The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was an agreement signed by the former USSR and the United States on December 8, 1987. Signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, the treaty banned the use of cruise and ground-launched ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres. It also allowed both sides to conduct on-site verification inspections for a 13-year period to make sure that neither side was breaking the agreement.
The treaty was considered to be one of the crowning achievements of the Reagan era. It meant that people living in Europe no longer had the daily fear that today could be their last day on earth as a result of a nuclear exchange. The need for such a treaty was emphasised by the little known ‘Abel Archer 83’ incident. Abel Archer was an annual NATO military exercise that took place in Casteau, Belgium. That year the exercise took place in November 1983 (hence Abel Archer 83). The idea was to simulate when conventional war turns to nuclear war.
The problem was the Soviets thought this wasn’t an exercise and began preparing to launch a nuclear first strike against the West. New documents released in 2021 reveal how close the world came to nuclear armageddon. Writing about this in Slate, journalist Fred Kaplan states:
“It turned out, top Soviet leaders thought that the war game was real – that the US and NATO really were about to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR – and top Soviet military commanders took steps to retaliate.
“In one of those steps, the new documents reveal, the commander of the Soviet 4th Army Air Forces in Eastern Europe ordered all of his units to make ‘preparations for the immediate use of nuclear weapons.’ As part of that order, crewmen loaded actual nuclear bombs onto several combat planes…….The Able Archer crisis might not have been a near miss – it might easily have escalated to a shooting war – had it not been for a single American officer, Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, the intelligence chief for US Air Forces in Europe, who saw the Soviet moves, interpreted them correctly, and stopped what might otherwise have been a deadly escalation.”
The INF treaty ensured that a final ‘Abel Archer 83’, wherein nuclear war does take place, was less probable (though not impossible) for the simple fact that two categories of nuclear missiles had been destroyed on both sides and that both sides were on speaking terms following a great diplomatic accomplishment.
Fast forward to today and the situation couldn’t be further from where it was after the INF Treaty was signed in 1987. On August 2, 2019, at the behest of President Donald Trump (under the influence of his neo-conservative national security adviser John Bolton) the United States formally withdrew from the INF treaty, citing Russian non-compliance (without providing any evidence) and China’s military build-up in the South China Sea as its reasoning. Russia, in response, withdrew from the INF treaty a day after the Americans.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, coupled with President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats and years of anti-Russian US media coverage due to the ‘Russiagate’ scandal (in which special counsel Robert Mueller found no collusion between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government), the two countries’ relationship is as bad as it has ever been.
The potential for miscommunication, misinterpretation or miscalculation is at an all-time high- Mark Manduca
As such, the potential for miscommunication, misinterpretation or miscalculation is at an all-time high, with new missiles being introduced that if launched or thought to be launched, reduce the response time of both countries significantly, thus increasing the chances of nuclear war.
In fact, President Putin recently announced Russia successfully tested the Sarmat intercontinental missile, a weapon that would have been banned under the INF treaty due to its range.
What does give me hope is that William Burns, the current CIA director who was US Ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008, has a deep understanding of how Russia thinks. While Ambassador in Moscow he wrote the cable ‘Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines’ in 2008. Below is a portion of that cable:
“Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.
“Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”
The above quote is in no way a justification of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or its actions in Georgia but is intended to show Burns’ understanding of Russia’s train of thought.
A new INF Treaty is paramount to world peace. Given current US-Russia relations, this seems highly unlikely. However, should there be another ‘Abel Archer 83’ moment; one would hope that William Burns would be his generation’s Leonard Perroots.
Mark Manduca has a Master’s degree in Diplomatic Studies from the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies.