Will an Arms Race Follow Trump’s INF Treaty Pullout?

Trump is a geopolitical know-nothing, a businessman turned politician, America’s first realty TV president.

He’s captive to corporate interests and sinister political forces controlling him, capitulating to them virtually straightaway, likely after his electoral triumph – before entering office in January 2017.

He knows nothing besides what’s fed him by manipulative handlers, along with Fox News disinformation rubbish, his favorite TV channel.

A novice on the world stage, he dislikes details he lacks interest in, prefers information fed him in brief form. His obsessive TV watching, phone conversations, and tweeting reflect his dislike for detailed printed material.

He’s likely unaware of the human toll of his disastrous geopolitical agenda. Pulling out of the JCPOA and now the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty risk greater conflicts and chaos than already, a major risk he’s likely mindless about.

The historic, vitally important Reagan/Gorbachev 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty provisions required the elimination of all nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges of 310 – 620 miles (short-range) and 620 – 3,420 miles (intermediate range), along with their launchers.

Compliance is monitored by technical means, on site inspections and cooperative measures. The agreement was the first bilateral treaty designed to reduce nuclear arms. Previous ones only established ceilings.

Falsely accusing Moscow of breaching the treaty began months after the Obama regime’s coup d’etat in Ukraine, replacing democratic governance with Nazi-infested fascist tyranny.

Trump’s pullout further escalates bilateral tensions and hostility, a hugely dangerous arms race likely to follow at a time US imperial madness poses a major threat to world peace.

Moscow categorically rejects false US accusations of alleged INF breaches, including about its newest 9M729 missile. No evidence suggests it exceeds INF limits. Russia considers US claims otherwise baseless.

Russian upper house Federation Council International Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachev said

Moscow will “respond not to the very fact of Washington’s withdrawal from the treaty but rather to its practical steps when it is free to do whatever it wants,” adding:

As Vladimir Putin said,

“Russia has all the military technical premises for that, its reaction (to) be rapid. I know what I am talking about, but this is classified information so far. I am sure the Americans are fully aware of that as well.”

“We had a special (Federation Council) meeting. The military proved that neither this (9M729) missile modification nor any other modifications have ever violated the treaty. This missile technically cannot violate the treaty as it has different characteristics.”

“The Americans keep on indulging in these games as the actual goal of such games is not to catch Russia in violations and compel it to abide by the treaty but to invent a pretext to ruin that treaty” – part of its belligerent imperial strategy.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov slammed Trump’s announced INF pullout, saying the US “act(s) clumsily and harshly” time and again, adding:

Russia has no choice “but to take retaliatory measures, including ones of military and technological nature.”

“We are treating with concern and condemnation the United States’ new attempts to force Russia to make concessions in the sphere of international security and strategic stability via blackmailing.”

“The Russian side has repeatedly said that the US side has no reasons for accusing Russia of allegedly violating this treaty.”

“After all these years, they have failed to substantiate their fanciful claims by clear explanations why they are doing this.”

Years of negotiation went into achieving the Soviet Russia/US INF Treaty, a landmark/partial nuclear disarmament agreement, defusing Cold War tensions.

At the time, Secretary of State James Baker promised NATO wouldn’t expand “one inch eastward” toward Russia’s borders, a pledge broken by Washington since the late 1990s by inclusion of former Soviet republics and Warsaw republics into US-dominated NATO.

Russia’ Foreign Ministry earlier called Washington’s Eastern European Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe deployment a flagrant INF violation, saying:

Their deployment in Romania with another planned in Poland breaches the letter and spirit of the agreement.

“(They) incorporate vertical launch systems similar to Mk-41 universal systems that are capable of launching intermediate-range (Tomahawk) cruise missiles…”

Since Soviet Russia’s yearend 1991 dissolution, Washington repeatedly breached INF mandates, continuing missile tests prohibited by the treaty.

It’s boosting production and use of unmanned offensive vehicles, falling under the INF’s definition of ground-based cruise missiles.

“Notably, we have been pointing (out US) violations of the INF Treaty for 15 years. But there is no constructive reaction,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry months earlier, adding:

“While implementing its anti-missile plans, the United States must be guided…by the generally recognized principle of inadmissibility of strengthening its own security at the expense of other states.”

“Notably, Washington has repeatedly reiterated this principle in corresponding international formats” – falsely accusing Moscow of INF violations, ignoring its own.

Treaties the US agrees to are for other countries to observe, not itself. Its reckless actions “wrecked the pillars of the global strategic stability, Russia’s Foreign Ministry stressed, adding:

Washington’s deployment of its missile-defense system “adversely impacted the system of international security, dramatically complicated relations not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also in the Asia-Pacific region, and turned into one of the most serious obstacles on the path of further gradual nuclear disarmament as it creates dangerous opportunities for the resumption of the nuclear arms race.”

“(A)n anti-missile umbrella may give rise to a calamitous illusion of invincibility and impunity and hence tempt hotheads in Washington into new dangerous unilateral steps on global and regional problems in bypassing of the United Nations Security Council and contrary to common sense…”

Washington “demonstrates no readiness for cooperation and reckoning with Russia’s concerns.”

(It) refused to even discuss its own guarantees that missile-defense systems that are being deployed in Europe are not aimed against Russia.”

US rage for world dominance risks possible East/West confrontation – potentially with nuclear weapons, a possible doomsday scenario if occurs.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]globalresearch.ca