President Trump announced on October 20 that he is planning to exit the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
This announcement has generally been met with reactions ranging from acrimonious remonstration to circumspect optimism.
“We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out,” said Trump to reporters after a rally in Nevada.
The treaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, calls for the destruction of the signatories’ ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles possessing ranges between 310 to 3420 miles.
“Thanks to the INF treaty, almost 3000 missiles with nuclear and conventional warheads have been removed and verifiably destroyed,” said European Union spokeswoman Federica Mogherini.
Despite the good that the pact has done over the years, the President seemed adamant in his decision. His reasoning for the choice stems from the Russian Federation’s alleged disregard of the treaty.
“Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years… and we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and [create] weapons and we’re not allowed to,” said Trump.
In the same interview, Trump also alluded to expanding the nuclear arsenal, commenting that the United States “[has] a tremendous amount of money to play with on our military.”
Nevertheless, the President also stated that he would be willing to speak with Russia and China if they were to approach the White House with alternative solutions to nuclear arms control.
However, Trump’s proposition to leave the nearly three-decade-old accord has drawn sharp warnings from the international community and from the homeland.
“Why now? Why is it an issue now? It sounds like something more personal than we know about,” said SXU student Ronald Ghul, commenting on the fact that previous US presidents have let the violations on the arms control treaty slide.
“The world doesn’t need a new arms race that would benefit no one and – on the contrary – would bring even more instability,” said Mogherini.
A report from the Brookings Institution’s Steven Pifer opined that the withdrawal would be a mistake.
“First, the United States would get the blame for killing the treaty… Second, once the United States withdraws from the treaty, there is no reason for Russia to even pretend it is observing the limits… Third, the US decision will prove controversial with European allies,” said Pifer.
The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement, saying, “France attributes great importance to conventional and nuclear arms control instruments… We call on all the parties to avoid any hasty unilateral decisions, which would be regrettable.”
French President Emanuel Macron himself brought up the pending withdrawal to Trump with the intent on highlighting the importance of the treaty to European security, and other nations in Western Europe have criticized the announcement.
“There is a fear that in a post-INF world, discussions among NATO allies about appropriate military responses to Russia’s actions would become more difficult,” commented Oliver Meier, the Deputy Head of International Security at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
All the same, the Russian government itself has denied any allegations of violations levied against them. They instead argue it was the United States that has violated the treaty.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated the prevailing sentiment from Moscow, stating that “the US not only covertly but also directly begins to develop these systems. If these systems are in development, action from other countries is required. In this case, it’s Russia, in order to restore balance in this area.”
Nonetheless, there are those that are receptive of the developments, agreeing with the conclusions the Trump administration has reached on the INF treaty.
Mathew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council authored a blog post supporting Trump’s decision, saying that such a move would be practical.
“There was no hope of getting Moscow to return compliance… It doesn’t make sense for the United States to be unilaterally constrained by limits that don’t affect any other country,” said Kroenig.
UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson expressed support for the decision, although lamenting that the situation had to play out the way it did.
“We of course want to see this treaty continue to stand, but it does require two parties to be committed to it and at the moment you have one party that is ignoring it… it is Russia that needs to get its house in order,” said Williamson.
Joshua Mira
News Editor
About Post Author
