INF Treaty Violation?

D

Deleted 24582

Guest
No surprises here. Why would China become signatory to a Treaty that limits Chinese capability? Nothing to do with us; only those treaty-breaking Russians and treaty-repudiating Americans. Trustworthy China was not involved.

'China rejected on Saturday German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s appeal to join a Cold War-era arms control treaty that the United States accuses Russia of breaching, saying it would place unfair limits on the Chinese military.'

China rebuffs Germany's call for U.S. missile deal with Russia | Reuters

China is a big part of the death of the INF treaty. Even their good buddies the Russians are moving more missiles to the Far East. Nothing like trust between comrades!
 
No surprises here. Why would China become signatory to a Treaty that limits Chinese capability? Nothing to do with us; only those treaty-breaking Russians and treaty-repudiating Americans. Trustworthy China was not involved.

'China rejected on Saturday German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s appeal to join a Cold War-era arms control treaty that the United States accuses Russia of breaching, saying it would place unfair limits on the Chinese military.'

China rebuffs Germany's call for U.S. missile deal with Russia | Reuters
As noted in the news story, the INF treaty is very closely predicated on the geography of Europe and on what was in the interests of the US and the Soviet Union.

To be able to include the Chinese in any arrangement, it would have to take air and sea based systems into account as well. China's military forces are primarily ground based, and a treaty that only restricts ground based forces and not air or sea based would inherently be tilted against China.
Retired Chinese General Yao Yunzhu told delegates a new arms control agreement would only work if it included sea- and air-launched missiles, as well as land, because most of China’s military technology was ground-based and the country would not want to put itself at a disadvantage.
That means the whole idea would need to be re-thought, and there is no sign that US or Russia are really interested in doing that at this time. It's Europe who want the INF treaty, but they have nothing to bring to the table to make it worth anyone's while to go along with them. The guy in the White House who is steering US policy on this, Bolton, is well known as being opposed to any arms control treaties at all.

There is already a treaty in which the major nuclear powers agreed to get rid of all of their own nuclear weapons provided the other signatories didn't start building any for themselves. There's no sign of that happening even decades later. When Merkel starts thinking of what is good for the world as a whole rather than just what is good for Germany and working to get that treaty implemented, then I'll start to take her concerns more seriously.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
As noted in the news story, the INF treaty is very closely predicated on the geography of Europe and on what was in the interests of the US and the Soviet Union.

To be able to include the Chinese in any arrangement, it would have to take air and sea based systems into account as well. China's military forces are primarily ground based, and a treaty that only restricts ground based forces and not air or sea based would inherently be tilted against China.


That means the whole idea would need to be re-thought, and there is no sign that US or Russia are really interested in doing that at this time. It's Europe who want the INF treaty, but they have nothing to bring to the table to make it worth anyone's while to go along with them. The guy in the White House who is steering US policy on this, Bolton, is well known as being opposed to any arms control treaties at all.

There is already a treaty in which the major nuclear powers agreed to get rid of all of their own nuclear weapons provided the other signatories didn't start building any for themselves. There's no sign of that happening even decades later. When Merkel starts thinking of what is good for the world as a whole rather than just what is good for Germany and working to get that treaty implemented, then I'll start to take her concerns more seriously.
Western Europe continues to remove any influence it once had over the United Sates.
Perhaps it is time for Merkel to go?
 
Western Europe continues to remove any influence it once had over the United Sates.
Perhaps it is time for Merkel to go?
She's already announced her retirement. There's no indication though that whomever replaces her will be any different.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
She's already announced her retirement. There's no indication thought that whomever replaces her will be any different.
Well the German economy and their Anti American sentiment will dictate their security choices.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
There is good news and there is bad news.
Good news is that some of NATO members start to understand logic of the Cold War. Bad news is that they lost understanding of Anglo-logic (aka double-thinking).

"D’où cette hypothèse que Pompeo, selon les propres évaluations de ses services qui n’ont que la seule référence de l’exceptionnalité et de l’éternelle supériorité de la puissance US, suit comme narrative, correspondant d’ailleurs fort bien à son caractère et à sa culture (?), la raillerie courante des Russes et de leurs capacités, qui est l’une des deux faces du jugement américaniste habituellement complètement contradictoire sur la Russie. (L’autre face de la contradiction étant la diabolisation de la Russie et de sa puissance maléfique, avec effectivement la contradiction complète comme prime courante de la pathologie de ces dirigeants américanistes.)"

