A blow to the strategic balance: Putin's preventive response
I think that it was no accident that Vladimir Putin in Valdai spoke about the increased danger of nuclear war, repeated the axiom about Russia’s readiness to take the whole world with it, and discussed the existence of the right to a preventive strike.
On the last question, experts immediately started a discussion about whether the Russian president meant a nuclear preventive strike, and, if so, how this fits with his statement that he would not launch a nuclear strike first.
Let's answer briefly.
Firstly, it fits, since a preventive strike is considered by international law as response to the now inevitable aggression. You, however, need to prove that aggression was inevitable. But it is unlikely that anyone will be interested in evidence after a nuclear war. The one who survives will win, and only a few will survive (if they survive). And these will be individuals and/or communities, not states or international organizations. So, if the Russian leadership receives information about the inevitability of a massive nuclear strike on Russia in the coming hours, it has the right (and even obliged) launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, and this will not be the first use of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, this is not important at all, since even if a preventive strike is carried out with conventional high-precision weapons, it will be directed against positional areas in which carriers of nuclear weapons threatening Russia and missile defense systems. From the point of view of the military doctrines of both the USSR and Russia, a massive attack on strategic nuclear facilities by non-nuclear forces was equated to the beginning of a nuclear war and gave the right to a nuclear response. Americans approach this issue in exactly the same way.
So, in principle, it makes no sense to discuss whether I meant Vladimir Putin preventive or exclusively retaliatory nuclear or non-nuclear strike by Russia. He clearly focused on the sharply increased danger of nuclear confrontation. And this is the main point. Because “who started it first” will not matter, and no one will know about it.
So the question that interests us should be as follows: “Why did the Russian president talk about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe right now, when we are not experiencing the deepest aggravation of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, and on the Korean peninsula Seoul and Pyongyang are demonstrating an unprecedented level of friendliness, seriously discussing denuclearization of the peninsula as part of the development of inter-Korean dialogue and economic cooperation between North and South?”
I'm sure that it was a preemptive response to the US decision announced a day later to withdraw from the INF Treaty (medium- and short-range missiles).
Why did this decision cause such a strong reaction? After all, the INF Treaty, signed in Washington Gorbachev And Reagan December 8, 1987, came into force in June 1988, and was already implemented by June 1991. That is, all the complexes that were subject to the ban were destroyed by both Russia and the United States. Moreover, the development of military equipment over the past 30 years allows tasks that were solved by complexes destroyed under the Treaty to be assigned to other systems that, while not formally violating the Treaty, are even more effective.
The Pioneer missile system is on display at the Missile Forces Museum in the city of Znamensk
The treaty prohibits the production and deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers. But today Russia has in its arsenal the complexes “ Scanner"(up to 500 km), cruise missiles deployed" Caliber» air and sea-based (do not fall under the restrictions of the Treaty, which the Americans themselves once insisted on). The declared range of these missiles against ground targets can reach 1,500 kilometers. At the same time, some sources talk about 2000-2500 kilometers. Range of the complex " Dagger"(including the range of the carrier) placed on the Tu-22M3 reaches 3000 kilometers. But this, if we keep in mind the combat radius of the aircraft at supersonic speed, in mixed mode the combat radius of the aircraft increases from 1500 to 2500 kilometers, respectively, the range of the complex together with the missile can reach 4000 thousand kilometers.
That is, without formally violating the treaty, Russia is able, with the help of the latest developments, to solve problems that in the last century were only accessible to medium-range missiles. Moreover, the latest developments, which should enter the troops in the next 10-12 years, generally have arbitrary range, that is, for them in principle there are no inaccessible targets on planet Earth.
Let me also remind you that Russia at one time announced the possibility of its withdrawal from the INF Treaty in response to the Americans’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I think that the exit was not realized because it turned out to be more effective to develop and put into service new high-precision weapons, which make it possible not to violate the Treaty and at the same time not be particularly bound by it from a strategic point of view.
In thirty years, Russia has simply turned the situation around. At the conclusion of the INF Treaty, the United States had an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear precision weapons capable of hitting then-Soviet (and later Russian) strategic delivery vehicles as part of the first disarming massive non-nuclear strike. The USSR opposed these classes of American missiles (including “ Tomahawks» air and sea-based) its medium-range missiles, in the production of which it had a technological advantage. The United States removed sea- and air-launched cruise missiles from the scope of the Treaty (promising that they would be in service exclusively with non-nuclear weapons), but at the same time completely deprived the USSR/Russia of an entire class of strategic weapons in exchange for the elimination of similar INF missiles, which were are not important to them.
That is, at that moment the United States could resolve strategic issues without medium-range missiles, but Russia could not, and therefore It was beneficial for Washington to destroy these missiles. Now, to the great chagrin of the Americans, it has turned out that Russia has seriously surpassed them in terms of high-precision weapons (including cruise and ballistic missiles), and will increase this superiority in the near future. Moreover, Moscow can do this, formally without breaking INF Treaty.
Thus, Washington needed the restoration of the medium-range missile class solely to ensure that its technological lag behind Moscow did not turn into a factor of its strategic helplessness. You and I understand that the T-90 tank can destroy the T-34 tank without even coming within range of the aimed fire of its gun (not to mention effective hits). Same with rockets. It is not just the missile that is important, but its tactical and technical data.
But just as an outdated tank can destroy its ultra-modern brother if it gets close enough to it to effectively destroy it, the shortcomings of missile weapons can be compensated by the proximity of their placement.
This is where the danger lies. If the United States has not yet lost the production technology of those medium-range missiles that were in service in the 80s of the last century, then they can relatively quickly produce hundreds of the same “ Pershingov-2" The next question is: where will they be located? From US territory they will not reach Russia. There are three options: Europe, Japan and South Korea. It is not a fact that Seoul will agree to participate in a new round of the arms race, given its honeymoon with Pyongyang and the frank fears of being exposed by the United States to a retaliatory strike from North Korean or Chinese missiles. And you can only shoot from the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands at the Far East, where, frankly speaking, there are few targets for these missiles and they are well covered.
American Pershing II medium-range missiles
Last time, the main positioning areas of medium-range missiles were located by the United States in Western Europe (in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark). Then the Pershing flight time to Smolensk was 6 minutes, to Moscow - up to 10 minutes. This sharply reduced the time for making a decision in a crisis situation and increased the likelihood of an accidental conflict. That is why the Soviet leadership then, like the Russian one now, warned that the United States had begun a dangerous game that was fraught with breakdown into an uncontrollable conflict that could instantly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war.
Now it is far from certain that the Americans will be able to place missiles in the same countries as in the last century. So far only Great Britain clearly supported the United States, declaring that it no longer considered itself bound by the INF Treaty. Germany and Italy will clearly not be happy if they receive this kind of proposal. Besides Trump started an economic war against the EU, directed precisely against Old Europe.
But there is a New Europe. Who can guarantee that Poland, Baltics and joined them Ukraine will they think for a long time when they receive an offer from the United States to deploy Pershings (or something similar) on their territory? But then the flight time of the missiles to Moscow will be no more than 3-4 minutes, and to St. Petersburg even a minute and a half.
This is a situation in which any accident can provoke a preemptive strike. Moreover, in a situation where it is launched at the launching positions of American nuclear missiles, without further ado it is possible to immediately launch intercontinental missiles at Washington. All the same, the breakdown of the conflict into a full-scale nuclear one will be a matter of several minutes, or at best several hours.
This is what Putin spoke about in Valdai, when he promised the aggressors that we would go to heaven, and they would simply die.
The system of international treaties designed to ensure nuclear stability was based on the treaties on the MTCR (non-proliferation of missile technology), NPT (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), ABM (missile defense), SALT-1 and SALT-2 (on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons), START- 1, START-2, SNP, START-3 and INF Treaty.
The MTCR and NPT treaties have practically become worthless pieces of paper. Not caring about them, they acquired nuclear weapons India and Pakistan. Informally, it is a nuclear power and Israel, whose capabilities are estimated at 100-200 tactical nuclear warheads, but the “civilized world” pretends that it is not aware of the violation of the treaty by a permanently warring country. Well, after the DPRK was not only able to implement its nuclear program, but also with the help received from Ukraine create technologies all classes of missiles, including intercontinental ones, there is no need to talk about the effectiveness of the MTCR and NPT treaties. What I managed Kim Chen In, Anyone whose international weight is even slightly larger than that of Swaziland or Lesotho can.
As is known, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
The SALT I Treaty limited strategic arsenals to the levels reached by the end of 1972 (tens of thousands of delivery vehicles). The SALT II Treaty did not enter into force because the US Senate blocked its ratification due to the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. The START-1 and START treaties are no longer relevant, since they were replaced by the START-3 Treaty, which slightly reduced the total number of deployed launch vehicles compared to the START. The START-2 Treaty (which prohibited equipping missiles with multiple independently targetable warheads) was signed in 1993, ratified by the State Duma in 2000, and already in 2002 Russia withdrew from it in connection with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Thus, today, after the announced withdrawal of the United States from the IMF, from the entire system of international treaties that regulated the system of strategic potentials, Only the START-3 Treaty is actually in force, but it means little in the unfolding arms race.
Perhaps the United States wants to repeat the successful blackmail attempt of the 80s of the twentieth century, which forced concessions to the USSR and ultimately contributed to its eventual collapse. But the situation is radically different. Firstly, Russia has relevant experience and knows that “gentlemen” cannot be trusted at their word, and the agreements they sign, too. Secondly, if Russia is still moving along an upward trajectory both in politics and in the economy, then in the United States, at best, we can talk about stagnation. However, Trump prefers to talk about the crisis that he wants to overcome and “make America great again.” Thirdly, in terms of military technology, in the last century the USSR was catching up, but now the USA is catching up. Fourthly, stories with 5th generation fighters, the latest destroyers and littoral ships show the blatant inefficiency of the US military-industrial complex when enormous amounts of money are spent, but there is no result. Fifthly, in the last century, all world centers of power (USA, EU, China, Japan) were against the USSR, which was forced to stretch its meager military, political, financial, economic and diplomatic resources to confront everyone. Now even Japan does not completely unconditionally support the United States. In Europe they were left with Great Britain, torn by internal contradictions, and some poor Young Europeans. They are in a tougher confrontation with China than with us, and now they are also talking about introducing sanctions against India.
In general, if we take the US actions as an attempt at blackmail, then it is doomed to failure. But this does not negate the military danger of such games. If you fry kebabs on a barrel of gunpowder, sooner or later it will explode. So a new system of international treaties aimed at limiting, reducing, and ideally eliminating nuclear arsenals will have to be developed. But first, it is necessary for the United States to understand its place in the new world and come to terms with it.
Arms race 2.0: what could lead to the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...
9-02-2016, 06:00
You constantly read articles in the world media in which well-known Western journalists and analysts talk about a preemptive strike by the United States and the West on Russia with the subtext: it will survive, or maybe it won’t, and is it time? As if it were some kind of self-evident possibility. After all, Russia, the Western media shout, is so “aggressive,” so the West seems to have the right to do so.
The Italian Il Giornale writes about the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation: “Isolated from Russia, except for sea routes, Kaliningrad was always considered as a weak link in the new Russian strategy, but it was fortified enough to cause maximum damage in the event of a preemptive strike from the outside.” NATO". According to American General Frank Gorenka, “this is an extremely dangerous situation.”
Italian journalists and American generals came to the conclusion that a preventive strike on Kaliningrad would not bring the desired results; it was too well protected, unfortunately? The recent meeting between Nuland and Surkov in Kaliningrad was also interpreted by Western media as a warning from Nuland about an “imminent attack” by NATO on Russia.
Recently, the BBC distinguished itself again: it shot a kind of “documentary” film, using video footage of the war in Donbass, “The Third World War: At the Command Post.” This is, so to speak, a warning film, with arguments from famous English ex-politicians about what Russia’s “aggression” against Latvia, with the use of atomic weapons against an English warship, could (or will?) look like. And in Sweden, nuclear strikes by Russian aviation are being simulated during exercises, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg says after him, but without evidence...
Strictly speaking, this is called the preparation of the Western man in the street for a sudden “disarming” NATO attack on Russia, and its justification. Especially considering the insults and defamation of the Russian president by government officials in the United States and Britain.
And at this time, analysts of “aggressive Russia” have taken too much water in their mouths, and are afraid to say a word in their characteristic “aggressive manner.” Let's break this vicious tradition.
On the one hand, we repeat, we see the preparation of not only Western, but also world public opinion for a preventive US nuclear strike on Russia, supposedly “disarming” and therefore almost “humane”. If Russia did not have atomic weapons, then the US atomic attack on Russia-USSR would have taken place long ago, according to the already declassified American Dropshot plan, or an attack on Russia would have taken place according to the Yugoslav scenario, which many Western high-ranking political analysts openly dream about. Russia’s nuclear forces are preventing the Yugoslav-Russian scenario from coming true, but the information aggression of the West has already begun...
I understand this danger, given the increasing propaganda aggression in the Western media against Russia, which is actually preparation for a military attack (this is exactly how Hitler’s Germany acted before its blitzkriegs), maybe Russia should also think about a preventive humane “disarming” strike on the West, from USA to Europe? Why not, if the West publicly discusses such strategies?
