Trump’s Serious Strategic Error
The U.S. wants to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, but without building any alternative scenario to impose pressure. Marcus Pindur comments that this accommodates Russia's president, Vladimir Putin. He now has the best excuse for no longer feeling bound by the INF contract.
The conflict has been predicted for years. As early as 2014, the Obama administration complained that, contrary to the provisions of the INF Treaty, Russia was testing a medium-range cruise missile. But the Obama administration hit a wall in Moscow.
Instead, Russia made far-fetched counteraccusations: the U.S. could misuse the missile defense positions in Poland and Romania to fire cruise missiles from there. That, too, would constitute a breach of the INF Treaty.
That's pure nonsense, for then one could also argue that all U.S. bases in Europe would serve as potential cruise missile sites and thus, violate the agreement.
Regular Inspections Would Provide Transparency
Apart from that, Putin’s alleged fears could have been overcome by regular inspections. However, the Putin regime was obviously not interested in this at all. Proposals for inspections remained unanswered.
American senior officials state that two Russian cruise missile battalions, each with 24 cruise missiles, are now ready for action, which would be a clear violation of the INF Treaty. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and the allies also expressed concern at the meeting of defense ministers four weeks ago.
Thus, the problem predates the Trump administration and reaches far beyond the U.S. and the category of medium-range nuclear weapons.
Certainly the problem is real and it cannot be argued away. Former NATO Commander-in-Chief General James Breedlove, appointed by Barack Obama, also stated that such a violation of the treaty could not be ignored.
’Blatant Diplomatic Mistake’ -An INF Treaty Withdrawal Without an Alternative
But Donald Trump would not be Donald Trump if he did not respond to a legitimate concern with an ineffectual, brutish "America First" response. To terminate the treaty now without a political alternative is a blatant diplomatic mistake. Coincidentally, this is also the opinion of Richard Burt, the former American ambassador in Germany, a Republican and a former close adviser to Ronald Reagan.
Furthermore, the problem also has a global component. Trump identified China as the main opponent in all fields during his election campaign. The Asian superpower has indeed been pursuing an aggressive armament policy for years, including the construction of nuclear medium-range weapons. According to Gen. Breedlove, the U.S. could easily create a deterrent against China with sea and airborne cruise missiles.
Trump‘s ‘Unnecessary’ TPP Cancellation
And that's not all. Trump has, unnecessarily, terminated the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, in which all of China's neighboring states are involved. It could have been part of a comprehensive containment of China. At this point, the inconsistency and inefficiency of the "America First" strategy have come to light.
The leader who, in fact, has faced an increasing security dilemma with China through the INF agreement is Putin. The INF agreement prohibits the deployment of land-based medium-range missiles with which he could have balanced the increasing number of Chinese weapons of the same type.
But instead of seeking negotiations, Putin opted for fraud. He built medium-range missiles and denied it at the same time.
The Best Excuse for Putin
Trump could have put pressure on Putin. There could have been a decision to impose further economic sanctions on Moscow. There could have been an expansion of missile defense in Europe as well as an expansion of NATO mission of the European Reinsurance Initiative in Poland and the Baltic states.
And while doing all this, diplomatic pressure on Putin could have been increased to bring him to the negotiating table. But that would require a persistent, long-term alliance policy on the part of the U.S. and laborious agreements with European partners which, in their ideological "America First" stubbornness, neither Trump nor his national security advisor, John Bolton, want.
To cancel the INF contract without a credible alternative scenario to impose pressure benefits Putin. He now has the best excuse for no longer feeling bound by the INF Treaty and for not having to enter into further negotiations. "America First“ is not helpful either to America or to its allies. But it is helpful first and foremost to Putin.
Shame on him who thinks evil of it.
The conflict has been predicted for years. As early as 2014, the Obama administration complained that, contrary to the provisions of the INF Treaty, Russia was testing a medium-range cruise missile. But the Obama administration hit a wall in Moscow.
Instead, Russia made far-fetched counteraccusations: the U.S. could misuse the missile defense positions in Poland and Romania to fire cruise missiles from there. That, too, would constitute a breach of the INF Treaty.
That's pure nonsense, for then one could also argue that all U.S. bases in Europe would serve as potential cruise missile sites and thus, violate the agreement.
Regular Inspections Would Provide Transparency
Apart from that, Putin’s alleged fears could have been overcome by regular inspections. However, the Putin regime was obviously not interested in this at all. Proposals for inspections remained unanswered.
American senior officials state that two Russian cruise missile battalions, each with 24 cruise missiles, are now ready for action, which would be a clear violation of the INF Treaty. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and the allies also expressed concern at the meeting of defense ministers four weeks ago.
Thus, the problem predates the Trump administration and reaches far beyond the U.S. and the category of medium-range nuclear weapons.
Certainly the problem is real and it cannot be argued away. Former NATO Commander-in-Chief General James Breedlove, appointed by Barack Obama, also stated that such a violation of the treaty could not be ignored.
’Blatant Diplomatic Mistake’ -An INF Treaty Withdrawal Without an Alternative
But Donald Trump would not be Donald Trump if he did not respond to a legitimate concern with an ineffectual, brutish "America First" response. To terminate the treaty now without a political alternative is a blatant diplomatic mistake. Coincidentally, this is also the opinion of Richard Burt, the former American ambassador in Germany, a Republican and a former close adviser to Ronald Reagan.
Furthermore, the problem also has a global component. Trump identified China as the main opponent in all fields during his election campaign. The Asian superpower has indeed been pursuing an aggressive armament policy for years, including the construction of nuclear medium-range weapons. According to Gen. Breedlove, the U.S. could easily create a deterrent against China with sea and airborne cruise missiles.
Trump‘s ‘Unnecessary’ TPP Cancellation
And that's not all. Trump has, unnecessarily, terminated the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, in which all of China's neighboring states are involved. It could have been part of a comprehensive containment of China. At this point, the inconsistency and inefficiency of the "America First" strategy have come to light.
The leader who, in fact, has faced an increasing security dilemma with China through the INF agreement is Putin. The INF agreement prohibits the deployment of land-based medium-range missiles with which he could have balanced the increasing number of Chinese weapons of the same type.
But instead of seeking negotiations, Putin opted for fraud. He built medium-range missiles and denied it at the same time.
The Best Excuse for Putin
Trump could have put pressure on Putin. There could have been a decision to impose further economic sanctions on Moscow. There could have been an expansion of missile defense in Europe as well as an expansion of NATO mission of the European Reinsurance Initiative in Poland and the Baltic states.
And while doing all this, diplomatic pressure on Putin could have been increased to bring him to the negotiating table. But that would require a persistent, long-term alliance policy on the part of the U.S. and laborious agreements with European partners which, in their ideological "America First" stubbornness, neither Trump nor his national security advisor, John Bolton, want.
To cancel the INF contract without a credible alternative scenario to impose pressure benefits Putin. He now has the best excuse for no longer feeling bound by the INF Treaty and for not having to enter into further negotiations. "America First“ is not helpful either to America or to its allies. But it is helpful first and foremost to Putin.
Shame on him who thinks evil of it.
Previous article![]( "Who Will Challenge Trump for the GOP Nomination?")
Next article![]( "Lessons for India from the California Forest Fires")
