INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

This is why, Russia has a different position on them:

https://www.rt.com/politics/189904-russia-inf-treaty-ivanov/

Russia won’t quit nuclear forces treaty unless it faces ‘serious threat’ – Kremlin

Published time: 23 Sep, 2014 12:53

Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

“Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160512/1039489776/russia-start-air-defense.html

Russia Could Drop START Treaty Due to New Air Defense Systems in Europe

13:49 12.05.2016

Moscow could withdraw from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in response to new air defense systems being deployed in Eastern Europe, a senior Russian official said.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia could exit the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in response to the deployment of new air defense systems in Eastern Europe, the head of Russia's Arms Committee in the upper house of parliament said Thursday.

“This is obviously an extreme measure and I hope this won’t go that far, but it’s no coincidence that the Russian Parliament in ratifying the new START included a clause that the deployment of air defense systems could be one of the reasons Russia leaves the agreement,” Viktor Ozerov said.

On Thursday, the US Aegis Ashore air defense system is to be officially deployed in Romania, and on Friday the construction of a similar complex is to begin in Poland.

The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

Yeah... they are bombed Libya and Syria and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to defend themselves... right...

The Baltic states and Poland sending weapons to the Ukraine is pure defence of course... and US tanks in the Baltic states is all about peace and democracy...

The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

Offensive in both senses of the word... and by defacto becomes NATOs strategy... which Russia has to deal with. It does not matter if Greece or Italy or France means Russia no harm when the US drags them into a conflict with Russia they will have little choice or say in the matter.

Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

Russia will continue to abide by the INF and new Start treaties but when it no longer suits Russias interests or gets in the way of things they will withdraw from those treaties when it suits.

The US can continue to ignore Russias protests at its peril.

Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

“Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

All Putin has to say is that the US controlled ABM system in Europe undermines Russias nuclear deterrent and to restore MAD they need to produce IRBMs meaning they need to withdraw from the INF treaty and also possibly the New Start treaty too.

It could be an over night thing like the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

Before quitting the INF and Start Russia needs to build up a stock pile of nuclear warheads like Uncle Scam.
Apparently there is a technicality that allows storage of warheads as opposed to their immediate destruction after
an ICBM is scrapped. The US has a vast pool of such warheads which is a serious concern for Russia.

GarryB wrote:All Putin has to say is

Putin knows which is the nature of the defense strategy of every European country. He knows perfectly what to say, and how to avoid the plans of those who want to raise tensions between the European countries and Russia.

Before quitting the INF and Start Russia needs to build up a stock pile of nuclear warheads like Uncle Scam.
Apparently there is a technicality that allows storage of warheads as opposed to their immediate destruction after
an ICBM is scrapped. The US has a vast pool of such warheads which is a serious concern for Russia.

Actually it is not a huge concern.

Russia has made money selling their deenriched nuclear material to commercial companies in the US for use as reactor fuel for nuclear power stations, while the US has stockpiled their warheads.

The new nuclear reactors being developed by Russia are fast neutron reactors... also called breeder reactors... nuclear waste is greatly reduced and can be recycled into fuel grade or even weapons grade material through the normal use of the standard reactors.

Building up enormous numbers of nuclear weapons wont be a problem...

Putin knows which is the nature of the defense strategy of every European country. He knows perfectly what to say, and how to avoid the plans of those who want to raise tensions between the European countries and Russia.

And yet US ABM systems are still being installed in Europe and US tank forces are moving into position in Baltic states...

The west is trying to impose pressure on Russia... moving military forces east, banning Russian athletes from international sports, taking over the administration of Soccer and imposing their own west friendly administrators... not something new.

When Putin has had enough he will push back in an appropriate way.

The INF treaty and New START treaties are two ways he can choose to push back.

When the other side is cheating by setting up ABM systems then it makes no sense to limit the number of ICBMs you are allowed to have and to ban the existence of IRBMs completely.