Our "Stratfor" could say in response that there are no coincidences in the Great Game, and the West's propaganda attack on Russia is a harbinger of a sudden and treacherous military attack. Russia is trying to warn the West about the consequences, and this is also why the military operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces is being carried out in Syria - this is a demonstration of Russia’s military capabilities. For example, what could happen in Ukraine if Russia has to carry out a peacekeeping operation there to disarm Bandera’s neo-Nazi formations. To avoid having to use aerospace forces in Ukraine, Russia is conducting demonstration combat exercises in Syria.
What they think about this is unclear, since in the event of a Great War, Ukraine will become the main field of this war, and what it will turn into is difficult to even imagine. While Russia can count on preserving its eastern regions and Siberia. However, what can we say about Galician raguli, when European sages are setting up US bases on their territory.
Therefore, Russia may demand an immediate cessation of propaganda aggression in Western media, and the disavowal of provocative materials that have already been published, such as the war in the Baltics from the BBC. And the denazification of the Bandera regime. If this does not happen, Russia may take this information war seriously, as preparation for a sudden military attack on it, that war with the West is inevitable...
In a situation of propaganda aggression, the “human factor” may be superimposed on a failure in the computer networks of the Russian Defense Ministry, or some other accident, and the West itself may receive the first “disarming” humane blow. Yes, then Russia will compensate for the damage caused, within reasonable limits and from a position of strength. After all, in the end, the West itself is to blame: with its plans for preventive strikes and propaganda campaign, it provoked a “global humane” strike from Russia, and it also began to consider it possible.
At the same time, most likely, there will be no Russian invasion of either the Baltics, or Georgia, or Europe, or America, which Stratfor and the BBC are broadcasting about. For what? Whoever needs to be reached, we will get it anyway! - President Putin has already answered this question. There is no operational need for this.
In general, Russia has nothing to lose today. Russia-USSR surrendered the Warsaw Pact to the West, surrendered its union republics, so what? Did they leave us alone? The servility of our liberal column to the West speaks of what a Russia “civilized” by the West will be like. In the humane opinion of our liberals, Russia must endure and defend itself, but in such a way as not to harm the West and the progress of its gay values. And why do we need such values and liberal servility?
For some reason, our liberal column is confident that the military and economic power of the United States is forever, that it is a kind of constant, not subject to the influence of time, crises and disasters. We'll see, let's not rush. Let's preserve Russia's sovereignty, and then, lo and behold, the United States will collapse like the USSR. Freedom for the enslaved peoples of America and Europe!
The task of our liberals is to generate pro-Western decadent sentiments in Russia, and to justify the need for Russia to retreat to the West, to lose ground further and further. Stanislav Belkovsky, who talked about Putin’s wealth on the BBC, said honestly on Echo of Moscow, which is usually unusual for him: “Russia needs the West to put the squeeze on it.” And we answer him: the West needs Russia to calibrate it. And our liberal column also really needs this...
Rate the news
Partner news:
The United States should not give up the “right” to launch a nuclear strike first because such a possibility would disorient the enemy. This opinion was expressed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General, at a meeting in the US Senate, reports FAN .
“It seems to me that our current [defense] policy makes it difficult for the enemy to make a decision. I would not recommend making a decision that would make this process easier for him."
— the general answered in response to a question about whether Washington should be banned from being the first to use nuclear weapons.
Dunford added that he "can imagine" several plausible scenarios in which Congress would not want the US president to be unable to press the red button. “I am ready to present the details only at a closed meeting,” the general emphasized.
In addition, Dunford said that cyber weapons are not capable of fully replacing nuclear weapons. “We must maintain a secure but effective nuclear deterrent,” he added. According to Dunford, he served under several US presidents and repeatedly discussed the issue of nuclear deterrence.
“Each time during the discussions, we came to the conclusion that the most effective way to prevent a nuclear war is a nuclear triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and strategic bombers,” the military man noted.
It is worth noting that the United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against a military enemy - Japan. American scientists developed the world's first nuclear bomb in 1945 as part of the Manhattan Project.
The US currently has more than 600 deployed ICBMs, while Russia has 501 warheads ready for action.
The total number of nuclear warheads in the United States is 1,393, and in Russia - 1,561. At the same time, Washington believes that it has the right to launch a nuclear strike first, and Moscow, according to its defense doctrine, can use nuclear weapons only if weapons of mass destruction are used against it and a threat to the existence of the state in the event of an attack on Russia.
