FP: Trump Pulls out of INF Treaty

[Dill]

For the policy wonks out there who know that, since WWII, the costliest policy decisions for the US have been in FOREIGN policy, two questions:

1.  Does it look to anyone else like Trump may have been led into this pullout by Putin? Hard to say for sure, given the erratic character of some of his advisors.  But it looks like the US got Russia out of a treaty that was limiting Putin's arsenal.

2. One of my first concerns when I heard of this pull out was that it comes at a moment when China (our most important global competitor) and Russia are working ever more closely together to limit/contest or otherwise change the rules of the liberal international order constructed by the US after WWII.  Is this just another misstep or could one argue that there is a different long game here, maybe which exiting the INF Treaty leaves the US free to install intermediate missiles in SK and Japan.  Would they allow that?

All I see in this move is loss, not gain.

World War 3: Russia warns US of 'NEW ERA' after Trump scraps INF nuclear treaty
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1082308/world-war-3-russia-us-cold-war-inf-treaty-nuclear-trump-putin
Moscow issued its latest warning amid fears the US President’s decision would bring the world closer to a Cold War and allow a build-up of intermediate-range nuclear weapons on their Eastern flank. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: ”I don't think we're talking about the development of a Cold War. “A new era has begun." Alarm spread through Europe after the announcement on Friday that Donald Trump had abandoned the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

'Huge mistake': Fears of arms race as US, Russia suspend INF pact. Analysts say demise of arms control treaty offers US little strategic benefit, pushes world 'closer to a nuclear war'.3 Feb 2019.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/mistake-fears-arms-race-russia-suspend-inf-pact-190203152747235.html

The long-running dispute between Washington and Moscow came to a head on Friday when US President Donald Trump accused Russia of violating the 1987 bilateral treaty with "impunity", and announced his government was suspending its obligations under the landmark pact.

Pledging to "move forward" with its own military response options, Trump said the US will withdraw from the accord  in six months unless Moscow destroyed land-based missiles allegedly deployed in violation of the treaty.

In a tit-for-tat move on Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he was also suspending Moscow's participation in the agreement. ...

The reciprocal moves effectively terminate a pact regarded as one of the most important safeguards against nuclear war....

Analysts said Trump's decision to scrap the pact leaves Russia free to shape the military balance in Europe.

The strategic advantages for the US, however, were less clear, they said....

"Let's be clear - the Russians were cheating," said Tom Nichols, a US-based defence analyst. "It was a provocation to menace the Europeans and to see if they could bait the Americans into walking away."

The US response only showed how "confused" Washington's nuclear arms policy was, he said. . . .

Carl Bildt, a co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, agreed. The INF Treaty's demise will allow Russia to deploy its Kalibr cruise missiles with a range of 1,500km from ground launchers, he said in a Twitter post on Friday.
"This would quickly cover all of Europe with an additional threat," he said....

China's nuclear missile arsenal
The "real reason" for the US pullout, according to Fitzpatrick, the non-proliferation expert, was Washington's concern over China's buildup of intermediate-range missiles in the Western Pacific.
China's inventory contains more than 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles, approximately 95 percent of which would violate the INF Treaty if Beijing were a signatory, according to US officials. But the INF Treaty prevents the US from placing short and intermediate range missiles on land near China as a deterrent.

.......................................................

[Benton]

Trumps in a military pickle.

He said he'd win the wars in the ME in months. He didn't, but we're supposedly drawing down anyway. He said he'd defeat isis in months. He didn't, but claimed we did anyway.

So, now he's got the issue of a huge defense spending with a public that thought we were done fighting finally. Putin gave him an out. Back out of the treaty, the both countries get to spend spend spend.

[Dill]

For more depth, here is an interesting article on John Bolton's history of quashing treaties and agreements.

John Bolton is a serial arms control killer    By Joseph Cirincione   February 1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2019/02/01/inf/?utm_term=.b49f2ca481b2

John Bolton relishes in targeting nuclear arms treaties. He is very good at it.

The U.S. national security adviser’s latest hit is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but his list of victims goes back decades. He had a hand in either the U.S. withdrawal or repeal of Richard Nixon’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Bill Clinton’s Agreed Framework with North Korea and Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

Now he has helped put the knife into Ronald Reagan’s landmark treaty, one that broke the back of the nuclear arms race in 1987. It was the first time that the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to destroy, not just limit, nuclear weapons. Together they destroyed almost 2,700 perfectly good nuclear weapons that they had spent billions of dollars and many years building. It began the process of massive reductions in global nuclear arms that continued until the current administration.

Why is Bolton against these nuclear security treaties that Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have championed? Because he thinks they make America weak. In 1999, he decried the liberal “fascination with arms-control agreements as a substitute for real non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” A year later, he ridiculed “the Church of Arms Control.”

