https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13296/nuclear-inf-treaty-withdrawal
Russia has violated not only the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), but, according to former senior White House nuclear arms official Frank Miller, every major arms-control agreement it has signed with the United States.
The same kind of deception has been characteristic of China.
The truth is that there is no INF arms-control regime to be saved. It is senseless to pine for a treaty that only one power — the United States — observes. Self-abnegation here only enables others to shoot first and make threats that the US cannot answer.
The US renunciation of the 1987 United States-Soviet Union Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has generated much skepticism in the arms-control community — particularly in much of Europe, and from Japan.
These countries hoped not only to keep Russia and the United States in the 1987 treaty (despite Russia’s major violations of the INF treaty), but persuade China to become a party to the treaty and thus be forced to eliminate the hundreds of INF-range missiles China has deployed in Asia and ranged against US and its allied interests.
Critics have presented the following five main arguments against the US move:
It enables Russia to build as many INF missiles as it likes, while simultaneously allowing Moscow to blame Washington for reneging on the treaty.
It imperils the entire structure of arms control, including the possible 2021 extension of the United States-Russia 2010 New START Treaty.
It would require extensive consultation with Europe or risk undermining allied cohesion and offering Moscow new targets in its campaign of political warfare against the NATO alliance.
It is unnecessary — despite Russian violations — because the US has adequate conventional air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles to keep Russia at risk and defend Europe, and presumably America’s Pacific allies, against China.
It concedes a strategic advantage to Russia, since no INF-equivalent missile is in production by the United States to match Russian INF missile deployments.
These arguments, however, do not hold up to scrutiny.