"Hence the hypothesis that Pompeo, according to his own evaluations of his services, which have only the reference of the exceptionality and the eternal superiority of the US power, follows as narrative, corresponding moreover very well to his character and his culture (?), the common mockery of Russians and their capabilities, which is one of two sides of the usually completely contradictory American judgment on Russia. (The other side of the contradiction is the demonization of Russia and its evil power, with Indeed the complete contradiction as the common prime of the pathology of these American leaders.)"

Le Zircon de Poutine ? “Fanfaronnade”, dit Pompeo
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Well the German economy and their Anti American sentiment will dictate their security choices.
I don't think you should be reading too much into Germany's desire to cut defence ties with USA. A European defence force capable of looking after itself has been on the planning table pretty much since 1945, and Germany simply inherited the mantle of pro-European champion from France as it regained power.

What you see as anti-US is probably in large part just down to a desire to cut the apron strings. Trump himself wasn't exactly helpful in instilling confidence in the USA's commitment to NATO or Europe, so you can hardly blame NATO's European members if they choose to become independent of the US for their defence.
 
Russia has announced that they will suspend their participation in the INF treaty "until the U.S. ends its violations of the treaty or until it terminates."
Russia halts participation in nuclear arms treaty, stoking fears of Cold War-era crisis | CBC News
In a decree, Putin suspended Russia's obligations under the terms of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty and said it will continue to do so "until the U.S. ends its violations of the treaty or until it terminates."
The US had previously announced their intention to withdraw from the INF, so this response by Russia not not unexpected.
The U.S. gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the INF a month ago, setting the stage for it to terminate in six months unless Moscow returns to compliance. Russia has denied any breaches, and accused the U.S. of violating the pact.
The UN has said that they hope the US and Russia will both return to supporting the treaty, as it formed an important part of international arms control and stability.
At the United Nations, spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that Secretary General Antonio Guterres holds a strong hope that Moscow and Washington could resolve their differences over the treaty in the coming months.
"The INF is a very important part of the international arms control architecture," Dujarric said.
"It has contributed tangibly to the maintenance of peace and stability, notably in Europe."
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
I don't think you should be reading too much into Germany's desire to cut defence ties with USA. A European defence force capable of looking after itself has been on the planning table pretty much since 1945, and Germany simply inherited the mantle of pro-European champion from France as it regained power.

What you see as anti-US is probably in large part just down to a desire to cut the apron strings. Trump himself wasn't exactly helpful in instilling confidence in the USA's commitment to NATO or Europe, so you can hardly blame NATO's European members if they choose to become independent of the US for their defence.
No their reporter who was making up pure bullshit about Americans, was eye opening enough. The German people were all to willing to believe made up propaganda and use it to form their views of my country. Nobody questioned him in Deutschland.

Commitment works both ways.
Europe seems to forget that.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
No their reporter who was making up pure bullshit about Americans, was eye opening enough. The German people were all to willing to believe made up propaganda and use it to form their views of my country. Nobody questioned him in Deutschland.

Commitment works both ways.
Europe seems to forget that.
"Money talks, BS walks" as you say. Russia and China are much more useful trading parthners to them, you know.
 
Second order effects, on a Soviet 'successor state'.

'Ukraine has got rid of some of the limitations on the range of missiles and plans to develop high-precision missile weapons. This was stated by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko during a meeting of the National Development Council, Interfax-Ukraine reports. "We are no longer bound by any limitations either on the range of our missiles or on their power - let the enemy know about it too. We need high-precision missiles and we no longer intend to repeat the mistakes of the Budapest Memorandum," he said.'

Ukraine needs high-precision missile weapons, - Poroshenko
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Septics, even before official end of INF-treaty, started development of INF-missiles.

What is even more important - they did without consultations with their European and Asiatic "allies".
 
Septics, even before official end of INF-treaty, started development of INF-missiles.

What is even more important - they did without consultations with their European and Asiatic "allies".
As opposed to 9M729 when the Treaty was in force. Not really rocket science (actually it is a bit) is it? To put what’s used on ships on a vehicle.
They wanna test it at August.
In
 
When did Russia last test a nuke?
Apparently, not long ago.

