GZERO Media logo

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.

Khant Thaw Htoo is a young engineer who works in Eni's Sakura Tower office in the heart of Yangon. As an HSE engineer, he monitors the safety and environmental impact of onshore and offshore operations. He also looks out for his parents' well-being, in keeping with Myanmar's traditions.

Learn more about Khant in the final episode of the Faces of Eni series, which focuses on Eni's employees around the world.

On his first day as president, Joe Biden signed a remarkable series of executive orders. Boom! The US rejoins the Paris Climate Accord. Bang! The United States rejoins the World Health Organization. Pow! No more ban on immigration from many Muslim-majority countries. Biden's press secretary reminded reporters later in the day that all these orders merely begin complex processes that take time, but the impact is still dramatic.

If you lead a country allied with the US, or you're simply hoping for some specific commitment or clear and credible statement of purpose from the US government, you might feel a little dizzy today. The sight of an American president (Barack Obama) signing his name, of the next president (Donald Trump) erasing that name from the same legislation/bill, and then the following president (Biden) signing it back into law again will raise deep concerns over the long-term reliability of the world's still-most-powerful nation.

More Show less

"There needs to be a dramatic and deep reduction in the amount of debt on the poorest countries. That's clear." As the world's poorest nations struggle to recover from a devastating pandemic, World Bank President David Malpass argues that freeing them of much of their debt will be key. His conversation with Ian Bremmer is part of the latest episode of GZERO World.

Listen: Renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher has no qualms about saying that social media companies bear responsibility for the January 6th pro-Trump riots at the Capitol and will likely be complicit in the civil unrest that may continue well into Biden's presidency. It's no surprise, she argues, that the online rage that platforms like Facebook and Twitter intentionally foment translated into real-life violence. But if Silicon Valley's current role in our national discourse is untenable, how can the US government rein it in? That, it turns out, is a bit more complicated. Swisher joins Ian Bremmer on our podcast.

Ian Bremmer discusses the World In (more than) 60 Seconds:

Biden's first scheduled call with a world leader will be with Canada's Justin Trudeau. What's going on with the Keystone Pipeline?

Well, Biden said that that's it. Executive order, one of the first is that he will stop any construction or development of the Keystone Pipeline. This is of course an oil pipeline that would allow further oil sands oil to come to the United States. The infrastructure is significantly overstretched, it's led to backlogs, inefficiency, accidents, all the rest, but it also facilitates more energy development and keeps prices comparatively down if you get it done. So, there are lots of reasons why the energy sector in Canada wants it. Having said all of that, Trudeau, even though he's been a supporter of Keystone XL, let's keep in mind that he did not win support in Alberta, which is where the big energy patch in Canada is located. This is a real problem for the government of Alberta, Canada is a very decentralized federal government, even more so than the United States. The premier of Alberta is immensely unhappy with Biden right now, they've taken a $1.5 billion equity stake in the project. I expect there will actually be litigation against the United States by the government of Alberta. But Trudeau is quite happy with Biden, his relationship was Trump was always walking on eggshells. The USMCA in negotiations ultimately successful but were very challenging for the Canadians, so too with the way Trump engaged in relations on China. All of this, the fact that Trump left the nuclear agreement with Iran, the Paris Climate Accords, WHO, all of that is stuff that Trudeau strongly opposed. He's going to be much more comfortable with this relationship. He's delighted that the first call from Biden is to him. And it certainly creates a level of normalcy in the US-Canada relationship that is very much appreciated by our neighbors to the North.

More Show less
The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal