{
"authors": [
"Vladimir Dvorkin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
The recent reports in the U.S. media suggest that Russia has violated the INF Treaty seem to echo, at a new stage, previous claims made almost six months ago. At that time, questions arose in connection with the Rubezh missile flight tests and assumptions were made that the Rubezh missiles are actually intermediate-range missiles.
The recent reports in the U.S. media suggest that Russia has violated the INF Treaty seem to echo, at a new stage, previous claims made almost six months ago. At that time, questions arose in connection with the Rubezh missile flight tests and assumptions were made that the Rubezh missiles are actually intermediate-range missiles. The allegations were triggered by a multiple-warhead missile launch from the Kapustin Yar missile base to the Balkhash area at an INF-range distance.
However, a single-warhead missile of this type was launched from Plesetsk to Kura, which is a strategic distance. According to the conclusions in the U.S. Air Force Intelligence Report, as explained by Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, the missile was tested at intercontinental range. This rebuts the claims that Russia is violating the INF Treaty.
In the same manner, similar allegations can be leveled against any intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) the range of which virtually completely overlaps that of the intermediate-range missiles; in fact, ICBM tests to INF range and minimal range have always been conducted.
Vladimir Dvorkin, Major General (Ret.)., is a chief researcher at the Center for International Security at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
Vladimir Dvorkin
Major General Dvorkin (retired) is a chief researcher at the Center for International Security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
US unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.
Chong Ja Ian
Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.
Nguyễn Khắc Giang
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Damien Ma
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
Elina Noor
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor