Military Review

The Treaty on the Elimination of the INF Treaty will be the subject of negotiations

Recently received a sequel история with charges of violating the terms of the international treaty. As follows from the latter News, over the next few weeks, representatives of Moscow and Washington will discuss the current situation and its controversial parties. Perhaps future consultations with the participation of diplomats and specialists will help reduce tension in Russian-American relations.

The Treaty on the Elimination of the INF Treaty will be the subject of negotiations
A bunch of three RSD-10 missiles prepared for destruction, Kapustin Yar test site, Astrakhan Region, August 1 1988

We are talking about the consequences of the recent US Department of State report on compliance with arms control agreements. The authors of this document claimed that Russia recently violates the terms of the treaty on the elimination of medium and short range missiles (INF), according to which Moscow and Washington have pledged not to develop, produce or exploit ballistic missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km. At the same time, the authors of the report confined themselves to the most general formulations and did not provide a single fact confirming the allegations of breach of contract. Such allegations, which appeared in the official document, led to the appearance of relevant questions. However, so far no evidence confirming Russia's violation of the INF Treaty has been published.

Last week, US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the Russian leadership had been sent a proposal to hold talks, the subject of which would be compliance with the provisions of the INF Treaty. For obvious reasons, at the time this information was announced, the date and place of the consultation was not known. A little later, some of the details of the upcoming event revealed the source of the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to him, the negotiations will be held in September.

Consultations on mutual concerns, as the unnamed source of Rossiyskaya Gazeta called them, will be held at a solid level. At the same time, the composition of specialists who will have to defend the Russian position is still unknown. Probably, representatives of the foreign policy and military departments will sit at the negotiating table from the Russian side. Future negotiations should clarify the position of both countries and also clarify the current situation with baseless accusations.

An interesting fact is that within a few weeks after the publication of the “scandalous” State Department report, only expert comments appeared. The disputes at the highest level were limited to a few statements in which Russian officials and the military rejected all the accusations and declared that all the conditions of the treaty on medium-range and short-range missiles were met. However, soon official Washington sent a proposal for negotiations to Moscow. The reasons for the emergence of such an unexpected initiative are not completely clear, but there are grounds for some assumptions.

It is quite possible that the appearance of the American proposal for negotiations contributed to some moments of the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Crimea. He recalled cases where the United States unilaterally withdrew from international treaties, which, in their opinion, did not allow for the security of the country. In this regard, Russia can also withdraw from some contracts unilaterally, if they interfere with its security.

V. Putin did not specify which particular international agreements Russia could get out, however, judging by the recent actions by the US leadership, his statement attracted attention. The result of this could be the proposal to hold consultations on the INF Treaty. Probably, the American leadership will attempt to dissuade official Moscow from withdrawing from the treaty, since such a move could have serious implications for the security of both countries, as well as a number of other states.

It should be noted that the agreement on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles is indefinite, but it provides for the possibility of one party’s exit. If the exceptional circumstances related to the content of the contract threaten the highest interests of the country, then it has the right to refuse to further their performance and withdraw from the contract. It takes half a year before leaving the contract to notify the other party and indicate the reasons for such a decision.

Thus, both Russia and the United States can withdraw from the INF Treaty, but for two and a half decades of the existence of the agreement, neither side has exercised such a right. The reasons for this should be considered the experience of the Cold War, when the USSR and the USA kept on duty a large number of medium- and short-range missiles, which took no more than a few minutes to approach the target. Like weapon posed a great danger to both sides, as well as to several European states. In order to eliminate such risks, an INF Treaty was signed.

The fact that in recent years there have been repeated accusations of violating the terms of the agreement can speak about the importance of the treaty for both parties. For example, several years ago, Washington accused the Russian defense industry of creating and testing a RS-26 Rubezh ballistic missile and a cruise missile for the Iskander complex, which, according to their characteristics, are subject to the INF Treaty. In response, Russia drew attention to the target missiles used during the test of missile defense systems. According to Russian experts, these products have characteristics that allow them to be classified as a class of INF. Certain claims are also made to anti-missile systems that are planned to be deployed in Eastern Europe.

As we see, the existing treaty on the liquidation of the INF Treaty has a number of unpleasant consequences of a diplomatic nature. Its existence leads to mutual accusations, and the rejection of the treaty may adversely affect the military-political situation in Europe. Thus, the parties to the contract should find a common language and try to get rid of existing problems. For this purpose, negotiations will be held in the near future.

