A new problem of US strategic security. Part Two

Part one is here.

In the first days of June 2022, there were very clear signals expressing the utmost concern of the United States on issues of strategic stability. Thus, on June 2, the profile Assistant Secretary of State Mallory Stewart during the annual meeting of the Association for Arms Control in Washington said:

"We want to maintain restrictions on Russian systems that are stipulated in the New START treaty, even after 2026. We want there to be restrictions on new types of systems that Russia is developing." According to Stewart, the new agreement should take into account not only ICBMs, but also means with a shorter range, since Russia “more than likely ... will use such weapons in a conflict." Again “highly likely”.

This wise woman also touched upon the topic of sanctions. According to her, sanctions should help "conduct a good-faith dialogue." So they consider themselves conscientious? In fact, their consciences have long been on the lists of the dead.

In general, the American side suddenly remembered the START-3 Treaty. The full title of this document is: "Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty".

The agreement was signed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010 in Prague. It entered into force on February 5, 2011. There was a change of the START-I Treaty (expired in December 2009) and the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (expired on May 24, 2002). The START-3 treaty was designed for 10 years with the possibility of extension by mutual agreement of the parties for five years.

On January 27, 2021, the State Duma and the Federation Council ratified the agreement between Russia and the United States on extending the START Treaty until February 5, 2026. Russian President Vladimir Putin two days later (January 29), signed the law on the extension of the Treaty. Please note that the relevant approvals, ratifications and signings took place just before the START Treaty ended. Both sides were very attentive to the agreement. It is correct.

The treaty, in particular, assumed that each of the parties would reduce deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 units; ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers to 700 units. At some point, the armament levels defined by the treaty were reached. Some parity has been established in strategic offensive weapons. But, as always, there were non-negotiated situations, and parity was achieved only between Russia and the United States.

Almost immediately after the treaty, the British announced their intention to increase the size of their nuclear arsenal. Clever move, gentlemen. Again, the extension of the Treaty occurred before the planned aggression of the Kiev regime against the republics of Donbass.

But not everything is so bad. The previously mentioned sea-based hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile “Tsirkon" appeared on the scene. According to a source in our military-industrial complex, "the maximum-range launch of ‘Tsirkon’ successfully completed the cycle of state tests of a surface-launched missile”.

The Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement: "Project 22350 frigate Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov fired a ‘Tsirkon’ missile from the Barents Sea at a sea target in the White Sea at a range of about 1000 km. According to objective monitoring data, the missile successfully hit a sea target, the flight corresponded to the specified parameters."

Here again, we need to clarify one point. Earlier it was reported about the flights of "Tsirkon" at a range of about 500 km. Now it became clear that its real flight range is exactly twice as long. A very good result.

What's the sad new news for Koshchei? All its cruisers, destroyers and frigates equipped with the Aegis missile defence system can be scrapped. Or shoot them as targets at training grounds. But they are not the main targets here. The main targets are aircraft carriers, although “Tsirkon” also successfully work on ground targets.

If earlier the Americans could rely on the missile defence of naval ships, including those stationed off our coast, now it is a great stretch to rely only on ships with missile defence located near their native American shores. Provided that they are not "reached" by missiles from our submarines. It turns out that the land and sea components of the US missile defence system were powerless against Russian hypersound. Well, they were warned.

Presumably, the logic of the current events still forced the United States to admit the failure of its strategic vulnerability.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a slight decrease in the aggressiveness of anti-Russian rhetoric. Major Western media outlets have published articles with such assessments – further escalation of the conflict may lead to a NATO war with Russia, while NATO primarily means the United States; Ukraine's victory is unrealistic; the parties must agree; Ukraine will have to give up part of the territory; the British are taking the lead in anti-Russian politics.

This also includes a video conference speech by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the World Economic Forum in Davos (May 22-26, Switzerland). He said that "the parties should be involved in peace talks over the next two months... The West should abandon attempts to achieve a military defeat of Russia in Ukraine, and the latter should make territorial concessions."

However, his speech did not become mainstream. It is reported that a significant part of the audience was more receptive to the call of the boastful old financial speculator George Soros, who, in order to preserve "our" civilisation, called for "defeating Putin as soon as possible”.

But these are still words that can be attributed to the efforts to "pump" the situation in order to determine the third-party reaction. This, by the way, was immediately demonstrated by citizen Zelensky, who attacked Kissinger with fierce criticism.

And here are the words, as it seems, of more responsible and thoughtful military "comrades". A new assessment of the increased threat to US strategic security was made in his speech to Congress by the commander of the Northern Command of the US Armed Forces (USNORTHCOM) and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), four-star General Glen Vanherck.

He said that Russia and China have accelerated the deployment of weapons that threaten the United States. He considered Russia "the main military threat". The general was concerned about hypersonic weapons, new ICBMs, Yasen-class submarines and long-range cruise missiles.

According to him, in such conditions, it is necessary to solve "the most dynamic and strategically complex set of tasks in history." At the same time, "the ability to perform the missions assigned to USNORTHCOM and NORAD has weakened and continues to weaken." Koshchei is nervous and getting worse. The tip of the cherished needle is already between Ivan's fingers.

