- The US stated that on February 2nd they'll withdraw from the INF Treaty if Moscow doesn't provide evidence that it's acting within the treaty's provisions.
- We know that the US has turned down Russia's invitation to come and look at the missiles which they think violate the treaty. But despite all of this we invited them, but they refused and rebuked us for that. Foreign Minister Lavrov said that we'll do our best to preserve the INF Treaty.
"The meeting was disappointing as it is clear Russia continues to be in material breach of the Treaty and did not come prepared to explain how it plans to return to full and verifiable compliance".
"After the Russian and the American representatives met in Geneva, Under Secretary of State Andrea Thompson claimed that Moscow isn't allowing them to carry out a proper check of the Russian missile system, which is in breach of the 1987 INF Treaty, according to Washington. Based on yesterday's discussions and the relevant rhetoric today, we don't see any indication that Russia will choose to comply with the treaty, said Thompson to journalists".
- Consequences... The main question is what will be next?
Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the Natsionalnaya Oborona: I should say that the political decision on the US's withdrawal from the INF Treaty was made several years ago. US Congress allocated funds for the development of an American land-based intermediate-range cruise missile. So, all of the decisions were made in advance. Now, they need a fig leaf to cover it up. That's why they're coming up with accusations against Russia. As for the missiles…
- Then, why do we say that we'll preserve or at least try to preserve this treaty if we're aware of everything? Putin talked about it.
- Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs will use any remaining opportunities to remedy the situation. But, unfortunately, this process is irreversible. The Americans are planning a new cycle of an arms race, they will withdraw. So, at the next meeting of the NATO heads of states, their alliance partners will support them and thus let the Americans deploy those new land-based strike systems on their territories. Unfortunately, it's a reality. The arms race of 1983 is back. Well, what's our position? Of course, we'll continue to fight for the treaty, although I should honestly say that it's obvious that the treaty will be buried by America in February. I have no doubt that we're able to take military retaliatory measures. The condition Russian army and fleet today allows us to say that any unilateral military and technical advantages that the US counts on will be neutralized by our retaliatory measures.
The Americans demand that we eliminate that 9M729 missile, I'll focus on it. It's a cruise missile that's a part of the Iskander-M system. It's a very effective weapon. That's why, despite the fact that this system isn't in breach of the treaty, the Americans want to exclude it from our armory. It's unacceptable.
- Have we provided proof of that it isn't in breach of the treaty?
- There's no proof.
- They themselves understand that, right?
- Look, America is a country which terminates international treaties and doesn't care about any facts. They came to the conclusion that they need to do it and they'll do it. They'll accuse us. But I'll say again that our response shouldn't only be military, but also political and economic, first and foremost. We should understand that in the situation of that violent pressure, first of all, we shouldn't be dragged into an open arms race. I think our authorities realize that. Second, we need domestic political forces to be consolidated, economic development, and the implementation of national projects. The main thing is that people should support the state. The Russian state should be the main value which shouldn't be destroyed. Actually, by dragging us into an arms race and trying to exhaust our economy, America is trying to repeat the events that were tragic for the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. We should realize this and the dangers which come not only from the outside but from the inside, too.
- Mr. Khazin, you're able to envisage the situation 5-10 steps ahead. Why are they doing it? To repeat the 90s? To divide the country again? They deploy their missiles, we deploy ours, what comes next?
Mikhail Khazin, economist: No, the thing is that over about 30 years, a basic economic mechanism was connected with the control over finance, world finance. And this mechanism ensured their total domination. In this sense, military technologies became less important. When Trump came, that model came back to ensure dominance, probably not over the entire world, because Trump realizes that he'll have to sacrifice something. For example, he's saying that the US can withdraw from NATO. Anyway, they'll focus on military technologies. This is an objective economic process. The US has to abandon one tool and turn back to the tool they used in the 60s or the 80s. I'm not sure that they like it because it requires a lot of money. That notorious plane alone... What was its name? F-35? They spent $1.5 trillion and got nothing. But the problem is that they can't back away from it. That's why they'll move in that direction. It makes no sense to negotiate with them. They can't go for curtailing it because otherwise they'll be attacked in different regions.
- Since we're being dragged into it. Will we have enough money?
Dmitry Abzalov, President of the Center for Strategic Communications: It's important to understand why they make it public. If we really needed to negotiate bilaterally, it would be done behind the scenes and nobody would bring it to the press. The problem is that it's not only important how we interact but the fact that other countries watch us. Everyone knows that the US withdraws not because of us, but China, Iran, Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent, but primarily because of China.
- Why not because of us? They say it's because of us, our missile.
- Sure they do. Let me remind you of the official statement by the representative of the White House, Mr. Pompeo, that they're concerned about China in this sense. The American NSA announced the number of the missiles and…
- But Putin proposed a plan, to include China in the negotiations, or at least to try. Why terminate the agreement?
- The thing is that we should now demonstrate that Moscow provides every opportunity to preserve the treaty because when the Americans withdraw and begin to surround our Chinese colleagues, first of all, with their bases, it'll be China and the Eastern European countries that will suffer the most in this case. They will have an opportunity to hold negotiations. Now, we should realize who is the initiator of negotiations. Now, we're fighting not for the USA or the treaty, but the future of the system, for our positions that consist in our readiness to negotiate in that process. Everyone understands well that it's not the USA that will spend money. If they deploy their weapons in the territory of Eastern Europe, who'll pay for that? Eastern Europe will pay for that with a larger share of military expenditures in their GDP, for example. If they deploy them in Southeast Asia, who'll pay for that? Japan will pay for that, Vietnam and the Philippines will pay too but to a lesser extent.
Actually, the thing is that the main part of the financial burden won't be on Washington. That's why from this point of view, this is our offer. While it remains standing, we have the opportunity to maneuver and negotiate. Especially when Trump unilaterally cancels all of the agreements in trade, military, and even international spheres, take Palestine for example. So, from this point of view, this is our strong suit. Going public has helped in for the recent four years. We shouldn't shy away from it.
- We'll try.
