"At the initiative of the American side": the Foreign Ministry announced the termination of the INF mode
The Russian Foreign Ministry officially announced the termination of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF) at the initiative of the American side. The Federation Council noted that this is a necessary measure in response to the actions of Washington, who was looking for a pretext to suspend the agreement. The US State Department once again laid the blame for breaking the treaty on Russia, not supporting the charges with any evidence. Experts believe that after a unilateral withdrawal from the agreement, the United States has exhausted its credibility. At the same time, Russia is open for the resumption of the dialogue on the INF Treaty, analysts are sure.
The Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (DRDM) was terminated on the initiative of the American side. Such information is contained in the official statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry, published on a single portal of legal information.
“On August 2, 2019, at the initiative of the American side, the Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the elimination of their medium-range and shorter-range missiles, signed in Washington on December 8, 1987, was terminated,” the document says.
We are talking about an agreement that was concluded by the leader of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev and the head of the White House, Ronald Reagan. The contract prescribed the elimination of ballistic and cruise missiles of ground-based missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km.
The first deputy chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, Vladimir Jabarov, in an interview with RT, noted that the Russian Federation had to withdraw from the agreement because of the position of the United States.
“Definitely on the part of Russia - this is a retaliatory measure, it is forced, because the Americans essentially coerced when they declared that we were allegedly breaking the contract and referred to this 9M729 missile. This suggests that they used this as a pretext, since this rocket did not fall under this treaty in any way. Americans are trying to blame everything on Russia, ”said the senator.
To gallery page
At the end of 2018, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would leave the INF Treaty because Russia allegedly did not comply with the terms of the agreement.
“I don’t understand why (ex-US President Barack - RT ) Obama did not negotiate or withdraw (USA from PRSD. - RT ). 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, ”Trump said in October 2018, adding that Washington will develop weapons.
By the beginning of 2019, the United States declared unilateral withdrawal from the agreement, citing "violations" on the part of Russia. No evidence of this statement was provided.
Later, representatives of Washington reported that, in their opinion, the Russian rocket 9M729 violates the INF. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation arranged a briefing for foreign military attaches, at which both 9M729 itself and its technical characteristics, consistent with the agreement, were demonstrated. The attache of the United States and some other Western countries ignored this event.
In February, the Russian leadership decided to mirror the actions of Washington. President Vladimir Putin announced the suspension of Moscow’s participation in the INF.
“Our answer will be a mirror. American partners have announced that they are suspending their participation in the Treaty, and we are suspending. They announced that they are engaged in R & D, R & D and development work, and we will do the same, ”said the Russian leader.
He added that after the suspension of the contract, Moscow will create new types of weapons, but without an increase in the budget of the Ministry of Defense.
Putin submitted a bill of appropriate content to the State Duma in May. In June and July, the initiative was approved by the State Duma and the Federation Council.
“Trust in the United States cannot be fundamentally”
NATO also blamed the breach of the treaty on Russia and supported the US position. Such information is contained in a statement published on the Alliance website.
“Russia is solely responsible for terminating the contract. We regret that Russia did not show readiness and did not take any obvious steps to return to the fulfillment of its international obligations, ”the message says.
"The decision of the United States to withdraw from the treaty comes into force, it is fully supported by NATO allies," concluded the Alliance.
At the same time, NATO said that they did not intend to deploy new ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe after the collapse of the INF Treaty.
Shortly before, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also blamed Russia for the termination of the INF Treaty. About this he wrote in his Twitter-account.
According to him, in February 2019, "the United States gave Russia six months to return to the regime of compliance with the treaty on the elimination of medium and shorter-range missiles."
“Russia refused, so today the agreement ends. The United States will not continue to participate in the treaty when others violate it. Responsibility for this rests solely with Russia, ”says Pompeo.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia refused, so the treaty ends today. Violate it. Russia bears sole responsibility.- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) August 2, 2019
Simultaneously with Pompeo's tweet, a statement appeared on the State Department website, in which the department again mentioned the creation of a new control system on armaments, which "would go beyond the bilateral treaties of the past."
"The United States calls on Russia and China to join us in this opportunity to achieve real security results for our countries and the whole world," the State Department said in a statement timed to coincide with the US exit from the INF.
It is noteworthy that China condemned the decision of the United States to exit the INF.
“China opposes US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and regrets this decision,” quoted Chinese Foreign Minister spokesman Hua Chunying to RIA Novosti.
Konstantin Blokhin, an expert at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that Pompeo’s statement was made with propaganda goals.
“In order to show that we allegedly want to conclude a new treaty, but because of the hostile actions of Russia this contract is not consistent,” said the expert in an interview with RT.
According to him, we are talking about the formation of the necessary information background to justify a one-sided exit of the United States.
At the same time, the expert believes that Russia has retained the possibilities for further dialogue.
“Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a desire to sit down at the negotiating table and start discussions on this issue,” noted Blokhin.
Vladimir Bruter, an expert at the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies, believes that all new arms control systems can only be based on previous ones. In his opinion, in the event of a unilateral withdrawal from the contract, its party cannot have confidence in the future.
“Trust in the United States cannot be fundamentally, because they have violated their previous obligations, and they have repeatedly violated and clearly will not stop on this,” said the expert in an interview with RT.
He noted that in order to exit the US DPTM, “they resorted to various kinds of fakes, which makes trust in them an extremely costly and extremely painful moment for determining Russian policy”.
Speaking about the proposal to involve China in the new treaty, the expert asked why the US is making some proposals to China, but does not do the same for France and Britain, which also possess nuclear weapons.
“This is perceived as an obvious prejudice, as a violation of the rules of symmetry and an equal approach to the process. Therefore, both in Moscow and Beijing, they assume that this proposal is a clean fake, and in the form in which it exists today, it simply cannot be something that is accepted but even considered, ”Bruter believes.