Destruction of arms control : US and Russia formally suspend INF

[Westphalian]

Yesterday the US, today Russia.

Who benefits?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47101429


Russia has suspended its involvement in the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) following a similar decision by the US. President Vladimir Putin said Russian would start developing new missiles. On Friday, the US, which has long accused Russia of violating the treaty, formally announced it was suspending its obligations under the agreement.

Signed in 1987 by the US and USSR, it banned the use of short and medium-range missiles by both countries."Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. "All of our proposals in this sphere, as before, remain on the table, the doors for talks are open," he added.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yesterday the US, today Russia.

Who benefits?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47101429


Russia has suspended its involvement in the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) following a similar decision by the US. President Vladimir Putin said Russian would start developing new missiles. On Friday, the US, which has long accused Russia of violating the treaty, formally announced it was suspending its obligations under the agreement.

Signed in 1987 by the US and USSR, it banned the use of short and medium-range missiles by both countries."Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. "All of our proposals in this sphere, as before, remain on the table, the doors for talks are open," he added.

Europe will put up with it just fine as long as Putin keeps the gas flowing.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yesterday the US, today Russia.

Who benefits?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47101429


Russia has suspended its involvement in the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) following a similar decision by the US. President Vladimir Putin said Russian would start developing new missiles. On Friday, the US, which has long accused Russia of violating the treaty, formally announced it was suspending its obligations under the agreement.

Signed in 1987 by the US and USSR, it banned the use of short and medium-range missiles by both countries."Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. "All of our proposals in this sphere, as before, remain on the table, the doors for talks are open," he added.

Are we then to just skip over the matter of did or did not Russia violate the deal wholesale thus it has not existed for sometime?

 

[tecoyah]

Russia has violated this treaty for years and made it something of a joke anyway....I suppose it can be a good thing to finally call them out on it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Gosh, tremendous leadership by Trump, Pence, Bolton & Pompeo! TPBP

 

[Westphalian]

The Treaty has played a key role in increasing European security by eliminating a whole class of weapons. Its destruction opens the possibility of the reverse.


If people were knowledgeable, they would recognise that both parties have accused the other of violations. The real question is why the US is uninterested in discussions whereby both parties could resolve their concerns.

Then comes the question of the extension of New Start in 2021. If that goes the same way as INF then virtually the entire post Cold War arms control regime will have been dismantled. That's going to be a big net negative for most people living in a world which is de-stabilising fairly rapidly.

 

[Westphalian]

Are we then to just skip over the matter of did or did not Russia violate the deal wholesale thus it has not existed for sometime?

I've posted detailed independent analysis elsewhere. Both parties accuse the other of violations, and a one sided blaming of Russia (because yeah, we know in WMSM that Russia is bad and the US is good) is not consistent with the reality of this analysis.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yesterday the US, today Russia.

Who benefits?

Actually, it makes very little difference. It must be remembered, this is just 1 of a great many treaties.

The INF treaty was primarily concerned with eliminating both land based cruise missiles, and short to medium range land based ballistic missiles. And while Russia has been interested in returning some updated systems into service, the US has not been as interested in doing this.

Yes, the Russians have keep the GRAU 3K12 "SLINGSHOT" system in continual testing since the treaty was first signed. But the treaty did not eliminate testing, simply in placing into active service. And like the TOMAHAWK, it is a cruise missile system.

However, the difference here really is about actions and intents. The Russians have been actively working on a GLCM system since before the treaty was made, and continued it afterwards. While they decommissioned all GLCM systems when the INF treaty was enacted, they never stopped working on the system. And they have been actively deployed since 2017.

The US on the other hand has not even researched them for decades.

However, do not expect either side to go out now and rush to replace their old IRBM and SRBM systems (Iskander is kind of a strange hybrid system). I have talked to several of my ABM friends about this, and we generally agree that eventually a new treaty will be agreed upon, which will allow the existence of GLCM and other ballistic systems, so long as they remain conventional and are not nuclear systems. That was always the largest worry that led to the creating of the INF treaty in the first place. That both sides had cruise and ballistic systems which were both nuclear and conventionally armed. Which literally meant that the targeted country could never know which variant was launched until it detonated.

Therefore any use would likely see a nuclear response.

So long as that does not happen this time, I honestly do not see much of an issue.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I've posted detailed independent analysis elsewhere. Both parties accuse the other of violations, and a one sided blaming of Russia (because yeah, we know in WMSM that Russia is bad and the US is good) is not consistent with the reality of this analysis.

The main difference is that the accusations of one side are generally technical (target missiles, drone systems), while the other is actively deploying systems which specifically violate the treaty.

Such as the claim that the HERA test rocket that the US uses to test PATRIOT and THAAD is in violation. Even though it fully complies with all aspects of the INF treaty. They are launched from an open gantry ground based launcher, from a designated and recognized testing center, and are only used to test other missile systems. All of which are specifically allowed under all arms limitation treaties, but the Russians protest anyways.

Here is the problem with their complaint of the HERA rocket:

I present in evidence, the INF treaty. Article VII, Paragraph 12:

12. Each Party shall have the right to produce and use for booster systems, which might otherwise be considered to be intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles, only existing types of booster stages for such booster systems. Launches of such booster systems shall not be considered to be flight-testing of intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles provided that:

(a) stages used in such booster systems are different from stages used in those missiles listed as existing types of intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles in Article III of this Treaty;

(b) such booster systems are used only for research and development purposes to test objects other than the booster systems themselves;

(c) the aggregate number of launchers for such booster systems shall not exceed 35 for each Party at any one time; and

(d) the launchers for such booster systems are fixed, emplaced above ground and located only at research and development launch sites which are specified in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Research and development launch sites shall not be subject to inspection pursuant to Article XI of this Treaty.

The HERA complies with all of those specifications of the INF treaty, yet they still complain about it.

And if anybody is actually curious about what the HERA launch location looks like, here it is:

https://www.google.com/maps/search/...nge/@32.401776,-106.377787,142m/data=!3m1!1e3

It is very obviously a fixed, above-ground location without an enclosed gantry.

WSMR is really a fascinating place, and a person could spend hours exploring there from Google Maps. I used to drive by that location all the time, as well as the USS Desert Ship (LLS-1), which is another missile testing building that is used to test systems that are "technically" in violation of various treaties because it is a "fixed ground location". But because WSMR is a designated testing location they are excluded.

 

[Casper]

Yesterday the US, today Russia.

Who benefits?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47101429


Russia has suspended its involvement in the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) following a similar decision by the US. President Vladimir Putin said Russian would start developing new missiles. On Friday, the US, which has long accused Russia of violating the treaty, formally announced it was suspending its obligations under the agreement.

Signed in 1987 by the US and USSR, it banned the use of short and medium-range missiles by both countries."Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. "All of our proposals in this sphere, as before, remain on the table, the doors for talks are open," he added.

Do you feel safer???

 

[Rogue Valley]

Putin won't be upset. He spoke against the INF Treaty in 2007 and complaining that no other nations had joined.....

“We need to convince other (countries) to assume the same level of obligation as assumed by the Russian Federation and the United States,” Putin said. “If we are unable to obtain such a goal ... it will be difficult for us to keep within the framework of the treaty in a situation where other countries do develop such weapon systems, and among those are countries located in our near vicinity.”

Putin spoke out against it again in 2016 along the same lines.....

Q: Does Russia see any value in this treaty, and if yes, then what exactly? Is it even worthwhile to be part of this treaty?

Vladimir Putin: "It would be of great value to us, if other countries followed Russia and the United States. Here’s what we have: the naïve former Russian leadership went ahead and eliminated intermediate-range land-based missiles. The Americans eliminated their Pershing missiles, while we scrapped the SS-20 missiles. There was a tragic event associated with this when the chief designer of these systems committed suicide believing that it was a betrayal of national interests and unilateral disarmament. Why unilateral? Because under that treaty we eliminated our ground complex, but the treaty did not include medium-range sea- and air-based missiles. Air- and sea-based missiles were not affected by it. The Soviet Union simply did not have them, while the United States kept them in service."

