The USA’s Withdrawal from the INF Treaty

Geopolitical Reasons and Possible Consequences

Formation of the new multi-polar model of the world system, which has developed over the past years, is accompanied by global changes in the entire system of international relations. In this regard, the most critical issue is the actual destruction of a set of mutual obligations of the United States and Russia (as the successor to the former USSR) in the nuclear-missile sphere, which provided strategic security in the world.

In particular, such obligations were determined by a number of US-Soviet and US-Russian agreements in offensive and defensive nuclear-missile systems, which included: the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty); Treaty on Their Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty); Agreements on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START 1, 2, 3).

 

The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. Signed on 26 May 1972, between the USSR and the United States. The term of the agreement was not limited, but it could be terminated by any of the parties at any moment. The agreement fixed the mutual obligations of the USSR and the USA to give up creation, testing and deployment of ship or airborne, space, or ground-mobile systems or components of missile defense to intercept strategic ballistic missiles. Each of the parties could have no more than two missile defense sites with the radius of 150 km. Proceeding from this, such sites were created: in the USSR — around Moscow; in the USA — around the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) base Grand Forks in North Dakota.

 

The INF Treaty. Was signed by the leaders of the USSR and the USA on 8 December 1987 and came into force on 1 June 1988. The agreement forbade the parties to have ground-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 km.

Under the Treaty, the USSR had to eliminate its “Pioneer”, R-12 and R-14, RK-55 ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM), and OTR-22 and OTR-23 (Oka) shorter-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs); the USA had to eliminate its “Pershing-II” ICBMs, BGM-109G GLCMs and “Pershing- IA”SRBMs.

Within the framework of the implementation of the Treaty, by June 1 1991, 1,846 missiles, 825 launchers and 812 missile warheads were destroyed on the territory of Russia and the former Soviet republics; in the USA — 846 missiles, 289 launchers and 442 missile warheads.

 

The START agreements. The START-1 Treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 by the Presidents of the USSR and the United States. It provided for the parity between the strategic nuclear forces of both the parties at the level, about 30 % lower than the initial deployed forces. At present, the START-3 agreement (signed between Russia and the United States in 2011) is in force and provides for each party’s reduction of the deployed strategic missiles to 700, and the number of nuclear warheads — to 1,550. The agreement expires in 2021.

 

Despite the importance of the aforementioned agreements, today they have actually lost their significance as guarantors of maintaining a strategic balance of power in the world. The reason for this is the emergence of new centers of power at the world and regional levels, which increase their own nuclear-missile potentials, without regard to any agreements between the United States and Russia. Besides, the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies allows other countries (totalitarian aggressive regimes included) to obtain weapons of mass destruction and means of its delivery. All this became an impetus for the actual elimination of the world system of collective security that had existed before.

 

The process was started by the United States in December 2001 within the framework of its unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Based on this decision, it began the construction of SM-3 Block IB anti-missile complexes of the US/NATO missile defense system in Romania and Poland and modernization of existing bases and objects of the US missile defense, including in Alaska, California and the United Kingdom. Besides, in certain areas, including the Mediterranean, Black (rotationally), the North and Baltic Seas, US Navy ships were deployed equipped with Aegis Combat Systems.

US missile defense base in Romania A destroyer of the US Navy with the Aegis system
US missile defense base in Romania A destroyer of the US Navy with the Aegis system

According to Washington, the necessity for this was caused by Iran and DPRK’s steps to create nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the territory of the US allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as US objects in the mentioned regions.

 

The USA’s unilateral missile defense measures were perceived by Russia as being aimed at increasing the capability of intercepting Russian ICBMs, and therefore violating the balance of power between the parties. According to Moscow, on the bases of missile defense in Romania and Poland, the United States can deploy medium-range ballistic missiles that will threaten the entire European part of Russia. Proceeding from this, the Russian leadership began implementing a set of measures in response to prevent the possibility the USA’s superiority over Russia.

