Are the US preparing to deploy its missiles in Mongolia?

07.08.2019

After the Americans broke the INF Treaty, the Pentagon immediately promised to deploy its missiles in Asia. This has already caused an angry and restless reaction of China. And, it seems, for good reason ...

Europe understands perfectly well that if America is stuffing it with medium- and shorter-range missiles, naturally, all these positions will be covered in red circles on Russian maps of combat employment of the armed forces.

Washington is not a solid stone fortress either. They don’t really want to add a headache to themselves with the whining of Europeans and a clear response threat from Moscow. Yes, and initially one of the goals of the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty was to identify a threat to China. Which, according to Washington’s logic, has accumulated too many medium-range missiles, but there are no restrictions on it, because it is not a party to arms reduction treaties.

Based on this, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper openly announced that the Pentagon is considering deploying medium-range missiles in the Asian region. According to American logic, this will help to drag the PRC into a new treaty - the INF Treaty-2, which already includes three countries.

Beijing disagrees with this logic, and is rather eloquent.

What does it mean that 80% of China's nuclear potential is medium-range missiles? This means only one thing - these missiles will not be able to reach the main territory of the United States. For this reason, the United States needs to worry least about this fact, right? “Fair questions are being asked by the director of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Phu Tsun. - The United States has thousands of intercontinental missiles, and at the same time, they are concerned about several missiles that cannot reach their territory. Where is the logic? I don’t see her yet, for this reason this is only an excuse for the American side.

As a result, the world community witnessed an unprecedented event: Beijing, which has so far fanned out silently at such current conflicts, this time openly and even energetically expressed solidarity with Russia. And America threatened that "China will not stand aside and will be forced to take countermeasures if the United States places ground-based medium-range missiles in this part of the world."

Whether the Chinese countermeasures will include the reciprocal deployment of medium-range missiles somewhere near the US coast is unclear.

But, paradoxically at first glance, the Americans are far from endless in their choice of ground-based medium-range missiles. What is needed in order to place such weapons on the threshold of China? Firstly, the allied relations between this country and the United States. Secondly, certain frictions between this country and China. Thirdly, a relatively stable political regime and the resulting predictability of the country's position, especially when the country will have to plunge itself into confrontation with the most powerful Asian power. With which Russia will clearly sympathize. Finally, this country should lie in a radius of 2-5 thousand kilometers from important economic and political centers of the PRC.

And as a result of these objective limitations - there are not many options left. We will not take the actual territory of the United States on the island of Guam - this is too obvious, and 3000 km to Shanghai and 4000 to Beijing make this option very attractive for the United States. However, at the same time, this turns the island into a no less obvious reciprocal goal, and not in the character of the Americans to sacrifice themselves, if they can sacrifice someone else.

Japan, too, is asking for the criteria for the role of position for American missiles. But there is a nuclear-free principle: not to have, not to import, and not to produce nuclear weapons. And non-nuclear missiles against a country like China make no sense. Whatever the US Secretary of Defense promises.

South Korea? It could be the same. But Seoul is so well dependent on the Chinese market that it will hush things up even with Washington's most insistent desire. In addition, North Korea is also nearby. Does Seoul, which has just at least visibly defused the situation with Pyongyang, need to risk a military conflict with the DPRK?

Of the recognized countries, the USA has no close allies in the region. Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar? They have problems with China, but it is hardly realistic to think that these countries will actually go to war with him for American interests. Pakistan today is more of an ally of Beijing than of Washington. India has serious problems with China, but for the whole range of its geopolitical positions, this country will not go to host American weapons directed against a third country.

What is left with us? Yes, Taiwan. An unrecognized country located on an extremely short military-political leash near Washington. And with mainland China it is in a state of inescapable, albeit cold war. Same as between North and South Korea.

But Taiwan is too close. Two hundred kilometers is not a distance. In the event of war, the Chinese army will crush all missile positions here within minutes.

Mongolia

And under these conditions, the most advantageous option at first glance remains the most beneficial for the United States. Mongolia.

Although for whom it is unthinkable? For the United States, on the contrary, it is extremely pragmatic. From here, medium-range missiles splendidly cover the entire territory of both enemies of America - both China and Russia. Including Murmansk and Anadyr. And at the same time, the country’s relief is such that a couple of divisions of mobile devices for RSD can be covered in the most infinitely wonderful way.

Besides. The country is large, the population is small. The population is not too developed, in thinking - medieval nomads. An attempt to switch from feudalism to socialism, frankly, failed. This means that there is already one fundamental advantage: public protests should not be feared, and you can work with a small elite quite effectively. The United States has enough money for this. Moreover, since 1991, the Mongolian elites have been sensitively following a pro-Western course. And even from natural for Mongolia membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Ulan Bator has been evading for many years.

Yes, Mongolia is three-quarters dependent on trade with China. But on the other hand, there are long-standing territorial differences between these countries. A long-standing friendly memory of Russia? The cult of Genghis Khan perfectly eliminates this.

So in the next few years, it is worth observing carefully the ideological and political movements in Mongolia. As if there was no surprise ...

Well, and the last. Very remarkable news came in late July from Washington. There, President Donald Trump held talks with Mongolian President Haltmaagiin Battulga. According to reports from the White House, the main topic of the negotiations was trade: "representatives of the Trump administration announced their desire to help Mongolia diversify foreign trade."

But this altruism is not due to gratitude for the fact that the Mongol president gave the horse to Trump's son Barron. It seems that the whole explanation lies in one phrase: "Trump and Battulga also discussed security and defense issues." How does Mongolia, with its geographical position, build its defense without the United States?

And here is the notorious John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, recently traveled to Ulaanbaatar.