Plans to terminate the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF) are of concern to the UN. The secretary general of the organization, Antonio Guterres, called on Moscow and Washington to continue the dialogue. According to him, there is still time for the parties to resolve "some issues."
“Our position is clear: we consider it very important to preserve the INFMT ...”, Guterres stressed.
Moscow shares this point of view, but the initiative to liquidate the treaty comes from Washington. Last December, Russia even submitted a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly, calling on all parties to fulfill their obligations under the INF Committee. However, this proposal did not find sufficient support - 43 delegates from those present at the meeting voted in favor of the Russian draft resolution, 46 opposed it, 78 more abstained.
- António Guterres
- globallookpress.com
- © Li Muzi / imago stock & people
However, experts doubt that the call of the UN Secretary-General will have some effect on the US administration. According to the head of the department of political science and sociology of the PRUE. Plekhanov Andrei Koshkin, there is a simple explanation for the fact that the UN General Assembly was unable to adopt the draft Russian resolution, although voices in defense of the treaty are heard from all sides.
“Washington is simply putting pressure on a number of states in such cases, and many countries are simply forced to follow the American wake,” the expert explained in an interview with RT.
Ultimate approach
The Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles was signed in 1987 between the United States and the USSR. The document was signed by General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev and the head of the White House Ronald Reagan. The powers committed themselves to eliminate land-based missiles with a range from 500 to 5,500 km, and also not to produce weapons of this class. The contract does not need renewal and is of an indefinite nature, but each of the participants may withdraw from it, notifying the opposite party 6 months in advance.
The main advantage of short-range and medium-range missiles over intercontinental ballistic missiles is the high speed of hitting the target. To achieve it, the ICBM after launch takes several tens of minutes, for smaller and medium-range missiles - a minute.
The significance of the INFMT for the world security architecture is difficult to overestimate: for example, it was the US’s deployment of medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads on Turkish territory in 1961 that led to events known as the Caribbean crisis.
- Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan at the time of the signing of the Treaty between the USSR and the United States on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles
- AFP
It is worth noting that at the time of the signing of the treaty, the USSR, unlike the United States, did not have an arsenal of medium and shorter range missiles of sea and air basing. As Vladimir Putin said in December last year, speaking at the expanded board of the Defense Ministry, from the point of view of the Soviet Union, the signing of the INF Treaty meant "unilateral disarmament." Within three years, the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems and 825 launchers, the United States - 846 complexes and 318 installations.
However, today the Russian army is already armed with sea-based and air-launched missiles. This, in particular, was recalled by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking at a press conference on January 18 following a meeting with his German counterpart Heiko Maas. Therefore, Moscow simply does not need to secretly create a modification of such a ground-based missile, the Russian minister added.
“It would even be simply irrational,” Lavrov stressed.
The statement of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry was made in response to Washington’s accusations: the American side claims that the 9M729 missile developed for Iskander RK violates the provisions of the INF Treaty.
As stated by the US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper on January 17, the Russian side could have saved the INF Treaty.
Recall that the administration of Barack Obama began accusing Russia of violating the provisions of the treaty back in 2014, and Donald Trump subsequently picked up this “baton”. As a result, on October 21, 2018, the head of the White House announced the US withdrawal from the INF.
"We will not allow them to violate the agreement ... Russia did not comply with the agreement, therefore, unfortunately, we will terminate the agreement and get out of it," said Trump.
January 16, 2019 in the State Department warned about the suspension of the obligations of the American side under the contract from February 2 and "until Russia returns to the implementation of the agreement."
The White House demands that Moscow itself prove that it does not violate the contract, but, according to experts, this contradicts the generally accepted principle of the presumption of innocence, according to which the prosecution must collect evidence.
“The United States is not inclined to adhere to any rules of the game, and the notion of presumption of innocence does not matter for them. The interests and benefits of the United States are at the forefront, ”says Andrei Koshkin.
At the same time, the proposal of the Russian side to conduct an examination and even provide access to information about the 9M729 rocket is ignored by Washington - Sergei Lavrov told reporters earlier.
Experts pay attention to the shift of emphasis in Washington's accusatory rhetoric. Initially, the American administration placed greater emphasis on the need to conclude a new agreement in an expanded format. As Donald Trump stated in October 2018, China should become a party to the new treaty, and Russia, for its part, should contribute to this.
A similar statement was made earlier by presidential adviser on national security John Bolton.
“Now Russia is one of the participants in this process. Therefore, the United States believes that, in general, only two countries will not be able to completely solve this problem, ”he said, commenting on the results of negotiations with the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, in October. In Beijing, the US decisively rejected the proposal: Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chuning said that the Chinese side would not tolerate blackmail.
After Beijing harshly made it clear that it did not intend to enter into a discussion on the issue of its arsenals, the United States highlighted claims against Moscow.
