The Russian Response to Washington's Withdrawal from the INF Treaty

Those of us who live in the West generally only get small glimpses into the Russian mindset, so it is not terribly surprising that the Kremlin's response to the recent news that Washington was pulling out of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of their Immediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles aka the INF Treaty received almost no coverage even though the Kremlin's full response is available on the English language version of its website.

Here are some highlights from the Kremlin's response which was crafted during a high level meeting between Vladimir Putin, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu as shown here:

Russia has some very pressing concerns about recent developments in the United States nuclear weapons program:

"Another matter of concern for us is that only recently, just a year ago, the United States in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review set the task of developing low-yield nuclear weapons, and it is probable that intermediate-range missiles will serve as a means of delivery for these weapons. It was also announced only recently that this provision of the US nuclear doctrine is beginning to materialise with missiles of this kind entering production."

According to the Kremlin, Russia has its own version of the evolution of America's nuclear philosophy and how it has handled its obligations under three key nuclear weapons treaties:

1.) Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) - "It all started with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, when the US decided to withdraw from it in 2002, as you know all too well. This was done despite numerous initiatives by the Russian Federation at the UN General Assembly to save the ABM Treaty. The UN General Assembly passed a number of resolutions supporting the ABM Treaty. However, this did not stop the United States from withdrawing from it.

As a partial replacement for the ABM Treaty, the US and Russia signed a joint declaration that same year, 2002, on new strategic relations with a promise to settle all issues related to the so-called third positioning area of the missile-defence system being deployed in Europe at the time. The declaration provided for holding consultations as a way to reach common ground. This did not happen due to the unwillingness of the United States to take up Russia’s concerns in earnest.

In 2007, we made another gesture of good will at your instructions by coming forward with an initiative that consisted of working together to resolve the problems related to US missile defence system’s third positioning area in Europe. Once again, the US backed out of this proposal.

However, at the Russia-NATO Summit in Lisbon in 2010, we once again called for Russia, the US and Europe to work together on a continental missile-defence system. This call was not heeded. Nevertheless, two years later, in 2012, at the NATO Summit in Chicago it was NATO that called for dialogue with Russia on missile defence. However, all this good will boiled down to the US insisting that we simply come to terms with their missile defence approach, despite all the obvious risks and threats to our security posed by this approach.

Let me remind you that in 2013 Russia once again called on the US Department of State to open consultations, and came forward with concrete proposals. There was no reply. And in 2014, the United States brought the dialogue on missile defence to a halt and declared the intention to deploy its positioning areas in Europe and Asia, while also strengthening other systems, including in Alaska and on the east coast."

2.) Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) - "Talking about other essential international security and strategic stability instruments, the approach adopted by the United States to performing its commitments under the universal Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been a matter of concern for Russia. In fact, despite numerous reminders on our part, the United States commits serious violations of the Treaty in its actions within NATO. The Treaty commits nuclear powers to refrain from transferring the corresponding nuclear technologies.

Despite these provisions, NATO engages in so-called joint nuclear missions whereby the United States together with five NATO countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed conduct nuclear weapons drills with countries that are not part of the five nuclear-weapons states. This is a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

3.) Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) - "Another treaty that had a special role in removing the threat of nuclear war, or, to be more precise, whose preparation was a source of hope for addressing these threats, was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT]. The United States did not ratify it even though doing so was among Barack Obama’s campaign promises when he ran for president.

Right now, this instrument is completely off the radar, since the United States has lost all interest in any consultations on joining this Treaty. Being a party to the CTBT and acting in good faith, Russia holds special events at the UN General Assembly every year in order to promote the Treaty and mobilise public opinion in favour of its entry into force, which requires the United States to join it, among other things."

Let's now look at one of Russia's immediate concerns as shown in this exchange:

"President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, please provide an update on the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, and the disarmament dossier in general. What is going on in terms of limitation of offensive arms?

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Mr. President, regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as you know, it has been in force since 1988. It had an indefinite term. According to the information at our disposal, the United States has been violating the Treaty since 1999, when it started testing combat unmanned aerial vehicles that have the same characteristics as land-based cruise missiles banned by the Treaty.

