The USA and Russia are set to meet in Austria this week to discuss nuclear arms reductions. While President Donald Trump is sending his Special Presidential Envoy Marshall Billingslea, the Kremlin is sending its Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The details were announced by the US State Department in Washington.

What Will be the Focus of the Talks?

The talks are scheduled to focus on topics that revolve around “the future of weapons control” and are considered highly relevant to the current New START agreement which expires in February 2021. China, who had also been invited to the talks in Austria, will not participate.

Beijing has repeatedly rejected Trump’s offer to talk about global weapons control. It claims the communist state’s nuclear arsenal is purely defensive and hence not a threat. Bejing has thus stated that it is not inclined to “be pulled” in “participating in so-called tripartite arms control talks with the United States and Russia,” according to remarks from China’s State Department spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Wednesday. Moreover, the US has already withdrawn from several other agreements and, regarding China, Washington has only sought to distract from its own commitments, Chunying continued.

How Strong is China’s Nuclear Program?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China’s arsenal of nuclear warheads currently stands at approximately 300. The latter puts Beijing in third place as a nuclear power behind the United States and Russia. Bringing the Chinese to the negotiating table is thus essential, especially as Beijing is currently expanding and diversifying the scope and composition of its nuclear arsenal. An emerging superpower not inclined to engage in arms reduction treaties, and impervious to any form of control mechanisms is a worrisome burden for the Western world and the East Asian region.

Moreover, China has not only been experiencing a historically unprecedented economic rise but has openly declared its superpower ambitions. Combine the latter with an increasingly authoritarian-nationalist course under President Xi Jinping — as well as the continuously intensifying conflicts with the West on technology and trade — and any political realist would be alarmed.

Russia’s Perspective

Russia, on the other hand, has been pressing for a new edition of the agreement with the USA – at least officially. It would be correct and logical to pursue a new agreement, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov stated on Saturday. However Ryabkov added that before committing Russia was not willing to come to an agreement at any cost. Russia has previously warned about an uncontrollable nuclear arms race if the agreement is not extended.

However, with New START, which provides for the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA to be reduced to 800 delivery systems each and 1,550 operational nuclear warheads, expiring on February 5, 2021, time has become of the essence. And if the history of diplomacy has taught the world anything, it is that a treaty of this magnitude takes time to fully agree upon.

The INF Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between Russia and the United States for instance, of which the US opted out in 2019, was first discussed during the superpowers in 1980. It took seven years before President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev finally signed the agreement in December of 1987. Significant progress was made in the period of Glasnost and after the end of the Cold War. Shortly before the end of the Cold War, there were around 70,000 nuclear warheads in the world, almost all of which were American and Soviet-owned.

Nowadays, the US and Russia only have around 6,500 nuclear warheads each, according to SIPRI. However, these 13,000 warheads still account for more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Russia and US Have a Long Way to Go

It makes the United States and Russia the two key nations when it comes to nuclear disarmament. However, even if the two managed to find their way back together after difficult years, it would only be a small step. In the current arms race, the United States is no longer only facing Russia, but China also.

For an earnest strategy towards arms control talks to materialize, Washington needs to persuade China to participate. However, if an amicable approach is inconceivable, China needs to be compelled via economic coercion. Stopping Beijing from obtaining more nuclear weapons ought to be the US’s primary agenda at this time. Disarmament talks with China will be even more complicated once the communist regime has become a nuclear primus inter pares — preserving New START with Russia notwithstanding.

L'articolo Arms Control Talks Between US and Russia to Begin Shortly in Austria proviene da InsideOver.

A fortnight before Christmas, Washington dispatched a most unwelcome gift toward Russia and China. It streaked high over the Californian desert, arched into the darkness of space, then, having traveled 500km, plunged into the Pacific Ocean. It was the US’s first intermediate-range ballistic missile (ICBM) test since withdrawing from the treaty that banned their use. Three weeks later, the world’s embryonic arms race accelerated further. The Avangard— Moscow’s cutting-edge new missile system which is supposedly impossible to be shot down—also entered combat duty.  

Consequences Of America’s Withdrawal From The INF

Just six months ago the Americans’ test would’ve been forbidden. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed in 1987, prohibited the firing of land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km. The pact survived the fall of Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe’s shift westward, and the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, but within two years of taking office, US President Donald Trump had it scrapped. 

Some heralded Trump’s move, saying that it allowed cheaper, more flexible land-based launchers to be developed, freeing the US Navy and Air Force to pursue other priorities. Indeed, having now conducted two successful tests—the first, in August, involved a cruise missile—America’s military brass is keen to advance their “intermediate-range capabilities” further, a Pentagon spokesman said recently.

Not All American Politicians Are Onboard With The New Arms Race

But US lawmakers aren’t wholeheartedly behind the program. Days prior to the December 12 test of the new ICBM, Congress at last reached agreement on the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA). Incensed at Trump’s INF withdrawal, Democrats had pushed for new missile production to be sidelined. Republicans, unsurprisingly, took an opposing view, warning of their global adversaries’ own military expansion. A compromise was reached, allocating substantial funds to armament research, but preventing the delivery of new intermediate-range missiles before October 2020.       

US Missile Program Focus: Countering Russia And China

When combat-ready, these weapons will meet the Russian threat—but only if they’re within range, which means regional deployment. The Kremlin’s new Avangard system is classified as intercontinental, putting Western Europe within easy reach. Combined with Moscow’s increased willingness to flex its military might in recent years, America’s European allies have good reason to fear their easterly neighbor. An emphasis on defensive measures (that is to say, not land-based missile batteries) is therefore the continent’s preferred path forward.   

Washington’s Asian allies take a similar stance with China. Having never signed the INF, Beijing has, in recent years, become the world leader in short and medium-range weaponry. In August, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that he’d like to see new American missiles dispatched to Asia and the Pacific “sooner rather than later”.

But a sizeable diplomatic hurdle stands in the way of speedy deployment, with South Korea, Japan and Australia each refusing to play ball. Their rationale is clear, says Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association: housing American missiles could put them on China’s—or even North Korea’s—“target list.”

There’s no sign of the Oval Office changing course, however. The last of the major US-Russian arms control pacts, 2010’s New START Treaty, is due for renewal in little over a year, ut Trump has refused to rule out letting it lapse. For the Kremlin, which supports the accord’s renewal, this is a diplomatic gift. While the White House skips around the issue, Russia can push ahead with its weapons program, delivering new missiles (like the Avangard) while acting as the good guy who would favor future agreements if not for US obstructionism.

The truth is, when it comes to international security, there are no good guys. Nations are guided by their undying drive for self-preservation. Often, that means reaching accommodation with global adversaries. But it can also mean rearmament and escalating militarism. For better or worse, that is the direction we’re headed. 

L'articolo US And Russia Reveal New Missiles Amid Arms Race Fears proviene da InsideOver.

The world’s main arms industries sold more weapons in 2018 than in the previous year. Especially in the US, the numbers are rising exponentially.

The world’s top 100 defense companies have increased their global arms sales by nearly five percent over the past year. In 2018, they sold armaments and military services worth a total of $ 424 billion (€ 383 billion) according to the Stockholm-based peace research institute Sipri and its statement released on Monday. The amount represents an increase of 4.6 percent compared to the previous year. Since 2002, sales have increased by almost 47 percent overall.

The world’s leader in sales remains the United States. For the first time since 2002 – the year Sipri has started to utilize comparable data including material from Russia – corporations based in the United States occupy the top five positions among the leading defense companies with sold defense assets worth a total of $ 149 billion (€ 134 billion) combined. In total, US companies make up $ 248 billion (€ 224 billion), or 59 percent of all sales in the Top 100, an increase of 7.2 percent from 2017.

Researchers see an important trend in the USA in the fact that larger arms companies take over smaller companies in order to prepare for the arms modernization program President Trump announced in 2017. The mergers will allow the companies to produce the new generation of weapons systems, and thus be in a better position to win contracts from the US government.

Arms sales from Russia, on the other hand, remained almost unchanged, with the ten Russian companies listed in the top 100 sold goods and services worth a total of $ 36.6 billion (€ 33 billion), corresponding to a minimal decline of 0.4 percent. Five of the companies reported growth, five losses.

Besides the United States and Russia, Europe accounts for 24 percent of global arms sales. The 27 European arms producers on the list sold goods worth $ 103 billion (€ 93 billion), a slight increase of 0.7 percent.

By contrast, the figures for the four listed German companies decreased by 3.8 percent overall. Increasing deliveries of military vehicles to the German Armed Forces are counteracting a current decline in shipbuilding sales. As a result, Germany’s world’s arms sales of 2 percent rank behind Italy, Japan and Israel, but ahead of India and South Korea. It is noteworthy that Airbus is listed as a “trans-European” company in the Sipri evaluation due to being based in more than one European country.

