The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, obligates the parties “not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”Footnote 1 In 2014, the State Department reported that Russia was in violation of its obligation not to possess intermediate- or short-range missiles.Footnote 2 Russia denied the violation and expressed its own doubts about the United States' compliance with the INF Treaty; the meetings and discussions that followed did not resolve either state's concerns.Footnote 3 Subsequent State Department reports in 2015 and 2016 continued to express concern about Russia's violation.Footnote 4
In October 2016, two members of Congress wrote a letter to then-President Obama, observing that “the situation regarding Russia's violation has worsened and Russia is now in material breach of the Treaty.”Footnote 5 They did not publicly elaborate on the nature of the violation, but urged Obama to impose sanctions to respond to it. According to a press report, the letter was prompted by concerns raised by some U.S. officials that “Russia is producing more missiles than are needed to sustain a flight-test program, spurring fears that the Kremlin is moving to build a force that could ultimately be deployed.”Footnote 6 The State Department declined to comment.Footnote 7 The Obama administration took the unusual step of calling for a meeting of the Special Verification Commission, which was established by the INF Treaty to preside over compliance issues.Footnote 8 The commission met in November 2016; publicly, the U.S. State Department revealed only that “the United States, Belarusian, Kazakh, Russian, and Ukrainian Delegations met to discuss questions relating to compliance with the obligations assumed under the Treaty.”Footnote 9
Shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration, press reports indicated that Russia had completed production and deployed the contested missile system.Footnote 10 The State Department spokesperson declined to “comment on intelligence matters,” and said: “We have made very clear our concerns about Russia's violation, the risks it poses to European and Asian security, and our strong interest in returning Russia to compliance with the treaty.”Footnote 11 On February 24, in an interview with Reuters, President Trump stated that he would take up the matter with Vladimir Putin “if and when we meet.”Footnote 12
On March 8, General Paul Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. In his prepared testimony, he stated,
Russia, for example, is not only modernizing its strategic nuclear triad and developing new nonstrategic nuclear weapons, but remains in violation of its Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty obligations and has threatened nuclear use against U.S. forces and allies in Europe.Footnote 13
His oral testimony, however, avoided this reference to a “violation of … Treaty obligations,” instead describing the Russian deployment as “violat[ing] the spirit and intent” of the treaty:
We believe that the Russians have deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the spirit and intent of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. The system itself presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe. And we believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility … . I don't have enough information on their intent to conclude, other than that they do not intend to return to compliance.Footnote 14
Selva added that the United States was considering various options to respond to Russia's actions, but declined to provide specifics.Footnote 15
Responding to the press stories and to Selva's testimony, Russia denied any violation. On February 15, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, through a state-run media outlet, had stated that “[n]obody officially accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty. … Of course Russia was and remains committed to its international obligations, including in the framework of the agreement.”Footnote 16 The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also posted a copy stamped “FAKE” of the New York Times story describing the U.S. allegationsFootnote 17 and issued another statement calling the accusations “groundless.”Footnote 18 After Selva's testimony, Peskov further stated:
I want to remind you of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's words about the fact that Russia sticks to the international obligations, even if in situations where sometimes it doesn't correspond to Russia's interests. Russia still remains committed to its obligations, so we disagree and reject any accusations on this point.Footnote 19
The Russian Foreign Ministry published an extended response to General Selva's testimony:
We have noted statements made by Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul J. Selva, in which he told the US Congress that Russia had allegedly deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the “spirit and intent” of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Such statements are certainly disappointing. As you know, this is not a new story. An informed person representing the military leadership of a major country should have known better. In particular, he could have finally explained what exactly they consider our “violations” to be and how they came to this conclusion.
However, this is not the first time that public accusations of Russia's non-compliance with the INF Treaty are not backed up by any evidence. They seem to be following what has already become a familiar pattern—making claims and immediately evading any specificity.
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the INF. We explained to the US side that all missile tests in Russia are in compliance with the Treaty. During all negotiations, consultations and meetings we asked them to list Russia's specific actions that are causing concern in Washington. Invariably, we got little in response except vague proposals to guess what they meant. This hardly seems like a serious approach.
Indicatively, though, the Americans are threatening to retaliate for Russia's mythical violations with certain steps of a military nature. The very fact that US representatives are persistently using such rhetoric, without bothering to bring any evidence or specific examples whatsoever, raises questions about the purpose of these false media narratives.
At the same time, the Americans stubbornly refuse to discuss our well-founded claims concerning their own compliance with the INF Treaty. I am referring to the Mk-41 vertical launching units in the Aegis Ashore ground-based anti-missile systems, which the United States has deployed in Romania and plans to deploy in Poland, and which can reasonably be considered cruise missile launchers. The large-scale programme of building ballistic missile targets for missile defence-related applications, with similar characteristics to intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, is also causing a lot of questions. In addition, the United States produces and uses unmanned combat air vehicles, which fit the definition of ground-based cruise missiles contained in the INF Treaty.
Once again, we suggest abandoning this unsubstantiated rhetoric and public accusations without specific examples in favour of a substantive dialogue aimed at addressing existing concerns and clarifying potential points of disagreement. All the mechanisms are there. We are open to such a dialogue through the appropriate channels.Footnote 20
For its part, the April 2017 State Department Report, echoing the 2015 and 2016 reports, continued to describe Russia as violating the INF Treaty:
The United States has determined that in 2016, the Russian Federation (Russia) continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.Footnote 21
In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a lengthy statement on April 29 detailing what it viewed as U.S. violations of various international obligations:
The U.S. formally advocates for unconditional implementation of the norms of international law, which also refers to abiding, to the fullest extent, by international agreements aimed at strengthening international security and maintaining global stability, key among which are arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament treaties and conventions.
While proclaiming this approach and setting its own criteria, “ideal” from Washington's point of view, in terms of implementation of a particular treaty, the U.S. aspires to a monopoly in assessing other nations' compliance with their treaty obligations. Moreover, Washington does so categorically, ignoring the established practice of resolving issues through designated multilateral mechanisms.
The annual report, released by the U.S. Department of State on April 25, 2017, is subject to the same deficiencies as all the previous ones. While making absolutely unsubstantiated accusations against specific countries, its authors have once again attempted to portray the U.S. as being all but the only state with an impeccable track record in terms of compliance with arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. Such unacceptable manner of presenting and compiling facts has already become a traditional U.S. way of validating its claims to the “exceptional right” to judge the “guilty” and demand punishment for them.
While sharing the commitment to full and unconditional compliance with its obligations under international treaties, the Russian Federation strongly opposes the methods and means used by Washington in order to supposedly “expose” those countries which, in its opinion, are treaty obligations violators.
For the past years, there has been a growing number of reasons suggesting that such U.S. line of conduct is not at all due to the fact that it is plainly unwilling to burden itself with a complicated and time-consuming expert dialogue; it could be something even more serious than that, such as Washington's fear of itself being exposed for making unsubstantiated accusations against other countries, as well as for its own violations of arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments.
Russia's Foreign Ministry is once again compelled to draw attention to such unacceptable activities by the U.S. and to the irrefutable facts aimed at contributing to an unbiased assessment of U.S. and Russia's actual compliance with their treaty obligations under arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments.Footnote 22
