Military Review

What is behind the unfounded accusations of the Russian Federation in violation of the INF Treaty

54
The fact that the United States has long been trying to increase its military presence in the European and Asian regions is understandable to anyone who is interested in foreign policy issues. The rapid change in the world, the economic “wonders” not controlled by the Americans in various countries, the appearance of completely new players on the world arena forces politicians and the US military to look for ways to increase their influence.


What is behind the unfounded accusations of the Russian Federation in violation of the INF Treaty


The “argument and revolver” method, old as the world, is beginning to falter. And not only in large countries. It is clear that no one will dare to fight with Russia or China. But there is still India, Brazil. But even a small DPRK today is a serious opponent.

The option "we throw over" even in North Korea will not work. There are enough caps, but those who will have to throw no longer have a “large intestine”. The practice of modern military conflicts shows that this very “gut” is very subtle.

Modern "rembo" are preferred to fight either with a height unattainable for air defense, or even from the territory of a foreign state or from a warship. I pressed the button and ... had a successful military operation. Where this rocket will fly is not so important. The main thing - a report to their politicians about the heroes.

Only modern war has one major drawback. More precisely, two. The first is obvious. Soldiers of any army are much better prepared for war than civilians. Prepared including for firing rockets and shells. That is why civilians are dying in such a "war".

But the second drawback is more serious ... I understand that now some readers are already knocking on the keyboard. The author does not put the lives of civilians in anything! No, the death of any person for me is a tragedy. But I am writing about something else. So, a serious disadvantage is ... the cost of such launches. Rocket - pleasure expensive. Yes, and a modern plane, too. In general, everything that kills costs a lot of money.

Any country, even with the most developed economy, cannot afford such luxury all the time. And it is here that the idea arises of shifting part of their defense spending onto the shoulders of others. And not just to shift it, but to make these others invest in the country's budget.

What do we see today in Europe? And what are the best friends of Europeans from overseas talking about?

14 of April of this year, US Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense Brian McKeon, literally wrote the following to the Senate Committee on Armed Forces:

"In connection with Russia's violations of the INF Treaty, we are developing and implementing a strategy in response to Russian military actions, which includes changing and expanding the air defense system in order to counter Russia's offensive capabilities."

Such statements are made by various US military all the time. Almost the last two years, the world has been threatened with a military threat. Particularly trying to scare the Europeans. After all, they really can invest in the US military-industrial complex.

The Russian Foreign Ministry did not leave the last statement without attention. Moreover, the response of the Russian Foreign Ministry contains a direct warning of possible consequences.

"It is argued that our country produces and tests ground-based cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km, as well as launchers for such missiles. By all indications, the American side has neither objective data nor any weighty arguments that can support charges brought against us. Washington purposefully creates a negative information background around the INF and thus seeking to discredit Russia. "

Let's drop the diplomatic language. What is left over? And in the remainder - the breach of the INF Treaty.

When the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed in 1997, we received guarantees of non-proliferation of weapons near our borders. We were guaranteed that the alliance would not exist against Russia at all, but for something else.

And what we see for many years? And we see the creation and restoration of military infrastructure in the bordering countries with us. Poland, the Baltic republics, and with the new government and Ukraine, are becoming locations for missile defense elements. Control centers are being built, military airfields are being restored. The number of aircraft at our borders is increasing.

US warships are already on a permanent basis near our territorial waters. The Baltic Sea has become so "lively" that the sailors almost already know each other.

At the same time, there are almost daily reports about the interception of Russian planes in the neutral sky, about the overflights by Russian planes of NATO ships, about Russian UAVs near the borders of the countries participating in the alliance. Some politicians reach outright nonsense. For example, the landing of Russian special forces in their territory.

What are all these actions designed for?

The US is already saying to Europeans: guys, do you want to live in a safe world? Do you want NATO to protect you? If you want, then let's place NATO units on your territory. And, most importantly, equipment and weapons.

Only here there is one nuance. The units that NATO will have with you mainly American. And the weapons, therefore, will also be American. But the United States fulfills its obligations to the alliance. And additional weapons cost money. Let the alliance buys it.