"What we ultimately got was a clear imbalance: the United States has kept its medium-range missiles. It does not matter whether they are based at sea, in the air, or on land; however, the Soviet Union was simply left without this type of weapons. Almost all of our neighbors make such weapons, including the countries to the east of our borders, and Middle Eastern countries as well, whereas none of the countries sharing borders with the United States, neither Canada nor Mexico, manufacture such weapons. So, for us it is a special test, but nevertheless we believe it is necessary to honor this treaty. All the more so since, as you may be aware, we now also have medium-range sea- and air-based missiles."

Despite the garbage propaganda emanating from the Kremlin and its trolls, Putin is certainly not upset to have the INF Treaty disappear.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Putin won't be upset. He spoke against the INF Treaty in 2007 and complaining that no other nations had joined.....

Which is nonsensical because the treaty was only between the US and USSR, and no other countries took part in the negotiations. And at any time in the last 30+ years the Soviets-Russians could have tried to get other nations to join in the treaty, or to bring it up in the UN for expansion to other nations.

I might take this at least a little bit seriously if say the Russians had tried to get China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation on board. But they have not tried that at all, so it is as meaningful as smoke.

But they have never done that, so it is a moot point. Complaining that no other nations joined when they themselves did nothing to do that is a failure of an explanation.

Maybe if they were serious about this claim, they would not have spent the last 30 years selling SCUD missiles and their technology to various other nations. Or using their SRBM in many of their recent conflicts, including Chechnya and South Ossetia. After all, the US actually did eliminate all vertically launched high trajectory ballistic missiles in their inventory that were of Intermediate range or less. The Soviets-Russians only eliminated those that they thought they did not need (and continued to design and field new ones).

 

[Rogue Valley]

Which is nonsensical because the treaty was only between the US and USSR, and no other countries took part in the negotiations. And at any time in the last 30+ years the Soviets-Russians could have tried to get other nations to join in the treaty, or to bring it up in the UN for expansion to other nations.

I might take this at least a little bit seriously if say the Russians had tried to get China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation on board. But they have not tried that at all, so it is as meaningful as smoke.

But they have never done that, so it is a moot point. Complaining that no other nations joined when they themselves did nothing to do that is a failure of an explanation.

Maybe if they were serious about this claim, they would not have spent the last 30 years selling SCUD missiles and their technology to various other nations. Or using their SRBM in many of their recent conflicts, including Chechnya and South Ossetia. After all, the US actually did eliminate all vertically launched high trajectory ballistic missiles in their inventory that were of Intermediate range or less. The Soviets-Russians only eliminated those that they thought they did not need (and continued to design and field new ones).

Oh I agree. Was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Putin and his crocodile tears on February 1.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russia's illegal 9M729 cruise missile at the military Patriot Park outside Moscow.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Russia's illegal 9M729 cruise missile at the military Patriot Park outside Moscow.

In regards to the INF Treaty, it is not the missile so much that violates the treaty, but where it is launched from.

The Rk-55 "Relief" (SSC-X-4 "Slingshot") is just another cruise missile. And that class of missiles are not of themselves prohibited by the INF. After all, the US still uses the Tomahawk in both air, sea, and sub-surface launched configurations. But under the INF, both sides agreed to remove all of their land based cruise missiles (excluding those used for anti-ship warfare). The last was not really for their own domestic use, but because both nations exported those missiles (like the US HARPOON) to other nations that might want to base them on land.

And technically, the HARPOON is a Cruise Missile. It is an ABT (Air Breathing Target) that flies in a flat trajectory from it's launching point to it's destination.

As for the SLINGSHOT, the land based version was cancelled when the INF treaty went into effect, and all research was then moved towards the submarine version. But in 2017 it was discovered that the missiles had been incorporated in a land based version as part of the ISKANDER missile system. Primarily as a land targeting ballistic launched cruise missile (2 INF violations in one) intended to target facilities like the "Aegis Ashore" sites in Romania and Poland.

INF does not actually eliminate "Ballistic Missiles" themselves, technically that would prohibit even systems like PATRIOT and THAAD. What it eliminated was ballistic missiles which are intended to target locations on the land (as opposed to a ballistic missile that targets an aircraft or another missile). Since the target of those "ballistic missiles" is not on land, they are excluded.

