So, seems like Trump et al are poised to pull the US out of yet another international treaty, this time the Open Skies treaty. The reason given is…Russia has basically broken the treaty repeatedly almost since it was initially signed by restricting other member states from overflying key Russian cities and installations, which is kind of what the treaty was written for in the first place. I don’t think that part is debatable, but knowing this place I’m sure it will be.
For this thread, however, my question for discussion is…should the US pull out of the treaty? Frankly, the US doesn’t really care that much about this, as we have other means to get better than the 30 cm resolution max given in the treaty (those satellite thingies would be the most obvious). Who this hurts is the smaller European and other nations who are in the treaty and don’t have as many alternatives. However, as Russia has always put restrictions on this thing anyway, I don’t think it’s that big a deal even for them, though they are the most impacted for sure. But this is my US-centric view, and maybe I’m missing something here, thus the discussion. What are your thoughts? Should the US pull out? If not, what’s the alternative as talks between Russia and several nations, including the US on Russian violations of the treaty seem to be getting no where? Just stay with the status quo? Use some other kind of pressure (if so, what)? Do something else?
Directly, it has almost no effect on them. The US withdrawal as a party to the treaty does not end the existence of the treaty. They will not longer have the authority to conduct surveillance flights over the United States. They do not really have the capability to do that regularly anyway. They can still conduct flights over parties that comply with their treaty obligations. That includes locations inside countries that host US forces and are party to the treaty. The issue for those smaller countries is without the US in the treaty that compliance among parties goes down.
The US, China, and Russia are not parties to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. That court still exists and operates without us. A US withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty does not, by itself, end the treaty for those still in it.
On a cynical note, Canada and the United Kingdom are still parties. They are part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance with the US. We should expect full access to the data they gather. Many of the other parties are NATO members. Some of those have additional intelligence sharing agreements with the US, or the Five Eyes in total, above and beyond routine NATO alliance sharing. The US still is going to have access to much of the data they gather when Russia allows flights. The numbers of flights just goes down because the US allotment disappears.
I read this as a big win for Russia. We have much more capability of flying spying missions over Russia than they have over the United States. So while the agreement was equal-sided in theory, in practical terms we were getting much more out of it. That’s why “open skies” has always been something the United States has pushed for.
Russia wasn’t happy because we were legally allowed to fly spying missions over Russian territory. So they protested and resisted. And what does Trump do in the face of Russian resistance? He throws out the treaty! He handed the Russians everything they were fighting for.
Can you explain the logic here because I’m not following it. How does the US get more out of this than Russia? Russia actually does fly where they want according to the treaty. Conversely, they don’t allow anyone to fly over some key parts of their territory. As for the US, we don’t actually need to fly over anyone’s territory, not unless Russia finds a way to take out our rather extensive military satellite system. I believe that our military grade satellites can already do better than 30 cm resolution, which is what is allowed by the treaty. So, how does the US benefit more? I’d say the Europeans, perhaps, benefit more than the US, but that Russia benefits the most, especially since they can fly where and how they like (and I doubt they are sticking to the 30 cm bit either), while denying the Europeans and other small nations key areas to look at. Of course, many of them that are allied to the US probably can use our data, and some of them have their own capable satellites, so it’s probably a wash.
Can you explain why Trump is handing Putin anything? I mean, I’ll buy that Trump is an idiot, and HE probably doesn’t even understand the treaty, but I’m not seeing a downside for the US in any of this, except pissing off our allies…again.
The treaty, as written, limits the advantages that you seem to think the US had under it. The Russians, after all, are not stupid.
The technology used on treaty approved missions has to be freely available for purchase by all parties to the treaty. A mission flown by the US, Russia, or Kazahkistan were all using the the same level of technology to gather information. The number of missions allotted to each nation was also strictly controlled by the treaty. It was not just a free for all allowing as many missions as a nation wanted. The greater US capability to put surveillance missions in the air is irrelevant to what the treaty did. Both the US and Russia had the capability to fly all the authorized missions under the treaty. The number of missions was just not that large.
“Since the Treaty entered-into-force in 2002, the United States has flown nearly three-times as many flights annually over Russia as Russia flies over the United States. The Open Skies Treaty flight plans (2002 – 2016) show 196 bids by the United States over Russia and 71 bids by Russia over the United States. Further, the United States can request copies of the imagery from other State Parties’ flights over Russia. Since 2002 there have been over 500 such flights by other States Parties over Russia.” cite
Yes, I agree that’s a problem. But if the Russians are saying we can’t fly over five percent of their country, saying that we’re going to refuse to fly over the other ninety-five percent seems like a pretty stupid way to get compliance.
I’m very curious about this as well. It seems to have come out of nowhere. It’s not a issue that’s being pushed by any part of Trump’s base that I’m aware of. I don’t see Trump gaining money or power or votes from this. If you had asked me a month ago if Trump was even aware that the Open Skies Treaty existed, I would have said probably not.
