Collapse Of U.S.-Russia Agreements: INF Treaty Is Dead, New START Treaty Is Next

Donate

Collapse Of U.S.-Russia Agreements: INF Treaty Is Dead, New START Treaty Is Next

Illustrative image

US National Security Advisor John Bolton visited Moscow on October 22nd. The visit and discussions that followed happened 48 hours after US President Donald Trump announced that the US would withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Defense News cited experts who are concerned that the US could possibly also withdraw from the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was signed in 2010 between the US and Russia. It limits the deployed forces of both nations to 1,550 nuclear warheads over 700 delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers.

National Public Radio’s David Welna also was skeptical about the future of the new START treaty, following the INF withdrawal.

When he was asked about the treaty, while in Moscow, Bolton said that the US government is “currently considering” its position on the agreement. He, however, said that the Trump administration “does not have a position that we’re prepared to negotiate.”

This is further reinforced by Trump’s remarks in February 2017 when he called the agreement “a one-sided deal” and a “bad deal.” There was no follow-up to his words, in March 2017, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, then the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said the agreement was of “huge value” to the U.S., adding that it has “been good for us.”

TASS reported that Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev and US National Security Adviser John Bolton discussed rospects for extending the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the new START Treaty) for five more years after 2021.

“During the meeting, both sides exchanged opinions regarding the issue of extending the term of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms for five more years after 2021,” the press service of the Russian Security Council announced. “They have discussed in detail the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT], the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT], the Treaty on Open Skies, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention [BTWC],” the statement added.

Defense News also cited Frank Miller, who served as senior director for defense policy and arms control for President George W. Bush’s National Security Council. He said that the treaty provides 18 on-site inspections of Russian weapons a year, which “valuable” information for America’s military.

“The Russians need to see consequences from noncompliance on INF, I fundamentally agree with that,” Miller said. But “if the Russians don’t see us as reliable partners in arms control agreements and think they are likely to be surprised by us, as they were by some degree from the withdraw of the ABM treaty and by the abrupt nature of the withdraw from INF, they may begin to hedge and they may be more inclined, rather than less inclined, to prepare themselves for a [nuclear] breakout.”

Richard Burt, who served as chief negotiator in the original START talks between the U.S. and Russia, said the INF decision is “very bad news for anybody who is a supporter of extending New START.”

“That decision doesn’t have to be formally taken until 2021, so a lot will depend on the outcome of the 2020 elections. I would say that if you do see Donald Trump re-elected and his national security adviser remains John Bolton, I think it’s a better than even chance that New START is not extended,” he said.

Bolton himself said that the treaty expires in 2021, so the Trump administration “has plenty of time.”

James Acton of the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program is not positive about new START’s future. “New START is in deep trouble, but not because of this,” he said. “Russia, I think, would agree to extending New START even if the US withdraws from INF. The problem is that it’s increasingly clear that this administration doesn’t want to extend New START.”

The US has accused Russia of violating the INF agreement in past years. The Obama administration said Russia violated the INF treaty in 2014 by testing a ground-launched cruise missile. But the Obama administration “chose not to leave the agreement because of objections from the Europeans — particularly Germany — and out of concern that it would rekindle an arms race.”

Russia has repeatedly accused the US of violating the INF. For example, Aegis ballistic missile defense systems installed by the US across Europe use the MK 41 vertical launching system to launch interceptors. The similar system is used by US guided-missile destroyers to launch Tomahawk naval cruise missiles. The deployment of the missiles and launchers of this type on the ground is forbidden by the INF treaty.

In December 2017 the US also violated the agreement by selling two missile defense systems to Japan. “Actions like these are in direct contradiction to the priority of building military and political trust between Russia and Japan, and, unfortunately, will impact in a negative way on the whole atmosphere in bilateral relations, including negotiations over the peace treaty problem,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on December 28, 2017. “In practice, it will mean one more breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Americans with, in fact, Japan’s assistance,” she added.

TASS also cited Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov that withdrawal from the INF “would be a very dangerous step, which, I’m sure, won’t be just understood by the international community, but arouse serious condemnation of all members of the world community, who are committed to security and stability and are ready to work on strengthening the current regimes in arms control.”

He further elaborated that the US decision to withdraw from one more international treaty hinders its own agenda of global dominance.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • HardHawk

    so………. whats next?

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      the NWO wants to renegotiate with russians and gain time for them to be able actually threaten russia not with words but military, taking advantage of russias policies up to now to call every one partner and try to convince them, (nato), that are criminals and the scum of the earth in a polite way. I dont think it work out for the russians this policy but then on the other hand time is on the side of russians military or economically. Not on the side of the globalists.

      • Spit

        The Renegotiation is going to be a lopsided one way deal in favor of the Russians, this is Why Trump is pulling out. Expect SEVERE sanctions against the Russians and outright insane Propaganda from NATO regarding Nuclear War and the consequences.
        Russia has a Massive advantage regarding Millitary power and NATO has a lopsided advantage reguarding The Ability to enforce Propaganda…. But at the end of the day, there will be no Nuclear War (bolton and Putin 2018) and Russia, knowing its Lopsided advantage should not back down under any Circumstances.

        In the Short Term, Russia needs to Just Stand its ground and Suffer everything Nato Throws at it and in the Long term, Stay on the long term Plan of Attrition against the US Dollar, knowing its only a Matter of time before America Falls if it keeps on with its anti Russian Aggression.

