{
"authors": [
"Mikhail Troitskiy"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
The dispute between Moscow and Washington about Russia’s new missile allegedly breaching the INF Treaty might signify the rising risk of a breakdown of arms control arrangements between the United States and Russia.
In the run-up to the Munich Security Conference, new details of the dispute between Moscow and Washington about Russia's new missile allegedly breaching the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty became available to the media. U.S. officials shared their concerns with NATO allies in mid-January. On January 30, U.S. State Department admitted the existence of a potential INF compliance issue but emphasized that it was still under inter-agency review. News about the Russian missile initially broke last fall when the source of the contradiction was said to be the Russian RS-26 missile. However, as was immediately noticed by pundits, RS-26 had been tested, at least once, at an intercontinental range which exempts it from the INF Treaty limits. Citing intelligence sources, Washington has now explained that the problem is posed by a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) that has been undergoing tests in Russia over the last several years. In the absence of formal complaints from the American side, Russia has so far refused officially to comment on U.S. claims and hinted that the United States might itself be guilty of violating the treaty.
Some U.S. analysts reacted to the news by arguing that because GLCM requires a multi-year development cycle, Moscow made the decision to circumvent INF a while ago which shows that Russia is unreliable as a counterpart in arms control treaties. Another influential expert opined that Moscow is simply not interested in any further arms control treaties.
Both sides can still choose reassurance over politicization of the dispute. The United States is interested in Russia's support in negotiations with Iran and in the smooth functioning of the New START verification regime. For these and several other reasons, Washington may choose not to up the ante by releasing more details about the missile in question.
And yet the GLCM showdown might signify something worse than a short-lived misunderstanding—the rising risk of a breakdown of arms control arrangements between the United States and Russia. After Washington announced the deployment of new naval missile defense capabilities in Europe on February 1st, Moscow recalled the possibility of walking out of the New START. If the coincidence in time of bickering over GLCM and missile defense was not accidental, we may be in for a major inflammation in the U.S.-Russia relationships. Mutual recriminations over Ukraine will not help to resolve the outstanding arms control issues, so diplomatic tension between Moscow and Washington can easily wind up to a new high.
Mikhail Troitskiy is an associate professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. His Twitter account is @MikhailTroitski.
Mikhail Troitskiy
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai
On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.
Tejas Bharadwaj
The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.
Arun K. Singh