Harald Kujat, Gen (ret), Berlin The end of America’s commitment to protect Europe Trump’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty

The end of America’s commitment to protect Europe Withdrawal from the INF Treaty – the new geostrategic thinking by the USA

by Harald Kujat, General (ret.), former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Berlin

The signing of the INF Treaty by US President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, brought an end to a decade in which the nuclear threat to Europe had grown steadily larger. The Western countries in which American deterrence nuclear systems were to be stationed as a consequence of the so-called “double-track” decision had experienced vigorous political opposition. The peace movement had staged mass demonstrations. In terms of arms control, the INF Treaty broke new ground: the contracting parties undertook to destroy their ground based short- and medium-range nuclear systems with a range between 500km and 5500km and to no longer develop, build, test or deploy such systems in the future.

The struggle for European security The Soviet SS-20 missiles with three nuclear warheads threatened the whole of Europe but not the American continent. This superior euro-strategic potential in Europe could have led to an uncoupling from the strategic nuclear potential of the USA, entailing the risk of a nuclear conflict confined to Europe. The German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, therefore demanded that Soviet medium-range nuclear weapons be included in the SALT arms control negotiations between the two nuclear superpowers or, alternatively, dealt with in a separate treaty. In 1979 he finally succeeded in persuading NATO to adopt the double-track decision, according to which the deployment of American Pershing II and cruise missile in Europe would go hand in hand with the willingness to start talks about their removal and that of the corresponding Soviet systems. On 1 June 1988, the INF Treaty entered into force. By May 1991, the United States had destroyed 846 missiles and the Soviet Union 1846. The verification regime ended on 31 May 2001. On 20 October 2018, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, despite the fact that only on 12 July 2018, he had approved a joint statement of NATO Heads of State and Government which said that “The Intermediate Range Nuclear (INF) Treaty has been crucial to Euro-Atlantic security and we remain fully committed to the preservation of this landmark arms control treaty.”

Russia’s quest for geostrategic advantage If Russia were to attempt once again to use medium-range nuclear missiles to gain a strategic advantage in Europe, Europe’s position would be very similar to that of 1979. Will Russia try once again to foil America’s nuclear deterrence capability? For some years now, the USA has been accusing Russia of violating the treaty, in particular because of its production of land-based SSC-8 cruise missiles. For its part, Russia is concerned that the United States is taking advantage of NATO’s ballistic missile defence system, the Aegis Ashore Missile Defence System (AAMDS) in Romania with a vertical launching system possibly capable of launching cruise missiles. If Russia continues deploying SSC-8 cruise missiles against Europe, NATO’s nuclear deterrent, including US strategic nuclear systems – the decisive security guarantee for all allies – would no longer be effective. NATO’s Strategic Concept could no longer be pursued and Europe’s autonomy and security would no longer be guaranteed. The USA’s withdrawal would make little difference if Russia is indeed intending to pursue such a policy by violating the

46 It is also doubtful whether such negotiations would lead to an outcome with Russia and China that would be anywhere near as effective as the zero option of the current treaty. As the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) agreement has led to considerable cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both the USA and Russia, the two sides would be keen to maintain a sufficient second-strike capability towards each other as well as towards China. In view of the overall geostrategic situation, withdrawal from the INF treaty may therefore serve the long-term interests of both the USA and Russia. Following his meeting with President Trump on 16 July 2018 in Helsinki, President Putin announced talks on the INF Treaty. The hope that both Russia and the USA would make a serious attempt to preserve the treaty and agree to extend the lapsed inspection regime, including to NATO’s missile defence systems, will probably come to nothing. It is more likely that the US administration intends to follow the example of the NATO double-track decision and deploy American land-based or seaborne medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a counterweight to the Russian medium-range missile systems. Europe facing a major political crisis If this were to happen, Europe could face a major political crisis. The East European NATO member countries would probably accept the presence of American nuclear weapons on their soil, even if, in view of their geographic proximity to Russia, they would be less effective. The West European allies however, who have already experienced the rejection of nuclear weapons by their peoples, will probably face even greater resistance than 40 years ago. It is hardly imaginable that European governments could accept the stationing of American nuclear weapons on their soil in the face of a broad-based nuclear disarmament movement. This would be equally true if the systems were sea-born based. INF treaty: Russia would simply have a freer hand to continue developing its euro-strategic potential, unbound by any treaty. Preserving the INF treaty would at least make it possible to attempt to constrain Russia and avoid a nuclear arms race. New thinking on US deterrence The USA moreover finds itself in a different situation to that of 40 years ago at the time of the NATO double-track decision. With China building up its strategic nuclear capability as well as medium-range nuclear systems, a serious threat has emerged, particularly in the Western Pacific. If in doubt, the USA will decide to pursue its national security interests in the Western Pacific to the detriment of its NATO allies. There are however, serious doubts as to whether China would be prepared to join negotiations for a new INF Treaty. INF-Treaty (ed/nc, Paris) The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is a nuclear arms-control accord reached by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987. The INF Treaty requires General (ret.) Harald Kujat

was born in 1942 in Mielke. He joined the German Armed Forces on 1 July 1959 and completed the 20th General Staff Course (Air Force), at the Command and Staff College, Hamburg. 1992–1995 Chief of Staff and Deputy German MilRep to the NATO Military Committee and Western European Union, Brussels. 1996–1998 Director, IFOR Coordination Centre (ICC), SHAPE, Belgium and later Assistant Director, International Military Staff (Plans & Policy) and Deputy Director, IMS, NATO Headquarters, Brussels. 1998–2000 Director of Policy and Advisory Staff to the German MOD, Berlin. 2000–2002, Chief of Defence (CHOD), Federal Armed Forces, Berlin. 2002–2005, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Brussels. Photo: private

the destruction of both parties’ ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force. In addition, two protocols to the treaty established unprecedented procedures for observers from both nations to verify firsthand the other nation’s destruction of its missiles. The treaty was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987. At the time of its signature, the Treaty’s verification regime was the most detailed and stringent in the history of nuclear arms control, designed both to eliminate all declared INF systems entirely and to ensure compliance with the total ban on possession and use of these missiles.

Shaking the foundations of the Alliance In these circumstances, Europe must assert itself more than ever vis à vis both Russia and the USA. Ever since President Trump took office, the allies have feared that they can no longer count on the unwavering solidarity of the United Sates. Even now, Trump is pursuing a trade war against his allies, in itself a violation of the NATO Treaty. On top of that, if the strategic interests of the United States and Russia were to be aligned in withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the European allies would be bound to conclude that this lack of consideration for their security is tantamount to the betrayal of solidarity within the Alliance. Thus, there is reason to fear that the withdrawal from the INF Treaty marks the beginning of an internal conflict between Europe and the USA that might shake the North Atlantic Alliance to its very foundations.