 

[Westphalian]

Oh I agree. Was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Putin and his crocodile tears on February 1.

It's not crocodile tears since INF was a pillar of European security. Witness that some of your European satellites lament the INF's destruction.


It is true that I shed no tears about this since it dis-advantaged Russia and its ability to deter European invasion. Meanwhile the US also believes that it dis-advantages Washington vis a vis China in the Pacific, and it is the US which has finally killed INF.


Why you can't be honest is beyond me. Your propaganda fools few.

 

[Rogue Valley]

In regards to the INF Treaty, it is not the missile so much that violates the treaty, but where it is launched from.

The Rk-55 "Relief" (SSC-X-4 "Slingshot") is just another cruise missile. And that class of missiles are not of themselves prohibited by the INF. After all, the US still uses the Tomahawk in both air, sea, and sub-surface launched configurations. But under the INF, both sides agreed to remove all of their land based cruise missiles (excluding those used for anti-ship warfare). The last was not really for their own domestic use, but because both nations exported those missiles (like the US HARPOON) to other nations that might want to base them on land.

And technically, the HARPOON is a Cruise Missile. It is an ABT (Air Breathing Target) that flies in a flat trajectory from it's launching point to it's destination.

As for the SLINGSHOT, the land based version was cancelled when the INF treaty went into effect, and all research was then moved towards the submarine version. But in 2017 it was discovered that the missiles had been incorporated in a land based version as part of the ISKANDER missile system. Primarily as a land targeting ballistic launched cruise missile (2 INF violations in one) intended to target facilities like the "Aegis Ashore" sites in Romania and Poland.

INF does not actually eliminate "Ballistic Missiles" themselves, technically that would prohibit even systems like PATRIOT and THAAD. What it eliminated was ballistic missiles which are intended to target locations on the land (as opposed to a ballistic missile that targets an aircraft or another missile). Since the target of those "ballistic missiles" is not on land, they are excluded.

The US and NATO maintain that the Russian land-based mobile launched SSC-8 (Novator 9M729) is in violation of the INF Treaty due to a treaty range violation.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The US and NATO maintain that the Russian land-based mobile launched SSC-8 (Novator 9M729) is in violation of the INF Treaty due to a treaty range violation.

Plus the fact that it is a land based cruise missile. Range does not matter worth a damn at that point. All land attack cruise missiles launched from the ground were banned, regardless of range (the only exclusion being sea based missiles).

What Russia tried to do was basically like the US returning to the land based Tomahawk system, and saying that we are going to use it to attack missiles and aircraft. So ignore the fact that all of the other missiles in this class were designed to attack ground targets.

And it is obvious that they had been working at this for a great many years. Nobody goes from concept to deployment phase in the few years since the US left the INF treaty. Obviously they were going to violate it themselves, their claim was only a fait accompli.

 

[Westphalian]

Russia has offered inspection of the 9M729 in return for reciprocal talks over the Mk41 launchers.

Our American friends on this forum studiously ignore the Mk 41 for reasons that are obvious.

Either way, the US has killed INF. The question is whether the European satellites are quite so grateful, since it is they who will be expected to host US land based missiles, and it is they who will suffer the security dilemma which the destruction of INF exacerbates.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Russia has offered inspection of the 9M729 in return for reciprocal talks over the Mk41 launchers.

The Mk41 is a sea based air defense system, and is therefore specifically excluded from the INF treaty. The INF relates to ground based systems designed to target land targets. Even the ground based versions are excluded since it is an air defense system.

If they were serious about this and not just using this for a political game, they would simply ask that we allow the installation of a device that prohibits the launching of TOMAHAWK missiles. That is the only possible issue they might have in regards to the system. But this is an issue with the missiles possibly used, not the launcher itself.

So it does not matter at all what Russia may want, it does not apply.

Might as well try to claim that the US wanted to inspect Japanese aircraft in 1936, because it was concerned about their upholding the Washington Naval Treaty. That makes as much sense as what you just said.