Russia Violates Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, so?  Partial mutual disarmament doesn't materially reduce nuclear deterrent.

Did you read the post by Hillary I responded to?

[DGuller]

Yes, so?  Partial mutual disarmament doesn't materially reduce nuclear deterrent.

Did you read the post by Hillary I responded to?

Yes.

[jimmy olsen]

If the bolded bit is a genuine belief of Russian generals then they're fucking retarded.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/moscow-russia-violated-cold-war-nuclear-treaty-iskander-r500-missile-test-us

Moscow may walk out of nuclear treaty after US accusations of breach
Russia said to be on point of leaving 1987 treaty, after Obama administration said it violated the accord with tests of R-500


Alec Luhn in Moscow and Julian Borger   
The Guardian, Tuesday 29 July 2014 12.38 BST   

Russia may be on the point of walking out of a major cold war era arms-control treaty, Russian analysts have said, after President Obama accused Moscow of violating the accord by testing a cruise missile.

There has been evidence at least since 2011 of Russian missile tests in violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, which banned US or Russian ground-launched cruise missiles with a 500 to 5,500-mile (805 to 8,851km) range. But the Obama administration has been hesitant until now of accusing Moscow of a violation in the hope that it could persuade Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to stop the tests or at least not deploy the weapon in question, known as the Iskander, or R-500.

Washington has also been reticent because of the technical differences in definition of what constitutes the range of a missile under the INF treaty. That ambiguity now seems to have dropped away. According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a defence analyst and columnist for the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Russia has indeed broken the treaty by testing the R-500 which has a range of more than 1,000km.

"Of course, this is in gross violation of the 1987 treaty, but Russian officials including Putin have said this treaty is unfair and not suitable for Russia," Felgenhauer said. "The United States doesn't have [medium-range missiles] but other countries do have them, such as China, Pakistan and Israel, so they say this is unfair and wrong."

Russian press reports have suggested the missile may even be in deployment, with state news agency RIA Novosti reporting in June that the "Russian army currently uses its Iskander-M and Iskander-K variants." Felgenhauer said he doesn't believe the missile has been deployed, although he said it's entirely possible that Russia will leave the treaty amid tensions with the US.

"The present situation of a new cold war in Europe – and not even cold, at least not in Ukraine right now – it's a situation in which Russia can abrogate the 1987 treaty, and the possibilities are rather high," Felgenhauer said.

Russian officials have previously criticised the 1987 treaty, including former defence minister Sergei Ivanov. In 2013, Ivanov, then presidential chief of staff, said of the treaty: "We are fulfilling it, but it can't last forever."

According to Kremlin-linked analyst Sergei Markov, Russia has a far greater need for medium-range cruise missiles than the |US, because military rivals including China are located near its borders and because Moscow lacks the Americans' long-range bombing capabilities.

"Russia would be happy to leave this agreement, and I think Russia is using the Ukraine crisis to leave the agreement," Markov said.

As for Russia's complaints about US aegis missiles, Felgenhauer said they reflect the genuine belief among Kremlin top brass that the US missile defence has a secret attack capability and poses a threat to Russia.

"This was a normal Soviet practice that missile interceptors had the in-built capability to be used as an attack missile," Felgenhauer said.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force.  I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Right, I'm not sure where Minsky was going with that nonsense but there's really no doubt that Putin would be doing anything differently had Bush not pulled out of the ABM.

I think Putin's motivations and the source of his power are fairly obvious. I don't think Putin is foolish enough to dream for a true resurrection of the Soviet Empire, but I do think he wants Russia to be a true "great power", and really in no sense of the word are they that any longer. They are a great power in one way only, and that is their nuclear arsenal, by all other measures Russia is weak. But Putin thinks he can change that by keeping the countries around Russia destabilized and by making sure the EU/NATO will not encroach too closely because of it. Further than that, Russia has positioned itself as the global leader for all countries that "dislike the United States and its leadership position in the world", and just like the Cold War probably the only countries that I would argue seem to not be embracing that are China and the countries that made up the Non-Aligned movement in the CW. But countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and various other troubling States are definitely signing on with Putin's vision. This gives Russia lots of trading partners and influence outside of the traditional "West" which is always going to be dominated by non-Russian Western powers.

