Military Review

Violations of the INF Treaty: Facts and Opinions

One of the main international themes of recent times are the accusations of Russia in violation of the terms of the agreement on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles. Recall, not so long ago, the US State Department published a report on compliance with the conditions of various international agreements. The document claimed that Russia was violating the INF Treaty, but no evidence was given in favor of this statement. The report was followed by a series of statements and proposals. In the near future, the current situation and, apparently, baseless accusations should be the subject of negotiations between representatives of Moscow and Washington.

Violations of the INF Treaty: Facts and Opinions
The medium-range missile system RSD-10 "PIONEER". Photo: Anton Denisov / RIA News

The appearance of the report and the statements of American leaders by the Russian Foreign Ministry responded in a rather tough but restrained manner. The Foreign Ministry of Russia, in its official commentary from 1 of August, stated that the United States once again made an awkward attempt to act as a mentor, giving marks to others and “claiming to possess the ultimate truth”. In confirmation of this, Russian diplomats recalled that the US claims are not supported by any evidence and are based on strange speculations and conclusions. Thus, claims are not expressed with the expectation of experts and analysts, but to create the necessary information background.

In Washington, we got acquainted with the official Russian response to the accusations and took them into account. A few days ago, US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf announced that a proposal for new negotiations had been sent to Moscow. The subject of consultation should be the existing treaty on the liquidation of the INF and the fulfillment of its conditions. According to reports, the negotiations will be held in September. Any information about the composition of the delegation, which will defend Russian interests, has not yet been published. The Russian Foreign Ministry proposes first to bring experts to the discussion of the problem and only then transfer them to the leadership level of the two countries.

28 August Interfax news agency published an interview with Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko. Among other things, the Permanent Representative commented on the situation with accusations of breach of the INF Treaty. He drew attention to the time of the appearance of these charges. A regular NATO summit will take place in Wales in early September, during which the leaders of the organization will discuss various aspects of the strategy, including relations with Russia. Accusations of breach of contract were published precisely in connection with the upcoming summit.

A. Grushko believes that an informational “stuffing” about alleged violations will be useful to those forces that are trying to make Russia an opponent of the United States and NATO. Also, the Permanent Representative recalled that the existing treaty provides mechanisms for dialogue and the settlement of all issues that arise. As for attempts to bring other NATO countries to the discussion of the problems of the Treaty on the Elimination of the INF, they were called artificial by A. Grushko.

Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO did not forget to mention Russian claims to the United States in the context of the INF Treaty. He recalled the existence of target missiles used in testing missile defense systems, plans to deploy MK-41 missile systems, etc. in Eastern Europe. systems whose characteristics allow them to be classified as medium or short range missiles. Thus, Russia can respond to American accusations with similar claims, which are also supported by evidence.

A. Grushko's assumption about the reasons for the appearance of dubious theses in a State Department report has the right to life, since it fits perfectly into the logic of the current international situation. However, there are other versions that can explain the new appearance of the INF treaty in the news feeds. The Russian leadership in recent years has repeatedly pointed out the negative features of the agreement, and did not rule out the possibility of overcoming it.

The last statement of this nature was made in mid-August, after the appearance of the controversial report. During his speech in the Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin again raised the topic of medium and short-range missiles. Just a few days after that, US State Department spokesman M. Harf spoke about the proposal to hold talks. It is quite possible that another reminder about Russia's possible withdrawal from the treaty had an effect on American diplomats, as a result of which they decided to initiate new negotiations.

The results of future negotiations are difficult to predict. Moreover, there is reason to believe that they will not lead to any result at all. The controversial report of the State Department did not indicate evidence of a breach of the terms of the INF Treaty, which is the reason for the corresponding unpleasant questions to US officials. If the evidence is not presented in the published document, and also does not exist at all, the situation that has developed in recent weeks may take a very strange form.

It can also be assumed that future negotiations will not lead to the withdrawal of countries from the treaty. Over the past 25, over the past few years, the Treaty on the Elimination of INF on INFORMATION is one of the pillars of security in Europe, which means that its termination may be associated with serious risks not only for the participating countries (USA and Russia), but also for a number of European countries .