“Iskander-M” TBMS
“Iskander-M” TBMS

First of all, such measures included the development and adoption of “Iskander-M” tactical ballistic missile systems (TBMS) capable of breaking through the US/NATO missile defense and striking at its bases in Europe. By 2017, all missile brigades of the army subordination from the Western and Southern military districts of the RF Armed Forces, as well as the coastal forces of the Baltic Fleet in the territory of Kaliningrad region of Russia, had been armed with new systems. At the moment, they are considering deployment of the “Iskander-M” TBMSs in the occupied Crimea. This threatens the base of the US/NATO missile defense base in Poland and may create a threat to the missile defense base in Romania. At the same time, a network of warehouses to store tactical warheads intended for the equipment of the “Iskander-M” and the front bombers was constructed or restored in the western part of Russia (including in Kaliningrad region and the occupied Crimea).

In addition, according to US intelligence, Russia has developed and supplied to the troops for equipping “Iskander-M” systems a new cruise missile 9M729 (SSC-8) “Novator”, created on the basis of the 3M-54 “Kalibr” sea-launched cruise missile. The new cruise missile’s range is from 500 to 5,500 km and can strike targets with high-precision.

According to statements by some Russian politicians, Russia can also resume work on the development of compact solid-fuel ICBM 15Zh59 “Kurier” (according to NATO classification — SS-X-26). The estimated range of the new ICBM is 10–11 thousand km, but according to its mass-dimensional characteristics (length — 11.2 m, maximum diameter — 1.36 m, weight — 17 tons), it is similar to the TBMS and can have the same level of maneuverability.

At the same time, Russia has intensified its efforts to create a national missile defense by modernizing and building up the A-135 missile defense system of Moscow and the central industrial area to the A-235 version. The wide-range system will include long- and medium-range anti-missiles, modernized “Don-2N” early warning radars, aerospace missile-launch detection systems, as well as automated control centers and communication lines. The feature of the A-235 will be its capability of striking enemy’s targets (ICBM warheads, cruise missiles and aircrafts) at different distances, both with the use of nuclear or conventional warheads. It will include new S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems and upgraded 53T6 anti-ballistic missiles. Today, new missiles are being tested and works are underway to de-mothball long-range missile complexes. The A-235 is scheduled to be put into combat duty by 2025.

The A-135 missile defense system
The A-135 missile defense system

A number of other countries that are not parties to the INF Treaty are also actively creating their own missile systems of medium and shorter-range. First of all, this concerns China, which is implementing a large-scale program to equip its Armed Forces with DF-21 and DF-26 missiles of various modifications. These missiles have ranges between 2 thousand and 4 thousand km and can carry both conventional and nuclear weapons. On the basis of DF-21 was created the only in the world anti-ship ballistic missile DF-21D. They are considering equipping DF-26 missiles with hypersonic warheads, which will increase its range to 12 thousand km.

Due to this, the PRC can inflict tactical nuclear strikes on US troops (objects) in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan and South Korea, and in the future it will be able to conduct such attacks on the continental United States. According to the report by the US Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments “Managing China’s Missile Threat: Future Options to Preserve Forward Defense”, equipping China’s Armed Forces with a large number of medium-range ground-launched missiles allows it to compensate for the limited air and maritime capabilities of power projection.

DF-21 Missile DF-26 Missile
DF-21 Missile DF-26 Missile

Besides, to date, medium and shorter-range missile systems, including those capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads, are in India — “Agni-III” and “Agni-IV“, Pakistan — “Hatf-V”, Israel — “Jericho-II”, Iran — “Shahab-III” and DPRK — “Nodon” and “Taepodong-I”. Other types of weaponry with strike capability at a range up to 5,500 km are becoming more widely spread, including cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

 

According to Washington, Russia, China and other countries building up their missile capabilities poses a direct threat to US security, and also provides American opponents with asymmetric means of attack. That is why the US leadership concluded that it was necessary to review the country’s participation in the INF Treaty.

