The head of the strategic command of the US Armed Forces, General John Heithen, is concerned that the latest Russian nuclear deterrent does not fall under the limitations of the START III treaty.

This was reported by the American military on February 26 during hearings in the Senate. In particular, Haiten’s fears are caused by the Russian-developed hypersonic weapon, as well as the Poseidon nuclear submarine drone.

“I’m worried that in 10 years and beyond, with the development of torpedoes, cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons, the process of building up nuclear potential can go in a completely different direction, and we will have difficulties,” said Heithen. - Today, I can say with confidence that I am able to ensure the security of the country and I think that the next head of the Strategic Command after me will also be able to do this. But I’m worried about the future situation that the successors of our successors will have to deal with. "

Also, the head of the strategic command of the US armed forces are concerned about Russia's success in creating the fifth-generation fighter and building new ballistic missiles.

As the commander of the US nuclear forces noted, the START III treaty limited only certain types of weapons - land-based and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and cruise missiles deployed on them and other platforms. According to Haiten, Russia could report on the development of new weapons in the framework of a special Bilateral Consultative Commission, but did not.

“We see that they are developing types of nuclear weapons that are not subject to the treaty, and this worries me,” Heiten said.

“If the Russians continue to build up their nuclear potential, which does not fall under the provisions of the START-III treaty and is not taken into account anywhere, if new types of strategic weapons appear, they should directly discuss this with us in the negotiations,” the American general said, adding is a supporter of the START III treaty and would like this agreement to cover all possible means of nuclear destruction in the future.

As a result, Heithen expressed the wish that “at the new stage of the implementation of the START III treaty, its provisions should apply to all types of nuclear weapons, and not only to those listed in the treaty”.

  • General John Heithen
  • Reuters
  • © Yuri Gripas

The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (START-III) was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama and entered into force on February 5, 2011. Each of the parties, as emphasized in the text of the agreement, was to reach the following indicators on strategic armaments within 7 years: no more than 700 units for deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), ballistic missiles on submarines (SLBM) and heavy bombers, 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers, and 800 units for deployed and non-deployed (not in combat readiness and with warheads) ICBM and SLBM launchers, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

Double standards

According to experts interviewed by RT, there is no clause in the START-III treaty that would oblige the United States or Russia to report on the appearance of new types of strategic weapons. The document only provides such a right to both powers.

“When, in the opinion of one side, a new type of strategic offensive arms appears, this side has the right to raise the issue of such strategic offensive weapons for consideration by the bilateral advisory commission,” the agreement says.

However, in the early 2000s, when the US itself conducted tests of hypersonic weapons (albeit mostly unsuccessful), they did not care whether the actions of the US military were consistent with the treaty, experts remind.

“In the START Treaty or in the Prague Treaty of 2010, nothing was said about new promising developments, so now the American side is beginning to fantasize on this issue,” said Vladimir Batyuk, Chief Researcher at the Institute for the USA and Canada, in an interview with RT. - The Americans themselves are really engaged in the development of hypersonic and other strategic systems. So the claims on their part are not consistent. ”

Now the United States is concerned that Russia has pulled ahead in the field of new military technologies, and therefore would like to limit the strategic potential of Moscow.

Earlier, during a message to the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the launch of mass production of the Avangard hypersonic winged combat unit, the testing of the Sarmat intercontinental rocket, Dagger and Burevestnits, the Peresvet laser installation And the Poseidon underwater unmanned vehicle. Putin also promised to soon adopt a sea-based Zircon hypersonic missile. Americans have no analogues of these weapons.

In addition, the United States does not respond to Russian statements about Washington’s implementation of START III. On February 2, while discussing with the President Vladimir Putin the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF), Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also touched upon the issue of START III.

“He is also under threat,” Lavrov said. “Because its overall effective operation is called into question by the fact that the United States recently decided to deduct 56 submarine launchers for launching Trident and 41 heavy bomber on the pretext that they are being converted into non-nuclear equipment.”

  • Start rocket UGM-133A Trident II
  • Reuters
  • © US Navy / Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ronald Gutridge / Handout

According to Lavrov, this is allowed by the treaty, but Russia has every right to make sure that the re-equipment is made so that in the future these submarines and bombers cannot carry nuclear charges. But the United States does not provide satisfactory guarantees.

According to the head of the Bureau of military-political analysis, Alexander Mikhailov, claiming that START-III does not limit the new weapons of Russia, Washington is preparing the ground for withdrawing from the treaty.

“Speculations about START III are another link in the chain of violations of international law by the Americans,” said Mikhailov. - First, they withdrew from the ABM Treaty, then from the INF Treaty. The United States wants to withdraw from all the military documents binding them and form a new defense, and, perhaps, an offensive strategy. ”

Future START III

The START III treaty signed in 2010 was designed for 10 years. Both countries ratified it in 2011, which means that in two years it will end its action. However, Moscow and Washington may agree to extend this agreement for another 5 years. On February 16, during the Munich Security Conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow was ready for negotiations on this issue.

On February 25, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Russia and the United States to extend the treaty. However, the United States does not signal readiness to begin negotiations. Moreover, in 2017 in an interview with Reuters, US President Donald Trump called START-III "another bad deal" that Barack Obama made.

  • US President Donald Trump
  • Reuters
  • © Jim Young

Considering the situation around START-III, on December 20 last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin during a big press conference noted that Russia is preparing for the possibility of non-renewal of the treaty.

“We will provide our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is very bad, because it brings us to a very dangerous point, ”Putin said.

According to Vladimir Batiuk, after the United States withdrew from the treaty on medium-range and shorter-range missiles, the likelihood that Washington will give up START-III is very high.

“Such a development will be extremely negative,” the expert believes. - It will be an unrestricted and restrained nuclear arms race. This could have negative consequences for international security and stability. ”

According to the political scientist, in order to expand the START III treaty to new weapons systems, as General Heiten suggests, Washington must make concessions to Moscow.

“Russia can meet the American partners, but for that Russia needs something in return, reciprocal steps,” notes Batiuk. - This concerns issues that are of concern to our country. For example, American missile defense efforts. ”

In turn, Alexander Mikhailov believes that Russia and the United States are unlikely to be able to agree on anything.

"There is no certainty that if we now sit down at the negotiating table, the new treaties will be respected by the American side," the political scientist said.