The following is an article written in 2018 by Russian author Nikolai Starikov about the nature of the “sale” of Alaska and how it relates to international treaties like the then crumbly INF Treaty. This is food for thought, and something that is very relevant for discussion within Russia itself.

The nature of international treaties

…It was concluded more than a century and a half ago, but in world diplomacy, all treaties are important and remain in force unless one of the parties withdraws from them. On October 18, 1867, an official ceremony was held in Novoarkhangelsk (now Sitka) to transfer Russian Alaska to the United States of America (USA). According to the treaty signed between St. Petersburg and Washington on March 30, 1867, the Americans acquired 1,519,000 square kilometers of territory (Alaska and the nearby Aleutian Islands) from Russia for $7,200,000 (14,320,000 rubles at the exchange rate at the time) . This treaty is still in force today. Interestingly, the treaty between Russia and the United States was a treaty of cession, i.e., a transfer, not a sale!

Now that we have recalled the dates of signing and the specifics of the conclusion of the two treaties, let’s move on. In recent days, we have heard several arguments on why Washington wants to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Liberal experts, US government officials, and the media have come up with a whole bunch of reasons to soften the global community’s impression of the US actions, which will definitely make the international situation more tense.

So, the following arguments were put forward in favor of or in defense of Washington’s actions:

— The treaty is outdated, as it was signed in a different geopolitical reality. Its moral obsolescence is evidenced by the fact that, for example, drones have appeared since then, which were unheard of in 1987.

— Russia itself is to blame for the treaty’s collapse, as it allegedly violates it constantly.

— Medium-range missiles are the backbone of China’s nuclear forces, and Trump’s threat to withdraw from the INF Treaty is directed more against China than Russia. This means that it does not really matter that the United States will violate its obligations towards our country, because they are allegedly not targeting us at all.

— In addition to China, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, etc. also have such missiles.

America’s motivations are telling

Needless to say, the US is even better at coming up with nice explanations for its policies than it is at creating bright marketing packaging for its goods and products. But that doesn’t change the essence of the matter.

Why does the US want to withdraw from the INF Treaty? After all, China and all other countries do not have missiles with a range that would allow them to cover the entire territory of the US, but the deployment of American missiles in allied countries would cause enormous damage to the security of both Russia and China.

The key words here are flight time. A missile launched from Poland can reach Moscow in 3-4 minutes. The missile carries a nuclear warhead. I think no further comment is needed. The same situation would arise with vital centers in China if American missiles were deployed in South Korea, Japan, etc.

Among other things, we must not forget that the INF Treaty must be observed not only by Russia and the US, but also by Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Washington’s withdrawal from the treaty means that Kiev will have the legal right to develop or deploy American missiles of this class with an unusually short flight time on its territory. In other words, the US withdrawal from the treaty could create a Russophobic state on our borders, calling us an “aggressor” and armed with deadly weapons. At the same time, the security of the US itself will not be threatened — in the event of playing the card “they created it themselves and adopted it for use.”

A new reality is emerging. As usual, when Washington is involved in shaping it, this reality is unpleasant for everyone except the US.

Now the question is: What should be done?

Declare Russia’s intention to withdraw from the treaty on the transfer of Alaska.

We take our arguments from our American partners:

— the agreement is outdated, as it was signed in a different geopolitical reality;

— the US itself is to blame for the termination of the agreement, as it not only constantly violates all agreements in general, but also violated this particular one (the American side did not fulfill all the terms of the agreement!);

— Russia’s withdrawal from this treaty is not directed against the US, but towards expanding Russia’s trade opportunities, which will make it easier for Russia to compete with China in the trade sphere;

— Russia, as the successor to the USSR, is ready to return $7.2 million to the United States and, by withdrawing from the cession treaty, return Alaska to its jurisdiction. Moreover, there are legal grounds for this (the treaty mentions the cession of territory, but does not specify for how long, i.e., it does not contain the formula “in perpetuity” traditional for Russian diplomatic treaties);

— As consistent defenders of human rights and protectors of the property rights of the heirs of the owners of the Russian-American Company, which developed and managed our overseas territories, the Russian Federation is forced to declare the 1867 treaty with the United States null and void and withdraw from it.

Something like that…