests of Russia itself.Office spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Moscow had sent a proposal to discuss at the highest level the implementation of the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF).
“If the United States leaves the INF, Russia will have the opportunity to criticize Washington for shaking up strategic stability.”
The time and place of the upcoming meeting is still unknown. However, it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s speech in the Crimea was the catalyst for the White House’s reaction, where he declared that Moscow could unilaterally withdraw from international treaties, as Washington had done in its time.
“The United States took and unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, and the matter is over,” Putin said. - They proceeded, as they consider, for reasons of their national security. And we will do exactly the same thing when we consider it profitable and necessary to ensure our interests. ”
Lost in Translation
What kind of contract the Russian president was talking about is not entirely clear. Perhaps he simply made a reservation, confusing the ABM Treaty with START. However, for Washington, the message turned out to be more than understandable - the first thing they remembered was the INF, the indefinite Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Small-Range Missiles, signed by Moscow and Washington on December 8 December 1987. The parties to the agreement pledged not to produce, test or deploy ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles of medium - from 1 thousand to 5,5 thousand - and small - from 500 to 1 thousand kilometers - range.
Under the agreement from Moscow, such complexes as the Pioneer RSD-10, ground-based cruise missiles RK-55 Granat, as well as Temp-S and Oka tactical missiles, were hit by Moscow. Washington removed from West Germany and subsequently destroyed the Pershing-2 and BGM-109G missile systems, the land-based analogue of the Tomahawk cruise missile. By June 1991, the USSR destroyed 1846 of its missile systems. The US responded by destroying the 846 missiles.
“Withdrawal from the INF is really allowed under Article XV.2 with a six-month notice if one of the parties decides that“ the exceptional circumstances associated with the content of this Treaty jeopardized its highest interests, ”the head of the International Security Center told the VZGLYAD newspaper IMEMO RAS Alexei Arbatov.
The issue of Moscow's implementation of the INF Treaty came under suspicion in Washington back in 2011. Then the United States accused Russia of testing the RS-26 Rubezh missile, nicknamed the “missile defense killer” at the suggestion of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, and the R-500 operational-tactical cruise missile used on the Iskander-K complex. In response, it was pointed out that the United States itself tested missiles for missile defense systems, the production of armed missiles drones and the creation of a unified launcher Mk-41 capable of launching ASROC, Sea Sparrow, ESSM and Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.
“Once again, one can rejoice at the pragmatism of the Americans,” believes Dmitry Polikanov, Vice-President of the PIR Center. - Americans traditionally do not like international legal shackles, so it would be a sin not to take advantage of the situation and not reset the restrictions on the INF. Moreover, when all the blame for this can be hung on Russia, pulling out dubious light stories three years ago, the situation in Ukraine and God knows what else. It is not excluded that everything will end with Washington’s withdrawal from the treaty, as it once happened with the ABM Treaty. ”
Former chief of staff of the strategic missile forces Viktor Yesin, on the contrary, believes that breaking the contract is counterproductive for both countries.
"Militarily, the benefits are not visible," says Esin. “In fact, we are returning to 40 years ago, when the United States launched the Pershing-108 missiles in Germany for 2. Then there really was the danger of a “decapitating strike” on the Soviet system of nuclear deterrence. A total of 7 UM 10 minutes of missile flights to Moscow - and all of our strategic forces control points have been destroyed. After withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the missiles can be delivered even in the Baltic States. ”
Wind correction
Alexei Arbatov says that breaking the Russian-American treaties has never provided the parties with at least some advantage.
“The withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002 was a huge mistake by the Americans,” said the expert. - Now many people in Washington recognize this. After all, the ambitious plans to create an NMD system have not been realized. For example, under a contract, they could deploy strategic anti-missiles to 100, and they plan to deploy all ground-based 2020 interceptors by 40 in the year. All questions of the deployment of a limited missile defense system for protection against medium-range missiles of third countries could also be resolved by agreeing on amendments to the treaty from the 1972 year. But it turned out that the entire process of reducing offensive strategic weapons was at a standstill. Moreover, both Russia and China forced their offensive missile and missile defense programs in response. So why was the garden fussing? ”- asks Arbatov.
Former chief of the 4 th defense research institute of the Ministry of Defense, responsible for the justification and counting of damage when using nuclear weapons, Vladimir Dvorkin is not less categorical.
“We already have everything necessary to restrain our near and far neighbors,” the general told the LOOK to the newspaper. - We have intercontinental missiles and strategic bombers, who with the help of cruise missiles can solve any medium-range tasks without going beyond the borders of the country. And for that, today we do not need missiles of either small or medium range. If someone comes into the head to get out of the INF, it will not be a military decision, but a purely political decision. ”
Dvorkin is sure that in this situation both sides will feel uncomfortable. Only in recent years, Russia has tested and put into service three strategic missile systems: the Topol-M of the mine and mobile base, the mobile multi-unit complex RS-24 "Yars" and the new naval ballistic missile "Bulava".
Americans have a situation similar to ours. They can always “reach the enemies” individually or in a crowd from their own territory with the help of intercontinental missiles. But to create anti-missiles, without violating the INF, it turns out badly.
Intercontinental misalliance
“If the United States leaves the INF, Russia, of course, will have the opportunity to criticize Washington for shaking strategic stability,” says Dmitry Polikanov. “But then, the Americans will have their hands free to create new types of weapons, and, if desired, their placement in Europe under the sauce of counteraction against“ Russian aggression. ”
“This is a return to a full-scale Cold War,” said General Dworkin. “And it will be a military-political catastrophe.”
Experts agree that consultation is needed anyway. Neither Moscow nor Washington is in reality planning a breakdown in relations with the INF.
“Withdrawal from the INF Treaty will give Russia the opportunity to deploy medium-range missiles suitable for use against third countries, but without any influence on the strategic balance with Washington,” said Alesya Arbatov, “but in this case Washington will have the opportunity to deploy medium-range missiles at Allied territories in Europe. Moreover, unlike the beginning of 1980, these missiles, as a result of NATO expansion eastward, will sweep the entire Russian territory to the Urals and beyond with the shortest flight time. There will be a serious strategic imbalance, not to mention the beginning of a completely new, as it seemed recently, “forgotten” stage of confrontation with the West. ”
Information