"Two hares" at the expense of Europeans! Beautiful combination. On the one hand, the Americans are solving their tasks in deploying missile defense elements at the close approaches to the borders of Russia. Thus, they are able to neutralize nuclear weapons of Russia in the European part. On the other hand, they do this not only at the expense of Europeans, but also provide jobs for Americans in the American military industrial complex.

I am almost certain that the charges of violation of the Treaty will continue. The tasks that are set by the Americans are not solved. Moreover, I know why they are not solved. Pure technical moments still slow down. Like the inconsistencies of the anti-missile missiles in terms of the universal installation of vertical launch MK41 (they are equipped with American ships) or a non-working system for detecting false targets.

But ultimately they will be resolved. And then we will face a very serious threat. That is why before our government and the president today there is a serious choice. Either continue to pretend that we do not understand anything, or go out officially from this Treaty. To go out and begin to really revive the potential that we once owned, and which we have so treacherously lost.

If a pack of stray dogs surrounds you, then no matter how much you love these animals, you should take a bigger stick and at least wipe at. This will most often be enough. And in the case when it does not work, you will be armed. And every bite on your body will respond to a broken ridge or a broken paw to one of the attackers.
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 18 2016 06: 14
    +10
    Modern "Rimbos" prefer to fight either from an unattainable height for air defense systems, or even from the territory of a foreign state or from a warship.

    Or with tribes and nationalities, which are armed with bows and spears! laughing
    1. Enot-poloskun
      Enot-poloskun April 18 2016 06: 17
      +8
      What is it worth? It is known that - the desire to suppress Russia by diplomatic methods.

      Only the suppressor is now not that ... And the people in power in Russia are not the same.
      1. Nik_One
        Nik_One April 18 2016 06: 41
        +15
        Quote: Enot-poloskun
        What is it worth? It is known that - the desire to suppress Russia by diplomatic methods.

        Not really ... More precisely, not only diplomatic pressure.
        Usually the thief himself shouts louder "stop thief". In the case of the United States, it is so, behind the loud cries about Russia's violation of the INF Treaty, there is a banal violation of the treaty by the Americans themselves.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 April 18 2016 21: 14
        +2
        The US is already saying to Europeans: guys, do you want to live in a safe world? Do you want NATO to protect you? If you want, then let's place NATO units on your territory. And, most importantly, equipment and weapons.

        Any noodles will do for the European inhabitants, scared to the point of diarrhea by the "Russian military threat", who once again want to be used as toilet paper by respectable gentlemen from overseas.
        What are all these actions designed for?

        Nothing new. Achieving your goals at the expense of others.
        And if necessary, then chestnuts from the bonfire of European warriors will be sent to snatch. Sorry, snap off.
        How to convey to Europeans that they are used as suckers pedal on an ongoing basis ??? request
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt April 18 2016 07: 43
      +7
      What is behind the violation of the contract? If the contract is not respected by one of the parties, then it is considered to have automatically lost its validity. It has always been that way. Representing, or performing it unilaterally is legal nonsense. Then what is the bazaar about? request
      1. weksha50
        weksha50 April 18 2016 10: 48
        +5
        Quote: siberalt
        Then what is the bazaar about?


        In order for the Agreement to become inoperative (forget how it is called correctly), it is necessary to PROVE violation of this agreement by one of the parties ...

        There is no evidence from the USA ... And they also consider our reproaches to be unproven ...

        Here comes this empty bazaar ...

        PS My opinion is purely that it is necessary to withdraw from the Treaty of Russia and urgently develop and expand the means of the INF Treaty ...
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 April 18 2016 12: 07
          +4
          Why go out if it is useful to us and we have already bypassed it? The mattresses are actually indignant with the base. After calibers from the Caspian, they do not believe in the Iskander ranges declared by us. The limit on the forbidden range was tested. Again, there is no particular reason why the Bastion, which can launch Onyx, cannot launch calibers. request Just know and prove - things are different. And so - yes, we successfully circumvented the contract.
          1. weksha50
            weksha50 April 18 2016 12: 18
            +2
            Quote: g1v2
            And so - yes, we successfully circumvented the contract.


            Shhh .... Aloud then-no need ... the State Department does not sleep, but climbs the Internet in search of a compra to Russia ...
          2. tol100v
            tol100v April 18 2016 19: 31
            +5
            Quote: g1v2
            Just know and prove - things are different. And so - yes, we successfully circumvented the contract.

