USA screwed Europe to Abolish IRBM (INF) Treaty with Moscow

[PEE_APE_PEE]

Just America try to cover it own ass from Hwasong ICBM, it sabotaged the Europeans deeply by strongly tearing up the INF Treaty with Putin. For Putin, this is a secret celebration.

Why America is not really affected?

Because IRBM by definition (500km to 5500km) can not strike most of USA from Russia! It merely affects Alaska (which was originally a Russian territory ) region only. If Russia don't deploy IRBM according to Treaty it had the lame European Ass covered from Putin mainly. If the Treaty is abolished Putin has Entire Europe covered by cheaper and higher numbered IRBMs, which Europeans are freaking too weak to counter.

Putin can extend the range of Iskanda missiles or make larger versions when Treaty is abolished.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance

• Fact Sheets & Briefs

Contact: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107; Kingston Reif, Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy, (202) 463-8270 x104

Updated: June 2017

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and utilize extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty's implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.

The United States first alleged in July 2014 that Russia is in violation of its INF Treaty obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.” Subsequent State Department assessments in 2015, 2016, and 2017 repeated these allegations. In March 2017, a top U.S. official confirmed press reports that Russia had deployed the noncompliant missile. Russia denies that it is in violation of the agreement.

History

U.S. calls for the control of intermediate-range missiles emerged as a result of the Soviet Union's domestic deployment of SS-20 intermediate-range missiles in the mid-1970s. The SS-20 qualitatively improved Soviet nuclear forces in the European theater by providing a longer-range, multiple-warhead alternative to aging Soviet SS-4 and SS-5 single-warhead missiles. In 1979, NATO ministers responded to the new Soviet missile deployment with what became known as the "dual-track" strategy-a simultaneous push for arms control negotiations with the deployment of intermediate-range, nuclear-armed U.S. missiles (ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing II) in Europe to offset the SS-20. Negotiations, however, faltered repeatedly while U.S. missile deployments continued in the early 1980s.

INF negotiations began to show progress once Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet general-secretary in March 1985. In the fall of the same year, the Soviet Union put forward a plan to establish a balance between the number of SS-20 warheads and the growing number of allied intermediate-range missile warheads in Europe. The United States expressed interest in the Soviet proposal, and the scope of the negotiations expanded in 1986 to include all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles around the world. Using the momentum from these talks, President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev began to move toward a comprehensive INF elimination agreement. Their efforts culminated in the signing of the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987, and the treaty entered into force on June 1, 1988.

Elimination Protocol

The INF Treaty's protocol on missile elimination named the specific types of ground-launched missiles to be destroyed and the acceptable means of doing so. Under the treaty, the United States committed to eliminate its Pershing II, Pershing IA, and Pershing IB ballistic missiles and BGM-109G cruise missiles. The Soviet Union had to destroy its SS-20, SS-4, SS-5, SS-12, and SS-23 ballistic missiles and SSC-X-4 cruise missiles. In addition, both parties were obliged to destroy all INF-related training missiles, rocket stages, launch canisters, and launchers. Most missiles were eliminated either by exploding them while they were unarmed and burning their stages or by cutting the missiles in half and severing their wings and tail sections.

Inspection and Verification Protocols

The INF Treaty's inspection protocol required states-parties to inspect and inventory each other's intermediate-range nuclear forces 30 to 90 days after the treaty's entry into force. Referred to as "baseline inspections," these exchanges laid the groundwork for future missile elimination by providing information on the size and location of U.S. and Soviet forces. Treaty provisions also allowed signatories to conduct up to 20 short-notice inspections per year at designated sites during the first three years of treaty implementation and to monitor specified missile-production facilities to guarantee that no new missiles were being produced.

The INF Treaty's verification protocol certified reductions through a combination of national technical means (i.e., satellite observation) and on-site inspections-a process by which each party could send observers to monitor the other's elimination efforts as they occurred. The protocol explicitly banned interference with photo-reconnaissance satellites, and states-parties were forbidden from concealing their missiles to impede verification activities. Both states-parties could carry out on-site inspections at each other's facilities in the United States and Soviet Union and at specified bases in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Czechoslovakia.

