IS THE U.S. INF OR OUT?

IS THE U.S. INF OR OUT?

US National Security Adviser John Bolton is in Moscow today, explaining to Russian President Vladimir Putin why the Trump Administration wants to ditch a major arms control treaty that dates from the waning days of the Cold War.


In 1987 – after years of concern about nuclear weapons buildups in and around Europe  – the US and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), which forbade either country from producing or deploying ground-launched missiles with a range between 300 and 3,300 miles. It eliminated an entire class of dangerous weapons and was a mainstay of US-Russia ties for decades thereafter.

Today, it’s in trouble. For one thing, each side accuses the other of breaking the treaty’s rules. Since 2014, the US has warned that a new Russian missile, the NOVATOR, violates the pact, and NATO allies broadly agree. The Russians, meanwhile, say US missile defense systems and even unmanned drones represent violations.

Further complicating matters, the original agreement doesn’t apply to China, which has in recent years developed a huge arsenal of precisely the intermediate-range weapons that the INF treaty bans. That arsenal worries US allies in Asia, but it also concerns Russia, which shares a 2,600-mile land border with China.

So would leaving the deal be a good move for the US?

If yes, it’s because:

  1. The Russians are committed to violating it anyway, so there’s no point in the US continuing to honor an agreement that limits its options.
  2. The treaty ties Washington’s hands in Asia: it makes it impossible for the US to counter China’s growing nuclear arsenal on an equal footing, since it prohibits Washington from developing precisely the weapons that China is producing en masse.
  3. Bring on a new arms race: just like last time, it’s one that the Russians would have a very hard time winning – the US defense budget is currently more than ten times Russia’s, and Moscow has actually had to trim its ambitions in recent years as sanctions and low oil prices hit economic growth.

If no, it’s because:

  1. Imperfect as it is, the treaty forces Russia to openly flout a binding international agreement if it wants to deploy these weapons in sensitive regions throughout Europe and Asia.

  1. The issue of matching China’s intermediate-range weapons is a red herring: the US is more than capable of protecting its Asian allies with air- or sea-borne nuclear weapons. Nothing in the existing treaty prevents the US from increasing those arsenals to face down Russian or Chinese threats. If anything, the INF pact is lopsided in favor of the US.

  1. Tearing up the INF treaty would poison the atmosphere ahead of upcoming talks to renew another big treaty (New START) that limits the overall number of US and Russian nuclear arms. If INF and New START fall apart, a very scary nuclear arms race could quickly ensue.

Trump may of course simply be using this walkout threat as negotiating leverage to get the Russians to agree to milder revisions that everyone can live with. It also may scare the daylights out of the Europeans who – as even some of the treaty’s defenders have pointed out – should be doing much more to put pressure on Moscow about INF violations, given how much this issue affects the continent. (The range from 300 to 3,300 miles from Russia’s border encompasses all of Europe.)

It hardly seems likely that Bolton traveled all the way to Moscow just to deliver the final word that the US is out of the treaty. What he is telling Mr. Putin, however, will shed light on whether this is the end of the INF, or the beginning of new negotiations.

That's Bank of America's new target in its Environmental Business Initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.

Here's how it will drive innovation to address climate change.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Should the Biden administration "reverse course on China" in the hope of establishing a friendlier relationship, as diplomat Kishore Mahbubani argues in a recent Financial Times op-ed? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Michael Hirson take out the Red Pen to explain why it's not that simple.

And today, we are talking about the United States and China. The relationship between the two most powerful nations in the world is the worst it's been since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Pundits and policymakers alike all around the world are trying to figure out how Washington and Beijing can at least stop the bleeding because a reset is nowhere in the cards.

That's the topic of the op-ed that we are looking at today. It's from the Financial Times, written by Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, and the title summarizes the key argument: "Biden should summon the courage to reverse course on China." Meaning, he should throw out the Trump era approach and open the door to more cooperation and kinder, gentler relations.

More Show less

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved or are currently in early use globally, and COVAX, the global initiative started last year by the World Health Organization and other partners, is pushing for equitable access to vaccines for all. But most of the half billion jabs given so far have gone to citizens of wealthy countries, with half going to the US and China alone. What's the problem with so-called vaccine nationalism? Ian Bremmer explains that besides the clear humanitarian concerns, the continued global spread of COVID increases the risk of new mutations and variants that can threaten the entire world, vaccinated or not.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Should wealthy individuals and nations shoulder more of the burden in addressing climate change? Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert argues that Big Tech leaders like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk should shift more of their focus to fighting for our own planet's survival, instead of space exploration. "We're doing as much as we can to make life difficult on planet Earth for ourselves. But there's virtually nothing we could do to make it as difficult as life on Mars, where there's, among other things, no oxygen." Kolbert, the author of Under a White Sky, discusses why it's so crucial for a few rich countries to bear most of the climate burden, since they're also the biggest emitters. Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting this Friday, April 16. Check local listings.

In recent days, Northern Ireland has seen some of its worst street violence in over a decade. The anger has subsided a bit this week, but post-Brexit fears leave many uncertain about their future in a deeply divided land with a long history of political violence between Irish republicans and UK unionists.

More Show less

Fighting climate change is about making the planet get less hot. The more quickly countries slow down their carbon emissions, the faster that'll happen. All the more important for the nations that pollute the most — but not all of them are on board. Although the majority, including China, are setting future targets to go Net Zero, India doesn't want to commit (yet) to when to stop burning fossil fuels to spur economic growth. We take a look at when the world's top polluting economies intend to go carbon-neutral, compared with their share of global emissions, of renewable energy as a source of electricity, and percentage of global coal consumption.

Peruvian runoff: Perú's presidential election is going to a runoff in June between two surprise and polarizing contenders, each of whom won less than 20 percent of votes in a highly fragmented first round. Pedro Castillo, a far-left union leader and teacher who benefited from a late surge in the polls, will battle rightwing populist Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the country's imprisoned former strongman. Castillo wants to rewrite the constitution to weaken the political influence of the country's business elite and maybe to allow the state to nationalize parts of the mining sector to pay for social programs for the poor. Fujimori wants to use mining revenues to create jobs by investing in infrastructure and healthcare. The runoff will probably be a national referendum on Fujimori, a divisive figure running for the top job for the third time. No Peruvian president has ever left office without facing corruption charges, but Fujimori already faces several — and she'll avoid jail time if she wins.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal