One U.S. issue expert is pushing the State Department to report openly on an alleged Russian violation of a treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.
“State should make very clear what it is the Russians have done, how Washington views that compliance, and whatever excuses the Russians are offering,” Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, wrote in a Friday analysis for Foreign Policy.
At issue are allegations that Moscow has violated — or at least circumvented — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The 1987 accord prohibits the two nuclear superpowers from testing or deploying any cruise or ballistic missile with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.
The Obama administration has privately shared with NATO nations its concerns about a potential Russian contravention of the bilateral agreement, but Washington officials to date have refrained from making a formal or detailed public accusation of a treaty violation. Substantial information about the case reportedly has been provided to Congress only in closed-door briefings. The State Department in January acknowledged discussing the matter with Russia.
The department publishes an annual compliance report assessing how nations are fulfilling their arms control commitments. While it has been 10 years since the reports last touched on the INF Treaty, Lewis argues the time has come for a renewed focus on the accord in the upcoming version. Lawmakers have yet to receive the latest iteration of the document, which was due to Congress in mid-April. Administration officials have said only that it would be delivered sometime this spring.
Washington reportedly suspects that two test-firings of a Russian RS-26 Rubezh ballistic missile in 2012 and 2013 sidestepped the treaty. While the weapon was previously tested at an intercontinental range, the more recent launches involved the missile traveling only approximately 1,240 miles — a distance that would seem to be prohibited by the INF accord, according to Lewis.
A separate possible violation of the treaty involves Russia’s testing of a new ground-based cruise missile. Ascertaining whether cruise missiles are being tested at intermediate ranges is difficult, says Lewis, as the low-flying weapons can use as much as 25 percent of their range moving laterally rather than forward in one direction.
“Range also depends on how much of the flight is spent skimming the terrain, which requires more fuel than cruising at altitude,” said the nuclear weapons analyst.
The INF agreement’s definition of a cruise missile’s range is not very specific, according to Lewis.
“At times, it seems like this treaty was drafted with all the precision of two winos trying to work out a complex problem in astrophysics,” he wrote.
In addition to calling for a public State Department report, Lewis recommended that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speak out about the matter and make it “clear that these systems are inconsistent with the treaty.”
“Publicly raising the issue is important both to reassure allies, but also to get Moscow’s attention,” he wrote. “The Russians are clearly sensitive to the public disclosure of their activities.”
Elbridge Colby, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in an April essay for Foreign Affairs suggests the Pentagon respond to the perceived INF accord transgressions by studying “whether the United States does need or would substantially benefit from INF-barred systems” — a recommendation that Lewis found “reasonable” so long as it was confined to only conventional missiles.
- 1 High Court Vacancy Spells Trouble for Congress
- 2 The Winners and Losers From the South Carolina Republican Debate
- 3 Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court’s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision
- 4 Democrats’ Vanishing Future
- 5 FBI’s Facial-Recognition Technology Has Achieved ‘Full Operational Capability’
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.