On the materials of the sites:

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 26 August 2014 09: 42
    Russian INF missiles do not threaten the United States with their existence!
    If they decided to continue the conversation on this topic, then let them include their NATO allies with this class of missiles.
    Or Europe also refuses them or take measures to protect its territories!
    1. seregakursk
      seregakursk 26 August 2014 12: 16
      It's time to start releasing medium-range missiles again. A sort of updated complex Pioneer 2.0 for example - the same Soviet pioneer with only modern electronic content.
      And then the countries of Europe would have thought more than once before joining NATO and placing their bases on their territory.
      1. gray
        gray 26 August 2014 14: 46
        The missiles in service are getting out all the Euro missile defense systems. It’s just necessary to officially declare that all these objects, if the end starts, is the number one target for 5 minutes, and also to clarify that all the warheads in these missiles are nuclear and not which RSMDs are needed. from the treaty and we accuse them of fomenting a new Cold War and an arms race.
    2. gray
      gray 26 August 2014 14: 42
      Yes, but if we withdraw from the treaty then we are accused of a new arms race and they again bring their Pershing to Europe. We are a loser, since our single-type missiles cannot reach the United States, but they do, and the flight time is reduced.
      1. severniy
        severniy 26 August 2014 23: 32
        and the submarine does not count ??? they are all stuck as quiet as seeds, so with us all we have are oceans, even if they bring a bald bald one ...
      2. kuz363
        kuz363 28 August 2014 21: 08
        And when they deploy a missile defense system near Russia, how is it? Still put in the Baltic States and Ukraine? If they cover missile defense missiles to Russia to the Urals? They will also have a flight time in minutes and where is the guarantee that the nuclear heads will not stand? This is equivalent to medium-range missiles. It is necessary to set medium and short range again for European goals. Benefits:
        - no need to spend intercontinental missiles
        - easier maintenance, less cost and especially disguise.
        Remember, there was a military railway complex, which the United States was very afraid of, could not detect on the railways from satellites. Now they offer to revive it. It's good. Can apply other less costly disguise methods? How many rivers, lakes, reservoirs, reservoirs we have ... In the European part, Siberia, the Far East. And how many decommissioned vessels stand in the backwaters and other dead places? So to place rockets with this energy supply on this scrap metal. The dimensions of the barge are larger than the wagon. Let them try to recognize among tens of thousands of ships (floating and funny) which are launchers! This would be a guarantee of a retaliatory strike.
    3. Civil
      Civil 30 August 2014 18: 45
      We have no choice ...
  2. zone72
    zone72 26 August 2014 09: 53
    it’s possible to do like Americans, our taiga and forests are enormous not to show all weapons or stupidly say that we agree but not to execute
    1. Vadim12
      Vadim12 26 August 2014 10: 08
      It’s time to already learn how to lie, like our enemies. Lies in the west are in the order of things. Che with them to stand on ceremony. Keep these wonderful rockets ready, and say that we don’t have them. When needed, no papers will matter. It seems to be the 21st century, civilization, blah blah blah, in fact - whoever is stronger is right. International treaties were invented to weaken and deter Russia.
  3. andrei332809
    andrei332809 26 August 2014 09: 54
    send these nonsense from across the ocean. it is possible and not polite. to agree with the Yankees, only spend ink
  4. tank64rus
    tank64rus 26 August 2014 10: 13
    Send them away. They take us all for fools, as with the traitor Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
  5. Sasha Major
    Sasha Major 26 August 2014 10: 20
    the Americans got late after our rapprochement with Cuba, we can organize our base there !!!! and the flight time from there to Washington is TOTALLY small and no missile defense will help !!!!!
    1. Vladimir K.
      Vladimir K. 27 August 2014 08: 10
      Our intercontinental missiles, now in service, are fully capable of providing unacceptable damage to the United States, but their big minus (for Russia) is the price. A medium-range missile is cheaper and can become a good factor in deterring excessive aggression towards Russia by the nearest (geographically) partners. The Iskander in its range of 500 km is clearly vulnerable (it should be too close to the territory of a potential enemy) and is not effective enough. So now Russia needs this weapon - angrily and not expensive enough, you can convince, for example, Qatar and Saudi Arabia of the inadvisability of a brightly negative attitude towards Russia, and Europeans will most likely be more restrained in their Russophobia. Something tells me that it is precisely the fear of losing support from the European satellites of their anti-Russian policy that drives the US to such a violent reaction to Russia's possible withdrawal from this Gorbachev treaty.