The CFE treaty was very useful to Russia because it was a way of limiting the ground forces of NATO... but when they refuse to comply with that treaty until Russian forces leave South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Nogorno Karabakh, it makes little sense for Russia to honour such a treaty.

If the US is going to build ABM systems in Europe then it makes no sense for Russia to limit its nuclear forces there too.

I know that Russia can manufacture warheads. But having them on the shelf and having them produced are two different things.
In the case of the USA it is likely that it also has stocks of ICBM parts, including the solid rocket fuel, so it can assemble ICBMs on
short notice. Russia has not prepared itself this way. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Having old ones in storage is not that ideal.

With a few operational breeder reactors Russia should be able to rapidly build up nuclear weapons grade material if it needs to.

GarryB, what you are promoting about the INF Treaty, not only goes against the interest of Russia, even goes in favor of the interest of the US. It would be better if you pay more attention to what Russia said about both treaties, because there are reasons for it.

eehnie wrote:https://www.rt.com/politics/189904-russia-inf-treaty-ivanov/

Russia won’t quit nuclear forces treaty unless it faces ‘serious threat’ – Kremlin

Published time: 23 Sep, 2014 12:53

Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

“Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160512/1039489776/russia-start-air-defense.html

Russia Could Drop START Treaty Due to New Air Defense Systems in Europe

13:49 12.05.2016

Moscow could withdraw from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in response to new air defense systems being deployed in Eastern Europe, a senior Russian official said.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia could exit the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in response to the deployment of new air defense systems in Eastern Europe, the head of Russia's Arms Committee in the upper house of parliament said Thursday.

“This is obviously an extreme measure and I hope this won’t go that far, but it’s no coincidence that the Russian Parliament in ratifying the new START included a clause that the deployment of air defense systems could be one of the reasons Russia leaves the agreement,” Viktor Ozerov said.

On Thursday, the US Aegis Ashore air defense system is to be officially deployed in Romania, and on Friday the construction of a similar complex is to begin in Poland.

GarryB wrote:Having old ones in storage is not that ideal.

With a few operational breeder reactors Russia should be able to rapidly build up nuclear weapons grade material if it needs to.

It is the Tritium that has a short shelf life.  The fission core lasts much longer since the half life of Plutonium is very long.

Anyway, my point was about Russia actually having a warhead reserve and not waiting until there is not time to build them.
Since America gives itself the flexibility to ramp up its deployed warhead numbers, Russia must do the same.

The problem is that in Russia they actually believe in peace and arms reduction.  Uncle Scam is a psycho who only thinks
about his own ambition.

GarryB, what you are promoting about the INF Treaty, not only goes against the interest of Russia, even goes in favor of the interest of the US. It would be better if you pay more attention to what Russia said about both treaties, because there are reasons for it.

The US building ABM systems in Europe and Asia and moving armoured forces closer to Russias border is not in Russias interests either.

The reasons for the INF treaty were sensible and logical in the 1980s when it was signed and it made everything safer... But now it makes rather less sense for Russia.

Russia wont withdraw from the INF treaty unless if faces a serious threat... and US operated ABM facilities in eastern europe represent a serious threat...

More importantly why should Russia limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon platforms when the US is free to base as many ABM missiles around Russias border as it pleases...

If they are going to withdraw from New START then withdrawing from INF makes sense too... they already have excellent short range missiles in their inventory... adding medium range missiles means less demand for manned aircraft or indeed the use of strategic missiles for theatre range targets.

A few thousand 5,000km range land based cruise missiles would be cheap to build and easy to maintain and simple to operate.

Fit them with conventional warheads and they could be used in a range of conventional conflicts too... use up older missiles and introduce new models ready for service to replace them in the inventory.

Anyway, my point was about Russia actually having a warhead reserve and not waiting until there is not time to build them.
Since America gives itself the flexibility to ramp up its deployed warhead numbers, Russia must do the same.

It would probably take as long to make the extra ICBMs and SLBMs as it would to make the warheads...