It should be recalled that several years ago, Russia submitted a proposal to the UN to finalize the INF Treaty. This proposal concerned amending the terms of the treaty in view of the current development of rocket technology. At the time of the signing of the agreement, only a few countries had medium and short-range missiles: the USSR, the USA, France and China. Currently, the list of countries with such systems in service has increased significantly. In this regard, Russia offered to open an agreement on the liquidation of the INF Treaty for the signing of everyone. Such a change in the agreement remains at the proposal stage.

A NATO summit will be held in Wales in early September, during which the main issues of the organization’s strategy will be addressed. Among other things, this event is likely to raise the issue of further relations with Russia. If the assumptions of Russia's permanent representative to NATO, A. Grushko, are justified, then the report of the US State Department could be a reason for the further deterioration of international relations. The Russian-American negotiations on the INF Treaty will take place later, and it is likely that the position of the United States will be adjusted to reflect the decisions of the NATO summit. It is unlikely that these negotiations will be easy and quickly lead to a positive result.

As we see, one of the existing international treaties has again become a topical issue. Moreover, it is used as an instrument of political pressure and, perhaps in the very near future, will be another reason for a new deterioration in relations with Russia. This means that Russian diplomats will soon again have to negotiate and defend the country's position.

On the materials of the sites:
31 comment

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. qwert
    qwert 1 September 2014 09: 55
    Generally Europeans in this regard -. By deploying American missiles, they become targets for a retaliatory nuclear strike. Do they really not understand this? I am ashamed of them ....
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 1 September 2014 11: 29
      In general, geyropets are a bunch of idiots whom history does not teach. These bearers of the ideas of universal assiduousness and other liberalism have completely lost their historical memory, they do not remember the meager people who ended up trying to overwhelm Russia for them.
      In general, the agreement under discussion is frankly harmful for Russia, taking into account the current political realities, so it would be optimal to simply declare unilateral denunciation and defiantly equip the Iskanders with nuclear warheads and lay patrol routes for the latter along the western borders. And of course you need to restore the ruined by labeled Judas and Bagadul Borka.
      1. self-propelled
        self-propelled 1 September 2014 12: 41
        Quote: Sakhalininets
        In general, geyropets are a bunch of idiots whom history does not teach.

        Yes, the Europeans just sold for green candy wrappers to the Usovtsy. with regards to "historical memory" - this is how history develops in a spiral (God forbid, they will learn a lesson again). and with regards to the INF, Russia and the amers have mutual claims - some are experiencing target missiles (according to their characteristics, they are subject to restrictions (after all, nothing prevents these targets from equipping a warhead)) and missile defense missiles (which can actually be used as ballistic ones), others are testing strategic missiles at medium ranges. as always, the opposition of force to force. although, in my opinion, Russia simply needs to have a medium-range missile and ballistic missile system (especially since it still has a backlog from Soviet times) - after all, we are talking about state security. and only armed forces can guarantee security, but there are no contracts there!
  2. beardedleopard
    beardedleopard 1 September 2014 09: 58
    The USA always makes such statements in order to declassify Russia, otherwise they would simply be afraid as 1962
    1. severniy
      severniy 1 September 2014 19: 54
      but for me, in addition to harsh comments, it’s easy to indicate: DO NOT LIKE ?, YOU ARE A BOLT AND NOT A CONTRACT! angry , and then they will ask already ..., and then, in kind, they have fledged for 20 years, they say ...
  3. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 1 September 2014 10: 16
    in my opinion))) - to burn everyone in a thermo-nuclear fire, and especially London, Brussels, Warsaw, Krakow, Vilnius, Riga, Stockholm, Tallinn, and I don’t like Norgi - to burn!
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 1 September 2014 10: 55
      Young man! You need to be treated!
      1. Sergey Sitnikov
        Sergey Sitnikov 1 September 2014 12: 21
        thanks for the young one))), therefore, he won’t become president with a suitcase like me (incurable), he cut off the presidential term and on the last day (!) launched all the missiles for all purposes and even through the south pole (so that they flew longer) and that’s why - I’d be sitting at the phones and derogating requests for the self-liquidation of the Boeshek, I would answer - NO ))))!
    2. Zuborez
      Zuborez 1 September 2014 11: 33
      I would add Switzerland and Denmark to the list of victims)))
    3. Andrey Gladkikh
      Andrey Gladkikh 1 September 2014 12: 17
      No, you shouldn’t get dirty about them. Let the Yellowstone volcano deal with the USA, the rise of the oceans with London, and the rest of Europe will be achieved by their notorious tolerance and actual godlessness. In general, we are sitting on the shore and waiting for the corpses of western "partners" to pass by.
      1. severniy
        severniy 1 September 2014 19: 58
        Quote: Andrey Gladkikh
        No, you shouldn’t get dirty about them. Let the Yellowstone volcano deal with the USA, the rise of the oceans with London, and the rest of Europe will be achieved by their notorious tolerance and actual godlessness. In general, we are sitting on the shore and waiting for the corpses of western "partners" to pass by.