The INF Treaty Today

States-parties' rights to conduct on-site inspections under the treaty ended on May 31, 2001, but the use of surveillance satellites for data collection continues. The INF Treaty established the Special Verification Commission (SVC) to act as an implementing body for the treaty, resolving questions of compliance and agreeing on measures to "improve [the treaty's] viability and effectiveness." Because the INF Treaty is of unlimited duration, states-parties can convene the SVC at any time, and the commission continues to meet today. The most recent SVC session took place November 15-16, 2016 and was attended by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The United States called the meeting to raise its concerns about Russia’s violation of the Treaty.

The INF ban originally applied only to U.S. and Soviet forces, but the treaty's membership expanded in 1991 to include successor states of the former Soviet Union. Today, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine join Russia and the United States in the treaty's implementation. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan possessed INF facilities (SS-23 operating bases) but forgo treaty meetings with the consent of the other states-parties.

Although active states-parties to the treaty total just five countries, several European countries have destroyed INF-banned missiles since the end of the Cold War. Germany, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic destroyed their intermediate-range missiles in the 1990s, and Slovakia dismantled all of its remaining intermediate-range missiles in October 2000 after extensive U.S. prodding. On May 31, 2002, the last possessor of intermediate-range missiles in eastern Europe, Bulgaria, signed an agreement with the United States to destroy all of its INF Treaty-relevant missiles. Bulgaria completed the destruction five months later with U.S. funding.

In recent years, Russia has raised the possibility of withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Moscow contends that the treaty unfairly prevents it from possessing weapons that its neighbors, such as China, are developing and fielding. Russia also has suggested that the proposed U.S. deployment of strategic anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe might trigger a Russian withdrawal from the accord, presumably so Moscow can deploy missiles targeting any future U.S. anti-missile sites. Still, the United States and Russia issued an October 25, 2007, statement at the United Nations General Assembly reaffirming their “support” for the treaty and calling on all other states to join them in renouncing the missiles banned by the treaty.

Reports began to emerge in 2013 and 2014 that the United States had concerns about Russia's compliance with the INF Treaty. In July 2014 the U.S. State Department officially assessed Russia to be in violation of the agreement by producing and testing an illegal ground-launched cruise missile.

Russia denies that it is breaching the agreement and has raised its own concerns about Washington’s compliance. Moscow is charging that the United States is placing a missile defense launch system in Europe that can also be used to fire cruise missiles, using targets for missile defense tests with similar characteristics to INF Treaty-prohibited intermediate-range missiles, and making armed drones that are equivalent to ground-launched cruise missiles.

U.S. Defense and State Department officials had publicly stated that they believe that the Russian cruise missiles at issue have not been deployed. But an October 19, 2016 report in The New York Times cited anonymous U.S. officials expressing concern that Russia is producing more missiles than needed solely for flight testing, raising fears that Moscow may be on the verge of deploying the missile.

The United States and Russia met in the SVC for the first time in 13 years in November 2016 in Geneva “to discuss questions relating to compliance with the obligations assumed under” the 1987 agreement, according to the State Department. The United States called the meeting over alleged Russian treaty violations, took place in Geneva on November 15-16.

A February 14, 2017, report in The New York Times cited U.S. officials declaring that Russia had deployed an operational unit of the treaty noncompliant cruise missiles. On March 8, 2017, General Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed press reports that Russia had deployed a ground-launched cruise missile that “violates the spirit and intent of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. According to Selva, the Pentagon believes that the Russians deployed the missile in question as a signal to NATO forces in Eastern Europe. The Trump administration is reportedly considering measures to pressure Moscow to return to treaty compliance.

In April 2017, the U.S. State Department released its annual assessment of Russian compliance with key arms control agreements. For the fourth consecutive year, this report alleged Russian noncompliance with the INF Treaty. The 2017 State Department report lists new details on the steps Washington took in 2016 to resolve the dispute, including convening a session of the SVC, and providing Moscow with further information on the violation.

