Up to their old tricks: US' tried and true methods for disrupting world peace

The system of precedents has taken root in the United States, however, not only in the judicial sphere, but also in the political arena, which unfortunately does not always have a good effect on the situation in the world.


1

For example, thirty years ago, when Washington and Moscow only created the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the American side managed to push through its demand to include the OTR-23 Oka (SS-23) missile system in an unsigned agreement, although it did not even fall under the agreed classification. It must be admitted that the USA did not need an extra missile system in service of the Soviet Union, and now, decades later, Washington clearly set out to test the old method in new conditions.

As is known, the question of extending START-3 - the Treaty on the Reduction of Offensive Arms is getting closer and closer. Against this background, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Andrea Thompson, noted serious complaints against Russia that its new Sarmat and Avangard missiles are being adopted, although they fall under the points of the agreement signed in 2010.

“Official comments and press reports from Russia indicate that some of these [new Russian weapons] systems can be deployed before the end of the new START in February 2021,” Thompson said in the opening remarks for a hearing in Congress.

Naturally, the statement makes sense. However, it must be borne in mind that the clauses of the agreement do not prohibit the development of strategic weapons in the framework of a predetermined amount by the parties. Moreover, any weapon tends to become obsolete both morally and physically. Hardly the US State Department makes such attacks from ignorance. It must be assumed that the agreement was read there accurately, but this does not answer the main question: why? Why the situation is aggravated that much?

In fact, there are two answers, and they tend to overlap. For quite some time now, the Russian defense-industrial complex seriously took the lead in missile development, leaving the American one far behind. Unfortunately, catching up is not so easy. It takes time. The count goes on for years, but there’re none of them. And we also need money, which Congress, of course, does not spare for the military sphere, but this budget is not unlimited. In such a situation, it remains only to use diplomacy, but not the purest one.

Now when Washington has already launched such rhetoric, it remains only to wait for new arguments, which unfortunately are unfounded, as shown by the recent situation with the INF. Simply put, American diplomats have a starting point and there is an ultimate goal to be achieved. At the same time, there is clearly no talk of compromise, which means Washington may well demand from Moscow to eliminate the new missile systems or, at least, seriously reduce their number, arguing the impressive characteristics of Russian weapons. And, of course, the joy of Americans will have no limits if they can achieve concessions from the Russians at the time of the extension of START-3. It will be a victory, rather than even in the military-industrial field, but on the political one.

There is only one problem that every sane person can not ignore: what if Russia refuses to make concessions? Rather, this outcome should be considered in the first place, because you can guarantee that it will. It will be too late for States to retreat from their rhetoric. As a result, there is a deadlock situation that will lead to the termination of the existence of one of the key agreements on the planet guaranteeing stability. As a result, the two largest world powers will not be limited to anything in the arms race, and the worst lies in the second answer to the question we asked earlier.

The Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles was terminated in connection with Washington’s accusations against Moscow regarding the 9M729 missile. According to the American side, this type of weapon violated the provisions of the INF range. Now that the agreement has come to an end, anyone who is at least a little familiar with the situation can look back and see that the US goal was to terminate the contract, but not to eliminate part of the Russian missiles or resolve the situation. It will be fair to note that Russia invited several American experts to study 9M729. It is hard to believe that they would go for it if there was even the slightest reason for doubt. However, these appeals were ignored.

One can not help but recall the desire of Donald Trump to create an analogue of the INF range, but already including China. Of course, it was silly to believe that Beijing would voluntarily want to disarm, and that it was well understood at the White House. This move was only to convince American partners that Washington is committed to preserving the balance of weapons. Now the fate of the INF Treaty is known to everyone, and the States are already unrelated in matters of developing medium-range and shorter-range missiles.

What's the drift of all this? And besides, according to The Washington Free Beacon, Congress intends to legally block funding for the renewal of START-3 until Trump includes China in the agreement. “This regulation will allow us to protect the interests of US state security,” said Republican Congressman John Cornyn, who is the co-sponsor of the bill.

Beijing’s position was unlikely to change so quickly, which means the prospects for START-3 are not much better than those of the INF. I believe that the observant reader has already understood that the United States is actually destroying global security, leading to the termination of another strategically important treaty. And, of course, the reader wants to understand why this is necessary. The answer, in fact, is banal to ugliness. The role of the US defense industry play military corporations. The state is the customer and transfers money from the military budget to corporations within the framework of arms supply contracts. The fewer restrictions, the more types of weapons can be produced, so the owners of those very corporations that have an incredible influence in the country use quite legal lobbyism in order to protect their economic interests. Of course, it makes no sense to say that all these missiles are built in order to be immediately put into action. It’s about the cycle of the dollar, which allows the US military industry to flourish. Unfortunately, when the quantity of weapons goes out of control, there is no guarantee that in a rush of self-confidence and a feel of invincibility some madman will not let them in motion by launching a chain reaction detrimental to the Earth.

By Paul Char

Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.