        philosophy is kuuul smile , and when it doesn’t help, you take a bat and ....... am
  4. gray
    gray 1 September 2014 11: 06
    Honestly, it’s justified to say things for the fucking ones, to say something sluggishly. You can’t just say in a harsh manner that all the new bases that the alliance is going to build near our borders, just like all the rest (alliance bases and objects in Europe) become for our operational-tactical missile systems (OTRK): Iskander, Tochka-U with a nuclear warhead with a target of 5 minutes readiness. After that, let them sleep peacefully.
    1. severniy
      severniy 1 September 2014 19: 59
      and what is there with this super radar in Poland? who heard the thread ???
  5. bear
    bear 1 September 2014 11: 21
    Send them with these treaties, and do everything to strengthen the country's defense capabilities. And warn all mongrels from Nata about retaliatory measures if that.
  6. rubin6286
    rubin6286 1 September 2014 11: 28
    The INF Treaty, concluded 25 years ago, no longer meets the realities of today, although it serves as a means of deterring the arms race and the growing threat of nuclear war. Unfortunately, an increasing number of countries are gaining access to rocket technology, whose political leadership does not always understand the danger of making decisions on the use of such weapons. The United States and Russia are taking a set of mutual measures to counter the threat of a sudden missile strike, which may not always be correctly understood by each other. Under these conditions, consultations between the two leading nuclear powers contribute to building mutual trust and reducing international tension. Today, this is the only correct and constructive approach.
  7. bmv04636
    bmv04636 1 September 2014 12: 39
    All nuclear matter we keep at home. And the light elves all over the euro collective farm scattered their vigorous gruel
  8. Lyton
    Lyton 1 September 2014 13: 39
    I don’t quite understand why to enter into negotiations on this issue at all, to leave things as they are, not to say yes or no, i.e. without confirming the information that we have such missiles, at the same time do everything to strengthen our defense capabilities, they also deploy missile defense systems despite our protests. In the Kremlin, of course, we know better what to do, we will see.
  9. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 1 September 2014 14: 16
    The Treaty on the Elimination of the INF Treaty over the past 25-plus years is one of the foundations of security in Europe

