USA And Russia Suspend Obligations Under Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces INF Treaty

In 2019, the United States and Russia both announced the suspension of their obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This treaty, signed in 1987 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, eliminated intermediate-range missiles. The INF Treaty prohibited both countries from developing, producing, possessing, or deploying ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers but did not cover air-launched or sea-based systems.

The treaty mandated the destruction of all such existing weapons within three years of signing and allowed either party to withdraw with a six-month notice. It also established a comprehensive inspection protocol for monitoring the elimination process. Since 2013, both the U.S. and Russia had accused each other of violating the treaty's terms. The INF treaty was a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the USSR, meaning other nuclear powers were not restricted from developing ground-based intermediate-range forces. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and START II) were prior efforts at weapons control between the US and the Soviet Union.

The Collapse of the INF Treaty: A Turning Point in Global Security

The year 2019 witnessed a significant deterioration in the international arms control landscape with the formal suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by both the United States and Russia. This landmark agreement, painstakingly negotiated during the final years of the Cold War, had served for over three decades as a cornerstone of strategic stability, eliminating an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles and fostering a degree of predictability in the relationship between the two superpowers. The unraveling of the INF Treaty, therefore, represents not merely a bilateral dispute, but a profound shift with far-reaching implications for global security, arms control efforts, and the future of international relations.

The INF Treaty, formally known as the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, was signed on December 8, 1987, by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. Its core objective was to eliminate all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (approximately 310 to 3,418 miles). This category of weaponry was deemed particularly destabilizing due to its short flight times, which would provide little warning in the event of an attack, and its potential to strike critical targets in Europe.

The treaty's significance stemmed from several factors. First, it was the first arms control agreement to eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons. Previous agreements, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), had focused on limiting the production or deployment of strategic nuclear weapons, but not on their complete elimination. The INF Treaty, by contrast, mandated the destruction of all existing intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, along with their launchers and support equipment.

Second, the treaty included unprecedented verification measures, including on-site inspections of missile production facilities and deployment sites. These inspections, conducted by teams of U.S. and Soviet inspectors, helped to build trust and confidence in the treaty's implementation. The INF Treaty regime became a model for subsequent arms control agreements.

Third, the treaty had a profound impact on the strategic landscape in Europe. By eliminating intermediate-range missiles, it reduced the threat of a nuclear strike on European cities and military installations. This contributed to a period of reduced tensions and improved relations between the East and West, paving the way for the end of the Cold War.

Accusations and Counter-Accusations of Treaty Violations

Despite its initial success, the INF Treaty began to unravel in the 2010s, as both the United States and Russia accused each other of violating its terms. The U.S. alleged that Russia was developing and deploying a new ground-launched cruise missile, the 9M729 (also known as SSC-8), which it claimed violated the treaty's range restrictions. The U.S. argued that the 9M729 had a range exceeding 500 kilometers, thus falling within the treaty's prohibited range.

Russia, on the other hand, denied these allegations and accused the U.S. of violating the treaty in several ways. Russia claimed that the U.S. deployment of Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Romania and Poland could be used to launch offensive missiles, thus violating the treaty's prohibition on ground-launched missiles. Russia also argued that the U.S. use of target drones that resembled intermediate-range missiles in its missile defense testing programs constituted a treaty violation.

These accusations and counter-accusations created a climate of distrust and suspicion, undermining the treaty's effectiveness. Despite numerous attempts to resolve the disputes through diplomatic channels, including meetings between U.S. and Russian officials, no resolution was reached.

The U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty

In October 2018, the Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, citing Russia's alleged violation of the treaty as the primary reason. The U.S. formally suspended its obligations under the treaty on February 2, 2019, and completed its withdrawal on August 2, 2019, after the required six-month notice period.

The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty was met with mixed reactions. Some U.S. allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, supported the decision, arguing that Russia's violation of the treaty had rendered it meaningless. Others, particularly in Western Europe, expressed concern that the withdrawal would lead to a new arms race and undermine strategic stability.

Russia condemned the U.S. withdrawal, accusing the U.S. of using false pretenses to justify its decision. Russia also announced that it was suspending its own obligations under the treaty in response to the U.S. withdrawal.

