On December 21 local time, Russia proposed a draft resolution at the UN General Assembly, calling on the United States and Russia to continue to conduct bilateral consultations on compliance with the Intermediate-Future Treaty. The draft recommends that the United Nations General Assembly regard undermining the INF Treaty actions as actions that hinder global strategic stability and regional security, and calls on all UN member states to work to uphold the agreement.
As expected, this draft was not passed in the vote. Of the 187 countries participating in the vote, 43 supported, 46 opposed, and another 78 countries abstained.
So many abstentions are not surprising in Uncle Island’s opinion. After all, the existence and abolition of the treaty is the "family affairs" of the United States and Russia, and it is understandable that everyone does not want to get involved. However, with Russia’s popularity, it is "not easy" to have 43 countries to support it, and it can also be seen from the side that the international community is worried about the emergence of nuclear disarmament countercurrents.
UN General Assembly
Treaty
Why is a treaty between the United States and Russia being discussed on the desktop of the United Nations General Assembly?
Let’s first talk about how the Intermediate-Range Forces Treaty came into being. I remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Soviet Union was "in its prime", it was very unhappy because it was suppressed by the Western Cold War for twenty years, so it decided to simply take an offensive and break the "Cold War" pattern trapped in it.
At that time, Europe was the most developed region in the world and the gathering place for the United States to have the most powerful allies. Therefore, the Soviet Union's initial plan was to build a powerful tank and armored force first, and once the right opportunity arrived, the "steel torrent" rushed to the west, "to reach the Atlantic coast within a week." With this, the Soviet Union could hold tens of thousands of strategic nuclear warheads and talk to the United States about whether they really wanted to destroy each other.
However, NATO countries have a keen sense of smell. During the Cold War, it was not without defense against the Soviet Union's possible large-scale tank and armored troops to attack. Although it cannot build a force of the same size, NATO plans to build some support points to defend strategic transportation key areas, first slow down the "steel torrent", then use its air superiority to slam most Soviet tanks on the road, and finally wait for the reinforcements from the United States and Canada to arrive across the Atlantic Ocean and completely resolve the battle.
The Soviet Air Force is indeed unsure of dealing with the NATO air force, but this cannot resist the simple and crude thinking of the fighting nation. They prepared thousands of tactical nuclear warheads and planned to throw them over at the beginning of the war to destroy all NATO's communication command hubs, troop assembly sites, logistics and material distribution sites, and resistance support points. Considering the geographical distance between the Soviet Union and NATO European member states, using intercontinental missiles is too wasteful, and the medium-range missile is just right - the Soviet Union built 1,752 medium-range ballistic missiles with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers in one breath.
When NATO saw that the situation was wrong, it immediately began to build medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, intending to fight against them by then. However, the United States sees the cheapness from this. If it can take advantage of the Europeans' "fear of death" mood and use medium-range missiles to talk about the matter during nuclear disarmament negotiations, if this matter is successful, it will be extremely difficult for the Soviet Union to rush to Western Europe again. Moreover, the main force of the United States is air-launched and ship-based cruise missiles, and handed over some non-key Pershing 2 missiles and land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles - these things are less than half of the Soviet missiles, and there is no loss; even if things fail, it just proves to the world that the Soviet Union insists on destroying Europe's "evil".
But I'm afraid even the United States did not expect that as time went by, the Soviet Union began to mess with itself in the mid-1980s. The domestic economy gradually stagnated, the people's dissatisfaction rose rapidly, and the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union could not come up with a solution. Finally, he went to the hospital in a hurry and found Gorbachev, who was said to be eager to reform, as the general secretary.
Gorbachev won't say what he did to the Soviet Union. Anyway, it is said that in order to show his "new thinking" and "humanity spirit", he happily ran to agree to the United States' proposal.
That's it. The United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Future Treaty in 1987, and both sides destroyed all land-based missiles with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers.
The current situation
The whole story is like this. Even the current Russian President Putin was muttering two days ago that he didn't understand why he had signed this treaty back then.But no matter what, the INF Treaty is a symbol. With this as the boundary, the United States and the Soviet Union began to reduce missile power for the first time.
However, less than five years after the contract was signed, the Soviet Union disappeared, but Russia, which inherited the treaty, became sad. Russia, which had originally agreed not to engage in the "evil" route of the Soviet Union, moved westward and should have "global harmony in the world"; but the facts were not optimistic - NATO not only did not disband, but continued to expand eastward, and even American tanks could sway several hundred meters away from the Russian border...
was not accepted by the West, and it also lost thousands of kilometers of strategic space. In desperation, Russia could only re-study and strengthen its troops. But Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is impossible to support such a huge conventional army as the Soviet Union. Today's Russian general post is only a fraction of the Soviet army at its peak. After thinking about it, the only thing that can be relied on is the strategic nuclear weapons in the Soviet legacy.
