Russia suspends nuclear arms treaty after US threatens the same

In response to the US threatening to withdraw from the long standing Nuclear Forces Treaty if Russia didn’t comply with it, Russia has responded by withdrawing from the treaty.

I don’t know if this signals the reigniting of another nuclear arms race, or if Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are just playing some sort of brinkmanship.

Whatever it is, it looks like a sign of deteriorating relations between the US and Russia.

Reuters:  Russia suspends nuclear arms treaty after U.S. says to pull out

Russia has suspended the Cold War-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday, after the United States said it would withdraw from the arms control pact, accusing Moscow of violations.

The United States announced on Friday it will withdraw from the INF treaty in six months unless Moscow ends what it says are violations of the 1987 pact.

It would reconsider its withdrawal if Russia came into compliance with the agreement, which bans both nations from stationing short- and intermediate-range land-based missiles in Europe. Russia denies violating the treaty.

“The American partners have declared that they suspend their participation in the deal, we suspend it as well,” Putin said during a televised meeting with foreign and defense ministers.

Putin said Russia will start work on creating new missiles, including hypersonic ones, and told ministers not to initiate disarmament talks with Washington, accusing the United States of being slow to respond to such moves.

“We have repeatedly, during a number of years, and constantly raised a question about substantiative talks on the disarmament issue,” Putin said. “We see that in the past few years the partners have not supported our initiatives.”

During the meeting with Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the United States of violating the INF and other arms deals, including the non-proliferation treaty.

Back to cold war style blaming each other for what they want to do themselves.

Trump seems to have had a night off Twitter so no response from him yet.

 

Leave a comment

28 Comments

  1. Reply
    • Duker

       /  3rd February 2019

      The INF Treaty was only between USSR ( now Russia ) and USA . Not Iran or China

      Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  3rd February 2019

    brinksmanship…I would say.
    The Russians play it quite well these days too.

    Trump picking fights with Russia,China,Iran,Nth Korea…the days of U.S hegemony are numbered.

    Russia has a hi tech military arsenal…reaching U.S cities=not a problem.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  3rd February 2019

      America has Area 51.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  3rd February 2019

      ICBMs can reach every part of the USa and vice versa with Russia.
      The Cruise missile things was more of a concern for Europe as the warning wasnt as long as for ICBMs- not that its a long time for them either

      Reply
  3. Finbaar Rustle

     /  3rd February 2019

    Like the rules of war.
    Killing each other in battle is fine
    however when captured treat each other like fiends !!!
    Super powers say lets play nicely with our nuclear arsenals…
    The nuclear threat is the greatest danger to world survival.

    Reply
  4. Duker

     /  3rd February 2019

    The US has broken the INF Treaty for many many years with their armed drones which are used for long range attacks.

    Due to the way the INF Treaty is worded it doesnt just cover nuclear armed missiles but ALL self propelled winged missile systems with ranges of 500-1000km.

    This of course explains while its an open secret , the longer range drone attacks are a ‘Restricted Acess’ level secret which cant appear in US official documents.

    Wording of Treaty here
    https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm

    Defintion of ‘cruise missile’
    “The term “cruise missile” means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term “ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)” means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.”

    Its a quirk of the wording that drones likely existed at the time but couldnt be conceived to operate like the US uses them for long range attacks where they return home.
    But Treatys are like Contracts , the exact wording is what counts not what you would like to think it is.

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  3rd February 2019

      “But Treatys are like Contracts , the exact wording is what counts not what you would like to think it is.”

      That is not really true. When there is an argument over the meaning of the words, there are important tests, i.e. consensus ad idem, that judges if both parties understood and agreed the intent. There must be a common understanding.

      Given the whole context of the treaty was based on nuclear missiles, the idea something like a clearly non-nuclear armed drone is covered is simply silly.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  3rd February 2019

        The definitions contradict you – nowhere does it say it has to be a nuclear armed.
        The US Tomahawk cruise missiles came in nuclear and ordinary warheads- Treaty covered both as they were indistinguishable. The smallest nuclear warheads are not much bigger than your toaster

        So your claims about the treaty being about ‘nuclear warheads’ are just based on ignorance of what the treaty says and the circumstances of the time.
        US breached the arms control treatys of the 1920-30s as well.

        Us has breached the Korean war armistice , as they bought in nuclear weapons to the peninsula
        ‘Paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice Agreement mandated that neither side introduce new weapons into Korea, other than piece-for-piece replacement of equipment.[29] In September 1956 the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford indicated that the U.S. military intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea, which was agreed to by the U.S. National Security Council and President Eisenhower.[30] The U.S. unilaterally abrogated paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement,…
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement

        Guess what, now the US wants denuclearisation’ of North Korea …hello.

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  3rd February 2019

          “The definitions contradict you – nowhere does it say it has to be a nuclear armed.”

          Sigh. Understand the context of the treaty. Contracts are more than the simple words. Anyone who spends anytime working with them understands that when it comes to a dispute.

          “So your claims about the treaty being about ‘nuclear warheads’ are just based on ignorance of what the treaty says and the circumstances of the time.”

          You are painfully ignorant of the ‘circumstances at the time’. The purpose of the treaty is to prevent either side from having nuclear system that can be delivered without enough time for the other side to respond. That was the circumstance, and the fear at the time.

          A drone with a couple of hellfire’s, warhead capacity around 45kg, is a mile outside that context. Doubly so, given the speed of deployment, it travels at 100mph.

          You can also reference all the actual weapons that were decommissioned as a result of the treaty, all nuclear delivery systems.

          If drones really are covered, then the Russian Skat would violate the treaty now wouldn’t it?

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  3rd February 2019

            The treaty has a definitions page which you ignore because it contradicts your bush lawyer opinions.
            hellfire is carried by the Predator type drones. The Predator when armed AND flying within the ranges mentioned is a self propelled winged weapons syste

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1C_Gray_Eagle
            See Syria war where non nuclear cruise missiles were only fired from from ships , planes or submarines by Both Russia and US/ Britain

            Yes any Russian long range armed drone would be violation of the Treaty

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  3rd February 2019

              For the readers who dont have your bush lawyer/knowall opinions
              from the Treaty
              Article II

              For the purposes of this Treaty:

              1. The term “ballistic missile” means a missile that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path. The term “ground-launched ballistic missile (GLBM)” means a ground-launched ballistic missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

              2. The term “cruise missile” means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term “ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)” means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

              3. The term “GLBM launcher” means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLBM.

              4. The term “GLCM launcher” means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

              5. The term “intermediate-range missile” means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1000 kilometers but not in excess of 5500 kilometers.

              6. The term “shorter-range missile” means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability equal to or in excess of 500 kilometers but not in excess of 1000 kilometers.

            • Pink David

               /  4th February 2019

              “The treaty has a definitions page which you ignore because it contradicts your bush lawyer opinions.”

              I’ll repeat myself; consensus ad idem. There must be common understanding. Only a ‘bush lawyer’ thinks that the words alone define a contract and that you can stretch the meaning to be a blanket coverall.

              The treaty was formed based on nuclear forces. The only systems ever scrapped under the treaty are nuclear. The only reason the Russians are moaning about the drones is simply because they know they are in violation.

  5. Pink David

     /  3rd February 2019

    “Whatever it is, it looks like a sign of deteriorating relations between the US and Russia.”

    What is Russia getting out of their ‘Asset’ in the White House?

    Reply
  6. The Consultant

     /  3rd February 2019

    COLLUSION!!!! ITS COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS I TELLS YA, AND ….

    Wait? What?

    – Loves fracking, which depresses oil prices, and puts even more pressure on already troubled Russian government budgets.
    – Approves of arms sales to Moscow’s enemies in Ukraine.
    – Attacks Russia’s ally, Bashar Assad. Twice.
    – Gets John Bolton (Iran War promotor, Russia skeptic, and general super-hawk) as his NSA.
    – Sticks it to Russia’s mate Maduro.
    – Tears up the INF treaty, while making it crystal clear that persistent cheating by Russia is the reason (incidently the Bush and Obama administrations had also raised this point, only to have the Russians simply deny it, so it’s not just Trump).

    How about we go with Occams Razor. Trump’s not owned by Putin at all and the whole Russia Collusion things is just another empty Democrat drum beaten to keep their proles enraged and working to get out the vote. Trump simply has a serious man-crush on Powerful Leaders and all that shite. As an example he’s also made approving sounding noises about how China’s leaders dealt with that whole annoying Tiananmen Square thing. That’s his idea of leadership: Leader say Jump!

    Oh – and he also gets’ tetchy about the whole Russia thing because it takes away from his glorious 2016 win that he did all by himself – and that’s just not allowed in the Trump Universe.

    Reply
  7. The Consultant

     /  3rd February 2019

    And on another note: this changes nothing. MAD continues to work and there will be no nuclear war between Russia and the USA. We are not going back to the Cold War.

    The Russians have been building intermediate range missiles for years and the USA has built things like cruise missiles and drones that can do the same job, both of them are heading for hypersonic missiles anyway, all of which make the 80’s INF obsolete anyway. So both of them can simply get on doing what they were doing, without having to pay lip service to it.

    Besides, for all the crap about hypersonic missiles the proof of the pudding os whether a nation can afford to build fleets of them, plus all the logistics and support backup systems of people and machinery. In theory Russia can do it, but only by heading back to the sort of economy they had as the USSR, where butter gets sacrificed for guns. For all Putin’s PR bluff and bluster, he’s too smart to get in that trap again.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  3rd February 2019

      Yes . the reality is most big powers break treatys when it suits their interest – see US breach of Korean Armistice.
      Trump has broken the Iran agreement inspite of his intell people saying it continues to abide by it.

      lets not kid ourselves the Russians or US are the good guys here.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s