The report says the missile in dispute is distinct from two other Russian missile systems, the R-500/SSC-7 Iskander GLCM and the RS-26 ballistic missile. The R-500 has a Russian-declared range below the 500-kilometer INF Treaty cutoff, and Russia identifies the RS-26 as an intercontinental ballistic missile treated in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The report also appears to suggest that the launcher for the allegedly noncompliant missile is different from the launcher for the Iskander.

For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry responded by disputing the accusation and reiterating its own allegations of treaty noncompliance by the United States.

Posted: June 22, 2017

Posted: February 14, 2017

 

[PEE_APE_PEE]

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-07/news/us-may-act-russian-inf-violation

U.S. May Act on Russian INF Violation

• Arms Control Today

July/August 2017
By Maggie Tennis

The Trump administration is considering actions to take in response to Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, according to senior national security officials.

Christopher Ford, senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation on the National Security Council staff, and Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, signaled in recent comments that the White House may move beyond talks to military measures intended to pressure Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty.

Addressing the Arms Control Association’s annual meeting June 2, Ford said that the White House is considering a “very broad” range of options that go beyond just reconvening the Special Verification Committee, the body established by the treaty for dispute resolution. That group, convened most recently in November 2016, has failed to resolve the issue.

“You would be wrong to conclude that this is an administration likely to be content just with another round of finger waving,” Ford said.

U.S. countermoves could add new strains to the U.S.-Russian relationship, already taxed by Moscow’s military action against Ukraine, Russian involvement in the U.S. elections, and NATO’s buildup of defenses in allies closest to Russia, such as the Baltic states. Russia has disputed the U.S. claim that it has developed and deployed a missile banned under the INF Treaty and has countered with complaints of U.S. violations tied to missile defenses in Europe.

The United States will consult with allies in developing a response, according to Ford, who said a resolution of the issue is needed because of the importance of the INF Treaty to “the future of the arms control enterprise.”

Addressing Russia’s treaty violation is a “top priority” for the Trump administration, Soofer said in testimony June 7 to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the United States needs to understand the military capability that Russia gains from fielding the SSC-8 ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), which the United States says violates the treaty ban on ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

“We came to the conclusion that there must be some military capability that outweighs the political repercussions of actually violating the INF Treaty,” he said. “So, for Russia, this has a meaningful military capability, and we need to assess what that is and how to address it.”

Soofer noted two reviews underway, one by the Pentagon as part of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the other by the National Security Council. The latter is examining “steps to place more meaningful pressure on Moscow, both in terms of diplomatic and military measures, to return them to compliance,” according to Soofer.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at a congressional hearing in March about the NPR, at which time he publicly confirmed the U.S. view that Russia had deployed the SSC-8 missile. (See ACT, April 2017.)

The Obama administration considered a military response to the Russian violation in 2014, after the State Department initially assessed Russia as having developed and tested a noncompliant GLCM.

In 2014, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, described three possible categories of military action at a hearing held by the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees. These consisted of “active defenses to counter intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles, counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile attacks, and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance U.S. or allied forces.” Only some of these options would comply with the treaty.

In February, Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Republican Reps. Ted Poe (Texas) and Mike Rogers (Ala.), introduced legislation called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Preservation Act. It lists measures that the United States could take to pressure Russia to return to compliance, including funding counterforce, active-defense, and countervailing-strike activities; creating a program for and testing a dual-capable road-mobile GLCM within INF Treaty limits; expanding missile defense assets in the European theater; and coordinating the transfer of INF Treaty-range systems to U.S. allies.

But even if the Pentagon had the budget for these activities, it is not clear that NATO allies, Japan, or South Korea would cooperate with placing these systems on their territory.

Some experts and politicians support developing a long-range standoff cruise missile, capable of penetrating Russian air defense systems and being armed with nuclear or conventional warheads, to replace the aging U.S. air-launched cruise missile.

In April, the State Department released its annual assessment of Russian compliance with arms control agreements, in which it repeated its accusation that Russia is violating the INF Treaty and stated that it had submitted “detailed information” to Moscow on the nature of the violation. The Russian Foreign Ministry refuted the allegation and maintained that the United States has not provided adequate evidence to back up the claim. (See ACT, June 2017.)