            We didn’t get around it! The contract concerns only the land deployment of the INF! And in this regard, there is a proposal to place them on any boats, on any ponds and rivers of our vast Motherland! A contract (legal) must be respected! But not to self-sacrifice!
        2. Moore
          Moore April 18 2016 14: 11
          +6
          Quote: weksha50
          Quote: siberalt
          Then what is the bazaar about?


          In order for the Agreement to become invalid (I forgot how it is called correctly)


          Perhaps this word about the contract - "became null and void."
          But this is not the point. A second reality has long been formed - virtual.
          In it, you can shoot "Gaddafi's atrocities" in a neighboring country and pass it off to people as reality.
          In it you can talk about hordes of Russian troops in Donetsk, presenting a map with the positions of ukrovsk.
          In it, you can shake a tube with washing powder and then destroy the whole country.
          And this reality does not require confirmation of any statements. And if someone honest there and thinks about the evidence - he will be happy to draw it.
          1. weksha50
            weksha50 April 18 2016 17: 59
            0
            Quote: Moore
            Perhaps this word about the contract - "became null and void."



            Right, now I remember ... Thanks ...
        3. tol100v
          tol100v April 18 2016 19: 19
          +5
          Quote: weksha50
          In order for the Agreement to become inoperative (forget how it is called correctly), it is necessary to PROVE violation of this agreement by one of the parties ...

          SGA never prove anything and nobody. They supposedly have their own national interests. Such structures as the UN and others are empty words for them. Denunciation of treaties takes place unilaterally. When they lose, they always change the rules of the game that they themselves invented. And all of their EURO-PRO can be safely classified as offensive weapons! You can place both "interceptors" and tactical RIACs with special warheads in containers! Hence the conclusion: all their howls about their striving for peace and stabilization are yet another lie and an attempt to pass themselves off as "peacemakers", though they are always covered in blood!
        4. ty60
          ty60 April 18 2016 23: 47
          +1
          And then before my eyes, then four passed! They increased the terms of the database, so without much expense, they scared Cook again, and changed the diapers in the Baltic spy plane. And the pre-production armature is tested in metal, and the T-90 after the shelling by Javelin survived .. That's how it is with us, cooler than in the overseas kingdom!
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 18 2016 20: 38
      +1
      What do we see today in Europe?

      And the fact that European partners do not pay even the agreed 2% to the budget of Nata! And the arrears have to pay extra for "exceptional" lol US presidential candidate Donald Trump unambiguously expressed himself against such additional payments, as well as about the "necessity" of this organization (NATO). Having said at the same time that the United States will no longer pay for parasites with him, as well as for NATO!
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 18 2016 21: 06
      0
      It is alleged that our country produces and tests ground-based cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km, as well as launchers for such missiles. By all indications, the American side has neither objective data, nor any weighty argumentation that can support the charges brought against us

      I just want to ask in the words of one famous Hollywood character, "What is your evidence ???" bully
    6. ty60
      ty60 April 18 2016 23: 37
      +1
      Against a pack of dogs, an effective measure is to show that he picked up a stone from the ground and swung it to throw it. Dogs run back to a safe distance. And if the pack was able to recognize the leader and put it with a brick, the pack runs away in full force. ALL members of the pack.
    7. yurii p
      yurii p April 19 2016 08: 38
      0
      and if these tribes have natural resources they instantly send there gangs of mercenaries or their pocket PMCs.
      1. downfal8
        downfal8 April 20 2016 01: 01
        0
        Now they’re no longer sending, but hiring from local!
  2. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 April 18 2016 06: 23
    +3
    Prytomilm these Yankes, the right word-will bring you to "sin" ... indefatigable futsans with an awl in the sphincter.
  3. Severok
    Severok April 18 2016 06: 36
    +4
    In fact, the INF Treaty has long become a fiction, as well as the Russia-NATO treaty. It is time to get out of the legal field of these treaties and act in our interests.
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One April 18 2016 06: 42
      0
      And why should Russia withdraw from these treaties?
    2. tol100v
      tol100v April 18 2016 19: 36
      0
      Quote: Severok
      act in their own interests.

