What does the INF Treaty mean. About the US violation of the INF Treaty

The elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range nuclear missiles, on which the Soviet-American agreement was reached in 1987, was the most significant achievement foreign policy M. Gorbachev and the period of "Perestroika". After discussions about the possibility of a full missile nuclear disarmament the parties settled on a more modest but concrete achievement, which significantly reduced the risk of a nuclear missile war.

An important part policy of Perestroika became the foreign policy course of M. Gorbachev, known as the "New Thinking". Gorbachev tried to improve relations with the West and end the Cold War. This was not easy to do, as Soviet-American relations reached an impasse before Gorbachev came to power.
In 1983, despite the protests of the USSR, the United States marked new missiles in Western Europe medium range, which practically could not be intercepted and had high accuracy. The Soviet leadership feared that the deployment of these missiles would tempt the American leadership to start a war. On the Soviet proposals to abandon the deployment of this type of weapons in Europe, US President R. Reagan proposed a "zero option": the elimination of Soviet and American medium-range missiles. But there were still French and British missiles, and in the conditions of an atomic war they could cause great damage to the USSR. The USSR demanded that these missiles be taken into account when reducing armaments, and Reagan replied that allied missiles were not under his control.
In 1983, US President Reagan put forward the idea of ​​a "Strategic defense initiative"(SOI), go" star wars"- space systems that could protect the United States from nuclear strike. This program was carried out in circumvention of the ABM treaty. Research in this area did not receive great success, it was very difficult to create an effective missile defense system. But the Soviet leadership feared the unpredictable consequences of an arms race in space. Gorbachev spoke categorically against SDI.
On November 19-21, 1985, he met with Reagan in Geneva and proposed a significant reduction in nuclear weapons in Europe. Gorbachev proposed a plan for complete nuclear missile disarmament, but demanded the abolition of SDI, and Reagan did not concede. But the two presidents got to know each other better, which helped them negotiate later.
Gorbachev tried to convince the leaders of Western European countries that he was right. They sympathized with the ideas of the "new thinking" and supported Perestroika. Gorbachev proposed the creation of a "common European home", that is, closer ties between the European countries of East and West. But union Western Europe with the United States turned out to be a more significant factor, and it was still necessary to negotiate with Reagan.
Then Gorbachev suddenly suggested that Reagan meet halfway between the US and the USSR in Reykjavik. Gorbachev hoped that without long bureaucratic preparations, he would be able to get around the petty problems that officials of foreign affairs agencies put forward in the negotiations. At a meeting in Reykjavik on October 10-12, 1986, Gorbachev proposed a large-scale reduction in nuclear weapons, but only "in a package" with the US abandoning SDI. Reagan was not ready to agree to such a plan without careful study, he feared that Gorbachev might outmaneuver him, and that America's militaristic circles might not support such decisive steps towards disarmament. Gorbachev left empty-handed, but his authority in the world grew enormously. Now it was he, and not Reagan, who was considered the main initiator of disarmament.
Since it was not possible to agree on a common nuclear missile disarmament, the parties decided to start with the most acute problem - medium-range missiles in Europe.
To surpass Reagan's "zero option", Gorbachev proposed a "global zero" - that is, the destruction of a whole class of weapons - medium and shorter range missiles (INF) with a range of 500-1500 km. However, on April 13-14, US Secretary of State D. Schultz, who flew to Moscow, demanded that even shorter-range missiles, the Soviet Oka (OTR-23, an operational tactical missile), be added to the agreement. It was believed that its range was 400 km, which was less than the agreement provided. Schultz was outraged that the USSR was trying to "smuggle" dangerous weapons, citing a somewhat smaller radius of action. The Americans threatened that in response to the Soviet refusal to dismantle the Oka, they would modernize the Lance missile, reduce its range and place it in Europe, which would be a rollback from nuclear disarmament. The Chief of the General Staff of the USSR, S. Akhromeev, was against the concession on the Oka, and in order not to disrupt the agreement, he was not invited to that part of the negotiations, which dealt with the elimination of short-range missiles. Under the conditions of nuclear missile disarmament that had begun, the preservation of nuclear missiles of the shortest range became a dangerous anachronism. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the buildup of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe will become meaningless.
