THE Trump administration says it is withdrawing from a treaty that has been a centrepiece of superpower arms control since the Cold War, in a move some analysts claim could fuel a new arms race.
President Donald Trump said in a statement that Russia, “for far too long”, has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty “with impunity, covertly developing and fielding a prohibited missile system that poses a direct threat to our allies and troops abroad”.
Trump said the US “has fully adhered” to the pact for more than 30 years, “but we will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions. We cannot be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty, or any other”.
Nato said that if Moscow failed to destroy all new missile systems that Washington insists violate the treaty, “Russia will bear sole responsibility for the end of the treaty”.
A US withdrawal had been expected for months, after years of unresolved dispute over Russian compliance with the pact.
It was the first arms control measure to ban an entire class of weapons: ground-launched cruise missiles with a range between 310 and 3400 miles. Russia denies being in violation.
US officials have also expressed worry that China, which is not party to the 1987 treaty, is gaining a significant military advantage in Asia by deploying large numbers of missiles with ranges beyond the treaty’s limit.
Leaving the INF treaty would allow the Trump administration to counter the Chinese, but it is unclear how it would do that.
US secretary of state Mike Pompeo said in early December that Washington would give Moscow 60 days to return to compliance before it gave formal notice of withdrawal, with the actual pullout taking place six months later.
Technically, a US withdrawal would take effect six months after this week’s notification, leaving a small window for saving the treaty, but in talks this week in Beijing, the US and Russia reported no breakthrough in their dispute, leaving little reason to think either side would change its stance.
Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted by the Russian state news agency Tass as saying after the Beijing talks: “Unfortunately, there is no progress. The position of the American side is very tough and like an ultimatum.”
He said he expected Washington to suspend its obligations under the treaty, although he added that Moscow remained ready to “search for solutions” that could keep the treaty in force.
Nuclear weapons experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in a statement this week that while Russia’s violation of the INF treaty is a serious problem, US withdrawal under current circumstances would be counter-productive. “Leaving the INF treaty will unleash a new missile competition between the United States and Russia,” they said.
In Moscow, Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of parliament, said: “I ‘congratulate’ the whole world; the United States has taken another step toward its destruction today.”
Senator Igor Morozov said: “This step carries a threat to the entire system of international security, but first of all for Russia because after leaving the INF the Americans will deploy these missiles in European countries.”
Before the withdrawal announcement, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini called on both sides to stick to the treaty.
“What we definitely don’t want to see is our continent going back to being a battlefield or a place where other superpowers confront themselves. This belongs to a faraway history,” she said.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel