By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the collapse of the INF Treaty, Russia declared it would no longer adhere to its “self-restrictions” on deploying medium- and short-range missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry cited a lack of reciprocity and listed alleged violations as justification for this decision. These self-imposed limitations were initially adopted after the U.S. and Russia withdrew from the INF Treaty in August 2019, with each side accusing the other of treaty violations. Consequently, Russia now views the conditions for maintaining its moratorium on these weapons as obsolete.
Read the original article here
Russia has announced that it will no longer adhere to “self-restrictions” on deploying medium- and short-range missiles, which it declared after the collapse of the corresponding missile treaty with the United States. Well, that’s quite the announcement, isn’t it? It feels like a rather predictable turn of events, honestly. We saw this coming, or at least, we shouldn’t be surprised. This, after all, is Russia. It’s a move that seems to confirm what many have suspected for a while: the treaty was already effectively dead. It’s not like they were sticking to the rules before, anyway.
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife. This treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed way back in 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev, was supposed to limit and eliminate missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The whole thing was a cornerstone of arms control during the Cold War. It was designed to prevent open development and deployment of these missiles and, crucially, ensure that the existing stockpiles were destroyed, with inspection procedures until 2001. The treaty’s demise, however, seemed to start with Russia’s repeated violations, especially when they brazenly showed off the 9M729 missile launched from the Iskandar-M mobile launcher in 2019. Essentially, Russia broke the rules first, making any talk of “self-restrictions” seem like a bad joke.
Now, what does this actually *mean*? Well, it means that Russia is free to deploy these types of missiles. They’ve removed the self-imposed limitations on their military capabilities in this specific area. Consider this, before, those old ATACMs missiles were constrained to a 300 km range because of the treaty. The US now has missiles like the PrSM, which far exceeds that limit, with the increment 1 rated at 500km, the increment 2 rated at 700km, and even options over 1000km. But what about the missiles Russia might send to Belarus? Less flight time to maternity wards and childcare centers, as someone quipped. The implications are definitely concerning when considering the potential targets.
The immediate impact of this is a further degradation of the arms control architecture that we’ve relied on for decades. It’s another nail in the coffin, if you will. Russia loves to play the victim card and decry any action by the US or Europe as potential escalation, but it’s a bit rich coming from a country actively deploying dual-use systems that could be nuclear-tipped, particularly when they’re already using conventional warheads. This adds another layer of complexity to an already precarious situation.
And let’s be clear: Russia’s word has always been questionable in these matters. They’ve consistently broken promises and disregarded agreements. Let’s not forget the rhetoric either, with constant declarations of intentions, only to be followed by different declarations and actions. It’s a pattern. The fact that they are announcing this now, it really feels like they’re just removing the pretense.
So, what’s the ultimate goal here? It could be a multitude of things. Maybe they are shifting focus towards targeting specific military infrastructure in Ukraine. Perhaps it is about testing the waters to see how the world reacts. And there’s also the old familiar tactic of projecting their own actions onto others, blaming NATO for something they are actively doing themselves. It’s a constant game of shifting blame, of trying to make others the bad guys, while they are doing the worst things.
It’s also worth recognizing the context. The United States, and others, have been moving towards developing new weapons systems that weren’t restricted by the INF Treaty. We have to recognize that this is a new arms race of sorts. We’re entering a world where there is a greater risk of conflict, particularly if one party believes they have a military advantage.
Frankly, the whole thing is just another sad reminder of Russia’s disregard for international norms. The fact that Russia thinks they can go around the world making up claims, breaking treaties, and making the world a more dangerous place, well, that’s the tragedy. It’s a reminder that, in the end, we have to be vigilant. The world needs to be ready.