Concessions on the issue of medium-range missiles were for Gorbachev a means to move on to solving larger problems. On October 27, Gorbachev proposed to Reagan, after the signing of the treaty on medium-range missiles, that by next spring, prepare an agreement on a 50% reduction in ballistic missiles. While agreeing to “unleash the package” that he spoke about in Reykjavik, Gorbachev nevertheless insisted that “without a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of outer space, it will be impossible to finally agree on a radical reduction in strategic offensive weapons ...”
On December 7, Gorbachev arrived in Washington to sign the INF treaty. Reagan continued to lecture Gorbachev on the subject of human rights violations in the USSR, which seriously angered Secretary General. He reminded Reagan that he was building fences along the Mexican border, and this violated human rights like the Berlin Wall. In addition, the Americans fewer rights than the Soviet people. What about your people sleeping on the streets and all your unemployed?” Reagan started talking about unemployment benefits. The situation of ideological confrontation between the USSR and the USA, characteristic of the Cold War, still persisted.
On December 8 in Washington, Gorbachev and Reagan signed the Treaty between the USSR and the United States on the Elimination of the INF Treaty, as well as documents accompanying the Treaty: a memorandum on the initial data, protocols on procedures for eliminating missiles and conducting inspections. These documents regulated in detail the procedure for the movement and destruction of medium and shorter range missiles.
Within 3 years, the Soviet Union destroyed 826 and 926 and the United States destroyed 689 and 170 RSD and RMD, respectively. Launchers for these missiles, auxiliary facilities and equipment were also eliminated.
As a result, the USSR eliminated missile carriers in a ratio of 2:1, and there were more nuclear warheads on them in a ratio of 4:1 than the United States.
The first one was made and practical step to the elimination of dangerous and modern weapons themselves.
Gorbachev believes that "by signing the INF Treaty, we, in fact, took the gun away from the temple of the country." True, their nuclear missiles retained by Great Britain and France, but it was practically impossible that they would strike the USSR first.
When Gorbachev stopped his car in Washington on December 10 and walked out to the crowd, it caused a furore that was comparable to the delight of the Soviet people in 1985. And later, in conversations with Soviet citizens, most Western people sincerely wondered why their compatriots were so dissatisfied with Gorbachev, who took a decisive step towards ending the Cold War, achieved a sharp reduction in the threat of a nuclear missile catastrophe.
After the conclusion of the agreement on the liquidation of the INF Treaty, Gorbachev continued to insist on the abandonment of SDI. He recalled: “The Americans sought the adoption of a joint statement providing for the right of both sides, after a ten-year period, to deploy defense systems. (Imagine, if we agreed to these conditions, in 1997 nuclear and laser weapons could be suspended above the ground!)”.
Gorbachev and Reagan agreed not to leave the missile defense system for 10 years. Gorbachev told his colleagues in the Politburo: “For us, this time is needed to close the gap ... We need to carefully deal with new defense topics. What are they ahead of? Gorbachev was still not convinced that the US had not been able to overtake the USSR in the arms race. But now both sides had time to "sort things out." By 1989, Akhromeev convinced Gorbachev of the futility of US research on SDI, and the USSR lifted the rejection of SDI as a precondition for reducing strategic nuclear weapons.
The signing of the treaty on the liquidation of the INF Treaty significantly reduced the risk of a sudden outbreak of a nuclear war, opened the way to further nuclear missile disarmament and an end to the Cold War.

The meeting between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in December 1987 was closely followed by the entire planet. The fate of not only the two superpowers was at stake - the world was on the verge of a nuclear war.

"A treaty on the complete elimination of Soviet and American medium-range and shorter-range missiles. I am convinced that this will become historical date", Mikhail Gorbachev said.

This signing became, which began back in the 70s, when America announced new basis its military policy, the concept of a decapitating or blinding blow. According to the Minister of Defense Schlesinger, the enemy will not have time to respond if he is taken by surprise.

"High-precision systems deployed near the borders of the country is a possibility of disarmament. It only makes sense as a first strike, because if the other side has already raised its missiles into the sky, then it is pointless to hit the mines," said Vyacheslav Nikonov, deputy of Godsum, executive director of the board of the Russkiy Mir Foundation.

The stake was placed on fast rockets medium - from 1000 to 5500 kilometers - and less - from 500 to 1000 kilometers - range. It remains only to transfer them closer to the borders of the Union.

"The decision was made that a grouping of medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles ground based. It was envisaged 108 Pershing and 464 Tomahawk,” said Evgeny Buzhinsky, ex-deputy head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Russian Defense Ministry.

Hundreds of mobile ballistic Pershings and controlled winged Tomahawks were hospitably "received" by partners in the NATO bloc: France, Great Britain. Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. The flight time from military bases was only 6-8 minutes. The USSR, in response, deployed its similar Pioneer missiles along the entire western border, and then on the territory of the GDR and Czechoslovakia.

The arms race was on both sides. And in the 80s, the confrontation was such, recalls the diplomat Valenitin Falin, that even one spark would be enough to set the world on fire.

"Everything hung in the balance. Any malfunction, and once it happened - the Pershing rocket was launched ... By the way, it has not yet been established why it started, but it collapsed. If it had flown to Moscow, nothing would have been from Europe left,” Falin said.

The fact that the United States is simply putting them under attack was the first to understand in West Germany. Massive protests erupted across the country. Maybe European discontent influenced, but rather, a change of power in the USSR. The parties then nevertheless sat down at the negotiating table and signed the INF Treaty.

It was decided to eliminate short-range and medium-range missiles to zero. Although already in the Soviet military leadership they considered this unfair. In fact, the Soviet Union had at that time much more missiles.

“It was an unequal treaty in itself due to the configuration of the confrontation. But without explaining the reasons, Gorbachev did what was not required of him. He eliminated medium-range missiles not only in our Europe, but also in Far East, and in other regions," said Valentin Falin.

For four years, warheads were cut into pieces, blown up at special training grounds. American controllers recorded every stage. At the same time, it turned out that the most promising Soviet Oka missile systems were also put under the knife, although their range did not reach 500 kilometers.

“However, the Americans delivered an ultimatum at the very last moment: if Oka is not liquidated, there will be no contract,” said Evgeny Buzhinsky.

Eventually Soviet Union destroyed 1846 missile systems, and the United States - only 846. But the Americans almost immediately begin to violate this treaty. After 3 years they have attack drones medium-range, and since 2004 - anti-missiles, which are converted into offensive ones for one or two. And now they are again threatening to place their Pershing near the Russian border.

"Theoretically, they can resume the production of ground-based cruise missiles long range. The same Pershing that they destroyed can revive. And if there is deployment, and even in nuclear equipment, there will be a direct threat to security Russian Federation", - said Evgeny Buzhinsky.

"If any European country, whether it be the UK or someone else, it must be well aware that it will immediately become a target for a strike, probably for a nuclear one," Vyacheslav Nikonov noted.

Real deja vu. With one important difference, the new countries of the Alliance have become much closer to Russia. But the non-expansion of NATO to the East was also a US promise.

"I have always said to all our general secretaries, from Khrushchev to Gorbachev: do not believe American word. I gave them examples. None of these promises was fulfilled, even if it was enshrined in the contract,” recalls Valentin Falin.

The military takes the new American threats calmly. There are surveillance devices that capture everything.

"We, as we were on combat duty in a constant mode, are still doing it. People are fulfilling their duties. It is impossible to hide any movement now. There are funds and space intelligence, and optical-electronic intelligence. So far, these are political talks,” Aitech Bizhev, lieutenant general, ex-deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force for the CIS Joint Air Defense System, is sure.

And already, regardless of the American hysteria, the Aerospace Defense Forces. The latest short-range interceptor missile. Doesn't violate any contracts. The target hit correctly. And in the same way, they assured at the headquarters, it is capable of protecting against any ballistic missiles.

The possible withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF Treaty) has caused a flurry of criticism. EU High Representative for foreign affairs Federica Mogherini said that "the world does not need a new arms race," while Niels Annen, Minister of State at the German Foreign Ministry, called the decision "catastrophic." Beijing saw blackmail in what was happening and invited Washington to "think twice." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any action will "meet opposition" and reminded the United States of its "share of responsibility" for global stability.

Trump's statement is also criticized at home: Senator Rand Paul called it "destructive", "destroying decades of work." However, the American president did not say anything new, but rather stated a fait accompli: the treaty signed 30 years ago became invalid due to a number of circumstances, turning into a relic of the Cold War. It does not provide security by fending off threats that have not existed for a long time, but it ties hands - more of the United States, but also of Russia.

Times change

The Treaty on the Elimination of Missiles was discussed throughout the 80s and was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan only after a series of serious concessions from the USSR. For example, one hundred Oka missile systems had to be destroyed, although they did not fall under the definition of the INF Treaty. As a result, the USSR "cut" 1846 installations - 1000 more than the United States.