In remarks at the Arms Control Association meeting, Ford noted the administration’s intent to “re-engage on matters that relate to strategic stability” with Russia. He referred to recent talks on that topic between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“On the positive side, in terms of the future of dialogue and engagement on these topics, I believe you probably have seen from the aftermath of the Tillerson-Lavrov meeting in Moscow that there is agreement in principle upon some kind of strategic stability dialogue between the United States and the Russian Federation,” said Ford.—MAGGIE TENNIS

Posted: July 10, 2017

 

[PEE_APE_PEE]

https://www.rt.com/news/409388-russia-us-missiles-inf-treaty/

Russia will promptly ‘develop & adopt’ mid-range missiles if US violates INF treaty
Published time: 9 Nov, 2017 17:42 Edited time: 9 Nov, 2017 17:43
Get short URL

FILE PHOTO. Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer intermediate-range missile complex, retired under the INF treaty, on display at the Kapustin Yar test grounds museum. © Leonidl / Wikipedia
Russia has the military and technical capabilities to develop and adopt new intermediate-range missile systems, should the US begin the development of a new missile. Mentioned in a recent US budget bill, the weapon would potentially violate a 1987 missile treaty.
“If the missile announced by Congress indeed makes it into the American arsenal, we will have to develop and adopt the same thing. Russia has the military and technical capacities for that,” Viktor Bondarev, the head of the Defense and Security Committee of Russia’s upper house of parliament, the Federal Council, has said.

Read more
US defense bill authorizes development of ‘INF treaty-compliant’ mid-range missile
On Wednesday, US legislators allocated $58 million to counter Russia’s alleged non-compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. The sum was part of the $700 billion proposed in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2018.

The measures to counter alleged Russian activities include a “research and development program on a ground-launched intermediate-range missile,” which, somehow, should not violate the treaty itself. The 1987 deal bans missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km.

However, Russian lawmakers have no doubt the violation would be unavoidable, and warned that Moscow will have to respond immediately. “It will entirely contradict the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty,” Vladimir Shamanov, the head of the Russian lower house Defense Committee and the former head of Russia’s airborne troops, said on Thursday. “Our president said: ‘the response will be instant,’” referring to earlier comments by Vladimir Putin.

“We are going to comply with its [INF] terms, provided our partners do so,” Putin said in October at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi. “If they decide to abandon it, however, our response will be instant and symmetrical.” The US had previously threatened to scrap the treaty altogether.

READ MORE: 'Return to sanity': Gorbachev calls for US-Russia summit amid fears of nuclear treaty collapse

While Washington did not provide any proof that Russia had violated the INF, top US and NATO officials have repeatedly presented it as a given fact. US Defense Secretary James Mattis said Thursday that “many” NATO nations allegedly have “their own evidence of what Russia has been up to.” Mattis added: “We have a firm belief now over several years that the Russians have violated the INF and our effort is to bring Russia back into compliance.”

Russia and the US have been trading accusations of INF treaty violations for several years already. Moscow listed the target missiles for testing anti-ballistic missile technology, the US drone program and ground placement of a naval vertical launch system as part of the Aegis Ashore program as violations of the treaty.

• Where to watch
• Schedule

 

[PEE_APE_PEE]

https://www.rt.com/usa/409299-inf-treaty-missile-system-budget/

US defense bill authorizes development of ‘INF treaty-compliant’ mid-range missile
Published time: 9 Nov, 2017 05:41 Edited time: 9 Nov, 2017 06:49
Get short URL

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system launches during a flight test from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, U.S., May 30, 2017 © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
US lawmakers have agreed to allocate $58 million for research and development of a ground-launched, intermediate-range missile system, which they claim would not be in violation of the crucial 1987 INF treaty with Russia which prohibits such weapons.
On Wednesday, House and Senate negotiators authorized the nearly $700 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the Fiscal Year 2018. Part of the deal includes the allocation of $58 million to tackle Russia’s alleged non-compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

The Senate Armed Service Committee “authorizes $58 million for measures in response to the Russian violation of the INF treaty, including a research and development program on a ground-launched intermediate-range missile, which would not place the United States in violation of the treaty,” the US lawmakers said.