On March 11, Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said during his speech at a conference at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington that Russia will never use nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. According to the diplomat, Moscow cannot launch a nuclear strike first.
“Our military doctrine clearly states when and under what circumstances we can use nuclear weapons: if an attack is carried out against the Russian Federation, there is a threat to the existence of the country,” the diplomat emphasized. In addition, the ambassador noted that the United States is not a rival for Russia, but a partner. “It’s up to you to decide who we are for you,” Antonov emphasized.
Russia will not launch a preventive nuclear strike—Russian President Vladimir has stated this repeatedly. At the end of October last year, the Russian leader said at a congress that the use of nuclear weapons by Moscow is possible only as a retaliatory strike.
“The question was: are we ready, am I ready, to use the weapons at our disposal, including weapons of mass destruction, to protect our interests. Let me remind you that I said - and I said - that in our concept of the use of nuclear weapons there is no preventive strike. Our concept is a response to a counter strike,” said the Russian leader. According to the president, if the aggressor is the first to decide to start such a “shootout,” he will “inevitably be destroyed.”
Putin stressed that retaliation is inevitable.
“We, the victims of aggression, we, like martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die, because they will not even have time to repent,” the president added. The audience greeted his words with laughter and applause.
Marina Brutyan
From October 15 to 18, 2018, the XV meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club was held in Sochi. As part of the event, according to tradition, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke. This time, the most resonant part of the speech was, perhaps, the president’s comment on the concept of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin has repeatedly noted that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive nuclear strike, adding that the country relies on a retaliatory strike. At the end of the comment there was a more humorous version of what was said above: “the aggressor must know that retribution is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we, the victims of aggression, we, like martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die, because they will not even have time to repent.” Of course, this joke, which caused laughter in the audience, can be treated differently, but what was said before it is much more important. This comment was interpreted by some as “Russia’s refusal to take a preventive nuclear strike.” Is it so?
Illustration: Wallpapersontheweb.net
What does the Russian Military Doctrine say?
According to paragraph 27 of the Russian Military Doctrine:
The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened. The decision to use nuclear weapons is made by the President of the Russian Federation.
In general, it is clearly clear that there is no talk of any preventive nuclear strike here. As for the situation with a “threat to the existence of the state,” here we can talk about the use of a limited number of tactical nuclear charges (much less powerful than strategic ammunition - intercontinental ballistic missile warheads, etc.) to deter and destroy advancing enemy forces.
As for the use of the nuclear triad, which includes silo-based and mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic aviation and strategic nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles, these forces can only be used to deliver a retaliatory or retaliatory strike. In the first case, the strike is delivered after the enemy’s nuclear weapons reach targets on the country’s territory, and in the second, after detection of ICBM launches using a missile attack warning system (MAWS), which includes ground-based radar stations and specialized satellites. In this case, the strike is delivered before the enemy’s nuclear weapons reach the country’s territory, which makes it possible to preserve and use the entire nuclear potential for delivering a retaliatory strike. This approach has become much more relevant with the increasing accuracy of both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, which provides a high probability of destruction of even the most protected silo-launched ICBMs during a pre-emptive strike by an enemy.
In this sense, Vladimir Putin’s statement does not contain any new information for specialists - there has never been any talk of launching a preventive nuclear strike on the United States or any other country. Moreover, the United States will react to such a strike in exactly the same way - with a counter-strike that will destroy most of the economy, population and military potential of Russia. Some hawks and “experts” who are not very savvy on the topic may see something different, but such a scenario will be almost equally tragic for both sides, and for the whole world.