The new breeder reactors means making lots of warheads quickly would be simple and cheap. They don't need the problems of long term storage of nuclear warheads... But in times of tension they could create quite a large stockpile of warheads fairly rapidly.

Very recent words of the Minister of Defense of Russia:

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160814/1044256113/russia-army-rearmament.html

Western countries should stop "stirring up hysteria" intimidating its own population and understand that Russia is ready and open for dialogue, Russian Defense Minister said.

"What are we opposing? We say… there is a balance. If you use the current situation, stirring up the hysteria to refill your budget so that the plants get additional profit – that is your issue… But I would like to say: stop intimidating your population… We want our colleagues to stop at some point and understand that we are open and ready for dialogue," Shoigu told Rossiya-1 TV-channel.

This quote shows how Russia is understanding very well the situation in Europe, country by country. Obviously these words are not compatible with a rupture by Russia of the INF Treaty that is very oriented to Europe. GarryB is just understanding not it, or just ignoring one of the most important points of the Russian strategy.

It is the US who want the INF Treaty to be broken (even Russia denounced the US by doing things that break it). The US is interested in the rupture of this very European oriented Treaty, because the rupture of this Treaty would make most of the European governments to enter in panic (real or fictitious), would make them to increase significantly their defense budgets and would make them to allow far bigger amounts of US weapons and military forces of all the types in Europe. This also would help to the US to distract a good number of Russian nuclear warheads from the US to Europe.

But unlike in the case of the rupture of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, that costed them the rupture of the START II Treaty by Russia the following day, they want to blame someone else (Russia) in the case of the INF Treaty.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_01-02/docjanfeb02

http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-united-states-america-and-union-soviet-socialist-republics-strategic-offensive-reductions-start-ii/

2002: On 13 June, US President Bush declared that the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which he had announced 6 months earlier in accordance with the Treaty's provisions, was formally taking effect, thereby marking the end of the ABM Treaty. On 14 June, the Russian Federation announced its withdrawal from the START II Treaty due to US refusal to ratify the Treaty and to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

The first step against the ABM Treaty was the initial plan of GW Bush with Poland and the Czech Republic, what Obama stoped in 2009. Thanks to it, in 2010 was signed the START III Treaty. Now Obama is going forward by the GW Bush way on Anti-Ballistic missiles, which means that the START III Treaty is likely death.

Russia is not silly, Russia knows very well who is trying to make to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. Russia knows that is the US who is back of all it. And the result of these policies of the US against Russia, will be very likely to have more Russian nuclear warheads looking at the US. While the START III restricts it, the INF has not effect on it.

Russia would probably benefit way more with introduction of more long range cruise missiles for airplanes and ground launch. Greather than 5,500 KM. If they can develop them to be cheap enough to produce, then they could bypass these treaties and produce a massive arsenal of smart bombs that can be equipped with either conventional warheads or nuclear in short notice. Saturation attack is still the killer.

This quote shows how Russia is understanding very well the situation in Europe, country by country. Obviously these words are not compatible with a rupture by Russia of the INF Treaty that is very oriented to Europe. GarryB is just understanding not it, or just ignoring one of the most important points of the Russian strategy.

I am not suggesting Russia wants to start WWIII... that is the Americans.

What I am suggesting is that America is trying to push a wedge between europe and Russia and China and Russia and China and europe etc etc.

Their tactic is to turn everyone against everyone else to maintain its advantages over everyone else including russia, china and europe.

Russia wont leave the INF treaty and New START treaties so they can massively arm up and intimidate the west.

The US does not listen to Russia and the only way Russia can get the US to listen is bold initiatives and even then they ignore or show as proof of Russian aggression.

The US is moving military forces east and is building and ABM system east as well... system that is pretty basic in its early stages but in its later developments will likely become more and more capable against a wider range of threats.

As it gets improvements a wider range of deterrents are needed to counter it... I am suggesting exiting new Start because that will push buttons in America... not so much a reset as a "WTF".

If the US builds an ABM system then a simple solution is to step away from an agreement limiting your ballistic missiles.

