The United States is on the Russian side.According to the New York Times, on February 1, local time, US Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the United States will suspend the implementation of the China-Treaty Treaty and start the withdrawal process on February 2, and complete the withdrawal within six months.
According to the Russian satellite news agency, the Kremlin said on the 2nd that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia has withdrawn from the China-Brazil Treaty in response to the same measures in the United States.
The China-Soviet Treaty was signed by the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union in December 1987. The treaty stipulates that the two countries no longer maintain, produce or test land-based cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.
In 1987, when Reagan and Gorbachev signed the treaty, the world was shocked. Washington destroyed 846 missiles for this purpose, Moscow destroyed 1,846 missiles, and Europe, which was targeted by missiles, breathed a sigh of relief.
In October last year, US President Trump announced his withdrawal from the United States on the grounds that Russia had long violated the Chinese guidelines and the treaty restricted the United States from developing new weapons.
The United States claims that Russia's new cruise missile Novator 9M729 violated the treaty and asked Russia to destroy the relevant missiles. But Russia rejected the US request.
Ponpeo said on the 1st: If Russia fails to destroy its missiles, launchers and related equipment manufactured in violation of the pilot treaty within six months and can resume full compliance with the treaty, the treaty Will be terminated.
Since Trump took office, the Russian-Russian door has been in doubt, but Russia has always denied intervening in the 2016 US election. The Russian-American friction caused by the China-Brazil Treaty is the most serious friction between the two countries since the end of the Cold War in 1991.
How do the parties respond?
According to Reuters, Russian officials accused the United States of making excuses for its retreat so that it could make new missiles.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a speech that Russia regretted the US plan and accused Washington of not negotiating to avoid this result. He said:
Americans are reluctant to listen to any defenses or engage in substantive negotiations with us. This shows that the plan to break the treaty was decided in Washington long ago.
According to the Russian satellite network, after the United States announced the start of the withdrawal procedure, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that in addition to the tweet, the United States failed to provide any evidence of Russia's violation of the treaty. The real reason for the United States to start with arms control issues is that its international status has been severely weakened.
According to the New York Times, American allies were shocked and upset when Trump announced his intention to retreat last year.
But on February 1, the old friend of the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance established 70 years ago against the Soviet Union, said that Russia is fully responsible for violating the treaty. The organization's Secretary General Stoltenberg said: The United States is taking this action to address the major security risks facing the Euro-Atlantic.
However, some critics of the US Congress immediately condemned Trump's decision and promised to submit legislation to try to prevent it from falling back.
The Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward J. Markey, who focuses on the nuclear issue, said the suspension of the treaty was a tragedy that made the world less secure. He said: President Trump and his war cabinet once again decided to let the United States act alone, this time paving the way for a dangerous arms race.
A new round of arms race is coming?
Last year, the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the pilot treaty and began to manufacture the first long-range nuclear weapons since 1991. Other countries have also cited this measure to defend their nuclear weapons development. Some analysts said that these two measures seem to mark the end of traditional nuclear arms control for more than half a century.
According to Reuters, the US withdrawal may provide the Pentagon with new military options, and the ensuing arms race may exacerbate tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Guardian pointed out that the US allies of the United States have also been worried that the termination of the treaty will lead to the return of the world to the tension during the Cold War and to launch an arms race involving short- and medium-range missiles on the European continent.
The Intermediate Treaty was once considered the gold standard for arms control agreements. In 2014, the United States first accused Russia of violating the treaty, claiming that Russia is developing a new type of missile that violates the treaty's range limits.
The Russian government denied it and accused the US missile defense system deployed in Eastern Europe as being easily converted into an offensive weapon, and the newly developed armed drone could also provide the US with a capability similar to a medium-range missile.
The US National Security Adviser Bolton has unabashedly wished to withdraw from the arms control treaty that restricts US operations. During Bush's administration, Bolton was the main force advocating the withdrawal of the United States and Russia from the anti-missile treaty. Last year, he urged Trump to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement.
On the issue of withdrawing from the middle treaty, Bolton gave a simple reason: even former President Barack Obama is considering withdrawing from the treaty. During the Obama administration, the United States began to transform its aging nuclear arsenals and laboratories, but under the leadership of Trump, the pace of rebuilding US nuclear capabilities accelerated.
The New York Times analysis said that the question is whether the United States will begin deploying new weapons after withdrawing from the pilot treaty to consolidate its position in the Pacific and refresh its presence.
A number of officials pointed out that Trump said in a speech at the Pentagon last month: For a long time, we have been bound by self-limitation, and the growth and progress of foreign competitors in these years is greater than ours.
The US National Security Council nuclear expert Jon Wolfstahl during Obama's administration said that no executives explained what would happen if the United States took these actions. The opponent was voted for by us. Those who think that we will be stagnant after doing these things are ridiculous, and they will respond for political and military reasons. He says.
According to the Guardian, a senior White House official said that the new missiles are still in the research and development stage and are far from the deployment stage. On February 1, after announcing the start of the withdrawal process, Trump issued a statement saying that his government will remain committed to effective arms control.
However, Trump did not say whether it would extend the new arms control treaty signed by the United States and Russia as an effective arms control treaty.
According to Reuters, a senior White House official revealed that the US government is weighing whether to extend the new treaty for the reduction of strategic weapons signed between the United States and Russia. The treaty entered into force in 2011 and expires in February 2021, the next A few weeks after the presidential inauguration. If the two sides reach an agreement, the treaty can be extended for five years.
The treaty requires the two countries to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed to no more than 1,550. It also limits the deployment of land-based and submarine missiles and nuclear-capable bombers, pushing the nuclear arsenals of the two countries to the lowest level in nearly 60 years. .
However, whether or not a new round of arms race will really come, it is certain that it will be expensive.
According to the January report of the US Congressional Budget Office, the cost of nuclear upgrades has increased to $494 billion over the next 10 years, which is 87 times that of Trump's mindset wall-building fee. In the next 30 years, the cost is expected to increase to $1.2 trillion.
A new arms control agreement will be reached?According to the New York Times, in a series of public speeches, Trump and his government officials made it clear that they are seeking a new arms control treaty to allow more countries to join, but only if they now have all such weapons. The state is willing to contain or destroy related weapons.
This ambitious idea is something that some experts are skeptical about.
At present, the China-Treaty Treaty applies only to Russia and the United States. The new treaty requires India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to sign the agreement together, which is much more difficult than the bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia.
Russia is the first country to challenge the China-Guide Treaty. In 2007, Russia complained to the Bush administration that the new nuclear powers could not be restricted by the treaty and proposed to extend the treaty to other major nuclear powers.
Ehrison, a professor at Harvard University who specializes in nuclear strategy research, said the proposal was correct, but he expressed doubts about whether other countries also agreed to the proposal, because as long as one country refuses, then the neighboring countries Security concerns will also be rejected, and then the relevant countries concerned will refuse.
In addition, a recent news from the US Department of Energy has complicated the issue. The news claimed that the United States is developing a new low-equivalent warhead for strategic weapons.
In fact, as early as the beginning of 2018, the Trump administration stated in a nuclear strategy review that it would develop a new warhead for the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile with an unspecified number. The power of weapons is also confidential, but it is estimated to be about half the power of Hiroshima's atomic bombs.
The Trump administration believes that it is necessary to make progress together with Russia on low-equivalent weapons, so that the other side can realize that there is no advantage in developing nuclear weapons to prevent conflict. But critics believe that a new class of strategic weapons is more likely to have unimaginable consequences and further complicate diplomatic relations.