USA: It's time for Russians to answer for their invulnerable Iskander
As reported today, Interfax and RIA News, US President Donald Trump instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to prepare a plan to introduce additional sanctions against Russia in connection with the alleged violation by Russia of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).
- stated in the order of Donald trump to Mike Pompeo.
It is about providing the committees of the US Congress with a report with a plan to introduce measures against those responsible for Russia's non-compliance with the INF Treaty, including high-ranking political persons of the government of the Russian Federation dealing with foreign policy issues.
The following are listed as measures in the relevant section of the US military budget law for fiscal year 2018: blocking any transactions related to property in the US; the ban on entry into the United States and the inability to obtain a visa or other documents for entry, the cancellation of existing visas; as well as other sanctions that the president deems appropriate.
As you know, the discussion on compliance with the INF Treaty has been going on for a long time. The United States claims that Russian Iskander missile systems, in particular those deployed in the Kaliningrad Region, as well as weapons, videos of which were presented in the Message from Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly in 2018, indicate a violation of the INF Treaty by Russia. As the Russian side is also well aware, neither Iskander nor the new missile weapons systems announced by the President of Russia are a violation of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.
At the same time, Russia criticizes the U.S. deployment of Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems in Romania and plans to deploy such systems in Japan, as the universal launcher allows it to deploy both anti-missiles and ground-based cruise missiles prohibited by the INF Treaty.
Recall that according to the INF Treaty, signed in December 1987, the USA and the USSR eliminated all ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a flight range of 500 - 5500 kilometers, and pledged to continue not to produce or deploy such missile systems.
If you start from the factual side of the matter, the actions of Donald Trump are devoid of any meaning and reasonable justification. However, in the policy of the current US administration towards Russia, a fairly clear logic is visible, only you need to understand that this logic and politics are more for internal use than for external use.
Simply put, the aggravation of the conflict with Russia is not so much because the Russian Federation has done something that is very contrary to the interests of the United States, but because it is demanded by the domestic political interests of the American administration.
Despite the collapse of the bipolar world in 1991, after the collapse of the USSR, the United States kept the confrontational approach to international relations unchanged. The role of the external enemy, which was previously played by the Soviet Union, was “delegated” to the so-called rogue regimes - Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. This collective external enemy, although it did not look as impressive as the USSR, more or less coped with its role in the eyes of Washington, who interpreted the actions of these countries to strengthen their defense capabilities as undermining international security and threatening peace, a good reason for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty , etc.
However, by 2017-2018, the rogue regimes, as they say, are “over”. Iran carried out a nuclear deal (the so-called JCPOA) and came close to the moment when US sanctions were to be lifted and its holdings unfrozen, and with regard to the DPRK, it was clear that the North Koreans were about to enter into dialogue with the South Koreans, and then with the USA, which, in fact, is happening now.
In August 2017, Russia was appointed to the role of the new rogue regime by the US Law on Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions (CAATSA). For almost a year that has passed since then, it has become quite obvious that any actions of the Russian Federation will continue to be interpreted by the current US administration as hostile, and will provoke appropriate opposition and pressure.
So to speak, “in reserve”, the United States left Iran outcasts, having unilaterally left the JCPOA and announced the imminent restoration of sanctions against Iran, despite the protests of five international mediators (Russia, Great Britain, China, France, Germany).
Note that at present only the USA professes an openly confrontational approach in international relations, dating back to the dark and bloody period of the struggle of the anti-Hitler coalition and the countries of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis. Even the US's European partners in NATO pursue a more realistic and balanced foreign policy.
Recall also that earlier, until 1939-1945, confrontation was not the main characteristic in relations between the leading world powers. Of course, relations between the great powers of the past were never completely cloudless, but the main tendency was always dialogue, compromise, negotiation and balance of power.
I am delegating to the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of National Intelligence, the powers that the president has in accordance with section 1244 (C), paragraphs 1-4 of the US military budget law for fiscal year 2018. "
- stated in the order of Donald trump to Mike Pompeo.
It is about providing the committees of the US Congress with a report with a plan to introduce measures against those responsible for Russia's non-compliance with the INF Treaty, including high-ranking political persons of the government of the Russian Federation dealing with foreign policy issues.
The following are listed as measures in the relevant section of the US military budget law for fiscal year 2018: blocking any transactions related to property in the US; the ban on entry into the United States and the inability to obtain a visa or other documents for entry, the cancellation of existing visas; as well as other sanctions that the president deems appropriate.
As you know, the discussion on compliance with the INF Treaty has been going on for a long time. The United States claims that Russian Iskander missile systems, in particular those deployed in the Kaliningrad Region, as well as weapons, videos of which were presented in the Message from Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly in 2018, indicate a violation of the INF Treaty by Russia. As the Russian side is also well aware, neither Iskander nor the new missile weapons systems announced by the President of Russia are a violation of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.
At the same time, Russia criticizes the U.S. deployment of Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems in Romania and plans to deploy such systems in Japan, as the universal launcher allows it to deploy both anti-missiles and ground-based cruise missiles prohibited by the INF Treaty.
Recall that according to the INF Treaty, signed in December 1987, the USA and the USSR eliminated all ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a flight range of 500 - 5500 kilometers, and pledged to continue not to produce or deploy such missile systems.
If you start from the factual side of the matter, the actions of Donald Trump are devoid of any meaning and reasonable justification. However, in the policy of the current US administration towards Russia, a fairly clear logic is visible, only you need to understand that this logic and politics are more for internal use than for external use.
Simply put, the aggravation of the conflict with Russia is not so much because the Russian Federation has done something that is very contrary to the interests of the United States, but because it is demanded by the domestic political interests of the American administration.
Despite the collapse of the bipolar world in 1991, after the collapse of the USSR, the United States kept the confrontational approach to international relations unchanged. The role of the external enemy, which was previously played by the Soviet Union, was “delegated” to the so-called rogue regimes - Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. This collective external enemy, although it did not look as impressive as the USSR, more or less coped with its role in the eyes of Washington, who interpreted the actions of these countries to strengthen their defense capabilities as undermining international security and threatening peace, a good reason for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty , etc.
However, by 2017-2018, the rogue regimes, as they say, are “over”. Iran carried out a nuclear deal (the so-called JCPOA) and came close to the moment when US sanctions were to be lifted and its holdings unfrozen, and with regard to the DPRK, it was clear that the North Koreans were about to enter into dialogue with the South Koreans, and then with the USA, which, in fact, is happening now.
In August 2017, Russia was appointed to the role of the new rogue regime by the US Law on Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions (CAATSA). For almost a year that has passed since then, it has become quite obvious that any actions of the Russian Federation will continue to be interpreted by the current US administration as hostile, and will provoke appropriate opposition and pressure.
So to speak, “in reserve”, the United States left Iran outcasts, having unilaterally left the JCPOA and announced the imminent restoration of sanctions against Iran, despite the protests of five international mediators (Russia, Great Britain, China, France, Germany).
Note that at present only the USA professes an openly confrontational approach in international relations, dating back to the dark and bloody period of the struggle of the anti-Hitler coalition and the countries of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis. Even the US's European partners in NATO pursue a more realistic and balanced foreign policy.
Recall also that earlier, until 1939-1945, confrontation was not the main characteristic in relations between the leading world powers. Of course, relations between the great powers of the past were never completely cloudless, but the main tendency was always dialogue, compromise, negotiation and balance of power.
Information