The head of U.S. military forces in Europe said Tuesday the United States should do more to bring Russia back into compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; former U.S. officials on Thursday then discouraged a “tit-for-tat” response and gave their own suggestions to the new administration.
The Trump administration has determined that Russia is in material breach of the treaty, which prohibits the U.S. and Russia from fielding ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with flight ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Last month, U.S. officials said Russia has deployed such a nuclear-capable cruise missile, and that the administration is planning potential responses to the treaty violation.
“We have to respond to their violation of that treaty, one way or the other,” Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of European Command, said Tuesday at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Russia. Asked by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) whether he believes Russia will return to compliance with the treaty in the near future, Scaparrotti said, “I don’t have any indication that they will at this time.”
He later added that there is “more probably that we need to do,” but that President Donald Trump will be responsible for developing the specific policy to this end. Defense Secretary James Mattis said today in London that the United States is currently consulting with its allies and will soon address the issue.
Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said during the hearing that the Obama administration did not do enough to address the INF Treaty violation. “I want to encourage you to continue to have a strong voice within the military and . . . the government at large,” he said, particularly because “our government needs to take treaty violations more seriously.”
The United States should be careful not to withdraw unilaterally from the treaty, Frank Rose, former assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification, and compliance, said Thursday at a House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing. Instead, Congress should continue funding the modernization of U.S. nuclear delivery vehicles – particularly the Long-Range Standoff nuclear cruise missile, designed to carry both nuclear and conventional warheads – as well as develop a conventional variant to the LRSO to improve air- and sea-launched conventional strike capabilities.
Rose said he is “not necessarily opposed” to U.S. development of its own ground-launched cruise missile in response to Russia’s violation, but “there are a [few] questions you want to ask before you move down this road. One: do we need this to meet our military requirements? Two: is it cost effective? And three: where are you going to deploy it?”
Robert Scher, former assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities, agreed that the United States does not need its own ground-based cruise missile to match the Russian deployment. He said potential responses instead could include increased deployments of cruise missile submarines around Europe; fielding of sophisticated rocket artillery systems in the eastern NATO states; and deployment of the LRSO and its conventional variant.
Jon Wolfsthal, former senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, also encouraged the new administration to share publicly more information about Russia’s violation. Those details have not been released, even though officials have said they shared some of this knowledge directly with the Russians.
“We have not been effective in our international diplomacy because we have not been able to openly share the information we have about this violation. I think that would dramatically help,” he said, noting that more publicly available information could also encourage NATO allies to coordinate with the United States on an appropriate response.