Meanwhile, sales of British defense companies decreased by 4.8 percent, inter alia, due to delays in the arms modernization program. Despite a rise in French companies by 2.4 percent, the UK remains Europe’s number one weapon vendor.

The Sipri report did not take into account the goods of companies from China as these still lack sufficient data for reliable estimates. Despite the imposed secrecy by the Chinese government, it is estimated that China’s share remains infinitesimal at this stage since the country had to establish and stabilize other industries first. In the future, however, China will likely become an additional major player on the arms market.

L'articolo Global Arms Sales Continue to Surge proviene da InsideOver.

Only two weeks after the United States pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, it already tested a new land-based missile which prompted a response from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following the American missile test, Putin directed his government to coordinate a “symmetric response.” 

No Treaty, More Missiles

“Considering the newly emerging circumstances, I instruct the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and other specialized agencies to analyze the level of the threat, which the above-mentioned U.S. moves are creating for our country, and take comprehensive measures for preparing a symmetric response,” Putin said while meeting with his national security advisors. 

The U.S. missile was a variant of the Tomahawk cruise missile which was originally developed in the 1970s. When the INF went into effect, the American military ceased using ground-based launchers for the Tomahawk leaving only the U.S. Navy’s sea launch systems in use. Putin argued that the occurrence of both events – the INF withdrawal and the testing of the ground-based missile – indicates that the U.S. had been preparing for the new missile since before it scrapped the treaty. 

“The Americans have tested this missile too quickly after having withdrawn from the treaty,” he said. “That gives us strong reason to believe that they had started work to adapt the sea-launched missile long before they began looking for excuses to opt out of the treaty.”

The rush back to previously-banned weapons signals the end to a decades-long period in which both countries largely scaled back their weapons development and shed large amounts of their nuclear arsenals. The idea put forward by Moscow that the move to reinitiate development and testing of intermediate-range missiles was plotted before exiting the INF treaty would help explain Washington’s eagerness to do so. U.S. President Donald Trump has never been fond of international treaties which he views as handcuffing the U.S. 

Close to Home

The testing of the new Tomahawk – which successfully hit its target 310 miles off California coast – could have broad implications for Russian security in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Putin argued that the launcher used for the test run was startlingly similar to one currently deployed at an American military location in Romania. This site and one like it in Poland could eventually host the new missiles, a prospect which would have been inconceivable when the INF treaty was in effect.

According to Washington, the new missile systems will first be stationed in East Asia, which Putin also contends would threaten Russian security. 

“American politicians of quite a high rank and level are saying that the Asia-Pacific region could be the first to host new systems, but it also affects our core interests, because all this is in the immediate proximity of Russian borders,” Putin said in an official statement on the matter. 

Any missile of the sort that was previously banned would undoubtedly draw criticism from Russia as it faces the possibility of finding itself within their range. The U.S. military has a vast global spread and tensions in both the Middle East and South China Sea could prompt it to use the regions as testing beds for its new technology.

Possible Responses

As for a response, a couple of ideas have been floated from Moscow on how to counter possible deployments of the land-based Tomahawk. The most likely would be the development of a comparable weapon using the Russian Kalibr system. According to Russian Major General Vladimir Dvorkin, it would be an easy task to adapt the currently sea-based Kalibr system, much akin to how the U.S. modified the Tomahawk. 

“The speed of possible deployment is the question. We will not deploy them before the Americans do. If the Americans deploy their missiles in the Asia-Pacific region, we will scratch our head and think how to act,” Dvorkin said. “We cannot deploy many in that area because our strategic ally, China, is there. So I think the speed will be moderate, and the deployment will be limited to our territory.” 

Another option would be to station missiles within Venezuela, but this tactic would likely draw-up memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis which saw Russian warheads placed in Cuba. The event is largely considered the height of the Cold War and neither state would likely wish to return to that pandemonium. 

Putin promised to develop intermediate-range missiles of his own if the U.S. did so first, and Washington has already begun testing them. Without a treaty to limit the development of weapons, both sides are unrestricted, but thus far Russia has taken a more calculated approach. Putin will wait for Trump to move first before delivering matching responses which will help him avoid escalating the situation too far.  As it stands now, it’s Putin’s turn to make a move in the new arms race amongst superpowers. 