A small throwback to the past. The New START Treaty does not take into account the following important fact: the opposing military-political bloc of NATO includes three countries with nuclear weapons. Let's leave the US alone for now. Consider the British nuclear warheads and the French warheads.

One can, of course, speculate, as former US President Trump did, that the restrictions on the US arsenal should be linked to the number of warheads of Russia and China. China, by the way, then replied-reduce your, that is, American, blocks to our, that is, Chinese, to 350, then we will talk. The Americans were blown away.

Just one moment – we (yet?) are not part of a military bloc with China. But our NATO allies are giving us a lot of trouble. We need to assume the worst – in which case they will use their weapons on us. No other option is visible yet.

Therefore, we should withdraw from the START-3 Treaty, at least in terms of the number of deployed warheads. They should now be counted according to the following formula: US battle blocks (approximately, and possibly at least, 1400) pole blocks of Great Britain (260) pole blocks of France (290) is equal to 1950. This is only as far as intercontinental vehicles are concerned. And, again, if to believe the statistics from the other side. But there is still ammunition in storage that is not accounted for by the Treaty, the so-called "return potential".

In addition, the same France has cruise nuclear missiles for 50 carrier aircraft. All this, we must be sure, will fly exclusively to us. They will also be guided by NATO doctrines. Not Israeli, Indian, or Chinese. Probably not even Pakistani.

A separate question on Britain's nuclear weapons. Despite Russia's concerns that the United States and Britain, as allies, are exceeding the limits on New START, the US State Department rejected the claims, citing the "independent nature of British nuclear capabilities." For some reason, we agreed and removed the claim. It is interesting - why?

Some technical and organisational details. British nuclear warheads, in fact American ones, are installed on Trident-2 ICBMs purchased in the United States. In turn, "Tridents" are installed on British SSBNs of the "Vanguard" type, made as copies of American submarines of the corresponding type. That is, there is nothing British there.

At the same time, the highest governing body of NATO is the North Atlantic Council, which is subordinate to the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) as a committee. The NPG aims to address NATO's nuclear policy issues. The group's chairman is the bloc's General Secretary. The NPG is attended by the Ministers of Defence and permanent representatives of the participating countries, except for representatives from France. The NPG's subordinate committees are the High-level Group (NPG/HLG) and the NPG Headquarters Group, also without the participation of France. In the NPG/HLG Group, the Chair is exclusively from the United States.

Now it is worth considering - how independent the British really are from the United States in matters of planning/using nuclear weapons. The only answer is that they are 100% dependent. And they will use it exclusively according to the plans of the American command.

Why shouldn't we take into account the "British" arsenal? Let's say you can turn a blind eye to French. But what about the British? So it turns out that we have a direct road to the exit from the START-3 Treaty. This is especially relevant in connection with the situation around Ukraine.

The assessment of what is happening shows that an undeclared war against Russia is being waged on all fronts. Recently, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA), also known as the commander of the US Cyber Command and head of the Central Security Service (CSS), General Paul Nakasone, in an interview with Sky News, said that the US intelligence services were conducting offensive cyber operations against Russia.

According to him, NSA agents operate in 16 countries to which the United States transmits intelligence data, including those related to Russia. One of the cyber operations was conducted in Ukraine. It lasted about three months and was completed shortly before the start of our special military operation.

For information: The Central Security Service is subordinate to the US Department of Defence and is engaged in electronic intelligence, interacting, among other things, with the NSA and the Service Cryptologic Element (SCE) of the US Armed Forces.

CSS also collaborates with the US Special Collection Service (SCS), and there is already close to the relevant CIA units. It was SCS that monitored the mobile phone of then-acting German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That's how it's all tied up tight. And here it is no longer up to the level of indulgence. It is necessary to act tough. Including with regard to previously reached, as it seemed, unshakable agreements.

So far, it can be stated that the likely enemy is starting to get nervous, overestimating its defensive capabilities in the downward direction. The reason for the weakening is the increased capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces. The same Americans cannot yet surpass them. Now they are working closely on their own hypersonic weapons, although they have not yet achieved impressive results. Perhaps, based on the idea of still getting it, they are delaying the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.

It is impossible to clearly understand what really drives the leadership of the United States. But no one can interfere with the analysis of the problem.

It has now been established that US security at the strategic level is significantly reduced. Currently, Russia occupies a very favourable position. The Americans cannot change the situation. Therefore, we should expect attempts from the other side to bring Russian representatives to the negotiating table in the near future.

But here comes the question. Does it make sense to meet the West halfway in these negotiations? Given the current and previous aggravation of relations – this should not be done either now or at any time in the future. History endlessly teaches us that after we meet them halfway, if they don't sit on our necks, they spit on our backs. Recall at least the story of the unification of the GDR and Germany. Where is gratitude? Scholz only scoffs at the phrase "genocide of Russian speakers”. What is there to talk about with such figures? I'm tired of seeing our nobility taken for weakness.

On the other hand, by agreeing to negotiations, Russia can put forward demands of an ultimatum nature. For example, to demand the complete lifting of all sanctions in general, the return of international reserves with bows and apologies and the payment of a fine in double the amount of lost profits. In Ukraine - not a single, even scanty concession. In general, to act exclusively offensively. If we are going to thresh, so thresh.