Expert Urges Transparency on Alleged Russian Arms-Treaty Violations

A Soviet intermediate-range SS-20 Saber missile on display in Kiev, Ukraine, in June 2011. An issue expert recommends that the United States publicly air its concerns about recent Russian compliance with a bilateral treaty that bans all intermediate-range missiles.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
April 28, 2014, 10:50 a.m.

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.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“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.

Source:
×