(ANTIWAR.COM) — On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a decree which suspended Russian participation in the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The decision came after the US announced their intention to withdraw from the same treaty earlier this year.
The INF was negotiated in 1987 between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and banned land-based nuclear missiles of a certain range. It effectively took nuclear arms out of Europe.
The deal was successful for years, though in the past decade the US started accusing Russia of a perceived violation surrounding a single class of missile. Russia offered inspections of the missiles, and even put one on public display for foreign reporters and officials to access. The US insisted this was insufficient.
The alleged violation was based around the potential range of the missile. Russia maintained it was tested and fitted for shorter range than the INF covers. The US saw it as similar enough to a sea-based missile that it would have a range that the INF might cover. But the US never proved it, and instead spent years complaining until they finally abandoned the deal this year.
This has led Russia to believe that the US intends to put missiles back into Europe, which the US denies. Putin has threatened a substantial nuclear buildup if the US does so, and in suspending the deal, might start developing missiles that are actually designed to violate INF.
If the US is telling the truth about not wanting missiles in Europe, then the decision to withdraw from the INF was foolish, as it only ends Russia’s obligations, and permits them to develop more missiles.
Either way, the INF seems virtually dead now, and the US has made all the decisions on killing it. The failure to engage with Russia on the perceived violation shows it was never about a single class of missiles, but about giving the US a pretext to dishonor the deal.
These articles were chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us