Yesterday, US President Donald Trump announced he intended to withdraw the US from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty*.
The accord, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, resulted in the elimination of an entire class of US and Soviet strategic missiles; namely, those deployed in Europe and capable of targeting the whole Old Continent.
So why would Donald Trump ditch such a successful treaty, and why was he right to do so ? Read along, and I’ll explain why.
(To summarize for those who don’t want to read the whole thing: Russia has flagrantly violated the pact by deploying missiles that violate the treaty, namely SSC-X-8 “Novator” cruise missiles. Two division-strength units, in fact. Their own top military officer, Gen. Gerasimov, has confirmed this deployment in the westernmost part of Russia. If launched from there, the missiles can hit any target in Europe with nuclear warheads in a matter of minutes. Attempts to convince or coerce Russia to comply with the treaty have been fruitless, so Trump is withdrawing the US from the pact.)
The Treaty’s Background
Firstly, a little historical background about the treaty is needed. In the late 1970s, the Soviet Union – then at the height of its military and geopolitical power – began deploying missiles capable of hitting any place on the European continent with up to 3 nuclear warheads. These were the SS-20 Saber and the SSC-4 ground-launched cruise missile.
In a nutshell, these weapons were able to wipe out any target anywhere in Europe within 5 minutes. Command centers, large cities, electric plants, large military bases – any target worth striking. And all of this without involving the Soviet Union’s intercontinental (strategic) nuclear forces, leaving them entirely free to target the US and Canada.
Alternatively, Moscow could’ve simply nuked (or threatened to nuke) Western Europe without threatening the US, and thus without creating an incentive for America to stay out of a new European conflict, just as the US had initially done in the two World Wars.
At the time, the US and its allies in Western Europe had no such weapons deployed. None! Clearly, something had to be done.
So, What Was Exactly Done?
Then as now, leftists in Western countries (including those now advocating sticking to the INF Treaty no matter what Russia does) said that the US should avoid deploying any counterweapons and simply try to negotiate the issue with Russia. But the Soviet Union refused to discuss the issue, or even to slow down its continued deployment of these powerful weapons. Which, by 1983, had grown to 1300 nuclear warheads mounted atop some 400 SS-20 missiles.
Earlier, in December 1979, NATO – led by the US – had decided (unanimously) to deploy American like-for-like weapon systems to deter any Soviet adventurism. These were the Pershing ballistic missile and the Gryphon cruise missile, both capable of carrying multiple warheads.
At the same time, NATO had pledged to cancel the planned deployment if the Soviets would withdraw their own intermediate-range missiles. The Kremlin refused.
And so, in 1983, under President Reagan, NATO went ahead with the planned deployment. Massive demonstrations (sponsored heavily by the Kremlin) took place in many Western countries, including the US itself, but most notably in Britain and Germany.
The Peak of Stupidity: Protesting Against… Being Protected!
In other words, the Europeans were protesting… against being protected by the US! Because in the minds of those mistaken people, being strong and equipping yourself with protective weapons is somehow provocative!
Never mind that all human history demonstrates that it is weakness, not strength, that is provocative. Potential agressors (be it states or criminals) only attack victims they perceive as weak. Weakness encourages them to take actions they would otherwise refrain from.
This is true for all humans and indeed for all animal species. In schoolyards, bullies only attack those students whom they perceive as weak (because they usually are). Likewise, in shark-infested waters, if you swim away from a shark, or otherwise act afraid, he’ll likely attack you. But if you stand your ground, and punch the shark in the nose if need be, he’ll go away.
No nation in human history has ever been attacked by another because it was too strong; but plenty of weak countries, throughout history, have succumbed to aggression by stronger neighbours. Or, as the famous ancient Greek historian Thucydides said, “the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
The INF Treaty Is Negotiated
In response to the NATO deployment, the Russians initially walked away from the bargaining table at the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks in Geneva.
Nonetheless, relentless pressure from the US – including building up US military power, economic sanctions, and President Reagan’s enormous moral pressure – coupled with the rapid deterioration of the Soviet economy – forced the Soviet Union to come back to the bargaining table.
Put simply, America’s ever-growing might, coupled with the Soviet Union’s own economic decay, left the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) with no choice but electing a moderate communist, Mikhail Gorbachev, as its leader. And Gorbachev was keen to end the arms race as quickly as possible to focus on badly needed reforms at home.
