Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
7/17/2015
U.S. allies have “no confusion” that Russia remains in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Obama administration has seen no indication that the Putin government plans to return to compliance, Jon Wolfsthal, National Security Council senior director for arms control and nonproliferation, said during a speech at the State Department on Wednesday. "[I]t’s very clear that Russia remains in violation of the INF Treaty,” Wolfsthal said during the Generation Prague Conference. “Russia has no confusion about that and our allies have no confusion about that. We should have no confusion about that. We have provided information to our allies; we have engaged with Russia so that they understand the nature of our concerns. They are unwilling to engage with us in a substantive way, and that’s very unfortunate.”
‘Violations Must Have Consequences’
The U.S. first accused Russia in July 2014 of breaching the INF Treaty, which prohibits the development and deployment of conventional and nuclear cruise missiles that can hit ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Moscow has denied the claim, and has asserted that the U.S. is in violation of the pact. U.S. officials have released few details of Russia’s alleged violation. Declining to provide specifics, Wolfsthal said the U.S. is focused on stopping Russia from gaining military advantage by breaking with the treaty. “We’re also very focused on that fact that, as the president said, violations must have consequences, and that’s something that is a core part of our national security policy, that we sign agreements, we expect them to be complied with, and if they’re not, there will be consequences for that violation, and in terms of what we’re evaluating, we’re evaluating a wide range of diplomatic, economic and military options in terms of how we respond to the violation,” he said.
Would Releasing Info Put Positive Pressure on Russia?
The lack of information released about Russia’s alleged breach is stifling potential global dialogue or actions that could bring Russia back into compliance, as the claim is “not sticking” in the international sphere, allowing Russia to violate the treaty with impunity, Dr. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Tuesday during a Peter Huessy Breakfast Series event in Washington. Washington should release more details about the violation, to the extent that it would not compromise U.S. intelligence, he suggested. “That will start to raise the diplomatic cost on Russia and won’t simply allow Russia to say, ‘No evidence, we’re not even dealing with it,’” Acton said.
Tom Karako, senior fellow of the International Security Program and Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said during the Huessy event that Russian forces’ occupation of Ukraine influenced the State Department’s original decision last year to publicize the reported INF violation in its annual arms control report. He agreed that the administration should release more facts, and suggested the withholding of information is part of a larger White House communication problem. “I’d like to see more information out there,” Karako said. “It’s unfortunate that [Russia] can cover their eyes and lock their ears and pretend nothing’s going on. That’s part of a larger problem.”
More Inspection Transparency?
Additionally, the U.S. should allow Russia to inspect the disputed Mk 41 launchers being built in Romania and Poland, Acton said. Moscow has said these launchers can hurl missiles to INF-prohibited distances. Russia also charged that the U.S. is violating the treaty by testing missile defense targets and developing armed drones. Defense Department officials have said a “major piece of hardware” appropriately distinguishes the land-based Mk 41s from their ship-based counterparts, which would be designated as intermediate-range launchers if planted in the ground, Acton said.
“There is a major piece of hardware needed to launch cruise missiles that won’t be present on a land-based system, and it seems to me there is a new total transparency offer to be made with Russia,” Acton said. “If Russia gives the U.S. access to the suspected missiles to verify whether or not there are INF-violating systems, and oversees their destruction if they are, then the U.S. should give transparency to the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System based in Europe to verify it doesn’t contain the equipment launching for cruise missiles.”
‘Be Reasonable’
Wolfsthal called on Russia to engage more with the U.S. and “be reasonable” about evaluating Washington’s concerns. “Then, I think there’s a much different type of conversation we could have with them, but as we say, the joke is: How many psychiatrists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” Wolfsthal said. “And the answer is only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change, and there’s still no indication that Russia is prepared to reverse its path and come back into compliance with the INF Treaty.”
Describing the tense negotiation environment, Acton said he would be surprised if Russia budged to any U.S. offer for visibility into the Mk 41 program. “I don’t expect Russia to take the U.S. up on this offer,” he said. “I think it would be great if it did, and if Russia doesn’t present a credible path for getting out of this crisis, it’s part of winning this debate internationally.”