In this regard, the treaty is often criticized for its "softness", but it is truly parity: the Soviet Union lost the opportunity to conduct a limited nuclear war in Europe, corresponding to the “Ustinov Doctrine”; The United States could no longer implement the concept of an "instant decapitation strike" on the USSR with missiles stationed in Europe, proposed by Secretary of Defense Schlesinger.

The significance of the INF Treaty is difficult to overestimate - before it, in nuclear war theoretically, there could be a winner, which increased the risk of a conflict to an extreme. After the fulfillment of the treaty, the superpowers could only exchange "mutually destroying", and therefore senseless, intercontinental strikes.

In 2000, newly elected Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the country might withdraw from the INF Treaty in response to the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the second key document that ensured parity between the USSR and the United States. It prohibited the creation, testing and deployment of systems aimed at combating strategic ballistic missiles. Despite the threat, the United States nevertheless denounced the agreement; the construction of missile defense systems in Central and Eastern Europe began.

Above domestic forces The strategic deterrence threat once again loomed: not destruction on the ground, as in the 1980s, but the interception of launched missiles. In the long term, however distant, such a weakening of Russia's nuclear potential will nullify the postulate of mutually assured destruction, the cornerstone of the existing nuclear parity.

Since 2001, the issue of missile defense has become one of the most acute in relations with the West. Vladimir Putin returns to her again and again, last time- in the sensational "weapon" message to the Federal Assembly in 2018. “We have been persuading the Americans for a long time not to destroy the ABM treaty. Everything is in vain,” the president lamented, presenting the new developments of the military-industrial complex to the senators.

Recrimination

Russia has hinted more than once that the EuroPRO components will become priority targets during the period of danger: “People who make the appropriate decisions should know that they have lived so far calmly, comfortably and safely. Now, after deploying these missile defense elements, we will have to think about stopping the threats,” Putin said in 2016.

"Kupirovaniye" requires appropriate weapons, so national security dictated the need to restart the production of short and medium-range missiles. Probably, Russia is already producing them: the Novator 9M729, a cruise missile for the Iskander complex, is under the suspicion of Western experts. It is assumed that this is a land analogue of the Kalibr sea-based missile. Its range is estimated at 5500 km, which is quite enough to hit targets in the entire European theater of operations. The Novator stationed in Siberia will be able to target the West Coast of the United States.

The US has been making claims about this missile since 2013; it is stated that at least two Iskander batteries are already armed with 9M729. The Russian side denies the charges, arguing that the range of the Novator does not exceed the "conventional" 500 km. The statements are not believed: NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said that if Russia does not justify itself, "the allies will assume that the most plausible assessment is that Russia is violating the INF Treaty."

Russia, for its part, also accuses the United States of violating the treaty: claims against universal missile defense launchers in Romania and Poland, which can easily be converted to launch Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles. In addition, Russia insists that the American strike "drones" are the same cruise missiles, and there are no reservations in the treaty as to whether SMD missiles must be disposable. Finally, the creation of medium-range target missiles for missile defense testing is also a violation of the letter of the INF Treaty.

Defending the legality of its developments, the United States indulges in such cunning casuistry, explaining, for example, that the document refers to the launch (Launch) of missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles take off (Take-off), which becomes obvious: within the framework of the current agreement, the parties cannot agree in any way. The INF Treaty needs modernization, but for Russia the key aspect of the new treaty is the settlement of the missile defense problem, and the United States defiantly does not make any concessions on this issue.

Third side

The conflict with Russia over missile defense is not the only reason for the US to denounce the INF Treaty. And perhaps not even the main one, since the United States hardly expects, after withdrawing from the treaty, to again deploy missiles in Europe aimed at Russia. Although Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands still have American thermonuclear bombs times Cold War, Europeans are unlikely to be happy about the appearance of new installations in their territories. The existing arsenal burdens countries: the requirement to remove bombs is contained in the programs of four of the six parties of the Bundestag, and the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Ruud Lubbers, said that the storage of nuclear weapons is a "meaningless tradition" and "stupidity."

Not bound by any treaties, China is actively developing a class of weapons that is prohibited for the United States and Russia. According to US Admiral Harry Harris, this allowed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to acquire "the most impressive and most flexible missile force in the world" - over 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles. 95% of them would violate the INF Treaty if China participated in the treaty, the admiral stressed.