      The Treaties themselves do not prohibit us from acting in our interests! They even allow it! Here is such an incident! Just hurried in due time with the disposal of unique complexes. But you will not return it!
  4. Flinky
    Flinky April 18 2016 07: 23
    +6
    The INF Treaty, of course, for the most part is already a fiction, but nevertheless, it is too early to leave it. We need to gain time, because the supply of modern weapons is still insufficient. It is a pity, turbo-patriots like Staver do not understand this, and do not want to understand. And if there is a war, such Stavers will not stand behind the machine.
    1. domokl
      domokl April 18 2016 07: 53
      +2
      Quote: Flinky
      And if there is a war, such Stavers will not stand behind the machine.

      laughing That's for sure ... the military rank does not allow ...
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 18 2016 09: 01
      +1
      Quote: Flinky
      It is necessary to gain time, since the supply of modern weapons is still insufficient

      What's the point?
      At the moment, there are already two direct and unequivocal violations by the Americans of the INF Treaty.
      Firstly, these are strike UAVs with a flight range of more than 500 km
      Secondly, the deployment of the Mk-41 ship launcher in Romania.
  5. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets April 18 2016 07: 25
    +3
    We single-handedly abide by these treaties; Americans have long scored them
  6. ImPerts
    ImPerts April 18 2016 07: 27
    +5
    Russia did not violate the INF Treaty and did not react to the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty by denouncing the provisions set forth in the RMND.
    We have SLCMs that were completely legal under the INF Treaty. And the fact that they fit in the 40 footth railway container is just a coincidence)))
  7. CONTROL
    CONTROL April 18 2016 07: 34
    +3
    Even in North Korea, the option of "throwing our hats" will not work. Enough hats
    To throw a hat, you must: first put it on your head, and then remove it - and throw it!
    But already at the first stage - "put on ..." problems arise ...
  8. krops777
    krops777 April 18 2016 07: 38
    +7
    The USA themselves want to withdraw from the INF Treaty, so they are making a fuss, the reason I think is simple to bring such weapons to our borders in order to quickly reach any point in Russia, including nuclear facilities. The "instant disarming strike" program is gaining momentum.
    1. domokl
      domokl April 18 2016 07: 56
      +4
      Exactly so ... More precisely, constant violations push Russia towards a final decision. In principle, a withdrawal from the US agreement is not particularly threatening .. The fleet and bases, but its own territory remains unreachable. But Europeans will be bred into grandmothers for an adult ...
  9. demiurg
    demiurg April 18 2016 07: 59
    +2
    The Intermediate-Range Missile Treaty is more necessary for us than the United States. And so our overseas sworn friends are trying to get out of it. We must have a very harsh response to the denunciation of this treaty, right up to withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty.
  10. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin April 18 2016 08: 07
    +2
    No matter how objective and correct the article may be, for some reason there is always a bastard that puts a minus ...
  11. Million
    Million April 18 2016 08: 32
    +1
    It’s time for the authorities to understand that the United States is an enemy state that does not conduct open hostilities
  12. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 18 2016 09: 44
    +3
    To lie to your potential adversary is the main goal of the USA. So it was in the case of Iran, Libya, Syria.
    So it was, is and will always be.
    One must be prepared for this in the information field.
    From the severance of the INF Treaty, Western Europe will suffer in the first place.
    First, it will suffer financially, and in case of war it will be wiped off the face of the earth.
    But the European leaders, fed by the United States, do not care about the latter ...
  13. Sergei64
    Sergei64 April 18 2016 09: 51
    +2
    Simply put, Europe is our cow and we milk it, so they scare us with a threat, and rattle their weapons at our borders.
  14. Brigadier
    Brigadier April 18 2016 10: 39
    +3
    It was necessary to withdraw from this treaty IMMEDIATELY, as soon as NATO began to place its bases near our borders, on the territory of different "independent" countries - Amerov's grovels! For so many years I don’t understand what keeps our power from this exit? 5th column in the Kremlin? After all, everyone perfectly understands that this treaty is no longer valid, but only serves as a basis for NATO to constantly reproach us for its "non-compliance" ... It is better to withdraw from it, spitting on all these NATO goats and develop our Strategic Missile Forces as we need ! And this will be the best deterrent for these NATO mosques! Nothing will keep the Russian bear if we do not look back at our foreign "friends" who are just waiting for the moment to grab our throats! Let them bark from their backyards until they are hoarse ...
  15. Verdun
    Verdun April 18 2016 10: 45
    +2
    If a flock of stray dogs surrounds you, then no matter how you love these animals, it’s worth taking a bigger stick and at least waving your arms.

