12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

Member Login

The Uncertain Future of the

INF Treaty
A landmark arms control agreement concluded
between the United States and the Soviet Union in the
nal years of the Cold War is at risk of unraveling amid
mutual suspicions.

Backgrounder by Ankit Panda Reuters

October 25, 2017

What is the INF Treaty?

Signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987,
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is the only Cold War-era U.S.-
Soviet arms control agreement that remains in force today. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991, at which point all U.S. and Soviet INF missiles had been
eliminated, the United States sustained the INF Treaty with the Russian Federation and
some other successor states. Today, only Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan
actively participate in the INF Treaty with the United States.

The INF Treaty required both countries to destroy their stockpiles of ground-launched
ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The treaty,
which covers both nuclear and conventionally armed missiles, also prohibits signatories
from possessing, producing, and ight-testing these kinds of missiles. It was the rst

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 1/6
12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

agreement of its kind to reduce nuclear missile stocks instead of merely establishing a
limit on arsenals. While the treaty required the elimination of missile bodies and
launchers, it did not result in the elimination of nuclear warheads.

After the treaty entered into force in 1988, the United States and Soviet Union
dismantled and destroyed about 800 and 1,800 missiles, respectively, along with related
equipment such as launchers. A pillar of the treaty was a rigorous verication regime,
including on-site inspection, which allowed parties to physically conrm the other's
implementation. Both sides came into full compliance in the summer of 1991, months
before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, by completely eliminating the systems
covered by the treaty. On-site inspection activity ended in 2001, in accordance with the
treaty.

United States and Soviet Union dismantled

and destroyed about 800 and 1,800 missiles,

respectively.

The treaty also established a forum known as the Special Verication Commission for
parties to address and resolve compliance concerns. It has met thirty times, with the
last meeting taking place in November 2016. (The most recent meeting before 2016
took place in October 2003.)

What is the state of INF Treaty compliance today?

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 2/6
12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

In recent years, both the United States and Russia have alleged the other has violated
the INF Treaty, and many defense analysts say the thirty-year-old treaty is in danger of
unraveling. These allegations have accompanied a general decline in bilateral ties
following Russias annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, and Russias alleged
interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

In recent years, both the United States and

Russia have alleged the other has violated the

INF.

In 2014, the U.S. Department of State said Russia violated its obligation not to possess,
produce, or ight-test missiles prohibited by the treaty, although ocials did not
provide details as to the nature of the alleged violation.

The U.S. government has not made public which missile system it believes violates the
treaty. Some reports say Russia may have produced an extended-range version of the
Iskander K, a short-range cruise missile that is compliant with the INF Treaty, which
would be in violation of the agreement.

Russia, for its part, has rejected these claims and alleged that the United States has
itself violated the INF Treaty by deploying a component of a missile defense system
the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS)that is capable of launching oensive
missiles. It also claims the United States has used banned missiles in missile defense
tests and that some U.S. armed drones are eectively banned cruise missiles.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 3/6
12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

U.S. ocials deny these allegations. Regarding the VLS, they note that the text of the
INF Treaty allows systems designed solely for intercepting objects not located on the
surface of the earth. This VLS is part of missile defense systems the United States has
deployed at sea and in Europe to protect allied countries from limited missile attacks by
regional powers like Iran. However, Russia has long questioned U.S. motives, and notes
that VLS systems on U.S. warships can launch both oensive cruise missiles and missile
defense interceptors.

Do Russias alleged violations alter the strategic

environment?

Several U.S military leaders have said that Russias alleged violation of the INF Treaty
places allied forces in jeopardy. Testifying before the U.S. Congress in March 2017, Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Sta General Paul J. Selva noted that the INF Treaty-
violating system presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe.

At the same time, General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, NATOs supreme allied commander,
added that [PDF] Russias elding of a conventional/nuclear dual-capable system that
is prohibited under the INF Treaty creates a mismatch in escalatory options with the
West.

However, in July 2017 testimony, Selva told lawmakers that the INF Treaty-violating
system does not give Russia any particular military advantage in Europe given the
location of the specic missiles and deployment.

The State Departments 2017 Arms Control Compliance Report [PDF] notes that
Washington was consulting with allies to review a range of appropriate options should
Russia persist in its violation.

Where does the INF Treaty go from here?

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 4/6
12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

Both the United States and Russia may reassess the continued compatibility of the INF
Treaty with their national defense priorities in the coming years. In 2017, the United
States remains committed to the treaty, but the Trump administration is conducting a
review of U.S. nuclear capabilities that military ocials say [PDF] will present the
president with options on how to respond to Russias alleged treaty violations.
Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers are debating whether the military should begin
development of missile systems now banned under the INF Treaty.

In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would adhere to the INF
Treaty as long as the United States does the same. According to former U.S. Secretary of
Defense Robert M. Gates memoirs, Moscow proposed a joint termination of the treaty
in 2007 so it could deploy intermediate-range missiles in its south and east to counter
Iran, Pakistan, and China. The United States rejected the oer.

For now, the impasse since 2014 over compliance remains. Arms control advocates
recommend that the United States and Russia continue to use the Special Verication
Commission to resolve outstanding disputes.

How does China factor into the INF debate?

In recent years both the United States and Russia have become more wary of Chinas
military capabilities. China's growing nuclear and conventional missile inventory is
mostly composed of systems in the INF Treaty-prohibited range of 500 to 5,500
kilometers.

Admiral Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacic Command, recommended in April

2017 testimony that the United States renegotiate the treaty with Russia because it
limits its ability to to counter Chinese and other countries cruise missiles, land-based

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 5/6
12/19/2017 The Uncertain Future of the INF Treaty | Council on Foreign Relations

missiles. Russian military ocials, too, have pointed to Moscows perceived imbalance
with China [PDF] in this area as a possible factor leading to the eventual demise of the
treaty.

Other observers have recommended that the United States seek to bring China into the
INF Treaty or seek a separate, similar agreement with Beijing. However, China has
expressed no interest in joining the INF Treaty, and experts are doubtful that Beijing
would consider participating in the future.

Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/uncertain-future-inf-treaty 6/6