L'articolo Russian Response to US Missile Testing Coming as Weapons Race Heats Up proviene da InsideOver.

A Middle Eastern arms race could be brewing according to Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Zarif, the face of Tehran’s foreign affairs, gave an interview with Al Jazeera on Monday in which he contemplated the current levels of military spending by neighboring states while taking into consideration current geopolitical issues that have seen increased involvement of western powers. 

Spending Surge

Zarif’s main point fixated on the spending levels of his nation contrasted with that of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The divide between Iran and states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE stretches back to the death of Prophet Mohammad, after which there was a split in who would be the rightful successor. This conflict saw the rise of two opposing sects of Islam, each following a different leader: Shia (Iran) and Sunni (UAE and Saudi Arabia, among others). 

Fast-forward to modern times, and Iran stands largely on its own, although China and Russia are common vocal allies. The United States and its allies have largely backed two major powers within the region, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and both are incredibly opposed to Tehran. It is this support with particular regard to weapons sales that Zarif blames for a potential arms race breakout. 

“Let’s make a comparison; Iran spent last year $16 billion on all its military with almost one million people in the army,” Zarif stated. “The UAE with a total population of one million spent $22 billion, Saudi Arabia spent $87 billion.”

He also made a point of America’s contribution to the region: $50 billion worth of weapons sales. US President Donald Trump appeared very eager to drum up more business with Riyadh when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman toured the US. During a White House Meeting, the American leader spent a majority of the press conference boasting about selling more arms to Riyadh and even had graphs illustrating the increased revenue for the US Supposedly, this would lead to an increase in jobs as well, although analysts dispute those claims.

Nuclear Shift

Deploying weapons to the Middle East is nothing new and Trump is not the first president to do so, even if he is the first to lament lavishly on the weapons agreements. However, he is the first to begin the transferring nuclear expertise to an Arab state. His administration has approved seven permits authorizing American companies to lend nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. In a deliberate and clear attempt to keep these permits under the radar, the White House did not broadcast them with the same flair that Trump praised weapons purchases, most likely because they knew the backlash that would come from it. 

That backlash came, but the US Senate is far from having a veto-proof majority when it rebukes Trump. The Yemen Civil War, murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, arms sales, and now nuclear technology transfer to Riyadh have turned many in Washington against Trump on the issue of the support of Saudi Arabia in particular, yet they seem powerless to a president who simply does whatever he pleases. 

When it comes to Saudi Arabia and Iran, the shift to nuclear could have irreversible consequences. By bypassing the legislature and perhaps even advisors, Trump’s support of a nuclear Saudi Arabia could very well push Iran to develop its own program. It is already much farther along than Saudi Arabia and could be under a year away from having a nuclear warhead. It was bad enough that Trump walked out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, but by giving Tehran more reasons to pursue nuclear weapons, he is drastically raising the probability of more conflict in the region. As a businessman who has time and time again emphasized the value of weapon sales, perhaps this is what the American president desires: more war and conflict are good for American weapon manufacturers. 

Shipping Protection 

As the US continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies, to say nothing of Israel’s suspected nuclear stockpile, Washington is also designing a naval operation to secure the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf for oil shipments. Naturally, Iran is heavily opposed to the idea of an increased US military presence directly off its coast and some European allies have even admitted to the potential for the increased tension as a result. Germany backed out of Operation Sentinel and, lacking European support, the US has reportedly turned to Israel to join the maritime strategy. 

The idea of Israel patrolling waters next to Iran is entirely unacceptable to Zarif and would most certainly lead to military confrontations. Israel is already happy to boast about killing Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, so it has no qualms about going to war against Tehran. The combined threat of Israel in the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear technology going to Saudi Arabia, and its regional adversaries outspending it on weapons create a situation which backs Iran into a corner. With the walls closing in, Tehran may have no choice but to increase its own stockpiles and possibly go nuclear, a capability that the UAE and Saudi Arabia do not yet have. 

“If you are talking about threats coming from the region, the threats are coming from the US and its allies who are pouring weapons in the region, making it a tinderbox ready to blow up,” Zarif said.

That tinderbox may be great for the American military-industrial complex, but will likely guarantee future Middle Eastern conflicts. Right now, a war between Israel and Iran, Iran and Saudi Arabia, or a combination of the two grows more likely as US allies continue to provoke it.

L'articolo US Weapons Sales to Middle East Puts Iran In A Corner proviene da InsideOver.