The United States went on to use ballistic target missiles for testing their missile defence system, and in 2014 they began the deployment in their missile defence system positioning areas in Europe of Mk 41 vertical launching systems. These launchers are fully suitable as they are for Tomahawk intermediate-range attack missiles.

Vladimir Putin: And this is an outright violation of the Treaty.

Sergei Lavrov: This is an outright violation of the Treaty. Launchers of this kind have already been deployed in Romania, and preparations are underway to deploy them in Poland, as well as Japan." (my bold)

Let's take a closer look at the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System which has been deployed in Europe by the United States.  Here is a video from Lockheed Martin showing the Mk 41 VLS in action (accompanied by plenty of shots of the American flag):

Here is a product sheet from United Defense showing the capabilities and specifications of the Mk 41 VLS:

The Mk 41 VLS was originally designed as a multiple missile-launching system for the United States Navy's Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers to provide air threat protection for naval battle groups.  The wide selection of missiles that can be used in the MK 41 are pre-loaded into canisters which are then loaded into the individual cells of the launcher.  Launcher cells are fitted to ships in 2 rows of 4 cells (i.e. an 8 cell module) with the modular design allowing for the custom installation of any number of modules. Multiple missiles can be launched simultaneously and any missile/any cell can be launched at any time, independently of each other.  The system is designed to be used for anti-air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, ballistic missile defense and land attack/strike.

Here is a photo showing the aft Mk 41 VLS (61 cells) aboard the USS Vicksburg:

Here is a diagram showing the major components of the Mk 41 VLS system as used by the United States Navy:

The Mk 41 VLS is also used by America's allies as shown here:

While the Mk 41 VLS was originally designed for naval operations, there is also a land-based variant named Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System aka AAMDS.  The system incorporates land-based versions of the various components that are used on ships including the deckhouse, AN/SPY-1 radar, the Mk 41 VLS and Standard Missile-3 interceptors.  It is intended to serve as a midcourse defense against medium- and intermediate-range missiles.  The system has been installed at a Deveselu in Romania and consists of three MK 41 VLS tubes with eight cells per tube for a total of 24 interceptors.  The Romanian installation was tested in December 2015.  Additional sites are planned for Redzikowo, Poland and in December 2017, Japan's Cabinet approved plans to install two Aegis Ashore systems that are scheduled to be operational by 2023.  These two systems are being installed to defend against threats from North Korea and threats from China's advanced cruise missile program, however, their proximity to Russia is also of interest.

Here is a 2014 photo of the infrastructure of a test version of the Aegis Ashore deckhouse located at the Pacific Missile Range Facility:

Here is a video showing the facility in Romania:

It really is no wonder that Russia is concerned about the emplacement of the Aegis Ashore system on its doorstep.

It is interesting how the Western media provides us with only a single side of the nuclear weapons story.  Rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint where we hear both sides of the story regarding nuclear treaty violations by both Russia and the United States, we are subjected to what can best be termed "fake news" because it is so unbalanced as to be next to useless when it comes to better understanding the looming nuclear arms escalation.

Breaching Treaties - A Washington Pastime

Let's open this posting by looking at the definitions (according to the United Nations) of two words that are connected to treaties, signing, ratification and accession :  

"1.) Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval:

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.

2.) Ratification:

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.  

3.) Accession:

"Accession" is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his function as depositary, has also accepted accessions to some conventions before their entry into force. The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the treaty. A treaty might provide for the accession of all other states or for a limited and defined number of states. In the absence of such a provision, accession can only occur where the negotiating states were agreed or subsequently agree on it in the case of the state in question."   

In other words, signing a treaty indicates a nation's general willingness to the concept of the treaty but, until it is ratified or acceded to, it is not binding to a signing party/nation.  Signing a treaty does, however, signal to the world that a nation agrees with the intent of the treaty and is willing to work towards ratification/accession.