The reason I suggest stepping away from the INF treaty as well is that it will allow russia to rapidly build up small cheap land launched cruise missiles in enormous numbers that are capable of killing a wide range of targets... even without using nuclear warheads in some cases.

This will not be all roses for Russia... the US can produce lots of missiles with its money printing machines but after they destroy you once the second and tenth times are not so important, but making sure they know if they start something they are dead is very important.

The most dangerous thing in the world is the US thinking it can win a nuclear war because it has limited Russian nuclear weapons and it has a missile shield to launch an attack from behind.

It does not matter if the shield will work or not... the only way to know is after an attack and by then it is too late for everyone.

because the rupture of this Treaty would make most of the European governments to enter in panic (real or fictitious), would make them to increase significantly their defense budgets and would make them to allow far bigger amounts of US weapons and military forces of all the types in Europe. This also would help to the US to distract a good number of Russian nuclear warheads from the US to Europe.

More US bases in europe will cost the US more money for little to no gain in safety.

The Russians can have as many IRBMs as they like with as many nukes on them as they like if they withdraw from the INF treaty. New Start deals with strategic weapons only so IRBMs are not counted... if Russia withdraws from new Start they can have as many nukes of any kind as they like. If they only withdraw from INF they are limited to 1,500 warheads in February 2018.... before and after that date they can have as many as they want.

They can have 10,000 deployed warheads on January 2018, come february they could withdraw from service 8,500 and put them back into service in march 2018 and fully comply with new Start.

But unlike in the case of the rupture of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, that costed them the rupture of the START II Treaty by Russia the following day, they want to blame someone else (Russia) in the case of the INF Treaty.

The INF treaty is like the ABM treaty... either side can withdraw with proper warning of their intention to do so.

The first step against the ABM Treaty was the initial plan of GW Bush with Poland and the Czech Republic, what Obama stoped in 2009. Thanks to it, in 2010 was signed the START III Treaty. Now Obama is going forward by the GW Bush way on Anti-Ballistic missiles, which means that the START III Treaty is likely death.

Russia is not silly, Russia knows very well who is trying to make to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. Russia knows that is the US who is back of all it. And the result of these policies of the US against Russia, will be very likely to have more Russian nuclear warheads looking at the US. While the START III restricts it, the INF has not effect on it.

Without the ABM treaty limiting ABM defences the START treaties have very little meaning.

As the US spends more and more on ABM systems around the place the new start treaty becomes a liability.

ABM treaty is like an agreement not to wear body armour, while the starts are agreements on dueling... how many pistols you are allowed and what magazine capacities you can have etc etc

A real pistol is nothing like what you see in the movies or computer games they are dreadfully inaccurate and low powered... they trade range and power and accuracy for small size and low weight.

You dont aim for the other guys heart with a pistol... you aim centre of mass and hope for a hit.

The US is demanding Russia only have a five round pistol mag as it is slipping on a bullet proof vest and a helmet.

It doesn't realise the Russians have developed guided bullets, so it is rather keen to start a gun fight it thinks it can win...

Russias goal is not to get the fight started... it is to set up conditions where the US knows everyone loses if the fight is started by either side.

If the US puts on its ABM shield that might require Russia to withdraw from the INF treaty and Start treaties and just say I am going to have thousands of rounds so no matter how effective your vest and helmet are you are going to bleed to death and die like me if we start anything... so don't start anything.

MAD = Mutually assured destruction.

BTW seph, cruise missiles with flight ranges of more than 5,500km are considered strategic weapons and subject to new Start in terms of numbers of warheads and launch platforms.... but I do agree a 5,000km range cruise missile would be very useful to russia for targets in ME and europe and even northern US.

Russia Welcomes US Offer to Hold Special INF Treaty Commission in November

Russia welcomes the United States' offer to to convene a Special Verification Commission (SVC) of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty next month, the Russian Foreign Ministry's head of Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department said Friday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Mikhail Ulyanov told RIA Novosti that the SVC is envisioned in the 1987 INF Treaty, with its functioning parameters outlined in a Soviet-US memorandum followed by a five-party memorandum with the participation of Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus.

