Western politicians like to talk about disarmament, while at the same time shouting for more armament scorn for NATO’s 2 percent target. They have even succeeded so far with this dual strategy. It is worth looking at the bare facts: what were the most important disarmament treaties and what has become of them?
History goes back to the Cold War, when West and East threatened each other with nuclear annihilation. Back then, the elders among us remember, the fear of nuclear war was real. Disarmament treaties have therefore been concluded, but almost all of them no longer exist. The great danger of nuclear war, however, does not play a role in the media today.
There were three important disarmament agreements: the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty and the series of START treaties.
The ABM Treaty
The ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) (Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems) regulated the prohibition of strategic missile defense and was completed as early as 1972.
The background was to prevent one side from surrendering to the (false) illusion of invulnerability and thus being tempted to start a nuclear war in the hope of winning it.
The balance of terror should be maintained, because it guaranteed peace in the Cold War. The perverse but working logic was that none of the sides would start a war if they knew that the one who shoots first would be guaranteed to be destroyed second.
This logic worked and, despite all the tensions, saved the world from a Third World War. The ABM Treaty was an important pillar in this, because it forbade the superpowers to protect themselves against nuclear war with defense systems.
The United States unilaterally terminated the treaty in 2002. At the time, Russia was weak, and the US felt that it no longer needed to be considered. They developed their strategic missile defense (officially against Iran and North Korea), which they then set up far from these countries on the border with Russia. Today, the facilities are located in Romania and Poland.
“Defensive missile” sounds harmless, it is an aggressive system. The purpose of this “defense” is to conduct a first strike against Russia , in the hope that the then weak Russian counter-attack can largely be intercepted with the missile defense.
The missile defense with its few missiles, on the other hand, offers no protection against a first strike by the Russians, which would take place with hundreds or thousands of missiles. But a counter-attack with a few dozen remaining missiles was hoped for some protection.
The perverse logic of the Cold War had thus become even more perverse, because now some hardliners in the US could actually fall into the illusion that a nuclear war was winnable.
Another problem is that missile defense can be used not only for defense, but also for first strikes. The reason is the launch devices of the missile defense. These are the MK-41s, which are also used on ships to launch the Tomahawk missiles.
This allows the US to launch not only the defensive missiles from there, but also nuclear-tipped Tomahawk missiles. This actually makes the “missile defense” an attack system. It is also a clear violation of the INF Treaty, since the establishment of such launch pads on land is unequivocally prohibited in that treaty. We will come to the INF Treaty in a while.
Moreover, Russia had already responded in 2002 by announcing, after the termination of the ABM treaty, that it would react asymmetrically and develop missiles that could bypass missile defense.
The country was bankrupt at the time and was on the ground, the US had not taken the Russians seriously. As we know today, that was a mistake. Meanwhile, Russia has shown that it has kept its word and is now leading the way in hypersonic missiles that are not achievable for missile defense. The termination of the ABM treaty by the US and the deployment of missile defense were a billion-dollar grave, which has also made the world more uncertain.
The INF Treaty
The second major disarmament treaty was the INF Treaty (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) 1987, which regulated the ban on land-based nuclear short- and medium-range missiles.
The Background to the stationing of Soviet SS-20 missiles in the GDR in the 1970s, with which they were able to reach Western Europe within a few minutes. The West responded with the NATO double-track decision and the stationing of American Pershing missiles. In the course of negotiations, both sides completely renounced land-based missiles and destroyed them.
However, it was just land-based rockets, which is why, for example, the Tomahawk rockets of the United States do not violate the treaty, because they are not fired by Land, but by aircraft or ships.
By the way, the Tomahawks were originally developed for use with nuclear weapons. The Russians had nothing like it, and only recently, with the “Kibir”missile, they added a similar weapon system to their arsenals, which, like the Tomahawk, can be shot down by aircraft, ships and submarines, but not by Land.
The INF Treaty was extremely important, especially for Europe, because short-and medium-range missiles do not pose a threat to the United States, which is far enough away, but probably to the European countries. For these rockets reach their targets within minutes, and there is practically no advance warning time.
The United States terminated this Agreement half a year ago and it expired on 2 August.
The United States accused the Russians violated the INF Treaty in order to justify their own dismissal. The Problem is that while the US claims that Russia is violating the Rockets against the treaty, it has never submitted evidence.
