Russia and US both accuse other of violating INF treaty

Both Russia and the US have accused the other of violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

In 2014 the US formally published a non-compliance determination that Russia has been testing an unspecified cruise missile from a road mobile launcher. Under terms of the treaty, neither side is to possess or test ground launched cruise missiles, or launchers for GLCMs, that have a range of 500-5,500 km (310-3100 miles). According to the Russian response, it was a technical violation, as the missile in question is a sub launched cruise missile. Under terms of the treaty, SLCMs launched from the land, must be launched from a fixed launch position, not a mobile launcher.

www.armscontrol.org...

Now, Russia is accusing the US of violating the treaty with the Aegis Ashore missile defense system. The claimed violation is the Mk 41 vertical launch system used is capable of launching Tomahawk missiles when installed on ships.

sputniknews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think the US has violated the treaty from the start ... they used it, as an excuse to further their intentions in Europe, under the guise of NATO. I'm saying US here, it might just as well have been European nations doing it ... but using NATO as a guise, to put up missile systems in Europe, directed at Russia is a clear "offensive" action. It's a threat against Russia, which in return "prompts" Russia to further develop it's systems.

I put the blame on NATO here. Presuming (perhaps wrongly) that US is behind NATO's actions.

Who actually was "first" to literally break the treaty ... I see as irrelevant.

a reply to: bjarneorn

With what? There are no ground launched cruise missiles in the US inventory. The INF treaty doesn't cover Europe, only the US and Russia. The European nations could develop all the ground launched missiles they want to, as they didn't sign the treaty.

Putin pretty much tossed this treaty aside in 2007 when he said it no longer met Russian interests. And the Russian's also had a problem with the fact China is not bound by the treaty. Frankly though if the treaty ends officially it gives the US a much more free hand which is likely the only reason Russian has not canceled it.

So both sides violated the treaty. Did anyone here ever believe that either side was not going to violate it? Both countries have exceptional intelligence systems and spy on what the others do. Both were going to get caught.

I thought that they just signed treaties to satisfy their wives.

originally posted by: rickymouse
So both sides violated the treaty. Did anyone here ever believe that either side was not going to violate it? Both countries have exceptional intelligence systems and spy on what the others do. Both were going to get caught.

I thought that they just signed treaties to satisfy their wives.

Your right there...

It's funny how this is just becoming news since there is a military-build happening right now in Syria from the Russians and NATO backed Turkey: here

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah ... so, I was right.

But then, this treaty is not in the interest of either Russia or the US.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.

a reply to: bjarneorn

It doesn't matter if Europe develops them, or deploys them, as they aren't covered by any treaty. This treaty was used to reduce the arsenal of weapons available to both sides. It worked, and continues to work.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.

I remember back in the day, but I can understand the Russians backing on this deal. It's clear that NATO used it as an opportunity to move on Russia. Something that can be confirmed by NATO's Montenegro act. They are threatening Russia, and enacting it ...

Probably the only reason Russia didn't cancel the agreement, was to get a head start in the race they saw as inevitable.

a reply to: bjarneorn

This treaty has nothing to do with NATO or NATO weapons. This is a treaty between the US and Russia, that's all. Not everything has to do with NATO or threatening Russia.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.

It doesn't matter about who breaks the treaties, this to me only adds to the mounting tensions and it is kind of worrying to see this happening.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bjarneorn

This treaty has nothing to do with NATO or NATO weapons. This is a treaty between the US and Russia, that's all. Not everything has to do with NATO or threatening Russia.

Of course it does ... Russia sees US as the entity behind the threat of NATO.

a reply to: bjarneorn

That's quite a leap in logic you're taking. This treaty is between the US and Russia, no one else. Just because the US is the largest member of NATO, not everything they do has to do with NATO. They're still a separate entity from NATO.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

Of course it does ... Russia sees US as the entity behind the threat of NATO.

Is NATO really a threat to Russia, or is it a constraining hand on Russian belligerence and ambition? That is the question, and for another thread.

To the issue in hand. The article from the Russian government-owned Sputnik news agency says very little. The objection is the siting of the Mk41 launch system in an unspecified European country, with, or without cruise missiles. It does seem to me that Russia are trying to discover a reason for their previous violations of the Treaty. I expect the Mk41 would be placed to hold anti missile rather than cruise missiles. Besides, if the units are held by a European nation then they are not US, so the arguments moot at that point.

But ... What's an SM-3 missiles like those installed in Poland and Romania ? Can somebody say what that is ?

Well then here's a good guess : It's a dual-purpose IRBM / ABM missile with a range of ~4000 km when used as IRBM.
When used as ABM, its range against exoatmospheric targets is about 2000 km

How about Thales missiles in development which have a range of around 3500 km. Just enough to reach Moscow from Rotterdam ? too late for Stoltenberg laments I guess ...

a reply to: Flanker86

Even if it is used for that, it's not a treaty violation, but nice try. And in that case, the similar Russian missiles would have to be categorized the same way.

Gorbachev won't be able to help the EU on this one though ! Not this time .


IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (range between 3000 and 5500 Km) which is exactly what that treaty is supposedly banning

a reply to: Flanker86

Well so much for your claim the SM-3 is an IRBM. Its range is 700km-2500km.

Even if that range was accurate it would still be in violation of the INF treaty, but in any case that does not matter.
The EU is playing an idiotic game where they are basically responsible for pushing eastern EU countries during the past decade or so, into demanding the deployment of US military bases and military hardware against Russia. Now it's easy for the EUro#ers to claim that the US / Russia are violating the INF treaty. Let it be clear that NATO and the EU are the main to blame for the destruction of the INF treaty. If EU-NATO didn't allow US forces deployment in its own soil, there would not be any reason for the US to cancel the INF treaty.