'The US believes Russia may be conducting low-level nuclear testing in violation of a moratorium on such tests, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency says. "The United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to its nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the 'zero-yield' standard," Lieutenant General Robert P Ashley said at an arms control forum at the Hudson Institute on Wednesday.'

A big disingenuous though, as the USA hasn't ratified the CTBT itself, and as the two are in strategic competition, the Russians can reasonably say that it hinders them but not the USA.

Russia suspected of nuclear testing
 
Apparently, not long ago.

'The US believes Russia may be conducting low-level nuclear testing in violation of a moratorium on such tests, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency says. "The United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to its nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the 'zero-yield' standard," Lieutenant General Robert P Ashley said at an arms control forum at the Hudson Institute on Wednesday.'

A big disingenuous though, as the USA hasn't ratified the CTBT itself, and as the two are in strategic competition, the Russians can reasonably say that it hinders them but not the USA.

Russia suspected of nuclear testing
The article states that the treaty hasn't come into effect yet, and won't until the US, among others, ratifies it.
Negotiated in the 1990s, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) enjoys wide global support but must be ratified by eight more nuclear technology states -- among them Israel, Iran, Egypt and the United States -- to come into force.
Russia ratified the treaty in 2000.
"Ratification" by one or more countries means nothing on its own. It's under what conditions a treaty comes into effect that is significant. A country is not bound by a treaty simply because it has ratified it, it becomes bound by a treaty to which it is a party coming into effect. Until the US and several other countries ratify the treaty Russia is no more bound the by its terms than the US as a non-ratifying party is.

To provide an analogy, Parliament may vote on legislation, but until the legislation has passed through all the stages and is signed by Her Majesty (or Her Majesty's representative) it does not become law.

So it is with treaties. There will in most cases be conditions attached to ratification such that it does not come into effect until those conditions are met. Until then, a country's ratification does not bind it to the terms of that treaty.

Here's the list of countries whose ratification is required before it comes into effect. That's a rather interesting collection of countries to be lumped in with.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
  • China
  • Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  • Egypt
  • India
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of)
  • Israel
  • Pakistan
  • United States of America
In accordance with Article XIV of the Treaty, it will enter into force after all 44 States listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty have ratified it.
Here's the UN's description of the current progress.
A/RES/68/68 - E - A/RES/68/68

I will highlight out two points of particular interest. The first is that while they "urge" all states to maintain a moratorium on nuclear tests, this does not have any legal effect until the treaty comes into force (see the above discussion).
Urges all States not to carry out nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, to maintain their moratoriums in this regard and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, while stressing that these measures do not have the same permanent and legally binding effect as the entry into force of the Treaty;
Secondly, they equally "urge" all states whose signature is required and that have not ratified and signed the treaty to do so.
Urges all States that have not yet signed the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force, to sign and ratify it as soon as possible;
Or to put it another way, from the perspective of the treaty a country which conducts a test is in the same position with respect to the treaty as a country which has not even signed and ratified it yet.

And of course no evidence has been provided yet that Russia has conducted any such tests. According to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), they have not detected any and they say they have full confidence in their ability to do so.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48454680
But analysts received the statement with scepticism. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) said in a statement that it had not detected any unusual activity.

"The CTBTO has full confidence in the ability of the IMS [its monitoring system] to detect nuclear test explosions,", the organisation said in a statement.
 
And of course no evidence has been provided yet that Russia has conducted any such tests. According to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), they have not detected any and they say they have full confidence in their ability to do so.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48454680
Agree with all you've said and cited: the whole think seems like a bit of US agitprop, or perhaps someone 'misspoke'.

'A top US military officer says that Russia is “probably” violating the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, opening a new area of disagreement as the two powers negotiate arms control.

'Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, part of the US military that provides international analysis, voiced alarm at Russia’s modernisation of its nuclear forces. “The United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to the nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the zero-yield standard,” Ashley said in a speech at the Hudson Institute. “Our understanding of nuclear weapon development leads us to believe that Russia’s testing activities would help it improve its nuclear weapons capabilities,” he said, adding that the United States by contrast has strictly adhered to the ban. The Wall Street Journal quotes analysts as saying Moscow is likely carrying out very low-yield nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya, a remote arctic archipelago. This contravenes treaties which say such tests must be ‘subcritical’, or not initiate a nuclear chain reaction.

