Lack Of Arms Control Gives Russia Leg Up To Build More Missiles

PALO ALTO, CA -- With the suspension by the United States of the Cold War-era nuclear arms agreement known as the INF Treaty, Russia is free to develop and deploy intermediate-range missiles, Stanford University scholar Steven Pifer warned.

Pifer, a William J. Perry Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, shared his thoughts with the university's News Service on the United States pulling out of its obligations under the treaty - the 1987 agreement that banned all U.S. and Soviet (now Russian) ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Pifer's resume reads like a Who's Who of arms control. The scholar worked for over 25 years with the U.S. State Department, where he focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe, as well as arms control and security issues. He served as ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000. In addition to Ukraine, he has served at the U.S. embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London as well. He was also involved in the negotiations in Geneva with the U.S. delegation that managed intermediate-range nuclear forces.

The main cause of the treaty’s demise was Russia’s decision to develop and deploy a ground-launched cruise missile, called the 9M729, that can fly to intermediate ranges. In 2014, the Obama administration charged that Russia had violated the INF Treaty by testing the missile. In 2017, U.S. officials charged that Russia had begun deploying the missile.

Although the Trump administration stated in 2017 that its goal was to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty, the administration did not appear to have a serious strategy to apply political and military leverage to affect the Kremlin’s calculation, the news service added. Blame is being placed on the appointment of John Bolton as national security advisor. Bolton has long been on record opposing the INF Treaty.

The U.S. could not be expected to abide by the treaty forever if Russia continued its violation, the news service insists through Pifer's assessment. But U.S. security interests – and those of U.S. allies in Europe and Asia – may have been better served by maintaining the treaty to keep Russia from building up its intermediate-range missiles.

It's seen as a dangerous game of chicken.

The U.S. military is creating an intermediate-range missile, with development permitted by the treaty as long as it did not involve flight testing. However, it is not clear when that missile could be fielded. There is also a question as to where such a missile might be deployed. It is very unlikely that NATO could achieve a political consensus on deploying a U.S. intermediate-range missile in Europe -- with Asian allies such as Japan and South Korea not enthusiastic about hosting it, Pifer told the news service.

A high-stakes game of chess

Despite the fact that Russia is violating the treaty, officials at the Kremlin have professed their interest in maintaining it. The strategy is -- the adversary may have stood to gain by the United States withdrawing as this will allow the Russians to blame Washington for killing the treaty.
Once the treaty is dead, Russia will be free to deploy its latest, prized warhead -- the 9M729 -- and possibly other intermediate-range missiles.

Six months after it gives notice of intention to withdraw, the U.S. government presumably will withdraw from the treaty. At that point, Russian officials will likely state that they are no longer bound by the agreement.

Pifer cautioned the prospects for saving the treaty are slim. The U.S. position is that Russia must eliminate the 9M729. Russian officials have given no indication that they are prepared to do that. And the Trump administration – likely affected by Bolton’s disdain for the treaty – has no serious strategy to persuade the Kremlin to change its course.

Both Moscow and Washington seem to have forgotten the value of arms control in reducing the nuclear threat, Pifer reminds. The treaty was known to not only promote stability, but to save money.

Optimism is far-reaching at this point, Pifer said, painting looming dire circumstances.

--Image courtesy of Stanford University News Service