There is growing concern in Russian military circles about the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. Thus, a retired general of the Strategic Missile Forces noted that the possible deployment of American medium-range missiles in Europe could render the famous “Perimeter” system (aka “Dead Hand”) useless. But this is not the main thing: changes may even affect Russia’s military doctrine. Former Chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces (1994-1996), Colonel General Viktor Esin, complained that after the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), the Russian Perimeter automatic retaliatory nuclear strike system may turn out to be useless. The Perimeter system was developed and put on combat duty back in Soviet times (although sometimes doubts are expressed that it even exists). This system automatically detects signs of a nuclear strike in the event of a surprise enemy attack. And if at the same time the military-political leadership of the country is eliminated, then “Perimeter” launches a “command” missile, activating the rest of the Russian nuclear forces, which strike back at the enemy. This system at one time became a very unpleasant surprise for the West, and it was immediately nicknamed the “Dead Hand”. “When it works, we will have few funds left - we will be able to launch only those missiles that will survive the first strike of the aggressor,” Esin explained in an interview with the Zvezda newspaper. According to him, by deploying medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe (precisely those prohibited under the INF Treaty), the United States will be able to destroy the bulk of Russian missile systems in the European part, and intercept the rest along the flight path using missile defense. Let us recall that in October, US President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the INF Treaty. This treaty, signed by the USSR and the USA in 1987, prohibits the parties from having ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 km. The rupture of this agreement breaks the entire system of nuclear and missile security and will inevitably entail retaliatory actions from Russia. The fact is that by withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the Americans actually give themselves a free hand to create and deploy short- and medium-range missiles, including, for example, in Europe. The danger of such missiles is their critically short flight time, which allows them to deliver instant disarming nuclear strikes to a friend. Apparently, based on all this, Colonel General Viktor Esin began to think about the effectiveness of the “Dead Hand”. And about whether the Russian concept of a retaliatory – rather than preventive – nuclear strike is generally effective. American military doctrine provides for a preventive nuclear strike. The editor of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, Alexei Leonkov, explained that the first disarming strike is not always even delivered with nuclear weapons. “According to the American flash strike strategy, it can be delivered by non-nuclear means to eliminate the positional areas of our ballistic missiles and mobile missile systems. And everything that remains will be finished off with the help of missile defense systems,” he noted. However, the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov does not agree that the US withdrawal from the treaty could make Perimeter ineffective. “In the context of the Americans’ withdrawal from the INF Treaty, this system is especially needed; it needs to be improved and modernized,” Sivkov said. In principle, all nuclear weapons cannot be destroyed at once, which means that Perimeter will not lose effectiveness, the expert explained. “Missile submarines in positions at sea are unlikely to be destroyed. In addition, in the conditions of a threatened period, strategic bombers with cruise missiles on board will be launched into the air, and they too will not be able to be destroyed,” the source explained. The coefficient of the final probability of destruction, according to Sivkov, lies within 0.8, that is, even with the most unfavorable development of events, at least 20% of Russia’s nuclear potential for a retaliatory strike will remain. “The strike with medium-range missiles will not be one-time, it will obviously be prolonged. And this duration may be enough to ensure a retaliatory strike either from the Perimeter or from the command post,” he added. “When the Americans calculated the possibilities of our retaliatory strike after their first disarming, they came to the conclusion that 60% of our missiles would remain, and the retaliatory strike would cause irreparable damage. For almost 70 years now, we have been living virtually under nuclear gunpoint, and the presence of nuclear weapons allows us to maintain a restraining balance. If the Americans had the opportunity to strike at Russia, which would not be followed by a response, they would have already taken advantage of it over the years,” emphasized Alexey Leonkov. However, military officials still believe that Russia needs to take additional steps in the event that the United States deploys short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. According to Esin, Russia needs to accelerate the production of its medium-range missiles, and also focus on the development of hypersonic weapons, for which there are no answers in the West yet. “To be frank, we don’t yet have an effective response to American medium-range missiles in Europe,” the general noted with alarm. “In order to provide protection against American medium-range missiles, if they are deployed in Europe, Russia can equip its medium-range missiles with conventional charges so that, even in the context of non-nuclear hostilities, it can strike with conventional weapons at American command posts and their air defense system “, emphasized Konstantin Sivkov. He also believes that it is necessary to increase the mobile component of the strategic nuclear forces, namely: deploy railway missile systems, increase the number of Yars mobile missile systems, ballistic missile submarines, strategic aircraft and airfields for them. Alexey Leonkov, in turn, noted that today the creation of a new aerospace defense system for the country is almost complete, which includes air defense systems and missile launch warning systems connected by an automated control system. That is, in addition to the “Dead Hand”, a more “live” rapid response system is being created. In addition, Colonel General Viktor Esin noted that if the United States begins to deploy its missiles in Europe, we will have no choice but to abandon the retaliatory strike doctrine and move on to the preemptive strike doctrine. Konstantin Sivkov is also confident that the Russian Federation needs to change its military doctrine and include in it the possibility of a preemptive strike. However, he is confident that this does not negate the need to modernize the Perimeter system. Leonkov agrees that if the American nuclear arsenal in the form of medium-range missiles is deployed in Europe, the existing doctrine of retaliatory strike in the Russian Federation will most likely be revised. Nikita Kovalenko