Nonetheless, even Gorby long refused (before finally agreeing in 1987) to accept American on-site inspections at Soviet military bases to verify that Soviet missiles were actually being scrapped. When he agreed, the INF Treaty was finally signed on December 8th, 1987, and entered force in June of the following year.
Under its terms, both the US and the Soviet Union (now Russia) were/are prohibited from developing, let alone building or deploying, any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles that have a range between 500 and 5,500 km – or any launchers for such missiles.
Why the INF Treaty Worked… For A While
As we observed earlier, Gorbachev needed to end the arms race to reduce the burden on the then-moribound Soviet economy and pursue badly needed reforms at home. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, Russia’s first President, Boris Yeltsin, faced similar constraints.
But at least two powerful groups in Russia always hated the INF Treaty : the Soviet/Russian military (and industry) and imperialist, revanchist politicians such as Vladimir Putin.
The Putinists and Russia’s Military Undermined the Treaty
These people regret the Soviet Union’s collapse and seek to reestablish Moscow’s former power and sphere of influence. Vladimir Putin himself has publicly stated on several occasions that he regrets the USSR’s dissolution in 1991 and that whoever doesn’t share this feeling “has no heart”. According to polls, 60% of his countrymen do share his opinion.
In particular, the Russian military always hated the treaty. They grudgingly accepted it when they had no other choice, under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But when Putin and his fellow revanchists came to power in 2000, the Russian military began planning to design and deploy new weapons of this class.
Putin, always keen to do anything needed to restore Russia’s former superpower status, agreed, and in 2008, the Russians began testing the first of the offending missiles, the Novator (SSC-X-8) ground-launched cruise missile. This was the first clear violation of the treaty.
The Bush, and then the new Obama Administrations, knew well of this, but they kept it secret. The Obama Admin, in fact, withheld this information from the Senate when that body debated, and voted to ratify, the New START treaty, another nuclear arms control accord with Russia.
Even so, that agreement barely passed the Senate by the lowest vote of any arms control agreement in history. It is safe to bet that had the Senate known about that violation, New START would’ve never passed.
Obama Admin Changes Course… Sort Of
Russia continued to test the offending land attack cruise missile repeatedly throughout the next decade. The Obama Administration, OTOH, kept trying to appease Moscow to buy peace with it, with concession after concession.
At the same time, Russia took the last, third stage out of its RS-24 Yars intercontinental missile and developed, then deployed, the RS-26 Rubyezh ballistic missile. This weapon has a range of 5,600 km and can therefore hit any target on the Eurasian landmass. But, with its range just above the INF Treaty’s upper ceiling (5,500 km), it falls outside its scope. It enables Russia to cleverly circumvent the treaty without violating it, unlike the SSC-X-8 cruise missile.
Then, in early 2014, things changed: Russia invaded and dismembered Ukraine, a country that, two decades prior, voluntarily surrendered its nukes to Russia in exchange for formal Russian, US, and British security and territorial integrality guarantees.
The West awoke to a new Russian military threat, but the alarm bells were slow to ring.
The Obama Admin, as usual, replied with half-measures: weak sanctions (which only invited Russian derision) and by publicly accusing Russia of violating the INF treaty.
Throughout its second term, that administration tried patiently to resolve the dispute with Russia diplomatically – to no avail. Russia steadily refused to even acknowledge the violation, let alone stop cheating, and replied with false counter-accusations against the US.
President Trump Gives Peace a Chance
In 2017, President Trump – initially enamored of Putin – took office, hoping for a thaw in relations with Moscow. Despite the apparent personal chemistry between the two leaders, the conflicting interests and superpower rivalry persisted.
In late 2017, Moscow went even further and deployed two division-strength units of those cruise missile launchers in its westernmost part: the Kaliningrad District. Stationed there, the missile launchers can hit any target anywhere in Europe with nuclear weapons within minutes, giving the West little time to respond. Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, confirmed this deployment publicly in 2018.
Thus, even by its own admission, Russia has violated the INF Treaty.
All half-measures taken up to this point – sanctions, naming and shaming, and negotiations – have utterly failed to convince Russia to resume compliance with the Reagan-era accord.
Therefore, the US now faces a simple choice:
- Tolerate Russia’s continued violation of the treaty while remaining unilaterally constrained by it and not building similar weapons of its own; or
- Withdraw from a treaty that Russia no longer abides by, and has no intention of complying with, accepting the odium coming from being the party that has formally abrogated it, and build countermeasures.