READ MORE: US withdrawal from INF Treaty would hit America itself & European allies – Russian senator

Previously the US had threatened to scrap the treaty; the only US-Soviet arms control agreement extant from the Cold War era. The deal remains crucial to the stability in Europe, as it bans missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Section 1635 of the NDAA authorizes the US to develop a new missile system or modify old ones in direct violation of the INF treaty.

Read more
‘Lies, hypocrisy, propaganda’: Russia slams US over claims of nuclear treaty violations
“The conferees took a firm view that more needs to be done to make sure that we maintain our competitive advantage against the potential adversary of Russia, and so we took steps to ensure that we have improved our capabilities over the long term to maintain that competitive capability,” a senior House Armed Services Committee staffer told reporters Wednesday, the Hill reported.

Section 1635 mandates the US to “take actions to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance” with the INF deal. In particular it allows the Pentagon to establish “a research and development program for a dual-capable road-mobile ground-launched missile system with a maximum range of 5,500 kilometers.”

The section also mandates Secretary of Defense James Mattis to produce an assessment within 120 days whether or not it is cost-effective or feasible to develop a new missile system, compared with modifying the existing hardware including “the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, the Standard Missile-3, the Standard Missile-6, the Long-Range Stand-Off Cruise Missile, and the Army Tactical Missile System.”

The White House has previously noted that it is “developing an integrated diplomatic, military, and economic response strategy to maximize pressure on Russia.”

Russia-US missile treaty should be bypassed by helping allies make nukes – GOP Senator https://t.co/xFpGxiCvZCpic.twitter.com/hYCzSc0Ym7

— RT (@RT_com) July 18, 2017
The US president is likely to sign the defense budget bill which shows a “$26 billion increase above the President’s combined initial and amended budget requests.” Altogether the NDAA allocated $626 billion for the base budget requirements while authorizing an extra $66 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and $8 billion for other defense activities.

Russia: US claims on nuclear missiles treaty unfounded, we have questions too

Washington and Moscow have been trading accusations of violations of the INF Treaty for years now. Moscow says that the US drone program, the target missiles for testing ABM technology, and the placement of a naval vertical launch system, part of the AEGIS Ashore shield, are all in violation of the INF.

Read more
‘We gave you uranium, you repaid us by bombing Belgrade’: Putin slams US over nuclear treaties
Earlier this year Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia “remains committed to its international obligations, including under the INF treaty.” Konstantin Kosachev, head of the upper house Committee for International Relations previously warned that Moscow would respond if the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

While Moscow has not yet issued a comment on the latest NDAA budget, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Mattis had already briefed the allies on INF treaty developments during the ministerial meeting of the alliance in Brussels.

“The US has determined that Russia is in violation of the INF treaty,” Stoltenberg said adding that the NATO will follow further developments as the “INF treaty is very important and that a strong and viable INF treaty is a pillar for European security.”

“I think that the INF treaty is a cornerstone; it’s extremely important that it is fully implemented so we will continue to call on Russia to address the serious concerns in a substantial, transparent and verifiable way because the INF treaty’s important for all of us,” he added.

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that by not banning air-based and naval launchers the treaty allowed a loophole predominantly benefiting NATO states. He went on to say that it represented “another case of Russia making unilateral concessions.”

“Nonetheless, we are going to comply with its terms providing our partners do so,” Putin said. “If they decide to abandon it, however, our response will be instant and symmetrical.”

