• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
Democracy
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Pranay Vaddi"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Russia Has Less Than Sixty Days to Save the INF Treaty

The United States is not bluffing with the new deadline it has given Russia to return to compliance.

Link Copied
By Pranay Vaddi
Published on Dec 10, 2018
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

What’s happening?

The United States has given Russia a sixty-day deadline to return to compliance before it gets rid of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, in an announcement that caught European and Asian allies off-guard.

According to a leaked memo, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton ordered the Pentagon to “develop and deploy ground-launched missiles at the earliest possible date.” This makes it unlikely that the treaty will survive.

If Russia wishes to preserve the INF Treaty, it should propose steps to return to compliance. The U.S. side has been explicit about what Russia needs to do. But, given Moscow’s lack of interest in the treaty, a strategy that places the entire fate of the INF on Russia probably won’t be successful.

Why does it matter?

Scrapping the INF Treaty has grave implications. Given Russia’s development of an intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile that was banned by the treaty, it would seem the arms race has already restarted. 

So far, the race is one-sided. U.S. officials have been careful to say they do not plan to deploy INF-banned systems in Europe. Given the time, cost, and political effort required to start a new weapons program, the lack of obvious places to base it, and the dynamics of the new U.S. congress, they are almost certainly telling the truth.

The Trump administration is not interested in renegotiation. The administration likely considers it too late now, after five-plus years of diplomacy, to embark on a renegotiation, and in general has a dim view of the current arms control arrangements with Russia.

What’s next? 

It is unclear how the end of this treaty will affect other global players—especially China, whose intermediate-range ballistic missiles are said to make up about 95 percent of its missile force. In the long term, if the United States and Russia begin to deploy formerly banned missiles, China may respond by deploying more intermediate-range ballistic missiles. 

As with the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty—which prompted Russia to develop new weapons systems specifically designed to thwart U.S. missile defenses—the effect of the INF Treaty’s dissolution may not be known for several years or even decades.

If Russia really wants to preserve the INF Treaty, it needs to provide transparency about the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile, and then return to compliance.

Since Russia claims that the 9M729 is just another treaty-compliant cruise missile, a goodwill gesture would be to exhibit the missile, along with any other cruise missiles intended for Russia’s Iskander missile complex. This would not necessarily fix the noncompliance—but it could provide a path toward potential resolution.

Pranay Vaddi
Former Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
SecurityNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesRussia

Carnegie 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.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Kushner and Putin shaking hands, with Witkoff standing next to them
    Commentary
    Emissary
    What If Trump Gets His Russia-Ukraine Deal?

    It’s dangerous to dismiss Washington’s shambolic diplomacy out of hand.

      Eric Ciaramella

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Attract Foreign Investment and Reduce Dependencies?

    EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Article
    What Can the EU Do About Trump 2.0?

    Europe’s policy of subservience to the Trump administration has failed. For Washington to take the EU seriously, its leaders now need to combine engagement with robust pushback.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    To Survive, the EU Must Split

    Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Escalation Dynamics Under the Nuclear Shadow—India’s Approach
    Paper
    Escalation Dynamics Under the Nuclear Shadow—India’s Approach

    An exploration into how India and Pakistan have perceived each other’s manipulations, or lack thereof, of their nuclear arsenals.

      • Rakesh Sood

      Rakesh Sood

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.