Faced with such a choice, President Trump has wisely chosen to ditch this treaty that no longer serves US national interests. At the same time, he dispatched his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, to Moscow on Monday to try once more to resolve the issue. Bolton’s talks with his Russian counterpart, KGB Gen. Nikolai Patrushev, and with Putin himself have been fruitless, though.
At the same time, the Administration already has contingency plans to develop and deploy a new American medium-range missile, comparable to what the Russians have, if Moscow still continues to violate the accord.
But Won’t This Lead to Nuclear War?
Pacifists of all stripes will, as always, blame the US and accuse the Trump Admin of leading the world to a nuclear war. This is highly unlikely, to say the least.
As we noted above, potential agressors only attack those whom they consider weak, not those who are strong.
The same pacifists – including the Democratic Party and its sycophants at the Arms Control Association, the Center for Non-Proliferation, and the Center for American Progress – are the same people who vocally opposed the 1983 deployment of American Pershing and Gryphon missiles in Europe to counter the Russians’ deployment of the SS-20.
They claimed “detente” and unilateral disarmament would lead to peace. They were wrong.
They claimed the Pershing/Gryphon deployment and President Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.
Not only did President Reagan not cause a nuclear war, he actually brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table, forced them to accept steep cuts in their nuclear arsenals (by bargaining from a position of strength, not weakness), and won the Cold War without firing a shot!
But Won’t This Spark A Nuclear Arms Race?
There are also those, such as certain “analysts” and European politicians, who claim President Trump’s move will lead to a new arms race.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether we like it or not, there already is an arms race, and it’s been going on for many years.
The US didn’t start it; revanchist Russia did, by developing and deploying several different types of nuclear weapons (and their carriers) that far exceed any of its legitimate defense needs:
- The multi-warhead Yars intercontinental missile, capable of carrying up to 10 warheads while American ICBMs carry only one each ;
- its even bigger cousin, the 15-warhead RS-28 Sarmat, capable of reaching the US while flying over the South Pole to avoid US early warning systems;
- A rail-mobile ICBM, the Avangard;
- The forementioned RS-26 Rubyezh pseudo-ICBM, clearly intended to target Europe because its 5,600 km range is insufficient to reach the Continental US;
- Hypersonic weapons, including the Zircon cruise missile;
- And the most dangerous of them all, the Kanyon nuclear drone, armed with a megaton-class warhead capable of blowing up an entire coastal mega-city such as New York or LA.
Sadly, the US has no choice but to build a new generation of strategic weapons of its own if it doesn’t want to be left behind (and therefore vulnerable).
To refuse to arm the US military with the corresponding weapon types, needed for nuclear deterrence, would essentially amount to unilateral disarmament.
Other Critics Blame America First
Other critics claim that President Trump has killed the INF Treaty and in so doing, has left the Russians unconstrained to build whatever weapons they want while the US takes the blame for ditching the agreement. This is also false.
The INF Treaty is already dead, for all intents and purposes, and has been for several years. It’s dead because Russia has killed it by repeatedly and egregiously violating it . The Obama Admin helped Moscow do so, by first refusing to recognize these violations, then by failing to take any effective measures to counter them while there was still time.
Agreements that one or more parties doesn’t comply with are a dead letter. Treaties that a nation doesn’t respect and observe do not constrain that nation. Arms control pacts are constraints only for those who comply with them.
Other critics claim Russia’s violations are understandable because Moscow has grievances towards the US over missile defense, NATO expansion, etc. Still others claim that nuclear weapons are simply intrinsically evil and that the US shouldn’t respond in kind to Russia’s military buildup.
This is all false because nuclear weapons are not good or evil in and of themselves; it depends on who has them and what purpose they serve. The West has been a responsible steward of these, while Russia uses them for intimidating every country that happens to do something Moscow dislikes.
President Reagan’s words spoken in 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate are as true today as they were then:
We must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty.
Conclusion
It would have been preferrable to preserve the treaty, had Russia continued to comply with it. Sadly, the Kremlin has chosen to egregiously violate it (and every other arms control pact it is party to). And throughout President Obama’s two terms, it got away with it, totally unpunished.
The choice President Trump had to make was quite simple. Should America be unilaterally constrained by an INF treaty that Russia has been violating for years and has no intent of comply with? Or should the US ditch this dead-letter agreement and build countermeasures?
Fortunately, he has chosen the latter. And I believe that some time from now, perhaps at the end of his second term, when Russia finally cedes to US pressure, he’ll be able to say something along these memorable lines:
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then– I invite those who protest today–to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
I have no doubt that he will.
Défense et Géopolitique 