• Where to watch
• Schedule

 

[PEE_APE_PEE]

http://tass.com/politics/971601

Russia to give immediate mirrored response to US withdrawal from INF Treaty — Putin
Russian Politics & Diplomacy
October 19, 18:49 UTC+3
Russia has been abiding by it and will continue to do that until "our counterparts comply with our previous agreements," Putin said
Share

© Alexei Druzhinin/Russian Presidential Press and Information Office/TASS
SOCHI, October 19. /TASS/. Moscow will give an immediate mirrored response to Washington’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Read also
Moscow fails to grasp reason why US claims that it ‘violated’ INF pact — diplomat
Russia has no plans to quit INF treaty — diplomat
Russia interested in preserving INF treaty, but only if US complies with it - Lavrov
Russia meets all international commitments, including INF Treaty — Kremlin
"If our US counterparts wish to pull out of the [INF] treaty, then we will give an immediate response, and a mirrored one, too - I would like to make it clear right away," he said.

"We have been abiding by it and will continue to do that until our counterparts comply with our previous agreements," Putin added.

The Russian leader pointed to accusations against Moscow of violating the treaty by developing new missiles. "We may have been tempted to do so if we did not have airborne missiles and sea-based ones," Putin stressed, adding that the INF Treaty applied only to land-based missiles. Since the United States had airborne and sea-based missiles before the treaty was signed, "in fact, it was a unilateral disarmament on the part of the Soviet Union," the president noted. According to him, now "the balance has been restored" as Russia has developed the Kalibr missiles and other similar missiles.


https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty

The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty

A landmark arms control agreement concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union in the final years of the Cold War is at risk of unraveling amid mutual suspicions.

Backgrounder by Ankit Panda

October 25, 2017

Reuters
More on:

Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and Disarmament

Treaties and Agreements

Russia

Nuclear Weapons

Missile Defense

Ankit Panda
Home Page Editor

What is the INF Treaty?
Signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is the only Cold War-era U.S.-Soviet arms control agreement that remains in force today. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, at which point all U.S. and Soviet INF missiles had been eliminated, the United States sustained the INF Treaty with the Russian Federation and some other successor states. Today, only Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan actively participate in the INF Treaty with the United States.

The INF Treaty required both countries to destroy their stockpiles of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The treaty, which covers both nuclear and conventionally armed missiles, also prohibits signatories from possessing, producing, and flight-testing these kinds of missiles. It was the first agreement of its kind to reduce nuclear missile stocks instead of merely establishing a limit on arsenals. While the treaty required the elimination of missile bodies and launchers, it did not result in the elimination of nuclear warheads.

After the treaty entered into force in 1988, the United States and Soviet Union dismantled and destroyed about 800 and 1,800 missiles, respectively, along with related equipment such as launchers. A pillar of the treaty was a rigorous verification regime, including on-site inspection, which allowed parties to physically confirm the other's implementation. Both sides came into full compliance in the summer of 1991, months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, by completely eliminating the systems covered by the treaty. On-site inspection activity ended in 2001, in accordance with the treaty.

United States and Soviet Union dismantled and destroyed about 800 and 1,800 missiles, respectively.


The treaty also established a forum known as the Special Verification Commission for parties to address and resolve compliance concerns. It has met thirty times, with the last meeting taking place in November 2016. (The most recent meeting before 2016 took place in October 2003.)

What is the state of INF Treaty compliance today?
In recent years, both the United States and Russia have alleged the other has violated the INF Treaty, and many defense analysts say the thirty-year-old treaty is in danger of unraveling. These allegations have accompanied a general decline in bilateral ties following Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, and Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

In recent years, both the United States and Russia have alleged the other has violated the INF.


In 2014, the U.S. Department of State said Russia violated its obligation not to “possess, produce, or flight-test” missiles prohibited by the treaty, although officials did not provide details as to the nature of the alleged violation.

The U.S. government has not made public which missile system it believes violates the treaty. Some reports say Russia may have produced an extended-range version of the Iskander K, a short-range cruise missile that is compliant with the INF Treaty, which would be in violation of the agreement.

Russia, for its part, has rejected these claims and alleged that the United States has itself violated the INF Treaty by deploying a component of a missile defense system—the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS)—that is capable of launching offensive missiles. It also claims the United States has used banned missiles in missile defense tests and that some U.S. armed drones are effectively banned cruise missiles.