For Bolton and others like him, these agreements are part of the effort by the global Lilliputians to tie down the American Gulliver. In his mind, we must have maximum flexibility and multiple military options to preserve our security and interests around the world. We must protect our nation with military might, not pieces of paper.

Russia is likely in violation of the INF Treaty. It has deployed missiles near its border with Europe at ranges that exceed those allowed by the agreement. But when someone breaks the law, the answer is not to repeal the law. There are well-established methods for bringing an offending nation back into compliance. Reagan, in fact, negotiated the INF Treaty while the Soviets were in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He pushed and cajoled them for several years. After signing the INF Treaty, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev relented and shut down the offending radar. We could do the same for the INF Treaty by pushing for an agreement on mutual inspections, as many experts have suggested.

But Bolton does not want to fix the treaty; he wants to kill it. “Violations give America the opportunity to discard obsolete, Cold War-era limits on its own arsenal and to upgrade its military capabilities to match its global responsibilities,” Bolton wrote in 2014.

America will pay a high price for this rigid ideology. President Trump walking out of Reagan’s treaty is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It doesn’t fix the problem; it makes it worse. Now, there will be no restraints whatsoever on Putin’s ability to deploy hundreds of missiles, should he desire. The United States will likely be blamed for the collapse of the treaty, widening the split within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Europeans are already shaken by the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear deal. This will increase their doubts about U.S. commitment to their security.

All this plays into Putin’s hands. It raises serious questions about whether Putin and Trump discussed this in any of their five secretive meetings. Whatever Bolton’s ideological agenda, this is certainly helping not hurting Putin’s Russia. . . . .

Thankfully, Congress has indicated that it will not idly watch as the nuclear security house burns down. Last Thursday, 10 senators, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and including three Democratic 2020 presidential candidates, introduced legislation barring any funding for any new weapon that would violate the INF Treaty. The House is certain to follow suit.

Congressional and European pressure may yet combine to pull Trump back from this self-destructive brink. European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini called on Friday for both sides to stick to the treaty. “What we definitely don’t want to see is our continent going back to being a battlefield or a place where other superpowers confront themselves,” she said. “This belongs to a faraway history.”

The danger is that the INF Treaty is not the last arms control treaty to die. Many fear that Bolton has his eyes on the New START agreement that limits long-range nuclear forces. That treaty expires in 2021, unless we act to extend it. Otherwise, for the first time since 1972, there will be no limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces.

Bolton must be stopped before he strikes again.

[Dill]

(02-04-2019, 05:34 PM)Benton Wrote: Trumps in a military pickle.

He said he'd win the wars in the ME in months. He didn't, but we're supposedly drawing down anyway. He said he'd defeat isis in months. He didn't, but claimed we did anyway.

So, now he's got the issue of a huge defense spending with a public that thought we were done fighting finally. Putin gave him an out. Back out of the treaty, the both countries get to spend spend spend.

I'm wondering what kind of ripple effect this will have outside the US, especially in terms of an arms race.   Trump is doing his best to squeeze and provoke a still-treaty-compliant Iran, while denying aid to the Palestinian Authority, while attempting to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan, while trying to strongarm China into a trade deal. So many moving parts here--while we are all looking at the wall.

[Benton]

(02-04-2019, 07:08 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm wondering what kind of ripple effect this will have outside the US, especially in terms of an arms race.   Trump is doing his best to squeeze and provoke a still-treaty-compliant Iran, while denying aid to the Palestinian Authority, while attempting to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan, while trying to strongarm China into a trade deal. So many moving parts here--while we are all looking at the wall.

Our 80s arms race with Russia was easy. It was mostly us and Russia, with some allies stucstuck in the middle. It's a different world now, with so many economies stronger, ours weaker, and bigger players that weren't much of an issue before.

[Yojimbo]

I’m getting a little sick of a single person being able to unilaterally end treaties. We need to look at how these things are handled in the future, so it takes an act of Congress and the President to enter AND leave international agreements.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-05-2019, 12:25 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m getting a little sick of a single person being able to unilaterally end treaties. We need to look at how these things are handled in the future, so it takes an act of Congress and the President to enter AND leave international agreements.

You'd have to amend the constitution as far as the getting in part. It doesn't really say anything about the getting out part. Makes sense to me though.

[Belsnickel]

Foreign policy ain't my thing, but this doesn't look good.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm endlessly entertained at the ability of some to morph any issue into proof that "Putin controls Trump". First off Russia doesn't have the economy to enter an arms race with the US. Secondly both Russia and the US have a vast nuclear arsenal, staying in, or leaving, this treaty doesn't change that. Lastly if armed conflict goes nuclear the delivery system used will be the last of our worries. The INF was mostly a step in the gradual thawing in relations with the USSR that ended with its dissolution.