China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions. A lot of the pieces are there for what Putin wants: great power status for Russia, and Russia as the leader/mouthpiece of the "fuck America" contingent.

[derspiess]

Actually I don't know what you were talking about in particular.

  Btw I bottled my Razgovory Wheat Beer last weekend.  Should be ready to test on Friday.

Sweet!  Drink in good health!

And it's on Untappd now.  Your name in lights!

https://untappd.com/b/blue-hen-brewing-razgovory-wheat/762843

[CountDeMoney]

China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions.

Until they have their usual falling out.

[Berkut]

The problem is that even in the new geopolitical context, the treaty still serves an important if different function, at least for Russia.  Because the new Russia is shorn of the ideological and economic influence of the old USSR and the offensive conventional warfare potential, its continuing possession of a diminished but still potent nuclear arsenal is still an important source of influence (in the Schelling "Arms and Influence" sense), particular in respect to Russia's attempts to pursue interests in its post-Soviet "near abroad."  The Russian concern was that deployment of ABM near its borders would attenuate that influence.

So the problem is not withdrawing from ABM per se, but rather pulling out without simultaneously reaching some understanding with Russia responding to its concerns.  It should not be surprising that Russia would seek to respond by taking alternative actions with the aim of augmenting its influence and threat levels on and immediately across its borders.

This is not an endorsement of the particular steps the Russians have taken, just that it is naïve to think that such action would not lead to responses with consequences.

I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force.  I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Hell, I am not sure that "putting Russia in a bind" isn't a positive anyway.

[derspiess]

China will never sign on for Russian leadership, but the Chinese are happy to do business with anyone, which also gives Russia a big market for its natural resources that is mostly immune to Western sanctions.

Until they have their usual falling out.

That hasn't happened for quite a while.

[CountDeMoney]

That hasn't happened for quite a while.

So fucking what.  I'm not worried about it.  One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia.  That shit never changes with those people.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think that it naive to think that the Russians have taken the actions they have to project the power and influence over the near abroad would not have been undertaken had the ABM Treaty still been in force.  I agree that the expiration of the treaty put Russia in a bind, and that this may have been avoidable through negotiating a post-treaty protocol that could have met their strategic needs, but the ABM Treaty's existence didn't stop the Soviets in Afghanistan.

There would have been some value in say offering to keep sites out of bordering territories as a pledge for Russian good behavior, thus reserving such a move as a carrot/stick.

Would that have had any impact on Putin's actions in the Ukraine?  Of course I would have to admit not.

[The Minsky Moment]

That hasn't happened for quite a while.

So fucking what.  I'm not worried about it.  One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia.  That shit never changes with those people.

There will be no falling out so long as Russia continues to act as the junior partner in these arrangements - i.e. as the passive purveyor of raw materials and resources at cheap prices.  And it doesn't seem like they have any viable alternative.

[derspiess]

That hasn't happened for quite a while.

So fucking what.  I'm not worried about it.  One thing we can always rely on is Russian-Chinese myopia.  That shit never changes with those people.

I just don't see any issues on either side that look like they'll cause a rift in the near future.  I'd love to be proven wrong.

[CountDeMoney]

Minsky, it's not whether or not Russia plays the bottom in the relationship, it's to what degree the Chinese perceive them as the bottom.  Chinese wariness has always been the bigger variable in that relationship and they will see Russian threats, even when there necessarily aren't any.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There will be no falling out so long as Russia continues to act as the junior partner in these arrangements - i.e. as the passive purveyor of raw materials and resources at cheap prices.  And it doesn't seem like they have any viable alternative.

I would agree with this, it's a pure business relationship and China has no qualms about the countries with which it does business. I think the independence of China from any form of Russian political influence is so well established at this point that Russia under any leader I could imagine them having (obviously including Putin) would never even try that sort of thing.