        This is not a game that Americans can win.

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          agree on the part, americans can not win. Actually they never win any war beside killing civilians women and children not unlike their zionist handlers.

        • hope springs eternal.

          Agree, but how much more severe can the sanctions be?

          • cortisol

            Any sanctions will do more harm to the issuers than the target in the medium-long term. Also we will see gradually more dissent regarding new sanctions as we have seen develop in the past, marking declining US dollar and more use of local currencies in bilateral trade within Eurasia.

      • Feudalism Victory

        Its a money con game.your thinking too hard. One cold war with these weapons was already done that led to nowhere except economic ruin.

        • Jesus

          That is an oversimplification of the matter, during this Cold War Russia has forged ahead technologically with hypersonic weapons and possibly very effective ABM missile system, while US is treading water. If this keeps up for another decade, MAD will be a thing of the past. US MIC cannot suck up trillions and come short at the end of the day, expecting to support bellicose US foreign policy with military junk.
          The Russians fully know this, and they will implement their goals regardless of all their political elegance.

          • Feudalism Victory

            Guilty of the simplification but hey its a simple post ;)

            Still though I wouldnt bet on russian weapons quantity or quality matching their breathless propoganda about their wonder weapons.

            Absent an honest military confrontation we can never know. And id bet the generals on both sides dont know either and dont want to risk it in case its a blow out.

            I mean hell their antsy about putting modernized s300s vs modernized f16s.

            What a bunch of old ladies.

          • Jesus

            I am ok with simple posts, USSR went bankrupt because of the US Star war defense BS, Russian weapon capabilities are not BS, it is the US weapons capabilities that are BS, and they cannot be obfuscated any longer.
            Do you see F35’s flying against S300 in Syria?
            Do you see any F22’s coming close to S400?
            The list goes on from tactical weapons to strategic weapons.

          • Feudalism Victory

            Brevity is the soul of wit.

          • Sinbad2

            Russia’s/Soviet Union’s real advantage is its free education system.
            If someone has talent, no matter how poor, they get a good education.
            In the US, only the children of the rich get a good education.
            The US might have some great scientists, but if born poor, their intellect is never utilized.
            The decline of America can be traced back to the Vietnam war. Education spending was slashed to pay for the war, and was never restored.

          • Jesus

            My take on the matter is, US scientists are used on money making projects that have little to do with national security. All scientific projects are profit driven and without regard to much else.
            Yes, education quality in the US has declined, there are means where poor kids can study and utilize their intellect, the crux of the matter is societal priorities, and the trend US society is headed to.

          • Sinbad2

            Agreed, but if you’re good at math, and have had to pay a large amount of money to get a degree in mathematics, you will of course accept the best paying job, which in America is a bank.

            But Russia is ahead of the rest of the world in advanced engineering because,

            https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2015/06/20150609_Engineering_Fo.jpg

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          and you think too little. the economical war has been lost for the globalists now they trying to stay afloat. very fast what kept their noses about water giving them some breathing space was the $ been the international trade tool something that very soon will be a thing of the past.

          Stop thinking like a salary man and an employee. For them is all about money and a prime example is the brainless here that speak nothing with out associate it with money.

    • Feudalism Victory

      Im guessing the implementation of intermediate range nukes followed by an expensive standoff of the MAD strategy lining the pockets of the military industrial complex on both sides.

      I see it as a cynical ploy for money and power by both militaries against the people who are hostage too and pay for the tools to hold them so.

      • HardHawk

        if you think they hit Russia and dont pay the heaviest price ever been paid by predator and the scum of the earth then you living in some kind of denial of fact.

        Russia may destroy what is attacking it in Europe but it be a very limited attack on military targets and not population as the scum of the earth UK/Usrael are doing.

        But they will hit all major towns of US for that you must be sure about it as death and taxes are.

    • Ivan Freely
      • HardHawk

        yes and what they use for that? their holywood space ships?

  • Jesus

    US withdrawal from INF and New Start treaties would mean they have to develop weapons making up for current inadequacies, like developing an MRBM they can use in Europe, Pacific and elsewhere.
    The New Start treaty limits the total number of strategic warheads to 1500, with 700 launchers, US might think the 1500 warheads may not be enough against China and Russia combined, again they have to develop new systems (ICBM and bomber) to reach a level they feel comfortable with.

    Considering the US MIC has not produced any new viable weapon system in the last 3 decades and budgetary constraints are always an issue……..it is an uphill climb for the US MIC.

  • Bob

    Meet the Neo-Cons, they want to rush toward large scale conflict and devastation, because they assume it will benefit their special interests. The rest be damned. Basic level sociopathy.

  • Nope

    Russia won’t repeat the mistake of the Sowjetunion. The Russian weaponry are sharp and good enough to destroy US at least 100 times. So why worry! Let the orange clown in the White House play Hitler and spend tons of money US won’t have..

  • R Trojson

    This recognizes the new world order. US and Russia will never invade or attack each other. China is planning to attack Russia not today but in 5-10 years. Just look at all the propaganda driving a wedge between US and Russia. Neither the US or Russia benefit from this. Only China benefits because they will not take over Russia if the US stands in the way. Russia has to violate treaties with US because China has already developed those weapons. Russia must have weapons comparable to China and the ability to defend itself against China.