Not even the Russians, although this for months but there is nothing but unaccompanied allegations from the US.
On the other hand, however, the United States has been in breach of the INF Treaty for a long time. Only one example is the MK-41 US missile defense in Europe, which has already been mentioned.
And this is just one example of us breach of contract. Another IS drones that are stationed on Land and are unmanned, have a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers and can carry nuclear weapons.
By Definition, they are therefore covered by the provisions of the INF Treaty. There are other, substantiated Russian allegations against the US, and although all these violations are easily verifiable and indisputable, Russia has not terminated the contract, but has tried to negotiate.
The media in Germany, on the other hand, are working on the subject as the press secretary of the Pentagon. For they do not report a word about the US’s breach of contract, but they cite the unaccompanied allegations of the US against Russia as facts.
By the way, the history of this termination is curious. The interested German citizen repeatedly heard and read How German government politicians have advocated the receipt of the INF Treaty. That was a lie and a hypocrisy.
When the US announced the unilateral repeal of the treaty in October 2018, Russia introduced a Resolution to the UN General Assembly to discuss this issue there.
This was followed by the votes of all European NATO states together with the USA rejected. This is a clear example of how German politicians say this for the “stupid people” in the Newsreel and yet do the opposite.
Do not be surprised, if you have never heard of it, no single German “quality medium” has reported about it.
Instead, however, the Germans were transatlantic in October immediately in the front row, when it was about the demand of the deployment of new US nuclear weapons in Europe.
And it is a Treppenwitz of world history that Russia, of all people, now guarantees the security of the European Nato states. Don’t you think?
But is so and indeed for a simple reason. Even in the Cold War, as it is now again, the US logic behind these steps is a very simple one: short - range and medium-range missiles in Europe give the US the hope to be able to restrict a nuclear war to Europe. Russia has given it a clear rejection.
In February, Putin has come along in his speech to the Nation said, however, so that it is well-understood only by experts. Russian television then “translated” Putin’s statements so that it could understand also the average person who is not a professional in the field.
Russia has clearly made it clear that it would in any case respond to a US nuclear attack from within Europe with a counter-strike against the US. The Russian television has shown this very figuratively and how the new hypersonic missiles work and that the US can not repel them.
And since such Russian political broadcasts are also seen by decision-makers in the US, the presenter addressed these people directly and explained to them that their command bunkers, in which they feel so secure, can be reached with the new Russian weapons within five minutes. These short flight times make possible the hypersonic missiles fired by submarines in the Pacific or the Atlantic.
Falcons in the US, who hoped to limit a nuclear war to Europe, should now have some thought. And so, in fact, Russia gives Europeans an indirect security guarantee by making it clear to the decision-makers in Washington that if they were prepared to sacrifice Europe, they would also sacrifice their own families.
The perverse logic of the Cold war is back.
The termination of the INF Treaty has therefore brought nothing more than endangering security, especially in Europe.
But even the US has not become bigger, but smaller, because Russia will react to the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Europe with more submarines that cross undetected somewhere in 1,000 kilometers away from the US coasts, and thus carry the danger of short - and medium-range missiles this time to America.
The START Treaty
The last agreement concluded was the START Contract (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the A Limitation of Strategic Nuclear Weapons nuclear explosives of the Superm’chte and entered into force in 1991.
He was succeeded by the START II Treaty in 1993 and the NEW START Treaty in 2010. These contracts, which have always been concluded with only a limited duration, have regulated the number of nuclear explosives and ensured that today, compared to the Cold War, there is only a fraction of these weapons.
But the current NEW-START treaty 2020, and so far no negotiations have begun on a successor contract. We can assume that there will be none for the time being.
The United States has so far refused to talk, even though Russia has been calling for such negotiations to begin for years. Putin has repeatedly raised this issue, but without receiving an answer from Washington.
This means that we will not have a single old contract in a year’ time, and a new bet is t’r and goal.”
Irony to end: The influential US-Thinktank RAND Corporation recently found that Russia had no aggressive intentions.
This was very much regretted, because, despite the continued efforts of the United States, it simply cannot be provoked. As a result, however, it was not a policy of détente that was proposed, but a series of measures to put even more pressure on and challenge Russia.