Vladimir Kozin, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and the Russian Aca US steadily moving towards withdrawal from INF Treaty / SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization

The website has been created with the financial assistance

of the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications

of the Russian Federation

Make Infoshos my homepageContact usAdd to FavoritesHome
 
-
Member States:
19:04Astana
19:04Bishkek
18:34Delhi
21:04Beijing
17:04Moscow
18:04Islamabad
18:04Dushanbe
18:04Tashkent
Observer States:
17:34Tehran
16:04Minsk
21:04Ulan-Bator
17:34Kabul
::
17:34Yerevan
18:34Katmandu
16:04Ankara
20:04Phnom Penh
18:34Sri Dzhayavardenepura Kotte

SCO Currencies/Ruble

 
 
Country Code Currency Den. Rate
 
 

The official rate of the Central Bank of Russia

News

09.12.2019 18:17
Pakistan Army Rejects Reports of Joint Border Patrols with Iran
09.12.2019 15:05
Uzbekistan plans to chair SCO in 2022
03.12.2019 18:25
Kashmirs Special Status, a Mess Created by Congress, Says Prime Minister Modi
03.12.2019 18:21
India Claims Terrorist Violence Declined, Cross Border Infiltration Rises After Kashmir Action
02.12.2019 18:19
Chinese Sanctions to Take Effect Against US Human Rights Watch For Backing Violence in Hong Kong
27.11.2019 17:10
Nepal Seeks Full Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Membership Foreign Minister
26.11.2019 15:21
Iran Eyes Closer Scientific Interaction with SCO
28.10.2019 17:39
Chinese premier to visit Uzbekistan, Thailand
26.09.2019 14:42
Turkeys Excuse: Erdogan Chases for Uighurs in Syria
23.09.2019 17:45
Cooperation Across the Continent: How Russian-Chinese Relations Evolved in Recent Years
 
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     
US steadily moving towards withdrawal from INF Treaty
22.04.2019 13:43 Vladimir Kozin, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and the Russian Aca

Having officially declared suspension of its participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 (the INF Treaty) in early February and full withdrawal from August 2, 2019, the United States continues its unilaterally launched process of severance of the important document, which made it possible to eliminate two classes of intermediate- and short-range nuclear missiles by summer 1991.

Earlier, it seemed that the Treaty suited Washington in all aspects. Of course it did. Under its terms, the Soviet Union destroyed two times more nuclear missile carriers than the United States. But now the White House has a totally different scenario in mind.

It claims the reason for its withdrawal from the INF Treaty is Russias failure to observe it, allegedly by design and deployment of a new land-based cruise missile, 9M729.

But America has been unable to provide any proof of that so far. Despite that, it has not been satisfied with numerous explanations Moscow has given to Washington in the last five years during about 30 official consultations with US government officials.

The United States has long rejected Russian initiatives aimed at settling complaints in the context of execution of the 1987 treaty via mutual transparency measures. Washington is not willing to continue the dialog, but has decided to present the Russian party with an ultimatum, of an odd format and unacceptable content, demanding destruction of 9M729 cruise missiles.

It is fair to ask: has the US party not violated the INF Treaty itself? Facts, being stubborn things, say that it has. And not once.

In the last almost 20 years, the Pentagon has used intermediate- and short-range target missiles 117 times when checking the efficiency of its global missile defense system. These were six new versions of target missiles, specifically developed by the United States to simultaneously pursue two goals: testing GMD interceptor missiles and also intermediate- and short-range missiles.

The first use of interceptor missiles of the anti-missile shield by the US military for intercepting short-range target missiles that fall under the terms of the Treaty is dated October 2, 1999, i.e. almost 20 years ago.

To put it briefly, the United States actually and unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty long ago. Then what are the true reasons for its withdrawal from it now, if it has so far been unable to prove its breach by the Russian Federation?

It seems that the US Administration had several motives to do so.

First. The US wants to create and deploy new types of road-mobile cruise and ballistic intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe, Asia and Asia Pacific in order to contain the alleged Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean threat.

Second. Washington intends to repeat the dangerous situation created by NATOs double decision adopted in December 1979, when the alliance gave a green light to storing 846 US intermediate-range nuclear missiles in some European countries, which resulted in an extremely intense nuclear crisis between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union.

Third. The US wants to get Russias consent to unilaterally destroy some new ballistic and cruise missiles of the short, intermediate and intercontinental range, and future hypersonic systems that do not fall within the scope of the 1987 Treaty only in order to prevent Washington from withdrawing from the Treaty.

Fourth. Initiating withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the US military and political leaders are trying to get China engaged in a renewed dialog on restrictions of intermediate- and short-range missiles, in which it does not want to participate.

Fifth. Artificially escalating the situation with nuclear missiles, the White House would like to put pressure on its NATO allies, getting them to increase their military spending to 2% of their respective GDPs and later to 4%.

Obviously, the breakup of the INF Treaty will have most negative consequences for international security and global stability. It may trigger an arms race in several areas, such as nuclear missiles, missile defense and outer space. The entire system of arms control, where Washington already has a negative attitude about the twelve agreements and treaties signed earlier or proposed as international projects, will be eroded further. This may also jeopardize the non-proliferation regime and prospects of further restrictions of nuclear weapons.

But the United States does not seem to worry about these prospects. And this is sad. In such circumstances, Washington and its NATO allies are solely responsible for the aggravation of the international situation.

  • Add Comment
  • Print

Leave a comment

*
*
*
 

More

Kashmirs Special Status, a Mess Created by Congress, Says Prime Minister Modi
03.12.2019 18:25
India Claims Terrorist Violence Declined, Cross Border Infiltration Rises After Kashmir Action
03.12.2019 18:21
Chinese Sanctions to Take Effect Against US Human Rights Watch For Backing Violence in Hong Kong
02.12.2019 18:19
Turkeys Excuse: Erdogan Chases for Uighurs in Syria
26.09.2019 14:42
Belarusian President Offers to Launch Joint Anti-Terror Effort of UN, EU, CSTO, CIS, SCO
04.09.2019 14:53
Battle for Idlib continues
04.06.2019 15:47
SCO Secretary-Generals speech at the high-level international conference International and Regional Cooperation on Countering Terrorism and Its Finan
20.05.2019 18:28
Kommersant: SCO members deem terrorism as major threat
17.05.2019 10:37
Need For Stronger SCO Role Against Terrorism
25.04.2019 10:40
CIS border guard chiefs meet in Uzbek capital 27 years later
22.04.2019 13:49

Comments(0)

.