    Alas, some swings of dogs only start even more. Here you have to beat, and not to wave. The duplicity of American politicians is obvious. Expanding the fleet of drones, they categorically refuse to admit that in essence they are the same cruise missiles and should be subject to the relevant treaties. If only we could develop something like this in order to be able to assert that a ballistic missile is not a missile at all, but, say, an active-reactive artillery shell.
    1. Yarik76
      Yarik76 April 18 2016 11: 10
      +2
      To paint rockets under Khokhloma and declare it a primordial folk craft. There was not a word about this in the agreement "what violations" everything is OK.
    2. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m April 18 2016 11: 54
      +1
      So, after all, they have already developed and put into service. Sea-based cruise missiles not covered by contract. Hence NATO’s diarrhea.
  16. Weaving
    Weaving April 18 2016 11: 56
    0
    It has long been clear to everyone that one cannot trust friends with NATO. They have one goal - world chaos and under the guise of this chaos the sale of their weapons to everyone and everything, due to this, America’s economy is kept, and NATO is primarily America.
  17. demiurg
    demiurg April 18 2016 13: 12
    +1
    Quote: Brigadier
    It was necessary to withdraw from this treaty IMMEDIATELY, as soon as NATO began to place its bases near our borders, on the territory of different "independent" countries - Amerov's grovels! For so many years I don’t understand what keeps our power from this exit? 5th column in the Kremlin? After all, everyone perfectly understands that this treaty is no longer valid, but only serves as a basis for NATO to constantly reproach us for its "non-compliance" ... It is better to withdraw from it, spitting on all these NATO goats and develop our Strategic Missile Forces as we need ! And this will be the best deterrent for these NATO mosques! Nothing will keep the Russian bear if we do not look back at our foreign "friends" who are just waiting for the moment to grab our throats! Let them bark from their backyards until they are hoarse ...


    A medium-range ballistic missile has a flight time of 4-5 minutes to Moscow, and even less sprat from the country. The fact that in the opposite direction will fly, America does not care. Not in them. Until the S-500 is deployed in sufficient quantities, we really need this agreement.
  18. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 April 18 2016 17: 59
    +1
    I have already expressed this idea, I’ll repeat it, it is necessary to confront the mattresses with the fact that any bunch on the border is not important for the Baltic states, Poles, Turks or Ukrainians, the answer will be first for the puddle (mattresses). Calm the hegemon and other ardor will diminish. They are all NATO members and teams go from mattresses which year ATU, ATU. Who gave them a guarantee that they would sit behind a puddle? It was, after all, a decision to enforce peace, why again we are not using it or is it not time?
  19. Old26
    Old26 April 18 2016 22: 18
    +1
    Quote: Nik_One
    Usually the thief himself shouts louder "stop thief". In the case of the United States, it is so, behind the loud cries about Russia's violation of the INF Treaty, there is a banal violation of the treaty by the Americans themselves.

    In this case, you are wrong. We also cannot present facts of violation of the treaty by the Americans. There is only a "war of nerves" with the aim of provoking Russia not even to exit, but to violate the treaty, so that one can declare: "You see? We said that Russia is violating."

    Quote: Tol100v
    And all of their EURO-PRO can be safely classified as offensive weapons! You can place both "interceptors" and tactical RIACs with special warheads in containers!

    Theoretically it is possible. Only now "strike" weapons based in Romania will not be able to inflict damage on Russia. The range is not enough. Nuclear "Tomahawks" have long been disposed of, and the current range is less than 2000 km.

    Quote: weksha50
    PS My opinion is purely that it is necessary to withdraw from the Treaty of Russia and urgently develop and expand the means of the INF Treaty ...

    The question is how and by what, on what industrial base.

    Quote: Spade
    At the moment, there are already two direct and unequivocal violations by the Americans of the INF Treaty.
    Firstly, these are strike UAVs with a flight range of more than 500 km
    Secondly, the deployment of the Mk-41 ship launcher in Romania.

