Russian media reported that at his late August 2006 meeting in Alaska with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov mentioned the possibility of his country withdrawing from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The Treaty bans the development, production, and deployment of missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers.[1] The point was made in response to Rumsfeld’s attempt to explain to his Russian counterpart the benefits of the United States equipping some strategic missiles with conventional warheads to make them usable for strikes against terrorists – an idea Russian President Putin has consistently rejected. [2] It appears the American media did not cover Ivanov’s statement.

Russian newspapers quoted Ivanov as saying that conventionally-armed strategic missiles were not the only option for strikes against terrorists and far from the safest: “Theoretically, one could use long-range cruise missiles with conventional warheads…One could even consider a theoretical possibility of using intermediate range missiles, although the United States and Russia cannot have them, unlike many other countries, which already have such missiles.” [3] Journalists noted that given the background for the Defense Minister’s remarks, what appeared to be only off-hand comments, in fact amounted to an implicit endorsement of an idea that has circulated within the Russian defense establishment for some time, namely, that Russia should withdraw from the INF Treaty.

Indeed, only a few days before the meeting of the two top defense officials, an unnamed representative of the Ministry of Defense called the INF Treaty “a relic of the Cold War” and openly declared that Russia could, if necessary, withdraw from it. [4] He said that the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 created a precedent for such a step. The United States should not be concerned if Russia decides to deploy intermediate-range missiles, he continued, because they cannot reach U.S. territory except if they are deployed in Chukotka, across the Bering Strait from Alaska, “but they will not be deployed there.” Referring specifically to North Korea, he stated that for Russia, intermediate-range missiles would be far more useful as conventionally-armed systems than intercontinental missiles, as proposed by the United States.

The idea is not new. In March 2005, media reports disclosed that Ivanov had raised the possibility of Russia’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty at a meeting with Rumsfeld two months earlier. [5] An unnamed source in the Ministry of Defense, which confirmed the information, claimed that Secretary Rumsfeld had not immediately objected. The Foreign Ministry, however, declared that Russia continued to be committed to the INF Treaty.

Earlier this year, Director of the 4th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense Maj.-Gen. Vladimir Vasilenko acknowledged that deployment of intermediate-range missiles was one possible option for responding to new threats to Russia’s security, including first and foremost the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The institute conducts research to support the Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF), responsible for managing Russia’s land-based long-range missiles. He noted that Russia still retains the necessary technological base and the production capacity to build intermediate-range missiles. He noted, however, that such a decision is prohibited by the INF Treaty and that intercontinental, strategic missiles remained pre-ferable to intermediate-range systems because the longer range of the former makes them a more versatile asset. [6]

The military establishment is clearly divided on the issue. Responding to Vasilenko’s interview, the First Vice President of the Academy of Military Sciences Col.-Gen. Varfolomei Korobushkin warned that withdrawal from the INF Treaty could provoke a new missile race with the United States. [7] Former Chief of the SRF Staff Col.-Gen. Viktor Yesin said that withdrawal from the INF Treaty would actually damage Russia’s interests, because in such a case, the United States would likely deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe and thus create a new threat to Russia. Such a step would also hurt Russia’s standing internationally. [8]

A well known expert with conservative leanings, Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Vladimir Belous, while rejecting the American proposal to equip strategic missiles with conventional warheads, simultaneously rejected Ivanov’s counterproposal to deploy conventionally-armed intermediate-range missiles. He said that withdrawal from the INF Treaty would be counterproductive in the foreseeable future because it would create a political backlash in Europe and around the world. Furthermore, such a step would allow the United States to deploy a significant number of intermediate-range missiles not only in Europe, but also in other regions on Russia’s periphery and could potentially trigger a new Cold War. [9]

Russian sources cite several factors to explain the persistence of the proposal to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Some attribute it to institutional and economic interests, for example, those of defense industry firms eager for new contracts. [10] Others, such as Vladimir Belous, in the above-quoted article, have attributed Russian proposals to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the desire of Russian military experts to acquire a counter to American deployment of missile defenses in Europe. Senior parliamentarian and former deputy minister of defense Andrey Kokoshin has offered a similar analysis. [11]

An unexpected reaction to the debates within the Russian military about the merits of withdrawing from the INF Treaty came from Ukraine. According to Ukrainian observers, Kyiv had for some time considered resuming production of short-range tactical missiles. According to Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine Col.-Gen. Sergey Kirichenko, Ukraine’s existing tactical missiles are technically outdated and have outlived their warranty periods. For that reason, said Kirichenko, the State Program of Weapons Acquisition through 2009, provided funding for research and development on a new tactical missile for Ukraine’s Ground Forces. The new “Grom” ballistic missile and the new “Korshun” cruise missile will have ranges below 400 km to fit into the limitations of the INF Treaty, to which Ukraine became a party after the breakup of the Soviet Union. If, however, the Treaty is terminated by Russia’s withdrawal, Ukrainian experts argue that Ukraine could consider development of longer-range systems. [12] Speaking at a meeting of the National Security Council of Ukraine on September 20, 2006, President Viktor Yushchenko announced that the 2007 defense budget included, among other items, funding for the development of new missiles. [13]

It is difficult to assess the likelihood of Russia withdrawing from the INF Treaty. It is clear that there are proponents of such a step both among parts of the uniformed military and in some sectors of the defense industry. Opposition is also strong and opponents have raised a number of powerful objections. Some influential parts of the military (in particular the Air Force and the Navy), as well as a significant part of the defense industry, may have an additional concern -- they stand to lose if still-scarce funding is reoriented toward missile production. The fact that Defense Minister Ivanov has repeatedly endorsed the idea also appears significant, although it is unclear whether he genuinely favors this option or is simply using it as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis the United States and NATO to gain concessions on other issues.
Ultimately, this decision will be made by Russia’s political leadership, not the military, and it does not seem likely that the current political leadership will seriously entertain a step that could reduce the predictability of the international system and could potentially lead to considerable political and security costs.

Nikolai Sokov – Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies

.