U.S. officials deny these allegations. Regarding the VLS, they note that the text of the INF Treaty allows systems designed solely for intercepting “objects not located on the surface of the earth.” This VLS is part of missile defense systems the United States has deployed at sea and in Europe to protect allied countries from limited missile attacks by regional powers like Iran. However, Russia has long questioned U.S. motives, and notes that VLS systems on U.S. warships can launch both offensive cruise missiles and missile defense interceptors.

Do Russia’s alleged violations alter the strategic environment?
Several U.S military leaders have said that Russia’s alleged violation of the INF Treaty places allied forces in jeopardy. Testifying before the U.S. Congress in March 2017, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul J. Selva noted that the INF Treaty-violating system “presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe.”

At the same time, General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, NATO’s supreme allied commander, added that [PDF] “Russia’s fielding of a conventional/nuclear dual-capable system that is prohibited under the INF Treaty creates a mismatch in escalatory options with the West.”

However, in July 2017 testimony, Selva told lawmakers that the INF Treaty-violating system does not give Russia any particular military advantage in Europe “given the location of the specific missiles and deployment.”

The State Department’s 2017 Arms Control Compliance Report [PDF] notes that Washington was “consulting with allies to review a range of appropriate options should Russia persist in its violation.”

Where does the INF Treaty go from here?
Both the United States and Russia may reassess the continued compatibility of the INF Treaty with their national defense priorities in the coming years. In 2017, the United States remains committed to the treaty, but the Trump administration is conducting a review of U.S. nuclear capabilities that military officials say [PDF] will present the president with options on how to respond to Russia’s alleged treaty violations. Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers are debating whether the military should begin development of missile systems now banned under the INF Treaty.

In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would adhere to the INF Treaty as long as the United States does the same. According to former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates’ memoirs, Moscow proposed a joint termination of the treaty in 2007 so it could deploy intermediate-range missiles in its south and east to “counter Iran, Pakistan, and China.” The United States rejected the offer.

For now, the impasse since 2014 over compliance remains. Arms control advocates recommend that the United States and Russia continue to use the Special Verification Commission to resolve outstanding disputes.

How does China factor into the INF debate?
In recent years both the United States and Russia have become more wary of China’s military capabilities. China's growing nuclear and conventional missile inventory is mostly composed of systems in the INF Treaty-prohibited range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

Admiral Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, recommended in April 2017 testimony that the United States renegotiate the treaty with Russia because it limits its ability to “to counter Chinese and other countries’ cruise missiles, land-based missiles.” Russian military officials, too, have pointed to Moscow’s perceived imbalance with China [PDF] in this area as a possible factor leading to the eventual demise of the treaty.

Other observers have recommended that the United States seek to bring China into the INF Treaty or seek a separate, similar agreement with Beijing. However, China has expressed no interest in joining the INF Treaty, and experts are doubtful that Beijing would consider participating in the future.

 

[PEE_APE_PEE]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-russia-america-headed-missile-showdown-23152

Are Russia and America Headed for a 'Missile' Showdown?

Dave Majumdar
November 11, 2017

TweetShareShare

The United States has been discussing ways to coax the Kremlin back into compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with other members of the NATO alliance in Brussels.

“The discussion included a consideration of the Russian Federation's violations of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and our collective efforts to bring Russia back into compliance with the INF,” U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters during a press conference at NATO headquarters.

“This is absolutely necessary to sustain confidence in arms control agreements. And we're doing so in a substantial, transparent and verifiable fashion.”

Recommended: Why North Korea's Air Force is Total Junk

The 1987 treaty, which bans the United States and Russia from possessing ground-launched missiles with ranges of between 500 kilometers and 5,500 kilometers, is credited by many including former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock as marking the beginning of the end of the Cold War. The landmark treaty, which will mark its 30th anniversary on December 8, is in danger of collapse given Russia’s alleged violation and Congressional language that has been inserted into the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

Recommended: Why Doesn't America Kill Kim Jong Un?

Though the Senate and the House are still ironing out the differences in their two versions of the bill, Section 1635 of the FY2018 NDAA would require the Pentagon to start development of a new missile that falls within INF ranges if Russia continues to violate the treaty. The bill also authorizes $58 million toward the development of such a weapon.