    Your First does not hold water. This is now speculated by the media, although there is a clear and unambiguous definition of what is an UAV and what is a cruise missile. Cruise missile certainly refers to unmanned vehicles, but this is not the same thing

    Secondly, ship launchers were not the subject of an agreement on the INF Treaty. Here we can talk about the violation of the Spirit of the contract, but not letters. And the Spirit ... This is basically a talking room, not facts

    Quote: Arctidian
    We single-handedly abide by these treaties; Americans have long scored them

    I have to upset you. And they are complying with the INF Treaty and strategic offensive arms
  20. Old26
    Old26 April 18 2016 22: 18
    0
    Quote: ImPerts
    Russia did not violate the INF Treaty and did not react to the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty by denouncing the provisions set forth in the RMND.
    We have SLCMs that were completely legal under the INF Treaty. And the fact that they fit in the 40 footth railway container is just a coincidence)))

    And the ABM and INF agreements are not mutually related. We could officially withdraw from the INF Treaty, like the Americans from the ABM Treaty, but what would it give?
    Of course, we have SLCMs, though the number of launchers is many times less than that of the Americans.
    And about containers - do not continue this topic. Such containers are simply disadvantageous for Russia. And they were developed for underdeveloped countries that could not have their own navy. Of course, this complex was distributed to all 100.

    Quote: krops777
    The "instant disarming strike" program is gaining momentum.

    This is not a program. This is only a concept, and very far from real execution


    Quote: Brigadier
    For so many years I do not understand what keeps our power from this exit? 5th column in the Kremlin?

    No. Understanding that this will make us much worse
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts April 19 2016 06: 11
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And the ABM and INF agreements are not mutually related.

      Did I say that they are attached to each other? The ABM Treaty was not beneficial to the United States and they withdrew from it. The INF Treaty was imposed on the USSR and is not beneficial for Russia. The agreement spells a ban on medium- and short-range land missiles and permits the possession of air and sea components, which the Americans were strong for, until a certain time.
      Quote: Old26
      Of course, we have SLCMs, though the number of launchers is many times less than that of the Americans.

      RTOs to help us. They are built faster and their production does not require a giant shipyard.
      Quote: Old26
      And about containers - do not continue this topic. Such containers are simply disadvantageous for Russia. And they were developed for underdeveloped countries that could not have their own navy. Of course, this complex was distributed to all 100.

      Dear, I wrote about containers only because SLCM can be turned into land)))
      Good luck!
  21. TOR2
    TOR2 April 18 2016 22: 36
    +1
    If you play this game then, then thoroughly and beautifully. First of all, missiles with a range of more than 500 km. needed to attack critical infrastructure. And I must say honestly for the most part it will not be military facilities. Given the density of such objects in the geyrop, it is quite realistic to get mongrels out of the game quickly and firmly. At the same time, you need to place your own similar objects at the maximum distance (the territory allows). This is where the development program for small towns is needed. In addition, it is necessary to develop air defense systems that can quickly travel considerable distances and are able to withstand massive attacks. Well, in conclusion, at the same time, you still have to withdraw from the agreement prohibiting the development of climate weapons, since the continent beyond the puddle is quite vulnerable to natural disasters.
  22. shinobi
    shinobi April 19 2016 04: 44
    0
    Missiles that is. On the same Iskander, only the launch container changes. From the mid-80s, missiles are made according to a unified scheme. In order to stick them with minimal adjustment to different carriers. Identity warheads.
  23. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2016 08: 19
    0
    Quote: ImPerts
    Did I say that they are attached to each other? The ABM Treaty was not beneficial to the United States and they withdrew from it. The INF Treaty was imposed on the USSR and is not beneficial for Russia. The agreement spells a ban on medium- and short-range land missiles and permits the possession of air and sea components, which the Americans were strong for, until a certain time.

