Russia threatens ‘retaliation’ after U.S. declares plan to withdraw from arms treaty

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. will withdraw from the 1987 agreement unless Russia falls back into compliance.

  • The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was an agreement between the Soviet Union and the U.S. to ban mid-ranged, nuclear-tipped missiles.
  • Both Russia and the U.S. have accused each other of violating the pact in recent years.
  • As it stands, Russia has 60 days to return to terms agreed upon in the deal or the U.S. will withdraw from the pact.

Russian officials said Wednesday that the United States' decision to withdraw from a long-standing arms agreement would be met with "retaliation" from Moscow in the form of developing new, previously banned nuclear weapons.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that Russia is "in material breach" of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and the U.S. plans to withdraw from the pact in 60 days unless Russia falls back into compliance. The INF was a landmark agreement between the U.S. and former Soviet Union that banned mid-range, nuclear-tipped missiles, and resulted in the destruction of more than 2,500 missiles. Both nations have accused each other of violating the treaty multiple times since signing the pact.

In October, U.S. officials announced plans to withdraw from the treaty, alleging that Russia had been violating the treaty for years, particularly with its new SSC-8 ground-fired cruise missile. President Donald Trump said as much at a rally in October, and the comments ostensibly prompted Putin to later say that Russians will "go to heaven" in the event of nuclear war, while the "aggressors" — presumably Americans — will be annihilated and "won't even have time to repent."

On Wednesday, Putin said U.S. officials offer "no proof of violations on our side," and noted that the U.S. has, for months, been researching the development of weapons banned under the treaty — though researching such weapons isn't banned by the pact.

We are against destruction of the treaty," Putin added. "But if it happens, we will react accordingly.

Why withdrawal could benefit the U.S.

With credible evidence suggesting Russia has for years been violating the INF and shows no signs of stopping, the U.S. has little to gain by sticking to the treaty as it stands. Withdrawal, it seems, could be the smarter play because it'd allow the U.S. to take up strategic positions in the Pacific, as Elbridge Colby, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, wrote for the Washington Post in October.

The most compelling reason for withdrawal is that the United States could materially improve the military balance against China in East Asia by developing and deploying INF-noncompliant systems. China poses a much larger and more sophisticated long-term military threat than Russia, and U.S. strike options are more constrained by the geography of the Pacific. Washington would benefit from having the ability to deploy survivable land-based ballistic and cruise missile systems to provide a larger, more diverse and resilient greater strike capability in the event of a conflict in the western Pacific.

Nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia

Although both nations don't disclose the exact amount of nuclear weapons under their control, the Arms Control Association and Federation of American Scientists suggest the following numbers:

Russia

  • Total nuclear weapons: ~6,800
  • Total nuclear tests: ~ 715
  • First tested: August 1949
  • Most recent test: October 1990

United States

  • Total nuclear weapons: ~ 6,550
  • Total nuclear tests: ~ 1,030
  • First tested: July 1945
  • Most recent test: September 1992

Stand up against religious discrimination – even if it’s not your religion

As religious diversity increases in the United States, we must learn to channel religious identity into interfaith cooperation.

Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • Religious diversity is the norm in American life, and that diversity is only increasing, says Eboo Patel.
  • Using the most painful moment of his life as a lesson, Eboo Patel explains why it's crucial to be positive and proactive about engaging religious identity towards interfaith cooperation.
  • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Keep reading Show less

The biggest threat to America? Americans.

Pulitzer Prize-winner Jared Diamond explains why some nations make it through epic crises and why others fail.

Videos
  • "A country is not going to resolve a national crisis unless it acknowledges that it's in a crisis," says Jared Diamond. "If you don't, you're going to get nowhere. Many Americans still don't recognize today that the United States is descending into a crisis."
  • The U.S. tends to focus on "bad countries" like China, Canada and Mexico as the root of its problems, however Diamond points out the missing piece: Americans are generating their own problems.
  • The crisis the U.S. is experiencing is not cause for despair. The U.S. has survived many tragedies, such as the War of Independence and the Great Depression – history is proof that the U.S. can get through this current crisis too.
Keep reading Show less

10 new things we’ve learned about death

If you don't want to know anything about your death, consider this your spoiler warning.

Culture & Religion
  • For centuries cultures have personified death to give this terrifying mystery a familiar face.
  • Modern science has demystified death by divulging its biological processes, yet many questions remain.
  • Studying death is not meant to be a morbid reminder of a cruel fate, but a way to improve the lives of the living.
Keep reading Show less

Where the evidence of fake news is really hiding

When it comes to sniffing out whether a source is credible or not, even journalists can sometimes take the wrong approach.

Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • We all think that we're competent consumers of news media, but the research shows that even journalists struggle with identifying fact from fiction.
  • When judging whether a piece of media is true or not, most of us focus too much on the source itself. Knowledge has a context, and it's important to look at that context when trying to validate a source.
  • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Keep reading Show less