Congress digs Trump “Tomahawk” war

22

Конгресс США откапывает Трампу "Томагавк" войны

Congress is preparing a “second round” of action against trump and Russia. Members of the house of representatives and the Senate are going to force the Pentagon to violate the Treaty on the elimination of intermediate range (the INF Treaty), signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. This may lead to another round of tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The bill in the House of representatives proposes the creation of a program for the development and production of medium-range missiles (500-5500 km) land-based prohibited by the INF Treaty. The Senate will soon discuss the same proposal, on which it is planned to allocate $ 65 million and directed the military to once again return to the Arsenal of medium-range missiles, which both parties of the cold war stopped producing thirty years ago.

Supporters of the initiative (for example, Senator Tom cotton) say that this step is necessary because Moscow allegedly violated the Pact of 1987. Opponents assert about exceeding the powers of Congress and fear that this may increase the chances of nuclear confrontation, while the relations between the two countries are already at the lowest level since the cold war.

In June, Politico reported that the administration of the President of the United States considers the possibility of withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Several members of Congress sent to the White house a proposal. Later, the representatives of the administration of the trump and the Russian foreign Ministry has expressed interest in preserving the contract. However, according to “Kommersant”, the current news about the development of the bill came a few days after the signing of the trump prepared by the Congress of a package of sanctions against Russia. The President of the United States, although he put his signature, but stated that it included “openly unconstitutional provisions” infringe upon his right as President to determine the foreign policy of the country. Then in his Twitter he wrote: “Our relations with Russia are at an all-time low and dangerous level. You can thank Congress, the same people can’t even give us the medicine.”

We will remind, according to the Agreement subject to the elimination of medium-range missiles (RSD): from the Soviet Union — RSD-10 Pioner, R-12, R-14 and cruise missiles, ground-based RK-55, from the United States — MGM-31C Pershing II (“Pershing-2”) and BGM-109G (cruise missile “Tomahawk” land-based). As well as short-range missiles (RMD): from the Soviet Union — OTR-22 “Temp-s” and the OTR-23 “Oka”, from the United States — “Pershing 1A”. Along with the missiles subject to the destruction of launchers (PU) and related support facilities and equipment. As a result of implementation of the Agreement by 1 June 1991 on Soviet territory was destroyed 846 missiles 1, PU 825 and 812 of the buildings of the head parts, and in the US respectively 846 missiles and 289 launchers.

On the background of the Ukrainian crisis, Moscow and Washington intensified exchange of accusations regarding non-compliance with the Treaty. The Russian side points to the fact that Americans without coordination with the Russian side introduced and used the term “intermediate-range missiles,” and based on the steps of ballistic missiles the Minuteman and Trident have produced a target missile HERA, and LRALT MRT, which involve at test launches of missiles. In addition, the United States had adopted a strategic drone strike machines that also sort of violate the INF Treaty. Americans, in turn, is considered the claim to the drones unfounded, as they are managed remotely and do not have launchers, and blame the Russian side in the development of a complex RS-26 “Rubezh”, cruise missiles R-500 “Iskander” missiles and 9М729 considered the land version of the sea complex “Caliber”.

Leading researcher of the Institute of USA and Canada studies, former chief of staff of the strategic missile forces, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin believes that the Americans will take a decision on the INF Treaty after finalize the “nuclear posture Review” (Nuclear Posture Review).

— As you know, trump has set the goal and the end of the year the document should be ready. Many American military experts believe that the Treaty must be preserved, but the final decision will be taken after the review to be submitted to Congress. Then there are heated discussions, but until then, the emerging information — it’s just the initiative of individual congressmen.

Theoretically, for Americans there is no problem to create a IRBM. They use the target missile for testing anti-missile systems, which in principle represent the first and second stages of the Minuteman II missiles taken out of service. Their production facilities are currently not working at full strength, because as long as their program is only extending the life of existing missiles, but the Americans can build them. At the same time started the development work to create a new MBR, and in the framework of the ROC to create a medium-range missile is not difficult.

“SP”: — Formally, Moscow and Washington affirm the commitment to the INF Treaty, however, show each other mutual claims. Theoretically they can be removed?

— All claims are unlikely to settle. Another thing is that the position in Europe is a deterrent to Washington. I remind you that it is European countries at the time were the initiators of the conclusion of the INF Treaty because he felt the missile danger. In 1979 was adopted the so-called “Double decision of NATO”, when attempts were made to get the United States to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union, and only in the event of the failure of Europe to agree to the deployment of “Pershing” on a large scale. The Americans always did things his own way — they entered into negotiations and simultaneously began the deployment of missiles on a bilateral basis with several countries. But then the negotiations went constructively, and the United States and the Soviet Union was able to negotiate. Now the Europeans are of the same opinion, and Americans still have to consider the position of their allies.

“SP”: — it seems that the format of Russian-American consultations was limited only to the mutual exchange of claims.

— Transfer format of the joint consultative group that provided by the Contract, no. In November last year was made such an attempt, but it was not successful. Why? Because linings can be achieved by creating a joint expert groups of the military and Industrialists, which would in details to investigate the claim and reach a consensus.

Everything depends on adaptation of the Treaty to modern realities. May not be to the INF Treaty, concluded 30 years ago, has not undergone changes. If it is not adapted, it ceases to answer its purpose. In particular, we are talking about the shock BLAH — vehicles with a range over 500 km and carrying on Board of weapons. Technically, if you follow the Agreement that drones fall under the definition of a cruise missile ground-based. But BLAH, of course, must be taken out of the equation, the more that Russia is also trying to develop these systems.

Similar situation with the rockets-targets — Russia, they also need to fully test their defense systems. Therefore, it is necessary to agree that such missiles have a right to exist, but should only be placed on the proving grounds. American claims to the Russian missiles can be removed only by the organizations of on-site inspections, which once was. That is, the negotiations need to be translated from policy level to grass-roots — military-technical. And yet, in my opinion, none of the parties will not dare to come out first from the Treaty.

Research fellow, Centre for analysis of strategies and technologies, chief editor of the magazine “arms Export” Andrei Frolov noted that the INF Treaty generally satisfied with US, because from their point of view, the Agreement applies only to Russia and didn’t affect cruise missiles, sea-and air-based.

For us, it is disadvantageous simply because a number of nuclear powers, we must keep only the strategic missile forces, at that time as Iran, North Korea, China have a large range IRBM. Deterrence of European countries provided either by “Iskander”, which have a radius less than 500 km, or missiles of air basing. The Americans also have the universal installation of vertical launch MK.41, which are installed not only on us ships, but on the missile defense facilities in Romania and Poland. Plus US ships with cruise missiles are constantly present in the Baltic and Black seas. Theoretically, the same Saint Petersburg can be enjoyed from Europe existing PTRC., which, however, like as not bear a nuclear warhead.

So, for Russian medium-range missiles is important, and they will be more cheap deterrent, however, here too there are questions. Given the fact that we have a limited number of plants for the production of missiles, who will make the new and in sufficient quantity — question. Although I do not exclude that in case of cancellation of the INF Treaty, “Iskander” just “take off clothes” and shall be tested at maximum range.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here