Trump's demand that Beijing "join the new deal" on the INF - that is, destroy 95% of the missiles - is obviously rhetorical. Against the background of the growing confrontation between China and the United States, the old treaty with the defunct USSR on the limitation of effective weapons certainly seems like an American military relic of the past. Despite assurances to the contrary by domestic officials, Russia can hardly help feeling threatened by Chinese medium- and short-range missiles, just as the United States is aware of the futility of self-restraint under the circumstances.

The United States again accuses Russia of deploying new weapons, allegedly violating the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF). The treaty bans land-based cruise missiles with a range of more than 500 km. In Russia, they repeat again that the deployment of US missile defense in Europe can bury the existing security system on the continent. Moscow is also concerned about plans to develop nuclear-armed drones in the United States. Who is really torpedoing the INF Treaty and for what purpose?

Possibilities are there, evidence is not.

According to anonymous sources cited by The New York Times, Russia has deployed new long-range land-based cruise missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. Two full-fledged battalions are deployed in Russia [we are probably talking about divisions, a terminological mistake was made in the NYT - approx. EE], including four self-propelled launchers (similar to the Iskanders) for the use of a new long-range cruise missile (KRBD) 9M729. One is allegedly at the Kapustin Yar training ground, the location of the second is unknown. In addition, a reserve of cruise missiles has been created.

The US State Department also once again expressed concern, but traditionally did not provide specific information about the nature of "continued violations of the treaty."

Launchers OTRK 9K720 "Iskander-M".

Currently, there is no official information from the Russian side regarding the deployment of this system (with the exception of the denial of American accusations at the level of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Presidential Administration), as well as the official characteristics of the 9M729 missile.

Nevertheless, taking into account the level of Russian missile and related technologies, there are no technical obstacles to obtaining the declared characteristics (according to various estimates, the flight range is from 2,000 to 5,000 km, the length of the rocket with a launch booster is about 8 meters, the mass of the warhead is 400-500 kg).

At the same time, in 2016, it was planned to purchase 8 chassis for the production of 4 self-propelled launchers and 4 transport-loading vehicles, presumably intended for testing and trial operation of the modified Iskander-M complex with improved characteristics.

Russia's motives

From a military-technical point of view, it is very difficult to justify deployment without confirming this fact, so let's try to consider the issue from a different angle.

Given that a possible deployment would violate the INF Treaty, there is a much more realistic way to achieve similar military results without violations: Project 21631 small missile ships (Buyan-M, the famous "caliber carriers"), which are capable of moving along inland waterways .

Small rocket ship"Grad Sviyazhsk" project 21631.

A political argument in favor of the deployment of ground-based CRBC (or the threat of such a deployment) may be the presence of counter-accusations against the United States, and, accordingly, the desire to return Washington to the negotiating table.

It is difficult to say for sure, but this logic seems to be consistent with Russian approaches in the field of defense and security: “voice the problem - raise rates if the counterparty is not ready for a dialogue on the merits - repeat the procedure.”

The problem is not only in US missile defense

Russian officials and experts regularly make two main arguments that call into question the future of the INF Treaty:

1. US violations, which are closely intertwined with missile defense issues, one of the most acute problems in Russian-American relations, namely:

Universal launchers Mk41 of the Aegis Ashore missile defense system deployed in Romania and planned to be deployed in Poland. According to official data, they are loaded with SM-3 anti-missiles, but it is also technically possible to place strike weapons in them, for example, from the BGM-109 Tomahawk family of cruise missiles. It should be noted that it was the American land version of the BGM-109G Griffin that was eliminated under the INF Treaty.

The ceremony to launch the construction of a missile defense facility in Poland.

Ballistic missile dummy targets used to test missile defense systems - in fact, medium-range and short-range ballistic missiles, detailed information on which is not available to the Russian side;

- "Heavy" unmanned vehicles aircrafts(UAVs) may need to be subject to INF restrictions (they are already taken into account in the Missile Technology Control Regime). The situation is aggravated by more and more active calls for the creation in the United States of UAVs - carriers of nuclear weapons. In particular, such a proposal is contained in an officially unpublished report Scientific Council at the Pentagon.

2. A significant number of intermediate and shorter range missiles deployed throughout Eurasia(China, Pakistan, Iran, India, North Korea, etc.). Russian ICBMs and operational-tactical missile systems (as well as other forces and means) currently provide the necessary level of deterrence, but in the future this may not be enough.

