Colonel Khodarenok stated the benefits for the United States in the deal with Russia on denuclearization
In an interview with Fox News on Friday, US President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he could reach an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the denuclearization of Russia and the United States. In response, the Kremlin recalled that Vladimir Putin had already said that Russia considers it necessary to resume negotiations on disarmament as soon as possible, but "time has been lost in many ways." Who will benefit from such proposals and actions and why Washington is not acting in a friendly way, the military observer of Gazeta figured out.Ru" Mikhail Khodarenok.
US President Donald Trump believes it is quite possible to achieve a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of Russia, the United States and China. He stated this, among other things, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos via video link.
"We would like to reduce nuclear arsenals," said Donald Trump.
The head of the White House noted that earlier Russian President Vladimir Putin supported his idea, and also said that he "had a good conversation with China, they could be involved."
In response to Trump's statements, the Kremlin recalled that "Russia considers it necessary to resume negotiations on disarmament as soon as possible." At the same time, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that the United States had completed its participation in the treaty and undermined it, and "time has been lost in many ways."
"In the interests of the whole world and the peoples of our countries, we are interested in continuing the process. But in the current conditions, all nuclear potentials must be taken into account," Peskov said.
What were the previous agreements?
The United States and the USSR, and then Russia, signed several strategic offensive arms reduction treaties:START-1 (Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty, 1991, expired in 2009), START-2 (was concluded in 1993, but never entered into force).
Until recently, the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty was in force. It was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague and entered into force on February 5, 2011. The agreement provided for the reduction of deployed nuclear warheads for each side to 1,550 units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers to 700 units.
But on February 21, 2023, Vladimir Putin, in a message to the Federal Assembly, announced the suspension of Russia's participation in the treaty due to the hostile course of the United States and the participation of Western countries in the conflict in Ukraine.
As previously reported by Gazeta.Ru", any agreements in the field of arms reduction and control have brought nothing but harm to our country over the past decades, and long-term harm.
In this regard, it is enough to recall only the INF Treaty - the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-range and Shorter-range Missiles between the USSR and the USA, signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan on December 8, 1987 during the Soviet-American summit in Washington.
As a result, our country has lost much-needed types and models of weapons and military equipment. And quite natural questions arise - and what has become better as a result? Where and what has been consolidated? Has security been increased? And there were no missiles that were urgently needed for the country's defense capability.
After all, in those days, the USSR destroyed 1,846 missile systems - three times more than the United States. And after all, the Soviet Union (under the influence of the United States) eliminated its equipment in the most barbaric way - mainly by the method of detonation.
The INF Treaty was followed by the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in July 1991. According to START-1, they were again blowing up, cutting up, destroying their equipment (the materialized labor of the Soviet people, by the way), filling launch sites and silo launchers of ballistic missiles with reinforced concrete. And what is the result? Where is the positive result?
Yes, again, by and large, the bottom line is maybe zero. At the same time, in the United States, their nuclear warheads and second stages of missiles were not disposed of, but stored, due to which the so-called "return potential" was created.
And it's a good thing that at that time it didn't come to fulfilling the provisions of START-2. According to this agreement, in particular, it was supposed to replace the separable warheads of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles with monoblock warheads, which would cause enormous damage to the country's defense capability.
What is Washington's advantage?
This is not the first time that Donald Trump has acted as a prominent denuclearizer. The head of the White House tried to negotiate nuclear disarmament of the Korean peninsula with Kim Jong-un back in February 2019 during their meeting in Vietnam. However, then the summit ended two hours earlier than planned. The parties have not been able to agree on denuclearization. Kim Jong-un, realizing that without his nuclear arsenal he would be naked as a falcon, did not fall for the ideas of Donald Trump then.
 |
| North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump, 2018. |
| Source: The Straits Times/ZUMAPRESS.com/Global Look Press |
So during his second term, Trump revisited this idea, now extending it to Russia and China.
But besides our country, the nuclear club includes many other states - North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Great Britain, France, the United States and Israel.
It would seem that all these countries need to sit down at a round table and work out the relevant document. Russia may be the last to join this process (the fact that Moscow has a fairly large nuclear arsenal does not matter in this regard).
However, the proposal expressed in the most diplomatic tones to join such a process, for example, to China, caused sharp rejection in Beijing. Other members of the nuclear club do not demonstrate similar desires either. Therefore
What can we get as a result of the implementation of these ideas? To begin with, let's recall a very recent statement by Donald Trump: "I will instruct our military to begin construction of the great Iron Dome anti-missile shield, which will be fully manufactured in the United States."
There is no doubt that this time the missile defense of the continental United States will be based on completely different technologies and principles, which, quite possibly, will indeed eventually provide effective protection against a massive nuclear missile strike. And there is no doubt that such work is being carried out quite intensively in the United States.
Now let's imagine that denuclearization in relation to Russia and China has become a reality, the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles in these countries has been radically reduced (and strategic bombers will certainly fall under the knife, the United States will insist on this especially zealously), and at this time, with the most active participation of Donald Trump, America He will receive an impenetrable anti-missile shield. To this must be added the overwhelming superiority of the United States over all its opponents in conventional weapons. And what is the result? Washington is becoming the undisputed global military leader. In general, it doesn't work out in a friendly way at all.
Finally, acting as a notable denuclearizer, it would be good for Donald Trump to succeed at least in ending the military conflict in Ukraine before implementing his nuclear initiatives. Maybe the head of the White House shouldn't take on several large-scale strategic initiatives at once?
And one last thing. Glenn Diesen, a professor at the University of Southeastern Norway, believes that US President Donald Trump wants to set Russia at odds with China by an agreement on denuclearization with Russia. In his opinion, this may be an attempt by the United States to sow discord between Russia and China, as Washington wants Moscow to start putting pressure on Beijing. It's not clear where even the basic logic is here. "Professor, take off your bicycle glasses," Vladimir Mayakovsky would say in this case, and stop associating the boiling point of water with a right angle.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.
Biography of the author:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.
He graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976), the Military Air Defense Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980-1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).
Senior Officer of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988-1992).
Officer of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff (1992-2000).
Graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).
Mikhail Khodarenok
