Trump-Russia nuclear treaty: Alarm over president's 'dangerous' decision to withdrawal from Cold War-era agreement
Decision to suspend 32-year-old agreement central to peaceful relations between two superpowers described by Gorbachev as 'not the work of a great mind'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Mike Pompeo has announced the US is suspending its participation from a crucial Cold War nuclear treaty with Russia - triggering fears of a new Cold War-style arms race.
Analysts have expressed fears that an American exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces agreement, which banned ground-launched cruise-control missiles when it was signed in 1987, could spark tensions between the old rival superpowers and China, now Asia’s dominant military presence.
The president has meanwhile attacked the FBI's arrest of political fixer Roger Stone and dismissed his recent shutdown talks with Democrats as a “waste of time” in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times.
On the nuclear treaty, Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said at a press conference in Bucharest there are no signs of getting a compliance deal with Russia.
"So we must prepare for a world without the INF treaty," he said.
The move starts a 180-day clock to complete withdrawal unless Russia returns to compliance with the 1987 agreement.
The president will finally give his much-delayed State of the Union address to Congress on 5 February.
Doing so, he'll find himself surrounded by women. Here's Adam Forrest on a timely "feminist statement".
The American withdrawal had been expected for months. It follows years of unresolved dispute over Russian compliance with the pact, which bans certain ground-launched cruise missiles. Russia denies violating the treaty.
Pompeo says the US will suspend its obligations to the treaty on Saturday. Pompeo says that if Russia doesn't come into compliance, the treaty "will terminate."
US officials also have expressed concern that China, which isn't part of the treaty, is deploying large numbers of missiles in Asia that the US can't counter because it's bound by the treaty.
NATO issues statement saying America's allies "fully support" the decision.
The treaty was the first arms control measure to ban an entire class of weapons: ground-launched cruise missiles with a range between 310 miles and 3,100 miles. Russia denies that it has been in violation.
Donald Trump said Russia has violated the treaty "with impunity, covertly developing and fielding a prohibited missile system that poses a direct threat to our allies and troops abroad."
He added that the US "will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions. We cannot be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty, or any other."
The move has sparked criticism in some quarters, however, with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – who signed the treaty with US president Ronald Reagan – describing it as “not the work of a great mind".
James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at think tank Chatham House, said: "The fact that both sides are claiming the other has violated the treaty does not mean equivalence. Although there is always a question of interpretation, it is clear that Russia has been the principal party in breach. Both moves (or rather lack of them) made so far - allowing treaty violations to go unresponded to, and walking out on the treating altogether - are equally dangerous options and should not be permitted. Proven failure to comply should have penalties that impose a cost. In this case that should mean fresh sanctions on Russia."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments