• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ulrich Kühn",
    "Pavel Zolotarev",
    "William Tobey"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "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",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

The INF Quandary: Preventing a Nuclear Arms Race in Europe

The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty poses significant implications for the future of European security, risking dangerous arms racing behavior among U.S., European, and Russian militaries.

Link Copied
By Ulrich Kühn, Pavel Zolotarev, William Tobey
Published on Jan 24, 2019
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

Source: Russia Matters

I. Introduction

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty,  signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, was a profound achievement. It was the first bilateral nuclear arms control treaty to ban an entire class of weapons. It contained verification innovations such as continuous perimeter-portal monitoring.1 The diplomatic and technical experience gained from the treaty made possible the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, or CFE. Most importantly, the INF Treaty reversed dangerous military trends in Europe that had left both sides less secure than they had been before such systems were deployed.

Now the treaty—formally called the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles—faces an existential threat posed by compliance issues that have prompted a U.S. decision to withdraw from it unless its concerns are allayed. Arms-control-treaty compliance problems are intrinsically important because they can corrode both trust and strategic stability. Moreover, if the INF Treaty falls apart, it will have a profound impact on the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship, with implications for all of Europe and likely beyond. It will affect how both sides analyze decisions on extending the New START Treaty, which is due to expire in 2021. It will likely foreclose for the foreseeable future any possibility that another nuclear arms control treaty could be ratified by the U.S. Senate. It will likely prompt deployment of new military systems, and consequent responses. It will spark controversy both in the U.S. Congress and between the United States and its allies. Finally, it would constitute decisive evidence that the United States and Russia have returned to a nuclear competition that was in abeyance for over two decades.

Thus, the fate of the INF Treaty is of surpassing importance in Europe, Russia and the United States. The stakes for the parties to the treaty are obvious. Europe too would be affected as dissolution of the treaty could lead to a new arms race with intermediate-range missiles targeting the entire continent. Below, three authors representing each of these perspectives consider the likely future of the treaty, how it might be saved and what its demise might mean. The specific questions we set out to try to answer when this issue brief was conceived late last fall are:

A. What last-minute efforts are possible to save the INF Treaty? 
B. If the INF Treaty cannot be saved, what does that mean for your country/region in the coming years? 
C. Could there be some sort of INF follow-on? What could a future arms control framework look like?

Read the article

This article was originally published in Russia Matters.

About the Authors

Ulrich Kühn

Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program

Ulrich Kühn is a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the head of the arms control and emerging technologies program at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.

Pavel Zolotarev

William Tobey

Authors

Ulrich Kühn
Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Ulrich Kühn
Pavel Zolotarev
William Tobey
SecurityMilitaryNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesRussiaEastern EuropeWestern Europe

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

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Firepower Against Willpower

    In an interview, Naysan Rafati assesses the first week that followed the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.

      Michael Young

  • A missile tail embedded in the ground in an open field with green ground cover and a blue sky.
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Turkey Has Two Key Interests in the Iran Conflict

    But to achieve either, it needs to retain Washington’s ear.

      Alper Coşkun

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?

    At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.

      Yezid Sayigh

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?

    If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.

      Nikita Smagin

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

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.