Russia's Perspective and Motivations

Understanding Russia's perspective on the INF Treaty and its alleged violations requires considering several factors. First, Russia has long viewed the INF Treaty as being unfair, as it only applied to the United States and Russia, while other countries, such as China, were free to develop and deploy intermediate-range missiles. This perceived asymmetry led Russia to believe that the treaty was placing it at a strategic disadvantage, particularly in the face of China's growing military power.

Second, Russia has expressed concerns about the U.S. deployment of Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Europe. Russia argues that these systems could be easily converted to launch offensive missiles, thus posing a threat to Russia's security.

Third, Russia has accused the U.S. of using the INF Treaty as a pretext to modernize its military and develop new weapons systems. Russia points to the U.S. development of target drones that resemble intermediate-range missiles as evidence of this.

Russia's decision to develop and deploy the 9M729 missile can be seen as a response to these perceived threats and vulnerabilities. Russia likely believes that the missile provides it with a necessary deterrent against potential U.S. aggression and helps to balance the strategic equation in Europe.

The Impact on India

While the INF Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia, its collapse has implications for India's foreign policy and security interests.

• Increased Regional Instability: The demise of the INF Treaty contributes to a more unstable security environment in Asia. With the treaty no longer in effect, there is a risk of a regional arms race, particularly in the development and deployment of intermediate-range missiles. This could increase tensions between India and its neighbors, particularly China and Pakistan.
• Strategic Realignment: The end of the INF Treaty may prompt India to reassess its strategic partnerships and alliances. India may seek closer ties with countries that share its concerns about China's growing military power, such as the United States and Japan.
• Modernization of Armed Forces: The INF Treaty's collapse may spur India to accelerate its military modernization efforts. India may feel compelled to develop and deploy its own intermediate-range missiles to counter the perceived threat from China.
• Arms Control Dilemma: The demise of the INF Treaty presents India with a dilemma regarding arms control. India has traditionally supported arms control efforts, but it may be reluctant to join new arms control agreements that would restrict its ability to develop and deploy missiles.
• Nuclear Deterrence: India's nuclear deterrence strategy may be affected by the end of the INF Treaty. With the potential for a new arms race, India may need to enhance its nuclear capabilities to maintain a credible deterrent.
• Impact on relations with Russia: Traditionally a close ally, the INF treaty collapse could cause some friction in relations with Russia. India may have to convey its concerns about the new missile systems being developed by Russia.

The Role of China

China's role in the INF Treaty dispute is complex and multifaceted. China was not a party to the treaty, and it has been developing and deploying intermediate-range missiles for many years. The U.S. has argued that China's development of these missiles was a key factor in its decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty, as it placed the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage in the Asia-Pacific region.

China has defended its development of intermediate-range missiles, arguing that it is a necessary measure to protect its security interests. China has also accused the U.S. of using the INF Treaty as a pretext to contain China's rise.

China's actions have further complicated the arms control landscape. With the U.S. and Russia no longer bound by the INF Treaty, there is a greater risk of a three-way arms race between the U.S., Russia, and China.

The Future of Arms Control

The collapse of the INF Treaty raises serious questions about the future of arms control. The treaty was a cornerstone of strategic stability for over three decades, and its demise represents a significant setback for arms control efforts.

There are several possible scenarios for the future of arms control:

• A New Arms Race: The most pessimistic scenario is that the collapse of the INF Treaty will lead to a new arms race between the U.S., Russia, and China. This could involve the development and deployment of new types of nuclear and conventional weapons, increasing the risk of military conflict.
• Bilateral Arms Control Agreements: A more optimistic scenario is that the U.S. and Russia will be able to negotiate new bilateral arms control agreements to replace the INF Treaty. These agreements could focus on limiting the production or deployment of specific types of weapons, or on establishing verification measures to ensure compliance.
• Multilateral Arms Control Agreements: Another possibility is that the international community will work to develop multilateral arms control agreements that include a wider range of countries, including China. These agreements could address a broader range of weapons systems and could include provisions for verification and enforcement.
• A World Without Arms Control: The most concerning scenario is a future without any effective arms control agreements. This would lead to a more unstable and dangerous world, with a greater risk of military conflict and nuclear proliferation.

