The US has violated the INF Treaty and refused to discuss with Russia

Summary

While failing to provide any evidence that Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), the US, itself, has been in breach of the Treaty. We know what the Americans have violated and we pointed to these three issues: missile launchers, target missiles and drones. But they refused to discuss their violations.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the INF Treaty.

The US government has issued repeated rebuttals of Russian accusations of US non-compliance with INF Treaty (see the latest press release of US Mission to NATO here). All three issues mentioned (the Aegis ashore missile defence systems, ballistic target missiles and armed unmanned aerial vehicles) have also been discussed with Russia through the Treaty’s Special Verification Commission and other forums.

NATO has repeatedly confirmed that US is not in violation of the Treaty. In July 2018, the NATO Brussels Summit Declaration stated that “The United States is in compliance with its obligations under the INF Treaty and continues to provide substantial transparency on its programs while pursuing a diplomatic dialogue with Russia”.

Similar disinformation cases can be seen here and here.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 160
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06/08/2019
  • Language/target audience: Serbian
  • Country: US, Russia
  • Keywords: INF Treaty, Nuclear issues, Nikolay Patrushev
  • Outlet: Sputnik Serbia
see more

US refused to provide evidence of Russia’s INF Treaty violations

The Kremlin asked to be presented with facts supporting the accusation that Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), but the US never produced any proof.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the INF Treaty, which Russia violated by producing and testing the 9M729 missile, prompting the US to withdraw from the agreement.

The US has been raising the issue of Russia’s INF Treaty violation since 2014. The US State Department publishes yearly reports on compliance with arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. The report from 2014 stated 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”. This has been reaffirmed in all subsequent compliance reports.

USSR is not to blame for the beginning of World War II

The accusations against the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin about the beginning of World War II are nonsense and pursue a purely pragmatic goal. The Molotov-Ribbentrop (Hitler-Stalin) Pact cannot be considered a military conspiracy between two dictators.

Disproof

The non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" (Hitler-Stalin Pact), was signed on 23 August 1939. Following the agreement, Nazi Germany and the USSR became allies for 22 months. The deal was accompanied by a secret supplementary protocol on the delimitation of areas of mutual interest in Eastern Europe. In particular, Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Poland. The agreement also indicated that the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, as well as Bessarabia and Finland, also belonged to the respective areas of interest of Germany and the USSR.

Just a week after the signing of the “Hitler-Stalin Pact,” the German attack on Poland started World War II. Two weeks later, Soviet troops entered Polish territory.

The West is to blame for the blockade of the North Crimean Canal

The blockade of the North Crimean Canal, which supplied water to the Crimea, was initiated in 2014 by the West as part of their anti-Russian strategy.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Ukraine and Crimea.

The North Crimean Canal is the only structure through which the Crimea received water from the Dnipro River. After the annexation of the peninsula, the Ukrainian leadership stated that Crimea’s debts to the North-Crimean Canal Authority of 1.7 million hryvnias for water use in 2013 remained unpaid. The resolution of this issue became one of the necessary conditions for further negotiations on the supply of water to the peninsula. Also, the main condition for the renewal of the agreements on water supply to the Crimea is the presence of legitimate authorities on the peninsula, which after the annexation in the Crimea are absent.