This post is from March 2005. Facts and links may have changed since. See more from that month

Article2 min read

Did Rumsfeld Propose Changes to the 1987 INF Treaty?

Nobody, Pavel Podvig included, seems to be able to craft a compelling reason for Moscow to threaten to pull out of the INF Treaty.

But maybe, Ivanov didn’t bring it up. Maybe Rumsfeld did.

Artur Blinov, writing in Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Moscow) on 11 March 2005, speculates that Secretary Rumsfeld opened season on the INF Treaty in his January meeting with Russian Defense Minister Ivanov:

These explanations provide grounds for yet another possibility: that Ivanov mentioned the withdrawal option as a counterargument to some ideas put forward by Rumsfeld. Because it is no secret that, as a “hawk,” the secretary would not be averse to lifting from the United States some of the restrictions imposed (or self-imposed, like the moratorium on resuming nuclear tests) on the arms race. Ivanov might have responded to this with a counterthesis of his own, a kind of threat that is not in principle new. We know, for example, that in the period of international crisis occasioned by the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999 expert military circles in Russia were already discussing the idea of withdrawing from the INF treaty, but that in the end it was judged unproductive.

In that context, Ivanov’s question about possible reponses to Russian withdrawl and Rumsfeld’s lack of concern has a certain playground quality. “Then I quit, Donny.” “Fine, Sergei, see if I care.”

The one data point is Defense Spokes-flack Larry Di Rita’s confirmation—in the passive voice—that the issue “arose” during the meeting.

It’s plausible that Rumsfeld has finally decided to take INF down the ABM route. I mentioned in my previous post on this subject that some missile defense advocates have been trashing the INF Treaty on the grounds that it inhibits missile defense testing.

Missile defense advocates also believe that the START agreement stands in the way of missile defense testing. But collapsing START would be disastrous, since it provides the mechanism by which the IC verifies the Moscow Treaty and generally keeps tabs on the Russian nuclear arsenal. Then again, with our awesome new missile defense system, we don’t have to worry about that anymore.

A reporter asked Under Secretary Feith about possible US objections to INF early on; might be time to ask again.

Photo Note: The Iskander missile (above right), Pavel Podvig argues, removes the Russian military’s traditional complaint agains the INF.

Jeffrey Lewis

Writing on ACW 2004–2026

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis is the founding publisher of Arms Control Wonk.com. He is the Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. His also a non-resident affiliate at Stanford's Center for Security and International Cooperation and a Contributing Editor to Survival.

All posts by Jeffrey Lewis