Press Releases

Thornberry, Nunes warn of Russian Nuke Violations

f t # e
Washington, October 19, 2016 | comments

Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), and Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairmen respectively of the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, this week urged the White House to take seriously Russian breaches of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, implement promised sanctions, and develop military options to confront new Russian weapons. In the letter the Chairmen assert that Russia "is now in material breach” of the INF treaty. Regarded as a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament agreements, the INF Treaty is the only arms control treaty that successfully eliminated a class of nuclear weapons.

As a result of Russia’s actions, the Chairmen are concerned that U.S. forces as well as our allies in East Asia and Europe will soon be at risk from intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs). Military leaders have warned that it will be next-to-impossible to detect when these missiles are deployed.  

Commenting on the letter, Chairman Thornberry said:

“This Administration is quick to react when the Russians release information relating to the election, but when it comes to violating nuclear treaties, the President only seems willing to drag his feet. To be clear, any Russian involvement in our political process is unacceptable. But  this Administration's failure to confront the Russians for cheating on the INF treaty encourages more Russian misbehavior and leads to a more dangerous world.”

Chairman Nunes said:

“The Obama Administration’s lack of response to Russia’s flagrant violations of the INF treaty is yet another misstep contributing to the spreading perception of American weakness and indecisiveness. The ‘strategic patience’ touted by this Administration is a ridiculous euphemism for passivity and paralysis that invites further aggressive actions by Russia and other international pariahs. ‘Strategic patience’ is a misleading description of this Administration’s policy – it is more accurate to call it ‘strategic incoherence.’”


f t # e