... all members of the nuclear club.
And fourth, in this situation Russia and the United States should focus on preparations for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Withdrawal from the INF Treaty and, more importantly, refusal to extend the New START Treaty would create major risks for the global non-proliferation regime, and the next NPT Review Conference may turn out to be the last. This will not benefit Moscow or Washington, and so a common interest in preserving the ...
... taken today. It is with that in mind that we call on you to urgently implement the following recommendations:
1) Preserve the INF Treaty.
Rather than abandoning the agreement, the United States and Russia should urgently seek to resolve compliance issues ... ... Ukraine
Oleg Shakirov, Consultant, PIR Center, Russia
Pasha Sharikov, Head of the Center for Applied Research, Institute for USA and Canada Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Francesco Siccardi, Program Manager, Carnegie Europe, Italy
Marco ...
... two parties in late November and early December, to provide fresher context. During the
briefing
held on November 26, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkov provided the most detailed explanation of Moscow’s stance on the INF Treaty throughout the history of the current crisis. In fact, it is a pity that such an explanation was not offered earlier. Ryabkov revealed certain details with regard to Washington’s accusations against Russia, and also shed some light on the
9M729
missile:
The missile stands out for its warhead (which presumably differs from the
9M728/R-500
, the standard cruise missile used in conjunction with the Iskander-M system).
The missile’s ...
... but new” land-based weapons. All the more so as it turns out that, back in 2013, the Pentagon conducted
preliminary research
to determine the weapons systems it could deploy after withdrawing from the INF Treaty [
6
].
It should be noted that the INF Treaty does not differentiate between nuclear-tipped and conventional missiles. When it was drafted and signed, medium- and short-range missiles were primarily a threat due to their ability to carry nuclear warheads. Even with a range of several thousand kilometres they would ensure guaranteed destruction of their targets with warheads yielding hundreds of kilotons. Today, such missiles are of interest to current and potential owners as conventional munitions too (in fact, their conventional role ...
... the mutual threat of inadvertent escalation.
The prospects for the extension of the New START agreement in the absence of the INF Treaty may lead to several outcomes that appear rather similar from the Russian and US perspectives. True, such a scenario ... ... reinforce perceptions on both sides that the other is an unreliable partner. Yet at the same time, the absence of mutual accusations over alleged INF violations – since the treaty would no longer exist – may lead to a healthier bilateral environment,...
In Paris, 100 years after the guns across Europe fell silent, leaders can begin taking important steps to ensure a new and devastating war will not happen today
This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War, one of the world’s most horrific conflicts. One of the best accounts of how this tragedy began, by the historian Christopher Clark, details how a group of well-meaning European leaders—“The Sleepwalkers”—led their nations into a war with 40 million military and...
... would jeopardise the future of the INF without further efforts, such a move would likely trigger an arms race and damage the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.
The full statement is reproduced below.
A European response to US withdrawal from the INF Treaty
ELN
statement November 2018
President Trump’s declared intention to withdraw the United States from the 1987 US-Russia Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) calls into question not only the fate of this pivotal accord but also the future ...
After Ditching the INF Treaty, the U.S. Risks Further Isolation
Seventeen years ago, in late 2001, the George W. Bush Administration announced the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) that Moscow and Washington, which ...
... lease on life. Washington and Moscow are not likely to face any unprecedented security threats that would require the immediate deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Optimists hope that Washington’s statements on withdrawing from the INF Treaty are just an instance of Trump’s peculiar negotiation tactics—a bluff and political maneuver—and they hope that the White House has not made a final decision yet. But the INF Treaty has been dying a slow death for several years, and the ...
... stability. There was a lot of talk about this, the debates will continue, but it is important to note that this issue was not the only one that was discussed during Bolton’s talks in Moscow. Moreover, it seems that there were no negotiations about the INF treaty, at least the detailed ones
I would make a comparison here with the ABM Treaty, from which the USA withdrew in 2001. However, in fact, all that time they continued to follow the agreement, that is, the actions of the Americans did not go beyond the limits indicated by the 1972 treaty and its 1974 supplement.
Internal political struggle in the USA
...