According to military expert Ivan Konovalov, the Americans needed the Chinese corner in order to “shake up” the topic of eliminating the INF Treaty and present a treaty that did not correspond to the current situation in the world.
"Indeed, many countries have such missiles, and not only China, but also, for example, Israel, Iran, and so on. But from the very beginning it was obvious that China would not go to destroy its missile arsenal, it was knowingly impossible condition, - explained the expert in an interview with RT. - Now Washington has completely switched to ultimatums addressed to Russia. Moreover, the Americans do not even try to discuss anything, but simply demand to destroy our rocket. They do not listen to the arguments, which means that their goal is the destruction of the treaty. ”
"A lot of money"
Meanwhile, the White House’s plans to dissolve the INF Treaty have raised concerns in the Western expert community. European specialists and diplomats point out that a detailed step will primarily affect the interests of European countries.
As stated earlier by the head of European diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, the INF Treaty is of great importance for the EU.
“If it is dismantled, the security of Europe will be put at risk. We do not want the region to once again become a place of struggle for other powers, ”Mogherini emphasized.
Criticized the possible elimination of DRDSD and French President Emmanuel Macron. The politician said that the "main victim" of this decision will be Europe. And this is despite the fact that the relations between the New and the Old World have been experiencing difficulties lately. For example, in the EU, they are no longer ready to fully rely on NATO on defense issues - the initiative of the French president to create a unified European army has found wide support among European countries.
However, criticizing the impending cancellation of the INF Treaty, European politicians and diplomats still refrain from direct attacks on Trump, placing the blame on Moscow. As stated earlier by the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, “the key to preserving the INF Treaty is in Moscow.”
According to experts, Europe is well aware that Washington is the real initiator of the gap. However, European countries are too dependent on the United States to openly oppose the American administration. However, the elimination of the INF Treaty will only exacerbate this situation, said a military expert, retired colonel Viktor Litovkin.
“By placing missiles in Europe, Washington will force Russia to take symmetrical measures. And this, of course, will only worsen the relations between the EU and Moscow, which is what the Americans need. Washington not only wants to sow discord between us and European countries, making it so that we simply have to aim the weapon at the EU territory, but also to take advantage of this situation to squeeze the EU even more in its grip, ”the expert explained in an interview with RT.
A similar point of view holds Ivan Konovalov. According to the expert, to place their missiles in European countries, Washington will have to literally “twist” the hands of its NATO allies.
- Mk 45 shooting at Jason Dunham destroyer
- © US Navy
“But the United States will stop at nothing, just to break the resistance of European governments. Moreover, the Americans do not like the fact that lately the Europeans have begun to show greater independence, the expert believes. - In addition, the United States wants to flood the land-based allied countries of Asia, to create a line of pressure on China. Speaking about the motives of the White House, one should not lose sight of the influence of the US military-industrial complex, because the development and launch of mass production of a large number of new missiles will attract huge money. ”
"The deterrent effect"
At the same time, some Western experts believe that the cessation of the INF Treaty could be on Russia's hands rather than the United States. According to Rowan Allport, a senior fellow at the British Non-Profit Analytical Center at Human Security Center, the US leadership should think carefully before withdrawing from the contract. The liquidation of the INF Treaty will allow Moscow to start mass production of medium-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles, he believes.
According to the expert, the developed naval forces today allow the United States and NATO to have a huge arsenal of cruise missiles that are not subject to the INF. Russia also has weapons of this class, but it would be more convenient and more profitable for Moscow to focus on the development of land-based missiles, the range of which would easily reach the countries of the US allies in NATO.
“Freed from the limitations of this treaty, Moscow will be able to use relatively cheap mobile launchers instead of expensive ships or airplanes to create non-nuclear strike forces,” says Allport's article, published in the American edition of Foreign Policy.
This, in turn, will allow Moscow to achieve a “fairly powerful deterrent effect,” the expert added.
The interviewed RT specialists agree that, if necessary, it will not be so difficult for Russia to launch the production of medium-range and shorter-range missiles. As Viktor Litovkin explained, this is not the most difficult task technologically.
According to Andrei Koshkin, there is a certain logic in the reasoning of the British explorer, but the main question is not even in certain military tactical errors of the United States, but in what direction Washington has taken as a whole.
“All this race, which is unleashed by the States, can lead to global instability, put the world on the brink of a big conflict. This is a fundamental problem. Of course, such a development will ultimately strike the United States, ”the expert emphasized.
At the same time, Ivan Konovalov believes that the appeals now addressed to Trump to “think before they leave the contract” do not make sense.
“It is difficult to remember the cases when the White House really thought before taking such steps, weighed the pros and cons, because the United States is convinced of its global hegemony. But this logic has often led to serious mistakes - it is enough to recall at least the Vietnamese campaign, ”the expert concluded.