Recommended: The F-22 Is Getting a New Job: Sniper

The NDAA, as it currently stands, also requires the Pentagon to produce a report for Congress examining various options to develop such an INF range missile. Those options include modified versions of the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Standard Missile-3, the Standard Missile-6, the Long-Range Stand-Off cruise missile and the Army Tactical Missile System, “as compared with the cost and schedule for, and feasibility of, developing a new ground-launched missile using new technology with the same range” according to bill.

It is not clear if the Congressional mandate would necessarily put the United States itself in violation of the INF treaty. The treaty does not seem to ban development work on INF class weapons until the point that prototypes missiles are built and flight tested.

“Upon entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter, neither Party shall: (a) produce or flight-test any intermediate-range missiles or produce any stages of such missiles or any launchers of such missiles; or (b) produce, flight-test or launch any shorter-range missiles or produce any stages of such missiles or any launchers of such missiles,” Article VI of the INF treaty states.

But any such development activity would at the very least violate the spirit of the treaty, even if it was not a technical violation of the wording of the document. It “sets the stage for Washington to violate the agreement and would take the focus off Russia’s own INF violation. Russia could respond by publicly repudiating the treaty and deploying large numbers of noncompliant missiles without any constraints” as a bipartisan group of no less than sixteen arms control experts wrote to the U.S. Senate on September 13, 2017.

It is unclear what advantage new weapons in the INF class would confer on the United States or Russia. It is believed that Russia has tested and deployed a small number of GLCMs—which the U.S. intelligence community has designated the SSC-X-8 and which might carry the Russian designation 9M729—in violation of the INF treaty, but the Pentagon has never definitively stated as such publicly. It is not clear why the Russians would bother to develop such a missile however.

The INF treaty does not constrain the deployment of air-launched or sea-based conventional or nuclear-tipped missiles in the 500km to 5,500km range bracket. Either nation is free to deploy such weapons in the European theater, as such, it is unclear what advantage a 9M729 would confer onto Russian forces that a missile such as a nuclear-tipped Kalibr launched from a submarine could not. Russian Kalibr-armed Kilo-class submarines and corvettes are already based in Crimea and in the Kaliningrad exclave.

For the United States, a new INF-class missile would seem to be completely superfluous since Washington has plenty of air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that can accomplish the same mission. Moreover, as Ambassador Stephen Pifer notes, it would take many years and billions of dollars to develop a new American INF range missile and it is very unlikely that European NATO members would allow such a weapon to be deployed on their territory.

Indeed, starting the development of a new American INF-class missile might play right into Russian hands. The Russians have been trying to maneuver the United States into abrogating the INF treaty first given their own violation of the accord. Thus, Congress could be handing the Kremlin a propaganda victory.

“Paradoxically, formal accusation of violation made Russian withdrawal less likely: it is one thing to abrogate a treaty that you judge is no longer in your national interest and quite another thing abrogating a treaty you’d just supposedly violated,” former Soviet and Russian arms control negotiator Nikolai Sokov, now a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told The National Interest. “Some Russian counter-accusations make sense, but are vastly weaker, in any event. I suspect that now they seek to maneuver the U.S. into abrogating first, that would solve their problem. Looks like they are succeeding.”

NATO has to start discussing such issues now since the collapse or abrogation of the INF treaty would be highly destabilizing, unleashing an expensive and dangerous new nuclear arms race in Europe with far reaching consequences that cannot be foreseen. “We discussed our strategic nuclear issues, in which I received input from our allies to our ongoing posture review in Washington D.C.,” Mattis said. “NATO is a nuclear-armed alliance, and it is natural and necessary for us to have such discussions among trusted allies.”

NATO has, Mattis noted, has been a nuclear-armed alliance from the day it was founded on April 4, 1949, with the signing of the Washington Treaty. Thus, it is crucial for the 29-member NATO alliance to discuss nuclear issues even though apart from the United States only Britain and France have an independent nuclear capability.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor of The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter @DaveMajumdar.

Image: Reuters

 

[lky_hearse]

Canada also kenna IRBM from Russia.