INF Myth Busters
Russian Myth: Russia’s demonstration of the 9M729 on January 23 proved that the system is INF Treaty compliant and showed that Russia is being transparent.
Fact: Russia’s so-called “demonstration” on January 23 of what it claimed was the 9M729 container did not change that the system is a violation of the INF Treaty. The United States and most of our NATO Allies did not attend this briefing as we all saw it for what it was – another attempt to obfuscate while giving the appearance of transparency. The “demonstration” was completely controlled by Russia. There is nothing that Russia can say or show to change the fact that Russia has already tested the 9M729 cruise missile to ranges beyond 500 kilometers in violation of the INF Treaty. The United States has provided to Russia in writing an illustrative framework of the steps it would need to take to return to compliance and save the INF Treaty. Only the complete and verifiable destruction of Russia’s 9M729 missiles, launchers, and associated equipment will resolve U.S. concerns.
Russian Myth: Russia is interested in dialogue about the Treaty, while the United States is not.
Fact: The United States has spent almost six years in dialogues with the Russian Federation to try to resolve Russia’s non-compliance. We have raised Russia’s INF violation in more than 30 engagements including at the highest levels of government. The United States has convened five meetings of technical experts to discuss Russia’s INF Treaty violation since 2014. This included two meetings of the Special Verification Commission, the Treaty body responsible for addressing compliance concerns, in November 2016 and December 2017, and three bilateral U.S.-Russia meetings of technical experts, in September 2014, April 2015, and June 2018. At each of these meetings the United States pressed Russia on its violating missile, urged it to come back into compliance, and highlighted the critical nature of our concerns, but were met with obfuscation, falsehoods, and denials. On January 15, 2019, the United States and Russia held another expert meeting. The United States came ready to discuss steps Russia needed to take to return to full and verifiable compliance with the Treaty but Russia refused to take such steps and continued to deny its violation.
Russian Myth: We gave the Americans fully detailed information about when and at what distance tests of this missile had been conducted.
Fact: For over four years Russia denied the existence of the missile and provided no information about it, despite the United States providing Russia the location of the tests and the names of the companies involved in the development and production of the missile. Only after we publicly announced the missile system’s Russian designator did Russia admit that the missile exists, and has since changed its story by claiming that the missile is incapable of ranges beyond 500 kilometers. Russia claims that it is not obligated to provide the United States any more information about the missile, its capability, or its testing history to support Russia’s contention that the missile is Treaty-compliant. Despite such obfuscation, Russia claims that it wants to preserve the Treaty.
Russian Myth: “Just a week ago, a couple of days ahead of the announcement of the (U.S.) aim to leave the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, Americans via their embassy in Moscow sent the Russian foreign ministry an extensive list of questions which are a concern to them.” (Quote from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on October 28, 2018)
Fact: This is incorrect. Most recently the United States presented Russia with questions about its violating missile at a meeting of bilateral experts in June, which went unanswered. In October, the United States provided answers to questions Russia had posed at the same meeting.
The United States has presented Russia many sets of questions over the last five years – always addressing the same set of facts regarding their ongoing violation that Russia refuses to discuss. Russia has refused to answer key U.S. questions about its violating missile. First, the Russians claimed they could not identify the missile of concern to the United States, despite the United States having provided extensive information about its characteristics and testing history. Only later, when the United States forced Russia to acknowledge the existence of the missile by publicly releasing its Russian designator, did the Russians claim the missile was not captured under the INF Treaty because its range did not exceed 500km. Russia now claims it is not obligated to provide any additional information about this missile.
Russian Myth: The United States wants to start an arms race.
Fact: The facts are that the Russian Federation is producing and fielding a new offensive capability that is prohibited by the INF Treaty. The United States is not. The current situation is not the preference or creation of the United States. The onus clearly falls on Russia.
Furthermore, it is Russia’s President Vladimir Putin who has prioritized a massive military rearmament program, who regularly brandishes the value of Russia’s nuclear weapons, and who openly threatens to attack Europe with Russian missiles.
Russian Myth: The United States is cheating, not Russia.
Fact: The United States is in compliance with its obligations under the INF Treaty, and Allies affirmed this most recently in the NATO Summit declaration in July 2018. Russia is not in compliance and has ignored calls for transparency from the United States and Europe. In contrast to Russia’s refusal to answer substantively key U.S. questions about the SSC-8/9M729, the United States has provided Russia with detailed information explaining why the United States is in compliance with the INF Treaty. The United States has even presented some of this information publicly, including in a factsheet on the State Department webpage.
Russian Myth: The United States is undermining European security.
Fact: Russia is undermining European security with its INF-violating missile that was developed specifically to destroy key European military and economic targets and coerce NATO governments. As NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg has said: "The problem is the deployment of new Russian missiles. There are no new U.S. missiles in Europe, but there are more Russian missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and those missiles put the INF treaty in jeopardy."
Russia’s willingness to erode European security and reject international norms by violating a principal arms control agreement should not be a surprise. The INF Treaty violation follows a disturbing pattern of Russian threatening activity that includes its purported annexation of Crimea, a coup attempt in Montenegro, multiple cyber hacks and attacks, interference in Western elections, and the attempted assassination of Sergey and Yulia Skripal with a military-grade nerve agent on the territory of a NATO ally.
Russian Myth: The United States is abandoning arms control.
Fact: As described in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the United States is committed to arms control efforts that advance U.S., allied, and partner security; are verifiable and enforceable; and include partners that comply responsibly with their obligations. An arms control treaty that restrains only one side, while the other violates it with impunity, is not effective in making us safer. Rather, it undermines the very idea of arms control as a tool to enhance our collective security. The United States is acting to preserve the role of arms control in reducing the risk of war and avoiding unnecessary and destabilizing military competition.
Russian Myth: The United States is manufacturing its allegations against Russia as an excuse to exit the Treaty.
Fact: The Russian Federation is producing and fielding a new offensive capability prohibited by the INF Treaty. The Russian Federation created this problem, not the United States. The United States has long maintained that an INF Treaty that all parties comply with contributes to global security and stability. The United States has discussed this violation with Russia for over five years in an effort to convince Russia to return to compliance with the Treaty. We also have long stated that the status quo is untenable and our patience is not unlimited. Unfortunately, Russia has taken no significant steps toward resolving this problem.