Arms Race 2.0

There is mutual interest in breaking the INF Treaty, but both sides will lose, experts say

John Bolton, US national security adviser, flew to Moscow to negotiate the termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev more than 30 years ago, in 1987. This treaty banned all American and Soviet ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometers, led to the decommissioning of 2,700 Soviet Satan missiles and American Pershing-2 missiles in Europe and their launchers, improved relations between the United States and the USSR and, by and large, to the end of the arms race and the Cold War.

Since 2014, Washington has accused Moscow of violating the terms of the INF Treaty by testing a ground-based intermediate-range cruise missile, and in 2017 the Trump administration said Russia continues to violate the Treaty by deploying a missile known as the 9M729. The Americans made efforts to bring Russia back into the framework of the Treaty, and in December 2017 came up with a proposal for a “comprehensive strategy”, which, as we see, did not work. Literally on the eve of Bolton's visit to Moscow, US President Donald Trump announced the US intention to withdraw from the Treaty. About who will win and who will lose from this decision - in the comments of international experts in the field of weapons.

This treaty is long dead

“There is no point in regretting the INF Treaty - this Treaty has long been dead. It brought the main benefit (for the United States) on the day of its signing, when the USSR abandoned (missiles) SS20, Pioner, and Gorbachev also added SS23, Oka complexes to the INF “free of charge,” said Michael Kofman, a leading researcher at the American SNC (US Navy Center) and a specialist in the Russian military-industrial complex.

In his opinion, it was not by chance that Bolton was chosen to deliver this news to Moscow: “Instead of negotiating arms control, the management of the process was handed over to those who always wanted to give up any control over the arms race.”

He is echoed by Steven Pifer, a former career American diplomat, now an employee of the Center for Arms Control and Intelligence of the 21st Century of the well-known Washington analytical institute - Brookings: “John Bolton's position is not surprising. He looks down on gun control with contempt. He has long called for withdrawal from the INF Treaty, was the driving force behind the US decision in 2001 to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and opposed a new strategic arms reduction treaty in 2010.”

Rejection of the Treaty means a return to a massive new cold war in which the US will fight not only against Russia, but also against China.

“The world order that emerged during and after the collapse of the USSR, reflecting the situation after the Cold War, is being destroyed. And we don’t know what will replace this design,” writes Ariel Cohen, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. - When President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed this Treaty in 1987, American Pershing-2s in Europe and Soviet Satan missiles were aimed at destroying Moscow, Paris, London, Brussels within five minutes. The signing of the INF Treaty more than 30 years ago meant that the Soviet Union was weakened. But today, Russian threats indicate that the Kremlin is ready to fight ... Rejection of the Treaty means a return to a massive new Cold War in which the US will fight not only against Russia, but also against China.”

Discussing the Treaty, which banned missile tests, American arms experts point out that Washington itself may soon need land-based intermediate-range missiles to deter China, and that the Pentagon already has a plan to deploy such missiles in the Pacific Islands. In particular, Cohen writes about this, and Kofman adds that, in his opinion, the US Congress will not give consent to finance this project because of too high costs, while the Kremlin has no such problems, and to develop missile weapons no one will stop him.

US error

According to Peifer, the American side is making a mistake:

“Firstly, it will be the United States that will be blamed for breaking the agreement /... / Secondly, when the United States withdraws from the Treaty, Russia will have no reason to even pretend to comply with the restrictions. Moscow will have a free hand: it will be able, without any restrictions, simply at will, to deploy not only the 9M729 cruise missile, but also an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Thirdly, the US decision will be another point of contention with European allies who continue to see value in this treaty.”

He recalls that the United States does not yet have missiles similar to Russian ones.

The “comprehensive strategy” (proposed in December 2017) included a treaty-compliant research and development program for a medium-range missile without flight testing,” writes Peifer.

Kafman adds to this that the US understands the convenience of this kind of rocket.

“The first 10 years (after the termination of the Treaty) Moscow may laugh, but in the next 20 years it will have to cry because of the inevitable increase in military spending”

There will be no winners

Experts agree on one thing: in the long run, both sides will lose from breaking the INF Treaty, which will be drawn into a new arms race.

“For the first 10 years (after the rupture of the Treaty), Moscow may laugh, but in the next 20 years it will have to cry because of the inevitable increase in military spending,” writes Kofman.

“In the end, everyone will lose, because huge investments in the military machine are the most irrational way to use resources, and the risks of a real nuclear conflict increase global destabilization and turbulence in international relations,” Cohen said, adding: “It will not be boring.”