  6. Belopolyak
    Belopolyak 26 August 2014 10: 55
    Item 1: Restore Production
    Item 2: Build at least 100 missiles
    Point 3: Send a pin to an owl known to any Russian darling, leaving the contract
    Item 4: Place this first hundred in the Kaliningrad Region
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 26 August 2014 12: 02
      You do not understand anything at all in rocketry and the points you proposed confirm this. Most likely, you are very young if you think in this way. You will get older, more serious, get an appropriate education and perhaps understand that "breaking - not building", but is it necessary? Withdrawal from the INF Treaty is an extreme measure that upsets the existing military-strategic balance; there are no serious reasons for this yet. Nobody forbids the US and Russia to carry out R&D, however, putting the production of such missiles on stream, deploying them for use with maximum efficiency means starting a new round of the arms race, increasing mistrust and international tension. This is unreasonable. The search for a compromise is exactly what the corresponding specialists from the United States and Russia are doing. Everything needs reason.
      1. 1goose3
        1goose3 26 August 2014 23: 31
        What kind of trust can we talk about? NATO eastward expansion is the first violation, the construction of missile defense elements near Russian borders is another. The conditions have changed and it would be foolish to obey the terms of the contract. Everything needs reason.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 August 2014 11: 31
    As soon as the a. Measures felt that Russia could unilaterally withdraw from the treaty, negotiations immediately took place.
    It is time to speak with them in their own language - power and dictatorship.
    1. gray
      gray 26 August 2014 14: 55
      Even the USSR didn’t allow such a thing. About the UN and Khrushchev it is not necessary. The Union has never screamed that we adopted or put into service a new complex. Intelligence agencies all over the world spent huge resources to find out what was new.
  9. Uriah Mushroom
    Uriah Mushroom 26 August 2014 12: 08
    I don’t know what about America, but this agreement definitely infringes on the interests of Russia. We have the world's largest land border, and in some places it can be very hot! Yes, take also NATO, which has expanded its borders and deployed its bases right next to Russia (Baltic). Such missiles are simply vital for us!
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 26 August 2014 21: 15
      The Baltics can be pacified by Iskander.
  10. Aleksandr89
    Aleksandr89 26 August 2014 13: 43
    The world is before the war, and the war is before the world. The states are miserable and cowardly, if they could have destroyed us and Russia long ago. Only balancing on the brink of war can people understand the high price of peace. Over the past 70 years, Europe and the USA have forgotten the lessons of the Second World War; local wars do not count. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, they practically did not have an equal opponent. As a result, now these pompous snickering little people, having at the expense of half the world and their printing press the advantage in conventional weapons, dare to threaten with some sort of sanctions. Let's be honest McCain, Kerry, Psaki, Harf, Ashton - mentally disabled people. But they are also cunning yellow in their turn. It's time to remind these "gay partners" that in the event of a major war, their advertised PRo system will not save them, they will not be saved and the bunkers in which they will not sit. For everyone who does not remember history well, detente actually began after the Cuban missile crisis and the achievement of parity by the USSR. Let's hope that everyone will go through this crisis and the world will become more stable. If not, then Russia has another 5-7 years to rearm. Otherwise, the Americans may consider that they will cope with the Russian army, then many will definitely suffer.
  11. Sobol
    Sobol 26 August 2014 14: 16
    Withdrawal from the INF Treaty is tempting, of course. What if, in response to Our withdrawal from the treaty, the Yankers begin to shove their Pershing missiles into Europe? After all, it was under this agreement that their Persings-2 were removed from Europe. The flight time before Us is too small. So, this topic needs to be smoked very tightly.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 26 August 2014 21: 19
      In the late 80s, a rocket engineer asked about this treaty: would you rather have a hu ... in your mouth than a Pershing in the sky?
  12. el.krokodil
    el.krokodil 26 August 2014 16: 07
    Quote: SoboL
    Withdrawal from the INF Treaty is tempting, of course. What if, in response to Our withdrawal from the treaty, the Yankers begin to shove their Pershing missiles into Europe? After all, it was under this agreement that their Persings-2 were removed from Europe. The flight time before Us is too small. So, this topic needs to be smoked very tightly.

    why break the spears in vain - UNCLE VOVA in CRIMEA clearly said-if necessary, we will denounce treaties threatening the national security of RUSSIA .. yes
    1. Sobol
      Sobol 26 August 2014 19: 02
      Quote: el.krokodil
      Quote: SoboL
      Withdrawal from the INF Treaty is tempting, of course. What if, in response to Our withdrawal from the treaty, the Yankers begin to shove their Pershing missiles into Europe? After all, it was under this agreement that their Persings-2 were removed from Europe. The flight time before Us is too small. So, this topic needs to be smoked very tightly.

      why break the spears in vain - UNCLE VOVA in CRIMEA clearly said-if necessary, we will denounce treaties threatening the national security of RUSSIA .. yes

      Spears, of course, are not worth breaking. For me, it’s better to leave the CFE Treaty.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 29 August 2014 19: 15
        [quote = SoboL]
        Spears, of course, are not worth breaking. For me, it’s better to leave the CFE Treaty.

        The fact is that most commentators are completely unaware of what the CFE Treaty is.
        This treaty establishes for Russia a limitation on the deployment of troops and weapons in the European part of the country, both in quantitative terms. and in places of deployment. It is certainly unprofitable today, but, on the other hand, for establishing even the same number with NATO troops. not to mention superiority, there is neither financial resources nor appropriate infrastructure (military camps, storage and repair bases, training grounds, etc., etc.). NATO has to be "pacified" selectively, either by placing Iskander-M complexes "closer", or by arranging "very close" periodic exercises of the forces of the fleet and long-range aviation. Our military doctrine proceeds from the premise that the war unleashed by the NATO countries and their allies will be short-lived and nuclear missile, after which individual continents will simply disappear from the world map. Therefore, Russia does not withdraw from the CFE Treaty. If we denounce it, in addition to howling in the media, we will get an open strengthening of the US and NATO military groups in Europe. This is not necessary for us and is not beneficial to them.
  13. fif21
    fif21 26 August 2014 16: 45
    You can negotiate with a partner whom you trust. Do you trust mattresses? They will bind us hand and foot by treaties, and using their sixes themselves they will achieve military superiority. Gorbachev and Yeltsin have concluded many agreements with them, the result is Russia is a regional power. NATO has broken the promise of not spreading to the east, why should we abide by the treaties? Our country was excluded from the system of collective European security, so we will have to take care of our own security. And violations of the ABM treaty?
    So, Russia has many reasons to withdraw from the INF Treaty. The West is trying to speak with us in the language of sanctions, false accusations, a position of strength. They will have to be forced to respect Russia and its interests. hi
  14. 006 Feliks
    006 Feliks 26 August 2014 16: 57
    They are afraid of our rockets and it is not worth cutting them!
  15. K-50
    K-50 26 August 2014 19: 08
    In order to sit down to discuss anything on the INF, it is necessary to legally enforce the ban on approaching all ships and aircraft that have the ability to carry cruise missiles and strike them at a distance closer to the flight range of these missiles to our borders. Moreover, this should apply to all NATO member states. If this is not possible (well, for example: aircraft of the Geyropei countries and their Navy), then we should have an equal number of similar carriers and weapons. Everything that is outside (well, for example, US aviation and their ships on European territory) should be removed and not approach Europe closer than the distance of their weapons, and when approaching a distance less than any multiplicity, it is imperative to inform our Ministry of Defense). But under this condition, you can still conduct some kind of talk on the INF. The same parameters should be taken into account for the Asian direction, i.e. we can have the means of destruction and their carriers in the Far East no more than China, both Koreas, Japan, the USA and Canada have (India, Pakistan and others, okay, you can ignore it). Then it’s really possible to talk about equal potentials. Of course, nobody, including pin.dos.y, will go for it, and therefore send everyone on foot an erotic route and do what is necessary to protect, defend and adequately respond to any aggressor.
  16. I am human
    I am human 26 August 2014 20: 39
    Putin! do not commit the betrayal that Mr. EBN allowed
  17. An example
    An example 28 August 2014 13: 07
    Putin is smart and will not allow this. No Russian missiles will be fired. It is very dangerous.
  18. Viktori1
    Viktori1 29 August 2014 00: 12
    Americans accuse us of what we are not to blame, but they themselves have a "stigma in the gun" ... they launch what they want and how they want and do not care what is forbidden by all sorts of treaties .. And they do not destroy their own, but disassemble ... in which case can reassemble ..
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 29 August 2014 19: 23
      It is impossible to hide the country's preparations for war, and even with such an adversary as Russia. It is one thing to conduct R&D and testing of systems and types of weapons, and another to carry out the deployment of ground forces, the Navy and strategic nuclear forces in advance. You will have to fight only with what is currently available. They will begin to "collect", they will find out about it, notice, remind and wait until everyone is "assembled".