Options for the development of events

Is there a way out of this situation? In terms of bilateral relations between Russia and the US, both countries benefit from the INF Treaty. On the one hand, the threat of a swift decapitating strike on the Kremlin with cruise and ballistic missiles has been averted - with a minimum flight time. On the other hand, American bases in Eurasia are not under constant scrutiny, especially since Russian missiles are significantly superior to the counterparts of the so-called "rogue states", including in terms of the ability to break through missile defense.

One of the ways to defuse the crisis is to create a procedure for confirming the real goals of the parties by organizing joint inspection visits to the US missile defense facilities and to the Iskander base areas.

True, an obstacle in this matter can be complicated relationship in the post-Soviet space, especially between Russia and Ukraine, which is one of the parties to the agreement, along with the partners in the CSTO - Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The holding of the thirtieth session of the Special Control Commission on the INF Treaty in the autumn of 2016 can be considered a good signal. However, no details of the discussion were disclosed. An interesting fact: the official statements of all parties were absolutely identical (adjusted for language) and limited to mentioning the very fact of discussing the implementation of the Treaty.

However, further escalation is not ruled out. The United States has already prepared a bill that abolishes the restrictions of the INF Treaty. Similar initiatives are also heard in Russia.

And what about the neighbors on the continent?

To be precise, the name of the American bill sounds like the “Infant Treaty Preservation Act”, which allows us to hope for the priority of maintaining the status quo for American politicians. Within the framework of the bill, in addition to calls for the development of appropriate weapons systems, there is also an indication of the expediency of their subsequent transfer to the allies, and here we move on to the next set of problems.

The prospects for maintaining the INF Treaty, among other things, lie in the plane of third countries, especially given the possible crisis between, including in the military sphere.

Calls for a revision of the INF Treaty commitments in the Pacific theater of operations are found even in the writings of the Commission on US-China Economic and Security Relations.

Curiously, France expressed its concern over a possible violation of the INF Treaty by Russia. Two factors should also be noted here: on the one hand, the previous President of France, N. Sarkozy, spoke in favor of the universalization of the INF Treaty, and on the other hand, even during the negotiations preceding the conclusion of the INF Treaty between Russia and the United States, the French Republic strongly opposed the extension of restrictions on its own nuclear forces and means.

At present, it is difficult to imagine how China, France and other states can be persuaded to join the INF Treaty.

However, to start a discussion on this issue it would be very useful, all the more so, it seems quite possible to implement some kind of security measures: for example, starting with notifications about exercises, and then about the expected types of targets to be hit.

The official position of Moscow was announced by the President of Russia in October 2016 at the Valdai Club site:

• The INF Treaty must be observed;
• The INF Treaty would become much more valuable if third countries joined it.

It is also impossible not to pay attention to the "timeliness" of the aggravation of the issue of compliance with the INF Treaty by the American side, primarily by the American media. Combined with the accentuated problem of belonging Crimean peninsula, the discussion around anti-Russian sanctions and the dismissal of Michael Flynn, one gets the feeling that now Donald Trump has significantly limited room for maneuver in the Russian direction.

Dmitry Stefanovich, independent military expert

It should be noted that another alleged object of accusations of violating the INF Treaty is the “light” RS-26 Rubezh ICBM, which allegedly has the capabilities of a “medium-range” ballistic missile.

By the way, even at the stage of preliminary negotiations, which ended with the conclusion of the INF Treaty, our side made attempts to link this issue with the issues of R. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

At the same time, even the primitive missiles of the Yemeni Houthis and their allies successfully hit targets in the territory Saudi Arabia, which has American anti-missile systems PAC-3.

Intermediate-Range Forces Treaty Preservation Act.

Recently, American experts, based on available research and satellite imagery made an attempt to determine where and how the Chinese missilemen plan to get. The main conclusion is that they are aiming at the American naval and air bases, and they have the necessary carriers and "payload" to inflict maximum damage.

Major General M. Vildanov,
Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences,
Candidate of Military Sciences, Associate Professor

The Treaty between the USSR and the United States on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) was signed by the presidents of the USSR and the United States in Washington on December 8, 1987 and entered into force on June 1, 1988. By 1991, Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) of the Pioneer, R-12, R-14 types, ground-based cruise missiles (GLCM) RK-55, as well as shorter-range ballistic missiles - OTP-22 and OTR- 23 ("Oka"). In the United States, it was planned to eliminate the Pershing-2 IRBM, the BGM-109G GLCM, and the Pershing-1A RMD. Together with the missiles, their launchers (PU) and associated auxiliary facilities and equipment were subject to liquidation.

