Cruise Missiles vs. UAVs

Russia and the U.S. exchanged charges of the violation of arrangements in the disarmament field.

Discussions of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF treaty) took place in Moscow for the first time in more than 10 years. The U.S. accuses the Russian Federation of testing the forbidden missiles — Moscow has three counterclaims at once. Concerns were not alleviated during the negotiations. Experts do not expect that Russia will leave the treaty, but they warn: In return, the U.S. can place systems in Europe that will be able to get to the command post of Russian strategic forces within minutes.

At the end of last week, for the first time since 2003, consultations on the implementation of the INF Treaty took place in Moscow. The 1987 treaty between the USSR and the U.S. became the first in history to call for the elimination of an entire class of armament: shorter-range missiles (from 500 to 1,000 km) and intermediate-range missiles (from 1,000 to 5,500 km) are covered under the treaty. The special control committee had been active until 2003; however, it has been stopped by U.S. initiative.

In July of this year, the U.S. accused Russia of violating the agreement for the first time: relevant claims were stated in a letter from Barack Obama to Vladimir Putin and in the State Department report on international adherence to the arms control agreements. The report by the U.S. foreign policy department said that “the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles” (the type of “banned” missile was not named in the document). A delegation headed by Undersecretary Rose Gottemoeller arrived in Moscow to discuss this problem.

Mikhail Ulyanov, head of the Russian delegation, director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, told “Ъ” that even behind closed doors, Americans made their claims only “in general terms, without specifics.” Earlier, the American MSM reported that Washington will not announce this data, in order to not compromise its reconnaissance sources. However, The New York Times, citing a source from the White House, reported: We are talking about a ground-launched cruise missile, called the R-500, for the Iskander-K complex. It was tested in May 2007 for the first time; according to the Russian government’s statements, it will be on “operational duty” within months. According to Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the characteristics of this missile directly contradict the terms of the treaty and creates a “serious risk” for the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia.

Russia has rejected the United States’ claims, and in return accused guests of three violations of the INF treaty. First, what according to Mikhail Ulyanov’s words causes Moscow’s concerns, is “target missiles which fully simulate the intermediate-range ballistic missiles.” The U.S. is using these missiles to test its missile defense system. Russia believes that the second violation of the INF treaty is wide usage of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by Americans. “It’s 100 percent under the definition of land-based cruise missiles,” explained Mr. Ulyanov to “Ъ”.

And third, according to him, Russia is concerned about the creation of the Aegis Ashore System by Americans, which provides for the transfer of MK-41 universal vertical launch systems from ships (where they are under the INF treaty) to land —Romania (in 2015) and Poland (in 2018). These units are capable of running sea- and land-based “Tomahawks.” There are no land-based units anymore (they were eliminated under the INF treaty), but in the past they were not much different from those which are based on the sea today. “And once the system is universal, it is likely that the missiles of these units can be changed to ballistic missiles at some point. We are concerned about this,” says Mikhail Ulyanov.

According to his words, the conversation with Rose Gottemoeller was “difficult, but not confrontational, but outspoken and professional. The consultations were helpful,” said the diplomat. “But we did not get satisfied answers to our questions, and that’s why all of our concerns remain valid. We have agreed to continue the conversation.”

Valid questions also remain for the U.S. “We are sure that Russia has violated its obligations under the INF treaty. This is a very serious problem, which we have been trying to explain Russia for a long-lasting time,” said “Ъ”’s source in the U.S. embassy in Moscow. “We have informed Russians that the U.S. is not satisfied with the answers to our questions and do not consider this matter closed.” According to another of “Ъ”’s sources, which is close to the U.S. State Department, American negotiators offered Russian colleagues to agree on some “transparency measures” in this area, but did not outline them.

The date of the next consultation about this problem has not been determined. Earlier it was reported that the military authorities of the two countries will join the negotiation process, but a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told “Ъ” that the ministry “has no such plans yet.”

Dmitri Trenin, Head of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said that Rose Gottemoeller’s visit to Moscow is “a political gesture.” “Republicans have been accusing the administration of not paying sufficient attention to Russia’s actions, which allegedly violate the INF treaty,” said Mr. Trenin to “Ъ”. “The undersecretary’s trip to Moscow is a signal to the Republican Party that Obama’s administration is not ignoring the problem and trying to solve it through negotiations.”

Responding to all the criticism of the INF treaty from the Republican side, the assistant secretary of state of the Bureau of Arms Control of George W. Bush’s administration, Stephen Rademaker, said at recent hearings in Congress that the U.S. should not leave the INF treaty first. “Since Russia so clearly wants out, we should make sure that they alone pay the political and diplomatic price of terminating the treaty,” he explained.

But Russian officials have repeatedly made it clear that Moscow may refuse to comply with the INF treaty. In mid-August, President Putin declared it (not for the first time), explaining that while the U.S. does not need this type of weapon, Russia has “a very different situation,” because it borders countries such as Pakistan, which have this type of missile and a regime that is “politically unstable.”

According to Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Public Policy Research, the situation surrounding the INF treaty will be resolved in autumn or winter. “If the deterioration of Russian-American relations is able to slow down, the treaty will still exist,” he said to “Ъ.” “If the confrontation between Russia and the United States continues, Moscow will probably leave the treaty and create an intermediate-range cruise missile, for example, based on the ‘Topol-M’ missile or the ‘Yars’ mobile ballistic missile systems.”

Dmitri Trenin also believes that the probability of leaving the treaty by one country is high. At the same time, in his opinion, the Russian government has to understand what Russia’s withdrawal from the INF treaty is fraught with: “This will give the United States an opportunity to place forward-based systems in Europe permanently, which will be able to get to the command posts of Russian strategic forces within minutes.”