Such plans were announced by US President D. Trump in the autumn 2018. At this, the emphasis was placed on Russia’s failure to comply with the terms of the INF Treaty, which removes responsibility from the United States.

US National Security Advisor John Bolton
US National Security Advisor John Bolton

At the same time, the United States began consultations on this issue with interested countries. In particular, it became the main topic of the negotiations in Moscow on October 22–23 with participation of US National Security Advisor J. Bolton and President of the Russian Federation V. Putin and Secretary of the RF Security Council N. Patrushev.

However, even before the official withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the US had already decided to develop new medium-range missile systems. In particular, in the defense budget of the country, 58 million US dollars were allocated for the implementation of relevant programs.

 

On the whole, these circumstances create a danger of the final elimination of the entire system of strategic stability in the world and international relations’ returning to the worst times of the Cold War. Like the Caribbean crisis in 1961–1962 (when the US deployed “Jupiter” missiles in Turkey) and the sharp escalation of relations between the West and the USSR in the early 1980s (after the USSR’s occupation of Afghanistan), when the US missiles “Pershing-II” were deployed in the FRG.

Thus, the Russian leadership has already warned the United States and NATO about a high level of readiness to give an adequate response to Washington’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the possibility of returning US missiles to Europe. Among the options for such a response, Russian experts mention the massive re-arming of the “Iskander-M” TBMSs in the western regions of Russia with new 9M729 missiles, as well as the deployment of the “Kurier” missiles on the Russian islands in the Arctic Ocean (in particular, on Kotelny island between the Laptev Sea and the East-Siberian Sea). Besides, Russia is counting on the possibility of reaching an agreement with Belarus on the deployment of missile systems on the latter’s territory as well.

At the same time, there may be problems with the continuation of the New START Treaty, which expires in 2021. Because of new the confrontation between the United States and Russia after Moscow’s armed aggression against Ukraine, both Washington and Moscow have already spoken against the possibility of automatic prolongation of agreements about strategic offensive arms. Obviously, further worsening of US-Russian relations in the context of the situation around the INF Treaty the will also complicate the prospects for addressing the issue.

A separate controversial factor may be the growing disagreements between the United States and other NATO members. For example, a number of European countries have condemned Washington’s intentions to withdraw from the INF Treaty. If the US takes a decision to return its missiles to Europe, such disagreements will inevitably become much sharper.

 

All of this greatly enhances the level of tension in the world and increases the risks of an armed conflict between Russia and the United States and NATO, with the possibility of its transformation into a nuclear war. The consequence of such a trend objectively is the growing threats to the national security of Ukraine, which remains at the intersection of the interests of Russia and the West.

In turn, this requires from Ukraine additional measures to strengthen the country’s defense capability both at the national level and within the framework of its deepening cooperation with NATO. Based on the experience of other countries and taking into consideration the development of the situation around Ukraine, such measures should include, first of all, concentration of intelligence efforts on exposing Russia’s missile and nuclear activities, strengthening the Ukrainian air defense system and creation of a national missile defense system in close cooperation with the United States and NATO.

Besides, based on its scientific and technical potential, Ukraine can begin to develop and manufacture its own medium-range missile systems capable of reaching Russia’s rear areas throughout the European zone. It is precisely this step that may become one of the most powerful factors in deterring Moscow from expanding the scope of its armed aggression against Ukraine.

 

At the same time, the violation of the agreements between the United States and Russia in the nuclear-missile sphere creates preconditions for accelerating arms race in the world, and hence the need to increase military spending by both sides. Given the much larger US economic potential, it will make Russia exhaust its resources to maintain a strategic balance between the two countries. That is exactly how the United States undermined the USSR’s economy in the 1980s. It is possible that in the same way the US is trying to completely undermine Russia’s economy.

 

Схожі публікації