Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
12/12/2014
Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has prompted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commission a military assessment of hypothetical threats posed by any Russian deployment of a ground-launched cruise missile in Europe or the Asia-Pacific region, while House Republicans this week pressed the Administration to provide a clear timeline and outline specific actions to ensure future Russian arms control compliance. Members of the House’s Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Foreign Affairs Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee met Dec. 10 for a hearing on “Russian Arms Control Cheating and the Administration’s Responses,” and listened to testimony from Brian McKeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.
INF in ‘Mutual Security Interest’ of U.S. and Russia
Current U.S. strategy aims to convince Russia to return to INF compliance, as the Obama Administration believes the treaty is in the mutual security interest of both states, McKeon said. If Moscow does not return to compliance, the U.S. will work to ensure that Russia does not gain a military advantage from its violation. “The range of options we are looking at in the military sphere fall into three broad categories: Active defenses to counter intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles, counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile attacks, and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance U.S. or allied forces,” McKeon said.
Russia has not acknowledged its development of a ground-launched cruise missile capable of hitting targets in the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers, Gottemoeller said. The treaty prohibits cruise missiles capable of hitting targets within that range, and Russia has not been in compliance with the treaty since 2008, she said. Russia is also not in compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, and Gottemoeller said U.S. officials are concerned that Russia is violating other arms control treaties.
Timeline for Return to Compliance?
Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) challenged the Administration’s response to the violations. He told Gottemoeller that Russia has faced no consequences for its withdrawal and asked her if Russia would be given a “drop-dead date” to return to compliance. Gottemoeller said she could not currently provide a timeline, noting that any deadline would have to be established through meetings with higher-level State Department and interagency officials. “I want to really stress that this does not mean that we’re doing nothing,” she said. Rogers rejected her statement. “Yes, it does,” he said. “I would be much more reassured if you or Mr. McKeon could say, ‘Yes, sir, they have by December 31 of 2015, or it’s over,’ or something. But just to keep saying, ‘We’re working on it, you know, we’re trying,’ that could go on forever. And that’s one of the reasons why [Russian soldiers are] in Crimea right now.”
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, said a diplomatic approach would be preferable, but expressed concerns about the time it could take to bring Russia back into compliance with the INF Treaty. “Timing … also is a factor, because some of the things are occurring while we’re talking, and that’s a concern,” Perry said. “And I’m concerned that we’re counting on [Russia] to be the good actors when they have a storied and longstanding history of violating and lying and obfuscating, and it concerns me that it just will continue to go on.” Responding to a subsequent question posed by Perry, Gottemoeller said unilateral U.S. arms reductions are “off the table.”
Should the US Withdraw from INF?
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, joined other Republicans in questioning the benefits of U.S. INF adherence alongside Russian non-compliance. Gottemoeller noted that the U.S. was one of 13 parties to the INF Treaty, and cited the importance of working within the global framework to press the Russians to comply. She underscored the foundation that international law can have in allowing law-abiding countries to “go after” countries that violate international law, after noting earlier during the hearing that U.S. withdrawal from INF is one of several eventual options to reinstitute Russian compliance.
Lifting sequestration would be the most effective response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent aggressive behavior, said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. “And I look forward to the new Republican majority helping us do that,” he said. “In order to do that, we probably are going to have to find either spending cuts, which would be my first choice, or revenue somewhere,” he said. Cooper cautioned against verbal displays of force, adding that the U.S. should keep its poker face in negotiating arms control with Russia. “It’s easy for us to saber rattle up here and look tough and look strong, but I worry that authoritarian countries like Russia do not have hearings like this,” he said. “They do not show their hand and we should be doing what we can to fight back intelligently, not for domestic political consumption.”
Will Russia Deploy Nukes in Crimea?
Responding to a question by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), Chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, Gottemoeller said U.S. diplomats were unsure whether Russia plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Crimea, but added that the U.S. has expressed concerns to Moscow about reintroducing nuclear weapons to the area. “[W]e are very, very alert to statements that have been made by certain experts on the Russian side about deploying capable aircraft, dual-capable aircraft such as the Backfire and missile systems that would also be dual-capable,” she said.