In regards to China, were they a signatory in the INF? In any event China is not a big nuclear threat and if they endeavor to become one then this treaty would not have prevented it.

[Dill]

(02-05-2019, 12:25 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m getting a little sick of a single person being able to unilaterally end treaties. We need to look at how these things are handled in the future, so it takes an act of Congress and the President to enter AND leave international agreements.

Well, according to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is supposed to make treaties "with the advice and consent of the Senate," at least 2/3rds of them, anyway. But it doesn't say anything about breaking them, though I believe that is considered an implied power of the presidency. 

I guess the framers assumed no president would enter office deliberately wrecking his predecessors' achievements and the word/credit of the US in international relations.

We would probably have to change the Constitution to do what you suggest. Though I don't think that is a good thing. It really means we can't elect capable people any more, whom we can rely on for executive action when Congressional action would be too long and cumbersome. Much of US foreign policy business is taken care of with Executive Agreements and Executive Orders, and this has worked well in the past.  E.g., our naval base in Bahrain was put there by a Nixon EA.  Trump could take it away in a second, and Congress would have no say.

Er wait. Almost forgot. Congress does have a say in foreign policy matters.  There is the power of the purse.  Congress can refuse to fund any of Trump's new projects, like a Space force or new missile research, unless he agrees to continue the INF or, maybe better, work up a new one which deals with advances in technology since the 80s.  If, Boltonesque, the purpose of not signing was to allow for the development of new missiles, refusal to fund them would be an excellent check. That would work better than new legislation. It would block Trump and still keep the executive powerful--to our advantage when we get a president with good judgment again.

The question is, does Congress have the will to do this?  Certainly the House does.  Most Republican Senators still back Trump on domestic issues. But they are VERY concerned about the troubling alignment of his judgment with policies Putin wants. And they just rebuked Trump for announcing the US pullout from Syria and A-stan (I know you are for that, but you must admit he handled it badly, surprising his own advisors and our allies).  So the Senate is not so reliably Trump when it comes to foreign policy.

The refusal to sign the INF has alarmed US allies, and even among US adversaries, China voiced its concern, given the uncertainty it portends about international cooperation in avoiding a new arms race. Perhaps that, along with outcry from our own foreign policy establishment, Republican and Democrat alike, will lead the Senate to act.  

[Dill]

(02-05-2019, 09:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Foreign policy ain't my thing, but this doesn't look good.

LOl  then you got to bone up on this stuff, Bels. 

Bad FP can foul up domestic goals and eat up budgets faster than anything short of a civil war. And its a policy arena the public is generally least informed about.

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2019, 12:51 PM)Dill Wrote: LOl  then you got to bone up on this stuff, Bels. 

Bad FP can foul up domestic goals and eat up budgets faster than anything short of a civil war. And its a policy arena the public is generally least informed about.

Least informed about, maybe, but the information they have on domestic policy is misinformation

I focus much more on state level policies because of my position. I have no aspirations for federal office or employment, just with the Commonwealth. So I look at some federal policies as they impact what I focus on, but not in as comprehensive of a way.

[*bfine32*]

Perhaps we're pulling out to support Elizabeth Warren's and a few other Dems request that we change our nuclear launch policy. We've always held the position of being ableto launch a first strike. EW wants to change it to; only after we've been nuked.

[Dill]

(02-05-2019, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps we're pulling out to support Elizabeth Warren's and a few other Dems request that we change our nuclear launch policy. We've always held the position of being ableto launch a first strike. EW wants to change it to; only after we've been nuked.

Haha, I doubt it.

Is the change to "only after we've been actually nuked"?  E.g, do we have to wait for nukes to hit us, or do we get to respond when we see their ICBMs rising,  as was the case before?   Till now, everyone agreed that energy spent in preventing us from getting to that point was critical. Announcing a pull out from the INF and a decision to militarize space and return to development of nuclear weapons signals we are no longer spending that energy.

Also, if you have been following the discussion over US and Russian capabilities over the last couple of years, one of the big fears is a return to production of "tactical" nukes, small enough to be used on battle fields.  Seems the Russians are ramping up production of those. 

If there is nuclear use in the near future, is is more likely to be of this sort, than a world-wide conflagration of ICBMs raining down on metropolitan areas.

Trump always likes to say "all options are on the table," and "why do we have nukes if we don't use them." A willingness to use nukes might also, in the minds of Trump and Bolton, increase the US ability to pressure countries to do as their told, relying less on diplomacy and aid to get cooperation. So I am guessing Warren's bill may be another attempt to prevent a president who cannot gauge the consequences of his actions very well from using nukes in A-stan or Syria, or wherever we next intervene.