As a result of the implementation of the Treaty, by June 1, 1991, 1,846 missiles, 825 launchers and 812 warheads were destroyed on the territory of the USSR, and in the USA, respectively, 846 missiles and 289 launchers.

The fulfillment by the parties of the INF Treaty has become a real demonstration of the possibility of getting out of the current explosive situation of nuclear confrontation, overcoming the psychological barrier in relations between the two nuclear powers. This Treaty was the first ever international agreement in the field of nuclear disarmament. As a result of its implementation, missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 km were completely excluded from the nuclear arsenal of the parties. Wherein essential For Moscow, it was the fact that the United States eliminated its missiles with a short flight time to the strategic objects of the USSR.

The experience gained during the implementation of the INF Treaty was used in the preparation and implementation of subsequent agreements in the field of nuclear disarmament.

At the same time, the key provisions of the indefinite INF Treaty are currently being deliberately violated by the US military leadership when testing elements of the missile defense system.

Thus, Article I of the Treaty notes: "Each of the Parties will eliminate its medium-range and shorter-range missiles and will not have such means in the future." Paragraph 5 of Article II defines that "the term 'intermediate-range missile' means a GLCM (Land-Launched Ballistic Missile) or GLCM with a range exceeding 1,000 km but not exceeding 5,500 km". Paragraph 6 of the same chapter states that "the term shorter-range missile" means an GLCM or GLCM with a range equal to or greater than 500 km, but not exceeding 1,000 km."

It is important to emphasize that the Americans independently introduced and use the term "intermediate-range missile". In addition, Article VI regulates that neither Party shall: (a) manufacture any medium-range missiles, flight-test such missiles, or manufacture any stages or launchers of such missiles. And, finally, there is paragraph 12 of Article VII, which is considered by the Americans to be the strongest argument and is used by them to justify their actions: "Each of the Parties has the right to produce and use for accelerators only existing types of accelerating stages. Launches of such accelerators are not considered as flying testing of medium- and shorter-range missiles, provided that such boosters are used only for research and development purposes for testing objects, and not the boosters themselves. Foreign experts believe that such objects can be payloads launched into the upper atmosphere or into space.

It is noted that the American side is not conducting any research with the launch of objects in space under the INF Treaty. At the same time, HERA, LRALT and MRT target missiles were manufactured based on the stages of the Minuteman-2, Trident-1 and other ballistic missiles, which are used in test launches of interceptor missiles (PR), which means a violation of the requirements of the above articles of the agreement .

In this regard, on January 4, 2001, the first statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry was made: “The United States has experience in creating a target missile for a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile of a new type HERA based on the second and third stages of the Minuteman-2 ICBM in violation of the INF Treaty "The issue of violations by the United States of the INF Treaty, as well as the START-1 Treaty by Russia, has been repeatedly raised at various levels. However, a satisfactory answer has not been provided from the American side."

In connection with the continued testing of elements of the missile defense system, on August 7, 2010, already during the "reset" period, the Russian Foreign Ministry made another statement: "The American side systematically violates the main provisions of the INF Treaty, using target missiles that imitate IRBMs of the HERA, LRALT and MRT types. According to the INF Treaty, the launches of these missiles are qualified as tests of 'new type' medium-range GLBMs, which is a violation of Article VI."

According to foreign experts, tests of interceptor missiles (PR) of the "Standard-3" mod. Concerning General designer unique missile systems strategic purpose Russian Armed Forces Academician Yu.S. Solomonov noted that the United States, in violation of the INF Treaty, actually created a medium-range missile. It should be emphasized that the US military combines most launches of PR with operational and combat training of the US strategic offensive and defensive forces, training of combat crews and testing of nuclear missile warning systems (SPRYAU) and space control (SKKP).

Rocket target LRALT

In addition, the American side violates the provisions of the INF Treaty when conducting test launches of GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) interceptor missiles designed to intercept strategic missiles in the middle section of their flight path. It is known that PRs of this type were put into service and deployed in the amount of 30 units (26 at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California).

