This afternoon Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States was suspending its participation in the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). CNN reports:
Washington (CNN)Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday that the US is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a key pact with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War.
“For years, Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse,” Pompeo said, speaking from the State Department. “Russia’s violations put millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk.”
“It is our duty to respond appropriately,” Pompeo said, adding that the US had provided “ample time” for Russia to return to compliance.
The long-expected suspension, which has raised concerns about a renewed arms race with Moscow and put European allies on edge, goes into effect on Saturday. Pompeo’s announcement starts a 180-day clock to complete withdrawal unless Russia returns to compliance with the 1987 agreement.
President Donald Trump and his senior officials had been signaling for months that they were ready to pull out of the INF treaty, which the US accuses Moscow of violating since 2014.
Background
According to this report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, the Obama Administration complained of Russian violations of the INF in 2013, officially in 2014. In September 2014 then-Secretary of State John Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Russians responded with claims of their own, one of which was that American use of drones violated the INF. The U. S. position on this is that, since drones are piloted albeit remotely, they are not covered under the INF. The talks ended with assuaging U. S. concerns.
The U. S. has reiterated its concerns ever since in its annual compliance report.
The Trump Administration announced its intention of suspending its participation in the INF unless Russia came back into compliance back in October. The Russians have done nothing to assuage U. S. concerns.
Alternatives
I could create a decision matrix for this but the parameters of the alternatives include Russian compliance, U. S. compliance, and whether to suspend or not for a total of eight different alternatives including the Russians are not in compliance but the Americans are and the Americans suspend participation, the Russians are not in compliance but the Americans are and the Americans do not suspend, neither the Russians nor the Americans are in compliance and the U. S. suspends its participation, neither the Russians nor the Americans are in compliance and the U. S. does not suspend its partipation, and so on.
Conclusions
I have no way of determining whether the Russians are in compliance with INF or not or whether we are in compliance with the treaty or not. I will take it on faith that the Russians are not in compliance but we are. Making those assumptions is remaining in a treaty the Russians are violating better than suspending our participation in a treaty the Russians are violating?
I will reserve judgment in the hope of reading the views of an unbiased commentator. I despair of finding one.
With only 12 years until the Earth is destroyed, a nuclear winter would be most welcome.
If you get time, Kaliningrad, Iskander-M might be useful in your search. I believe both sides have devised ways that honor the letter but not the spirit of the agreement and we are in the midst of a game of liars poker.
First, considering recent history, I do not believe any statement from the US government, period. They are psychopaths and war mongers to the man, both elected and non-elected. It is also evident that the military and intelligence agencies are no longer under civilian control and have gone rogue, pursuing their own policies. Eisenhower may have been the last President with any control over them.
I used to accept the standard versions of the JFK, MLK and RFK killings and of the Vietnamese war. No longer.
Moreover, it should be clear that SALT I and II, START, NEW START, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, NPT, ban on nuclear weapons on seabed, Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Europe, CSCE, treaty on Conventional Armed Forces and even the Hotline are now on the table. INF and JCPOA are merely the opening moves.
The US could very well end up with no treaties with Russia, none. Our relationship with Russia is then reduced to brute force and local advantage. Is that really a good idea?
“They are psychopaths and war mongers to the man, both elected and non-elected. It is also evident that the military and intelligence agencies are no longer under civilian control and have gone rogue, pursuing their own policies. Eisenhower may have been the last President with any control over them.”
I’m wondering. Power corrupts,,,, moral superiority. Regime change as policy. Enormous military contracts. A distracted and disengaged and obviously easily led body politic. Media almost totally disengaged from military policy except as it affects U.S. politics.
Look at a map of the mid east, NATO expansion, and ask yourself how secure you would feel as a Russian leader. Especially considering the state of their economy.
Trumps history in pulling out of treaties has always been prelude to re-negotiation.
If we don’t want to go back to M.A.D. we need to find a way to make Russia feel more secure, not less.
Even move closer to them in trade and commerce to throw the Chinese off balance. Or would that be collusion?