    Squinting toward China. Oh well. DF21, for example, doesn’t get there. However, they did not sign ...
  10. warisinevitable
    warisinevitable 1 September 2014 14: 56
    Is Iskander not a medium-range missile?
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Leshka
    Leshka 1 September 2014 14: 57
    probably our all the same do something
  13. gandalf
    gandalf 1 September 2014 16: 52
    The US missile defense system in Europe is ground-to-air missiles, but (!) If you install a different warhead on these missiles, then they become ground-to-ground just with the range falling under the treaty. This is precisely how the Yankees circumvented this treaty and missile defense - it is not a defensive but an offensive weapon (because potential is taken into account). Ours circumvented such an agreement in a similar way - they made the ICBM multi-stage, and if you remove one step, it will be of medium range ... another one will be short.
    The Yankees did not like it, but they understood the hint - there is a screw with a suitable thread on any of their PRO-nuts wink
  14. MAX2014
    MAX2014 1 September 2014 17: 56
    I think we need another agreement that would allow the deployment of nuclear weapons only on its territory. Because the Americans were very greyhounds deployed their nuclear weapons in Europe, and if Russia places the Iskanders in Cuba, then the Americans will yell like that. But large Russia can take the MBR beyond the Urals and they will easily hit Euro-ABM. But you just don’t need to waste mbro. So a new contract is preferable.
    1. andr327
      andr327 1 September 2014 23: 44
      I have been advocating this idea in VO for a long time, and the range of any rocket very much depends on the mass of the payload. Put on Yars more warheads, here you have a medium-range missile.
      But the deployment of all types of nuclear weapons only on its territory is a knockout blow for the entire American military doctrine, because this is the doctrine of the location of nuclear weapons on its territory - this is a defense, not an attack.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 2 September 2014 22: 50
        Change the mass of the payload (MS) of the rocket and pour water into the glass not half, but to the edges, this is not the same thing. To change the flight range of a rocket, turn off its engine. Of course, you probably know that the length of the braking distance of a car depends on its speed. There is no braking outside the atmosphere, and instant stop is not possible. Even if the rocket engine turns off, for some time it will save the set flight parameters. You will not hit the target! If everything was so simple, all the missiles would be of the same size and launch mass. In a word, amateurism is bad not only in rocketry, but also in all other areas of human activity.
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 3 September 2014 10: 05
      A sovereign state has the right to place any weapon on its territory and no contract is needed for this. Any country is a subject of international law and can conclude international treaties (agreements). including on the issue of deploying any types of weapons on the territory of another state and creating military bases.
      Son! Are you taught anything at school? Do you even understand what it means to take the ICBMs beyond the Urals? Try to put your car (if you have one) not in your garage or in front of your house, but on a nearby street or in a neighboring area. you will immediately understand how this will end.
  15. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 1 September 2014 19: 22
    The phrase: "Report of the US State Department" is just an oxymoron of some kind! They have long forgotten how to put words into sentences, especially to report and propose something. That is why it is especially necessary to be especially careful with them (it is not customary to offend sick people in our country).
    PS Although I would like to beat some and even beat.
  16. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 1 September 2014 23: 15
    Russia needs to respond asymmetrically to such stuffing, otherwise it turns out that it is always on the defensive. Meanwhile, an analysis of these provisions in the world community with the conclusion that, thanks to the clumsy actions of the United States, Russia can get out of the RSMD lair, may well sober up some European countries.
  17. Little Lost
    Little Lost 2 September 2014 19: 06
    Quote: rubin6286
    Young man! You need to be treated!

    Let me explain: looking at the mock-up of the head unit of this Product, one involuntarily recalls the pioneer childhood with the launch of the "smoke ducts" in a confined space (volume) ...
    And there, apparently, 4 in 1 bottle. Fun
    There is not even a "square-nested" method of planting;)
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 2 September 2014 23: 03
      I did not understand you. My proposal was addressed to a person who was ready, being in a bad mood, to destroy everything and everyone. Doctors consider such people to be mentally unstable. At the household level, they are usually called misanthropes.
      The Pioneer mobile missile system is equipped with a multiple warhead (MIRV) with maneuvering warheads for individual guidance and means of overcoming missile defense. Think about its capabilities. I can only say that this is a serious weapon.
  18. xomaNN
    xomaNN 3 September 2014 19: 27
    The photo of the warhead is stunning!
  19. psiho117
    psiho117 17 September 2014 01: 57
    As for me, such an agreement was good for the realities of those years, but now, such restrictions on "muscle strength" are frankly harmful.
    The Strategic Missile Forces need nuclear weapons of both short, medium and long range, as well as multiple warheads, neutron ammunition for the S300 and S400, etc. everything that our "friends" were so afraid of.

    It would be nice to be equipped with short-lived binary agents, both lethal type (nerve agents) and "conditionally non-lethal" (incapacitants) - psychotropic, vomiting, various irritants (tears, sneezing), narcotic analgesics - this would be very helpful in if you need to "scare" too belligerent neighbors, for example.
    one warhead with synthetic emetic over the enemy - and a bunch of fucked up and charred democracy fighters are ready.