    No, Igor, they didn’t. Just in response to withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, it was necessary to officially declare that we, too, were withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. This would free our hands and still make the same Americans think a little. The INF Treaty, in my opinion, was the most ill-conceived of all the agreements. But alas, Gorby and his team went to all the proposed conditions by the Americans. It was not so much the contract itself that was disadvantageous as its individual provisions, but that was the topic of another and rather large conversation.
    The INF Treaty is now more beneficial for Russia than for the United States. Observing the contract, we kill two birds with one stone.
    In 1 we will protect ourselves from the deployment of ballistic missiles in the Baltic. And this is not 7-10 minutes of flight time, as previously from Germany, but 2-3 minutes.
    Secondly, the situation now is such that we cannot afford to deploy INF assets and simultaneously modernize our Strategic Missile Forces and NSNF. Or or. The Votkinsk plant is not "rubber". More than he gives he can hardly release. Under the USSR, there were several factories, each of which produced its own range of missiles

    Quote: ImPerts
    RTOs to help us. They are built faster and their production does not require a giant shipyard.

    They are built faster, yes. But they are not a panacea. Against almost a hundred destroyers with almost a hundred launchers on each - these are, alas, pin pricks. 8 launchers on practically "river-sea" ships, with scanty seaworthiness and autonomy are not the same thing. In addition, all the boats of the Americans are adapted for firing the CD, which cannot be said about our boats.

    Quote: ImPerts
    Dear, I wrote about containers only due to the fact that SLCM can be turned into land))) Good luck!

    Igor! the thing is that our mass media have launched this weapon system. It was created for, as I already wrote in underdeveloped countries, and had to contain exclusively anti-ship missiles. A container command post equipped with its own radar was also intended for this.
    The euphoria from the use of 3M14 in Syria immediately shifted the emphasis and the same media began to write about what can be used on land. Theoretically possible. That's just the preparation of data for firing and positioning the launcher should be an order of magnitude more accurate. Indeed, even PGRK shoot their products from well-known, geodetic-equipped positions, despite the presence of all these GLONASS and GMP.
    So not everything is so simple and straightforward
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts April 19 2016 09: 34
      0
      Vladimir, thanks for the detailed answer.
      Quote: Old26
      The INF Treaty is now more beneficial for Russia than for the United States. Observing the contract, we kill two birds with one stone.
      In 1 we will protect ourselves from the deployment of ballistic missiles in the Baltic. And this is not 7-10 minutes of flight time, as previously from Germany, but 2-3 minutes.

      This is offset by the presence of
      Quote: Old26
      Against almost a hundred destroyers with almost a hundred launchers on each

      It remains to add here the NATO Air Force and air-launched cruise missiles at American bases. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that the INF Treaty is disadvantageous to us.
      The rest can also be debated.
      In any case, thanks for the interesting thoughts.
  24. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2016 08: 22
    +1
    Quote: shinobi
    Missiles that is. On the same Iskander, only the launch container changes. From the mid-80s, missiles are made according to a unified scheme. In order to stick them with minimal adjustment to different carriers. Identity warheads.

    There is? Can you give an example of replacing the BR 9M723 with something else? And you opened your eyes. It turns out that the Iskander ballistic missile is produced in a container version ...
  25. Gerfalcon
    Gerfalcon April 19 2016 15: 02
    +1
    I feel that the Yankees will agree, and the Iskanders will start firing farther than 500 km.
  26. downfal8
    downfal8 April 20 2016 01: 00
    0
    lobby of arms manufacturers promotes the theme “the threat comes from Russia!” and wants big budgets! this is a business and we are defined in it as an opponent or a point of application of efforts as you prefer.
  27. solovald
    solovald April 20 2016 05: 46
    0
    "... Modern" Rambo "prefer to fight either from an unattainable height for air defense systems, or even from the territory of a foreign state or from the side of a warship. He pressed the button and ... conducted a successful military operation ..." (!?) the light of the Syrian events sounds somehow ambiguous, touching not only the classic "Rambo" ....
  28. Berber
    Berber April 20 2016 08: 46
    0
    In many ways, US policy is a demonstration of opportunities, but not a desire to use these opportunities. They don’t want a real big war. This, like in poker, is a complete bluff. With small cards, take the entire bank. (In general, their entire policy is similar to playing poker.) Well, also the desire to rake in the heat with the wrong hands. Use such useful fools as our Ukrainians on the Maidan. Well, or frankly corrupt, like their politicians. Which of course are smarter, but still just a consumable for achieving goals.