Now, let's look at some recent comments from United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a meeting held at NATO Headquarters in Brussels regarding Russia's alleged violations of the INF Treaty:

"Finally, and I want to be clear about this, America is upholding the rule of law. When we set forth our commitments, we agree to be bound by them. We expect the same of our treaty counterparts everywhere, and we will hold them accountable when their words prove untrustworthy. If we do not, we’ll get cheated by other nations, expose Americans to greater risk, and squander our credibility."

Let's examine the veracity of Mr. Pompeo's claims regarding Washington's trustworthiness when it comes to the signing and ratification of international treaties.

1.) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966):  This covenant built on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and expanded the notion of basic rights beyond political and civil provisions.  The agreement has been ratified or acceded to by 169 nations and was signed by the United States on October 5, 1977 but never ratified.

2.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminations Against Women (1979): This Convention sought to promote women's rights and reduce the extensive discrimination that existed against women. The agreement has been ratified or acceded to by 189 nations and was signed by the United States on July 17, 1980 but never ratified.

3.) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989):  This Convention is a defining agreement which formally recognized that children require special care and assistance and that international cooperation was necessary to ensure that children's rights were protected.    The agreement was ratified or acceded to by 196 nations and was signed by the United States on February 16, 1995 but never ratified, making the United States the only nation to not ratify the Convention.

4.) Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996): This Treaty bans all nuclear explosions for both military and civilian purposes.  The Treaty was signed by 184 nations and ratified by 167 nations.  It was signed by the United States on September 24, 1996 but never ratified. Other nations that have signed but not ratified the Treaty include China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

5.) Kyoto Protocol (1997): This Protocol was designed to limit carbon emissions in an attempt to reduce the threat of global climate change. The Protocol was signed by 83 nations and ratified or acceded to by 192 nations and was signed by the United States on November 12, 1998 but never ratified, making the United States the only nation to not fully adopt the Kyoto Protocol. 

6.) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998): This Statute established an international criminal court to deal with genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity.  The Statute was signed by 123 nations including the United States (on December 31, 2000) which played a key role in the creation of the Rome Statute.   Following the signature, then President Clinton did not submit the Rome Statute to the U.S. Senate for ratification stating that the U.S. still had concerns. On May 6, 2002, John Bolton, then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security sent the following message to United Nations Secretary Kofi Annan:

"Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.

Sincerely, S/John R. Bolton"  

7.) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006): This Convention was designed to ensure that persons with disabilities had the same rights as all other persons and guaranteed their fundamental freedom.  This agreement was ratified or acceded to by 177 nations and was signed by the United States on July 30, 2009 but never ratified.  The United States joins 12 other nations including Bhutan, Cameroon, Chad, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Somalia and Tajikistan in not ratifying this Convention.

In addition, there are two other treaties of note:

1.) Paris Agreement: on June 1, 2017, the United States backed out of the Paris Agreement on mitigating climate change which it signed on April 22, 2016 and acceded to on September 3, 2016.  As the only nation to back out of the Paris Agreement, it now joins a small group of nations including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Oman, Russia and Yemen which have signed and not ratified the Agreement.

2.) Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (2015): The JCPOA was reached between Iran and P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) in an effort to eliminate Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons.  The JCPOA was signed by the United States on July 14, 2015 and was adopted by the United Nations on July 20, 2015.  The United States withdrew from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018.

Here is a full listing of the international treaties that have been submitted to the Senate but not received Senate advice and consent to ratification:

According to international law, when a nation signs a treaty, it does not bind the signatory to the terms of the treaty, however, it does signal that the nation believes that there are merits to the treaty as a whole. When Washington signs a treaty, it signals to the world that it wishes to proceed with the intents of the treaty; when Washington fails to ratify or accede to the terms of a treat, it signals to the world that its word is essentially worthless.  Mike Pompeo's recent comments regarding America's commitments to the treaties that it has signed prove that he is quite capable of rewriting history in favour of Washington's narrative.  Despite his criticisms of Russia and Iran and their breaching of international treaties, it is quite apparent that Washington's signature on many key treaties is not worth the ink used to sign those documents.