However, strategic nuclear weapons are not like grenades. They can be thrown directly when encountering things, and conventional wars must also be considered seriously. Russia has no money to expand its army or develop newer fighter jets. So what should we do with the enemy's deep targets when fighting? Let's talk when they run to the front of them? Of course, we must concentrate our efforts to grasp the most important link - to play the most familiar missiles!
Soon, Russia collected a "Iskander" ballistic missile with a range of about 450 kilometers from the medium-range missile foundation it destroyed that year. It is logically not to violate the treaty. However, in the past two years, Russia has developed a 9М729 cruise missile that can be launched on the launch frame of the "Iskander". In order to be low-key, it is called "Iskander".
At first, the United States didn't care, but a while ago, Russia used an air-launched cruise missile "caliber" when it was attacking Syrian terrorists. This thing (it became a 9M729 on Iskander's launch frame) had a range of nearly 500 kilometers. The United States immediately became alert and pointed out that Russia had violated the treaty and should be destroyed immediately, otherwise the United States would withdraw from the contract. However, Russia insists on denying the violation.
is making trouble, and the United States issued an "ultimatum". But Russia really has no better way: giving up missiles means that the Russian army is "passively beaten"; causing the United States to withdraw from the contract, and it is also worried that it will be subject to moral burdens. In desperation, we can only push this matter to the United Nations General Assembly. As long as the United States does not mind carrying a moral burden, veto it.
Russia must be not interested in the arms race now, but if NATO can realize that the good days of random expansion of the east will eventually end, Putin is still willing to pay a price.
Russian President Putin
withdraws from the contract? Whether
is violating the rules or not? Logically speaking, the United States and Russia should sit down and study how far this new missile can fly, and then talk about the others. But now the United States quits the contract at a disagreement, which is interesting.
Trump, who has always been upright, quickly stated that the original Intermediate-Range Rail Treaty was not good, and many countries with medium-range missiles were not included, such as China, Iran, North Korea, etc. If they all came to sign the contract, the United States could consider keeping the treaty.
Well, maybe the real purpose of the United States is here!
I remember when the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, they had a "Part ban on nuclear tests", which stipulated that everyone should not conduct atmospheric nuclear tests. Whoever did it would destroy world peace and stability and affect nuclear disarmament. Later, the United States and the Soviet Union went home and each mobilized their younger brothers to sign, making it look like an international convention, and whoever did not sign would be a sinner forever.
But what about their real intention? Nuclear monopoly! At that time, China and France did not go the same way as the United States and the Soviet Union, so the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to use this to prevent China and France from possessing nuclear weapons. Under the technical conditions of that year, in order to create nuclear weapons, other countries still had to start with ground nuclear tests. Since the United States and the Soviet Union can conduct underground nuclear tests anyway, they specifically prohibit the nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
Look at the practices in the United States today. Do you think the island friends are familiar with it? It still carries out moral kidnapping of China and other countries with world peace, disarmament and arms control. After all, the United States is very unhappy in its view of China's medium-range missiles.
The world is so wonderful. China's medium-range missiles do not threaten the United States. They just guard the house, but they just don't like him. Although the world cannot hit American countries, so many anti-ship ballistic missiles make the United States "unfree navigation" when it wants to send aircraft carriers to the Chinese country's doorsteps to interfere in housework. Therefore, if you can pull out your "tress" like you did when you deal with the Soviet Union, it will be a shortcut to "do whatever you want".
In fact, there is one more thing that is more fun. Among the 46 countries opposing the resolution are the United States, Canada, Türkiye, Ukraine and all EU member states. The United States is already typing to abolish the treaty, so it is normal to vote against it; as for Canada, everyone has seen it recently, and we barely believe that they made a decision based on "independent judgment"; Ukraine must oppose it, and you all understand the truth.
The problem is, why is Türkiye, a country that seems to have good relations with Russia recently, and all EU countries have also come to oppose it?
Theoretically, Turkey and most EU countries are NATO members, and it is not surprising that they are united around the leader of the United States. However, unlike the United States and Canada, hiding on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, if the Intermediate-Range Rail Treaty is gone, the intermediate-range ballistic missiles created by Russia will be directly aimed at them. Have you forgotten the hard days of Europeans back then, and now you have to run from the disaster? Or do they think that Russia will not be able to build so many medium-range missiles for a while, and that being able to help the United States pull China's teeth is considered a favor, and can it pay less protection fees in the future?
According to Trump's style of conduct, it would be strange if you really engage in medium-range missile competitions in Europe in the future. Today's EU has always been difficult to truly become a pole in the international landscape. In addition to the issue of internal solidarity, political shortsightedness is probably also a very important reason.
(Source: Xiakedao WeChat official account)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-