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) were two rounds of bilateral conferences and corresponding international treaties involving the United States and the Soviet Union—the Cold War superpowers—on the issue of armament control. The two rounds of talks and agreements were SALT I and SALT II.

SALT I commenced in November 1969 and concluded in May 1972 with the signing of several agreements. The most significant of these was the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which limited the deployment of ABM systems. An Interim Agreement was also reached, limiting the number of strategic offensive arms.

SALT II started in November 1972 and resulted in a treaty signed in June 1979. It placed further limits on strategic nuclear weapons, including multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). However, the U.S. Senate did not ratify SALT II, primarily due to concerns about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Although not ratified, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union generally adhered to the treaty's provisions until the mid-1980s.

The SALT talks were crucial in establishing a dialogue between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on arms control and in setting the stage for further negotiations, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START)

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START) were a series of bilateral treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia) aimed at reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms. These treaties played a significant role in decreasing the number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems held by the two countries.

• START I: Signed in July 1991, START I was the first comprehensive arms control treaty to significantly reduce strategic offensive arms. It limited the number of strategic nuclear warheads, as well as the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers. The treaty entered into force in December 1994.
• START II: Signed in January 1993, START II sought to further reduce strategic nuclear forces. It banned the use of MIRVed ICBMs and set even lower limits on the total number of strategic warheads. However, START II never entered into force due to various political and strategic considerations.
• New START: The New START treaty was signed in April 2010 and entered into force in February 2011. It further reduced the number of strategic nuclear warheads, ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers. The New START treaty was extended in February 2021 and is currently in force until February 2026.

The START treaties have been instrumental in reducing the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia and in promoting stability in the post-Cold War era.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was a landmark arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, signed in 1972. It aimed to limit the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems, which are designed to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles. The treaty was based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which held that the threat of nuclear retaliation would deter either side from launching a first strike.

The ABM Treaty was considered a cornerstone of strategic stability during the Cold War. By limiting ABM systems, it ensured that neither side could effectively defend itself against a nuclear attack, thus reinforcing the MAD doctrine. The treaty also helped to prevent an arms race in defensive weapons, which could have further destabilized the strategic balance.

In 2002, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, citing the need to develop missile defense systems to protect against new threats, such as rogue states and terrorists. This decision was met with criticism from Russia and other countries, who argued that it would undermine arms control efforts and lead to a new arms race.

The Current International Arms Control Regime

The current international arms control regime is facing numerous challenges. In addition to the collapse of the INF Treaty and the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, other arms control agreements are also under threat.

The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is facing challenges due to the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018. The New START treaty, which limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, is set to expire in 2026, and its future is uncertain.

These challenges highlight the need for renewed efforts to strengthen the international arms control regime. This will require a commitment from all major powers to engage in constructive dialogue and to work together to address the challenges facing arms control.

The Humanitarian Implications

The potential unraveling of the INF Treaty and the broader arms control architecture carries significant humanitarian implications. A new arms race, particularly in nuclear weapons, would increase the risk of military conflict and the potential for catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

The use of nuclear weapons would result in widespread death, injury, and destruction. It would also cause long-term environmental damage and could lead to a nuclear winter, with devastating consequences for global food supplies.

Even without the use of nuclear weapons, a conventional arms race could lead to increased military spending, diverting resources away from essential social services and development programs. This could exacerbate poverty, inequality, and social unrest.

The Potential for Increased Military Spending

The collapse of the INF Treaty and the potential for a new arms race could lead to increased military spending by major powers. This would divert resources away from other important areas, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Increased military spending could also have negative economic consequences, such as inflation and reduced economic growth. It could also lead to increased international tensions and a greater risk of military conflict.

The Incentive for Development of New Weapons Systems

The collapse of the INF Treaty could create an incentive for the development of new weapons systems, both nuclear and conventional. This could lead to a qualitative arms race, with countries competing to develop more advanced and destructive weapons.

The development of new weapons systems could further destabilize the international security environment and increase the risk of military conflict. It could also lead to the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.

The Technological Implications

The end of the INF Treaty and the potential for a new arms race have significant technological implications. Countries may invest heavily in developing new weapons technologies, including hypersonic missiles, autonomous weapons systems, and cyber weapons. These technologies could have a profound impact on the nature of warfare and could pose new challenges for arms control efforts.

The development of new weapons technologies could also have unintended consequences. For example, the development of autonomous weapons systems could raise ethical concerns about the delegation of lethal force to machines.

The Environmental Implications

While the immediate environmental implications of the INF Treaty collapse are not as direct as the humanitarian or economic ones, the broader context of a potential arms race and increased military activity has several environmental dimensions.

• Increased Military Exercises: The breakdown of arms control agreements can lead to heightened military tensions and an increase in military exercises and deployments. These activities often have negative environmental impacts, including noise pollution, habitat destruction, and pollution from the use of vehicles and equipment.
• Development and Testing of New Weapons: The pursuit of new weapons technologies, as discussed earlier, often involves environmental risks. Testing of explosives and missile systems can contaminate soil and water, disrupt ecosystems, and release harmful substances into the atmosphere.
• Resource Depletion: An arms race can drive increased demand for raw materials used in the production of weapons and military equipment. This can lead to unsustainable resource extraction practices, deforestation, and habitat loss.
• Climate Change: The military sector is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, both directly through the burning of fossil fuels and indirectly through the production and transportation of military goods. An increase in military activity and spending can exacerbate climate change, which in turn can have wide-ranging environmental and social consequences.
• Accidental or Intentional Environmental Damage: In the event of armed conflict, there is a risk of deliberate or accidental damage to the environment. Military tactics can involve the destruction of infrastructure, the use of environmentally damaging weapons, and the disruption of ecosystems.
• Nuclear Proliferation: The collapse of arms control agreements can increase the risk of nuclear proliferation, which poses a grave threat to the environment. The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic and long-lasting environmental consequences, including radioactive contamination, widespread destruction, and potential climate disruption.

Related Ongoing Issues

The suspension of the INF Treaty is connected to several other ongoing issues in international relations, including:

• New START Treaty Renewal: The New START treaty, which limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, is set to expire in 2026. The future of this treaty is uncertain, and its expiration would further undermine the international arms control regime.
• Tensions in Eastern Europe: Tensions between Russia and the West remain high in Eastern Europe, particularly in Ukraine. These tensions could escalate if the INF Treaty is not replaced by a new arms control agreement.
• Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: Concerns about nuclear proliferation remain high, particularly in the Middle East and Asia. The collapse of the INF Treaty could embolden countries to pursue nuclear weapons programs, further destabilizing the international security environment.

Historical Connections

The suspension of the INF Treaty is connected to several historical events and trends, including:

• Cold War Arms Race: The INF Treaty was a product of the Cold War arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The collapse of the treaty represents a return to a more competitive and confrontational relationship between the two countries.
• Previous Arms Control Agreements: The INF Treaty was one of several arms control agreements reached between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The collapse of the treaty raises questions about the future of other arms control agreements, such as the New START treaty.

The Future Outlook

The future outlook for arms control is uncertain. The collapse of the INF Treaty represents a significant setback, and the international arms control regime is facing numerous challenges.

There is a potential for a new arms race between the U.S., Russia, and China. This could lead to increased instability in international relations and a greater risk of military conflict.

However, there is also a possibility that the U.S. and Russia will be able to negotiate new arms control agreements to replace the INF Treaty. This would require a commitment from both sides to engage in constructive dialogue and to address the concerns of the other party.

The international community also needs to work to develop multilateral arms control agreements that include a wider range of countries. This would require a commitment from all major powers to engage in constructive dialogue and to work together to address the challenges facing arms control.

The situation continues to evolve, and its long-term consequences remain to be seen. It is crucial for policymakers, analysts, and the public to remain informed and engaged in the ongoing discussions about arms control and international security.