Missiles in Europe: the United States presented Russia with an ultimatum
According to Interfax, the United States will not comply with obligations under the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) if Russia does not return to full implementation of the agreement within a year, the Pentagon Budget Bill for 2019 financially passed the US Senate year (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 / NDAA - 2019).
- the document says.
- emphasized in the bill.
As it has become familiar recently, the United States intends to find and punish the Russian perpetrators of the INF Treaty violation. Within 120 days after the entry into force of the NDAA - 2019, the President of the United States will have to submit a report with a list of persons responsible for violation of the Treaty by Russia. The report should be open, but it may contain classified applications. And as a result of the report, as usual, sanctions will be imposed.
It is noteworthy that the anger of Washington will fall not only on Moscow, but also on Ankara, although it has nothing to do with the INF Treaty and has never had it.
- noted in the NDAA Bill 2019.
The Russian side, as is known, has a diametrically opposite point of view on what is happening. As follows from the CSTO statement recently adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on the situation with the Treaty on medium and short-range missiles, Russia does not commit any violations.
- noted in the statement on the INF Treaty.
Responsibility for endangering the agreement clearly rests with the US.
- approved in the CSTO document.
The United States, for its part, incriminates Russia as a violation of the INF Treaty, the following circumstances: several facts of flight tests of sea-based cruise missiles (the agreement on sea cruise missiles does not impose any restrictions) from a ground launcher; his conviction that the Iskander complex cruise missile has an actual launch range of "several times more" than the 360 km claimed for by Moscow; technical the possibility of launching Russian ballistic missiles RS-26 Avangard at a range of 2 thousand - 5,5 thousand km, assigned by the Russian side to the class of intercontinental ballistic missiles with a launch range of 6 thousand km.
The situation of mutual accusations of the parties in violation of arms control agreements is not unusual. And during the time of detente in Europe, and during the era of the Reagan and Gorbachev agreements, and after 1991, Washington declared that Moscow did not fully comply with the agreements concluded, and the Kremlin paid the White House with the same coin.
However, as a rule, despite claims against each other, parties to arms control agreements continue to adhere to existing agreements.
An exception was the fate of the ABM Treaty, from which the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2001. Note that at that time Washington did not try to blame Moscow for the missile defense treaty, but motivated its actions by the need to create layered missile defense to intercept ballistic missiles of rogue states - Iran and North Korea.
There is no doubt that in 2019 in Washington they will declare that during the twelve-month period allotted by the US Congress, Russia was not able to return to the INF Treaty, and, therefore, the United States is also not obliged to adhere to the limitations of this agreement.
Note that washington politicians alas, banal selfish interest drives: the only reasonable justification for the American withdrawal from the Treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles is the desire of American corporations to receive multi-billion orders for new classes of weapons.
In the light of significant violations of the INF Treaty by the Russian Federation, the United States has legal grounds to suspend the INF Treaty in full or in part until the Russian Federation continues to substantially violate the provisions of the INF Treaty
- the document says.
Unless the President confirms to the relevant congressional committees that the Russian Federation has returned to full and verifiable compliance with the INF Treaty within one year of the entry into force of this law, the restrictions imposed by Article 6 of the INF Treaty will no longer be mandatory for the United States in accordance with US law
- emphasized in the bill.
As it has become familiar recently, the United States intends to find and punish the Russian perpetrators of the INF Treaty violation. Within 120 days after the entry into force of the NDAA - 2019, the President of the United States will have to submit a report with a list of persons responsible for violation of the Treaty by Russia. The report should be open, but it may contain classified applications. And as a result of the report, as usual, sanctions will be imposed.
It is noteworthy that the anger of Washington will fall not only on Moscow, but also on Ankara, although it has nothing to do with the INF Treaty and has never had it.
If the Republic of Turkey purchases S-400 air defense systems from the Russian Federation, such a purchase would constitute a major transaction falling under section 231 (a) of the American Counter-Enemy Act [CAATSA], and the president would have to apply this law in good faith by introducing and the application of sanctions against any natural or legal person who will be involved in such a major transaction
- noted in the NDAA Bill 2019.
The Russian side, as is known, has a diametrically opposite point of view on what is happening. As follows from the CSTO statement recently adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on the situation with the Treaty on medium and short-range missiles, Russia does not commit any violations.
The CSTO member states note with satisfaction that the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, which are parties to the agreement, remain fully committed to this agreement.
- noted in the statement on the INF Treaty.
Responsibility for endangering the agreement clearly rests with the US.
This applies, in particular, to specific US military programs carried out without taking into account obligations under the treaty and including the production and use of target missiles and attack unmanned aerial vehicles, the production and deployment of universal ground-based missile launchers; R&D (research and development work) on the creation of a mobile ground-based missile system with a range of 500 to 5,5 thousand km prohibited by the INF Treaty is also of concern.
- approved in the CSTO document.
The United States, for its part, incriminates Russia as a violation of the INF Treaty, the following circumstances: several facts of flight tests of sea-based cruise missiles (the agreement on sea cruise missiles does not impose any restrictions) from a ground launcher; his conviction that the Iskander complex cruise missile has an actual launch range of "several times more" than the 360 km claimed for by Moscow; technical the possibility of launching Russian ballistic missiles RS-26 Avangard at a range of 2 thousand - 5,5 thousand km, assigned by the Russian side to the class of intercontinental ballistic missiles with a launch range of 6 thousand km.
The situation of mutual accusations of the parties in violation of arms control agreements is not unusual. And during the time of detente in Europe, and during the era of the Reagan and Gorbachev agreements, and after 1991, Washington declared that Moscow did not fully comply with the agreements concluded, and the Kremlin paid the White House with the same coin.
However, as a rule, despite claims against each other, parties to arms control agreements continue to adhere to existing agreements.
An exception was the fate of the ABM Treaty, from which the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2001. Note that at that time Washington did not try to blame Moscow for the missile defense treaty, but motivated its actions by the need to create layered missile defense to intercept ballistic missiles of rogue states - Iran and North Korea.
There is no doubt that in 2019 in Washington they will declare that during the twelve-month period allotted by the US Congress, Russia was not able to return to the INF Treaty, and, therefore, the United States is also not obliged to adhere to the limitations of this agreement.
Note that washington politicians alas, banal selfish interest drives: the only reasonable justification for the American withdrawal from the Treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles is the desire of American corporations to receive multi-billion orders for new classes of weapons.
Information