1/ I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the 1987 INF Treaty. I had to take a deep dive into nuclear weapons strategy, weapons systems, and their effects on European public opinion. The reason why the US deployed Pershing II and Ground Launched Cruise Missiles was in response to
2/ the Soviets deploying cruise missiles in then Eastern Europe, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Before the Reagan administration announced the decision to deploy new missiles to NATO, the NATO buzzword was "coupling." If only the Soviets had cruise missiles and
3/ NATO did not, then American defense of NATO would be "decoupled." Without "coupling," European leaders would fear they were on their own in WW III because at a crucial step in the escalation ladder, cruise missiles, the Soviets would have escalation dominance. The USA would
4/ be forced to escalate to ICBM/SLBM, that is, a full-scale nuclear exchange with the USSR. So, among other things, Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty which got cruise missiles out of Europe. And Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated a
5/ treaty to reduce conventional forces in Europe. And we know, grassroots pressure stimulated by glasnost led to the Berlin Wall falling. Now, the Russians have apparently deployed a more capable, intermediate range missile. The Trump regime wants to terminate the INF agreement
6/ on the grounds that the Russians have deployed the new missile. But, our missiles (and ground forces) are there for "coupling." When words from Nixon or Reagan could not do the "coupling," we deployed nuclear weapons. But, the Trump regime has been "decoupling" the USA from
7/ from NATO/EU with rhetoric and trade sanctions or threat of sanctions. He has badly treated Angela Markel in meetings, while fawning over Putin. Trump himself has shown the USA to be an unreliable ally. Why would breaking the INF Treaty not reinforce this perception?
8/ Moreover, why would any European leader be reassured by the Trump's regime action? Threatening to withdraw from the treaty makes no strategic sense, in my view, unless you really want to destabilize what is already a wobbly NATO alliance. Ask, does the USA have a new missile
9/ system to counter the new Russian system? I don't know. But the Trump regime is not talking about a new weapons system. The Russians do not want our ballistic missile system in Europe, but that is as much about coupling as protecting Europe from Iranian missiles. The proper
10/ response to a possible violation of a nuclear weapons treaty, is to negotiate the alleged violation. And, remember, the US Intelligence Community, never states that a country is in violation of a treaty. Never. The IC presents the facts. The treaty states a legal system is
11/ X,Y, and Z. The other party has done/will do R, S, & T. It is a political decision to call R, S, & T a violation. Then treaties have procedures to resolve these differences. Congress & American people have to put a weapons system in its broader strategic context and decide.
