[ad_1]
Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the left, and US National Security Adviser John Bolton during their meeting at the Moscow Kremlin on 23 October. (Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP)
Despite the emergencies of Russia, the national security adviser John Bolton insists that the United States withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The treaty bans all ground-based, nuclear, conventional, short-range and intermediate-range missiles, as well as the systems that can be used to launch such missiles. Under the treaty, neither Russia nor the United States can deploy missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, or between 310 and 3,420 miles. As a result of a bilateral treaty, other countries are not bound by these constraints.
Since the US government announced its withdrawal plans, Russian officials and experts have questioned what it means for Russia and how to react. Here are five things to know.
1. The Russians see the INF Treaty as an undue advantage for the United States.
Russian experts and officials have long argued that the treaty that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev signed with President Ronald Reagan in 1987 was disadvantageous – first for the Soviet Union, then for Russia. Russia has abandoned its mid-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles launched from the ground without pulling any restrictions on US missiles launched by sea or by air. This is important because the vast majority of Russian nuclear weapons are land-based, while the United States bases much of its nuclear force on submarines. The Kremlin believes that this has allowed the United States to dominate the world's oceans with their Tomahawk cruise missiles and has made Russia vulnerable to an attack by the American sea.
2. The Russians believe that it is the United States that has violated the treaty.
The United States has claimed that Russia has been violating the INF Treaty since 2014 by secretly testing and deploying a ground variant of its Kalibr missile launched by the sea. Russia, in turn, claimed that the US was in violation, in two ways.
[Russia used to see itself as part of Europe. Here’s why that changed.]
First, the Kremlin asserts that unmanned American fighter jets, such as the Predators, are in fact cruise missiles launched on the ground – and should be subject to treaty bans. The United States argues that it's good of a piloted aircraft – even though the pilot may not be sitting in the plane, but on the ground – and therefore excluded from the treaty.
The second claim of the Kremlin has more substance. Russia claims that the US missile defense system Aegis Ashore, deployed in Romania and Poland to supplement naval systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles launched against the United States or its allies, uses the same launch systems as missiles from Tomahawk cruise based on ships. . Since Tomahawk missiles are intermediate-range missiles, the Mine Treaty prohibits missiles and their launchers from deploying ashore. Although Washington claims that the two systems differ, the Russian side can reasonably argue that it is impossible to know for sure whether the missiles inside launch systems are eligible defensive interception missiles. or offensive offensive missiles prohibited.
[Remember the Cold War? Putin’s brought it back.]
In fact, this uncertainty is the main reason why launch systems for prohibited types of missiles have been explicitly prohibited by the terms of the INF Treaty.
3. The withdrawal will benefit the Russian army, at least in the short term
Russian experts unanimously believe that if the US withdraws from the treaty, Russia will benefit in the short term, because its ballistic missiles and ground-based cruise missiles are much closer to their deployment than the states. -United. For example, the Russian Rubezh ballistic missile is often considered a medium-range missile, except for its name, even though it has been tested at longer distances to escape the restrictions imposed by the INF Treaty. This project has not been included in Russia's weapons plans for the next decade, partly because of cost concerns and partly because of doubts that it could actually work in the longer run. Without the INF Treaty, Russia could start producing Rubezh missiles quite quickly.
In addition, without the INF Treaty, Russia could openly deploy a variant of the ground-based cruise missile launched by the sea, Kalibr, called 9M729, also known in the West as the SSC-8. Given Russia's limited access to open seas and the problems faced by its shipbuilding sector in recent years for the construction of large ships in a timely manner, the deployment of a large force of cruise missiles launched on the ground could be a strategic advantage for Russia. Such a force would deter any potential aggression by NATO and Asian countries.
4. Russians think the main impact will be on China, not Russia
The Russians argue that if the US withdrew from the INF treaty, nothing will change for Russia. In the absence of intermediate-range missiles ready for deployment in Europe, the United States will likely continue to rely on its air and sea cruise missiles to achieve its military objectives in the region. Moreover, the Kremlin recalls that in the 1980s, most European countries were reluctant to host intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the United States – and thought that would still be the case now. However, this excludes the possibility that anti-Russian Eastern European countries, such as Poland, are much more willing to host such missiles than Germany.
On the other hand, Russian insiders believe that this American movement is mainly aimed at China, which is not a party to the INF Treaty and has deployed a large number of intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Russian experts have already begun talks about East Asian countries that could accept to receive US missiles to counter the Chinese. Some argue that China will react to this US announcement before deciding what Russia should do, arguing that, since China is at higher risk, it should follow China's the need to negotiate with the United States or to deploy new weapons.
5. So what happens next?
Russian experts disagree on what will happen next. Some think this is the last step before the control of nuclear weapons disappears completely. They highlight Trump's criticism of various treaties signed by former President Barack Obama and John Bolton's well-known repugnance for arms control. They predict that the US will not only withdraw from the INF Treaty, but will also refuse to extend the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 2011 New Start – eliminating the latest constraint on the US deployment of new weapons nuclear weapons and throwing the world into a new environment. era of strategic instability.
Others believe that Trump's and Bolton's statements are only negotiating tactics – and that, although the US is certainly willing to withdraw from the treaty, they would prefer to renegotiate it to include China and force Russia to a serious debate on its violations of the agreement.
Dmitry Gorenburg is a senior researcher in the Strategic Studies Division NAC and Associate of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.
[ad_2]Source link