'But, when pressed by a reporter to explain Russia’s alleged wrongdoing, General Ashley appeared to retreat from the charge that Moscow had actually carried out tests in violation. “I’d say we believe they have the capability to do it, the way they’re set up,” he said.'


This island has the West up in arms
 
U.S. believes Russia conducting low-level nuclear tests - official - Reuters
It would appear the media are 'hyping up' what was said at the conference:
The head of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Lassina Zerbo, said media reports appeared to “probably overstate” Ashley’s comments.

“It wasn’t about Russia conducting any low-yield tests but that Russia may have the capability for doing so,” he told Reuters in an interview during a visit to Seoul on Thursday.

The organization’s global detection systems have not detected any tests, Zerbo said.

“We’re pretty confident that any militarily significant explosive test would not go undetected. So far we haven’t had any signal to that effect and we’re looking for further evidence.”
 
Agree with all you've said and cited: the whole think seems like a bit of US agitprop, or perhaps someone 'misspoke'.

'A top US military officer says that Russia is “probably” violating the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, opening a new area of disagreement as the two powers negotiate arms control.

'Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, part of the US military that provides international analysis, voiced alarm at Russia’s modernisation of its nuclear forces. “The United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to the nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the zero-yield standard,” Ashley said in a speech at the Hudson Institute. “Our understanding of nuclear weapon development leads us to believe that Russia’s testing activities would help it improve its nuclear weapons capabilities,” he said, adding that the United States by contrast has strictly adhered to the ban. The Wall Street Journal quotes analysts as saying Moscow is likely carrying out very low-yield nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya, a remote arctic archipelago. This contravenes treaties which say such tests must be ‘subcritical’, or not initiate a nuclear chain reaction.

'But, when pressed by a reporter to explain Russia’s alleged wrongdoing, General Ashley appeared to retreat from the charge that Moscow had actually carried out tests in violation. “I’d say we believe they have the capability to do it, the way they’re set up,” he said.'

This island has the West up in arms
Here's the actual speech. I haven't got a hour and three quarters to watch it, so I can only go by American press reports about what he actually said, and which you have quoted.
Events - The Arms Control Landscape - May - 2019 - Hudson Institute

It is important to note though that at present there is no "ban" despite the press reporting there is one, and there won't be one until and unless the US, among other countries, ratify it.

When something like this appears in the press, the first question that should come into mind is who wants it to be there and whose agenda it is serving. This US news source notes that the US is believed to be preparing to set up the START (nuclear weapons limitations) negotiations to fail in order to get out of that treaty when it comes up for renewal next year.
Defense intel head: Russia 'probably' violating nuclear test ban treaty
Meanwhile, a separate Obama-era treaty known as New START that caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads the United States and Russia are allowed is up for renewal in 2021. The Trump administration has indicated it wants to expand the scope of the treaty in order renew it, including folding in new weapons not covered by the deal and possibly including China.

Tim Morrison, senior director for weapons of mass destruction and biodefense on the National Security Council, said at the Hudson Institute on Wednesday that Trump will decide “next year” whether to extend New START.

Arms control advocates are worried the Trump administration is setting up negotiations on New START to fail, which would leave the world’s two biggest nuclear powers without treaty limitations on their arsenals for the first time in years.
France 24 notes that Bolton among other major US political figures is a major opponent of the test ban treaty on philosophical grounds.
Russia 'probably' violating nuclear test treaty: US general
The US has signed the treaty but its ratification was rejected in 1999 by the Senate due to opposition from Republicans.
Conservative Republicans -- notably John Bolton, now President Donald Trump's national security advisor -- oppose the treaty on the grounds that it is unenforceable and impedes US sovereignty.
So this speech may be part of the start of a propaganda campaign to provide "justification" for the US to walk out of next year's START negotiations.

The reason that the general started waffling and watering down his statements when quizzed by the press is likely that he knows he doesn't have evidence to back it up and is in the unenviable position of being the one who has been selected by his superiors to front the start of this campaign and whose personal credibility is going to suffer if the public don't swallow it.
 

Latest Threads

Top