Bypassing the INF Treaty, the American side: 1) is developing medium-range and intermediate-range target missiles for practicing anti-missile interception tasks; 2) introduced the term "intermediate range" without agreement with the Russian side; 3) did not present the target missile for demonstration and display hallmarks; 4) did not declare the place of launches of target missiles; 5) does not transmit notifications about the status and movement of target missiles; 6) purpose and performance characteristics GBI missiles have not been declared, data on their anti-missile affiliation have not been confirmed by agreements.

In addition, the conduct of unannounced launches of PR GBI from silo launchers (silos) is a destabilizing factor in the situation, since it can create prerequisites for nuclear incidents between the United States, Russia and China. This is due to the fact that notifications on launches of GBI products in relation to the "Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notifications on launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missiles of submarines" dated May 31, 1988 are not submitted.

As a result, it is quite possible to provoke a response missile attack due to the false classification of the launch of GBI products and their incorrect identification in flight, especially in the event of a crisis situation in the world. According to foreign experts, it is rather difficult to distinguish an attacking ICBM from an antimissile in flight.

In addition, combat training and test launches of Minuteman-3 type ICBMs are carried out with the Vandenberg Air Force with the use of standard radar stations of the nuclear missile warning and space control system, control posts of various levels, objects inf |> gg of the structure of the ground network data transmission. In addition, there is an insufficient level of professional training of American specialists in strategic nuclear forces and nuclear support units, who allowed last years several nuclear incidents that have gained worldwide fame.

In addition, the Americans are violating their previously accepted and declared obligations to conduct test launches of GBI products only from an experimental silo.

General Designer Yu.S. Solomonov repeatedly emphasized that "although theoretically a target missile is a ground-to-air missile, it is not a problem to modify it to the ground-to-ground class, because after the active section it is not a problem to fly along ballistic trajectory it will not be difficult to reach the ground". Of course, such capabilities can be implemented in the GBI product, since its flight range is about 4,000 km.

These violations of the INF Treaty, in turn, led to a violation of the key provision of the preamble of the START Treaty on "the existence of a relationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, the growing importance of this relationship in the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons, and that the current strategic defensive weapons do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the sides' strategic offensive weapons." According to experts, for the Russian side, this relationship and its dynamics do not correspond to the interests of the state's military security.

The United States has successfully completed the first stage of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAP) program and has begun work on the second program, while allowing violations of the INF Treaty.

It should also be emphasized that work on the modernization of GBI products will require the creation of intercontinental-range target missiles, and this will entail violations of the INF Treaty, as well as the START Treaty.

The ongoing testing of elements of the missile defense system and the ongoing violations of the INF Treaty by the American side forced the Russian Foreign Ministry to issue another statement dated July 31, 2014: "The problems associated with the implementation of the INF Treaty are not new. They are well known to both parties. We have accumulated a lot of claims to the United States in the context of the Treaty, such as the testing of ABM target missiles similar in characteristics to intermediate and shorter range missiles, the production by the Americans of armed drones, which clearly fall under the definition of land-based cruise missiles contained in the Treaty. recent times The theme of ground-based launchers of the Mk-41 type, which the United States plans to deploy in Poland and Romania, is becoming increasingly relevant. These launchers, after minor modifications, are capable of launching medium-range cruise missiles, and therefore their ground version can be considered as a direct violation of the INF Treaty. We have repeatedly conveyed our concerns to the American side, but Washington does not want to hear us. Nevertheless, we look forward to receiving clarification from the United States on the substance of the issues raised by Russia, as well as confirmation of the readiness to work together to ensure compliance with the INF Treaty and increase its viability."

According to foreign and Russian politicians, due to the fault of the American leadership, there is no progress in implementing Russian initiative on the globalization of the INF Treaty, which was announced at the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly in 2007. White House, having formally supported this initiative, shows a clear lack of interest in its promotion. There is an increase in the number of countries possessing medium-range missiles capable of hitting strategic and critical targets on the territory of the Russian Federation, which is beneficial to the Americans. At the same time, Washington does not count missiles this class a threat to national security, since objects in the United States are inaccessible to them. In this regard, the American side does not express readiness to discuss the conditions and principles on the basis of which a general agreement on the elimination of the INF could be worked out,

Thus, the US military-political leadership, violating the main provisions of the indefinite INF Treaty, in order to achieve military-strategic superiority in the field of strategic offensive weapons, continues testing and deploying elements of the global missile defense system and its regional segments. The above violations of the INF Treaty have been disavowed key position the preamble of the START Treaty, which states "...that current strategic defensive weapons do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of strategic offensive weapons."