I have speculated in another thread and I’ll repeat it here. And I’ll emphasize that this is just speculation. We’ve seen that Trump is easily influenced by the last person he talks to. Somebody whispers in his ear that there’s someone or something out there that’s being unfair to Donald Trump and there’s a good chance he’ll swallow the bait.
So if I were Vladimir Putin, I would make sure I have a few White House staff members on my payroll. And if I wanted some change in American policy, I would tell one of them to do that whispering. Tell him that Bill Clinton signed the treaty and he had Hillary secretly negotiate it (which is not true, it was negotiated during the first Bush administration).
If I was in the NSA, I’d be checking which of the people in Trump’s circle has unaccounted for money in a secret bank account.
Sounds crazy? Well, yes. But if I had told you a year ago Trump was going to tell people they should be injecting bleach, that would have sounded crazy too. We’re living in crazy times.
First that is an entirely different argument than the one you made and I responded to. That has nothing to do with greater US surveillance capabilities.
Second, the US will still have access to big chunks of the data being gathered by Open Skies overflights. The treaty skews pretty heavily towards US allies that routinely share information with us. They will still be allowed to fly over Russia and gather data. We won’t have access to that data through the treaty. We will still have access unless Russia withdraws and the flights stop. (Russia has a large incentive to not withdraw at this time; Ukraine is a party to the treaty.) That cite, as written, implies a larger loss of intelligence to the US than the reality.
The numbers of overflights by country is also a pretty awful measure of how valuable the treaty is to a nation. Russia gets to choose which countries they overfly within their number of authorized flights. If they have a target that is worth more than yet another flight over US territory (like the Ukraine) that is still valuable to them. A simple bipolar comparison implies that is valueless. Then there is the fact that big chunks of the US targets Russia might want to collect on would not show up in the numbers in your cite. The US has a large forward deployed footprint based in countries that are also in the treaty. Those can be overflown without it showing as an overflight of US territory.
If you feel that, then you misunderstood what I wrote.
I wrote “We have much more capability of flying spying missions over Russia than they have over the United States. So while the agreement was equal-sided in theory, in practical terms we were getting much more out of it.”
I wrote that before I had looked up the specific figures. But when I did so, I feel they confirm exactly what I wrote. A hundred and ninety-six flights by the United States is substantially more than seventy-one flights by Russia. We were doing substantially more surveillance than Russia was.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that its better for the US than for Russia. I’m not saying that this is the case, but hypothetically if the US has very good satellite technology such that those additional flights only make a minor addition to our intellegence, while the 75 flights by Russia were the only servailence they had, then discontinuing the flights would hurt Russia much harder than us.
As far as why Trump is deciding to do it, I think it fits into his America alone, rip up all multi-lateral treaties foreign policy strategy. Plus he needs anything he can get to change the headlines from Covid-19, and its a relatively safe way to do something that he can point to to show that he’s not Russia’s puppet in an election year.
the treaty meant something back in the days of rotary phones. Now it’s nothing to make a pocket drone that’s invisible to radar and costs pennies on the dollar. We’re probably analyzing Putin’s farts at this point.
Trump doesn’t like multi-lateral treaties. He’s definitely done his best to pull the US out of such things. He seems to want, mainly, bi-lateral treaties, or treaties between, at best, 3 parties. He’s angling for a new SALT treaty based on the fact that Russia didn’t comply (like with the treaty under discussion), but more based on wanting the Chinese to sign on too. He wants Russia to put pressure on China to sign on to the treaty between the US, Russia and China. That, IMHO (cutting through the BS and my own interpretation) is his goal…assuming he has one, which is always a question. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but I think that’s what he’s getting at.
I think you hit one of the key points here that is overlooked. I doubt the US really cares one way or the other about this. While we certainly get some intelligence currently doing fly overs, we get more from other sources, and if we couldn’t fly over Russia anymore it wouldn’t really phase us. It WOULD phase other signatories, which, of course, Trump could care less about.
The Open Skies Treaty seems to me to be nothing more than a post-Cold War feel-good agreement. Like the nuclear de targeting one in 1994. Or the NATO-Russia council.
Lots of fanfare, but little substance.
If Trump dumps NEW START and resumes nuclear testing, that would problematic.
Because it wasn’t about the US. It was about several of the other signatory nations. Plus, it’s what Putin does. Sometimes he pushes on a treaty (i.e. breaks it) because it’s part of his overall strategy. By breaking a treaty such as this, he sees what the reaction is, which tells him a lot. It also gives the impression that there is something he’s hiding…maybe something other countries should be worried about.
While Putin can and is an idiot at times, and certainly an evil bastard, he’s also a master at this particular game.