"In accordance with the rules, any party may convene the SVC meeting. The US took advantage of their right, we have responded positively, that is their right. They have now decided to use this platform to continue the conversation 13 years after the previous meeting, when the US curtailed the work of this commission," Ulyanov said.

He added that Moscow plans to discuss three topics with the US at the SVC session in Geneva sometime in mid-November.

"The first two are combat drones and target drones. These questions have been 'stalled' since 2001, when we first voiced concerns to the US and are yet to receive a satisfactory response," Ulyanov said.

"The third question is about Mk-41 launchers, which arose in connection with the construction of missile defense components in Romania. It is relatively new at two-three years, but here we have not received convincing answers. The US reacts very superficially, and that creates problems," the official stressed.

The 1987 INF treaty prohibits the development, deployment or testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.

In May, the United States activated its Aegis ashore ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) in Romania equipped with the Mk-41 launcher. The Russian Foreign Ministry called the deployment of Mk-41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) in Europe "a relatively new and rather serious violation of the INF Treaty." Moscow claims Mk-41 is capable of launching the Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles. Such a capability is prohibited by the INF Treaty.

Another Aegis ashore site is under construction in Poland. These sites are parts of the US-designated ballistic missile defense system in Europe, approved in 2010 during a NATO summit in Lisbon.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610211046581736-russia-us-inf-commission/

Article on Putin's comments today. Couldn't resist linking it to this thread

today, Putin explains:

*PUTIN: INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY SHOULD BE OBSERVED
*PUTIN: RUSSIA, U.S. MUST BREAK VICIOUS CIRCLE OF CONFRONTATION
*PUTIN: RUSSIA HAS TO DEVELOP ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SYSTEMS
*PUTIN: U.S. PUSHED RUSSIA TO ARMS RACE IN NUCLEAR SPHERE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/putin-warns-us-has-pushed-russia-back-nuclear-arms-race

JohninMK wrote:Article on Putin's comments today. Couldn't resist linking it to this thread  

today, Putin explains:

   *PUTIN: INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY SHOULD BE OBSERVED
   *PUTIN: RUSSIA, U.S. MUST BREAK VICIOUS CIRCLE OF CONFRONTATION
   *PUTIN: RUSSIA HAS TO DEVELOP ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SYSTEMS
   *PUTIN: U.S. PUSHED RUSSIA TO ARMS RACE IN NUCLEAR SPHERE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/putin-warns-us-has-pushed-russia-back-nuclear-arms-race

you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons

I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum

Unreliable Narrator's picture

Unreliable Narrator pot_and_kettle Oct 27, 2016 1:13 PM
The difference betwen Putin and Hillbama is that Putin follows through. Hillbama just farts. Sometimes the farts sound like words. Sometimes not.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons      

I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum  

Thanks, I quite like their default paper bag and I enjoy adding, as far as I can, useful information to the site.

I know its a pretty pro Putin site, although I think that is primarily because many of them there are anti the US Government rather than pro Russia. But there is a lot of respect expressed for Putin himself.

JohninMK wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons      

I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum  

Thanks, I quite like their default paper bag and I enjoy adding, as far as I can, useful information to the site.

I know its a pretty pro Putin site, although I think that is primarily because many of them there are anti the US Government rather than pro Russia. But there is a lot of respect expressed for Putin himself.

Well said, I wish normal Americans or Brits have something to say in their Orwell states.

The INF treaty limits nuclear missiles in Europe so it is good, but it only restricts Russia and the US, but not any other NATO country, which is bad.

If the US pushes forward with land based AEGIS sites in Europe no doubt Russia will leave the INF treaty because of that violation.

I am sure Russia would rather keep the INF treaty but if the US persists in breaching the treaty what else can Russia do?

In the late 80s when the INF treaty with signed and the IRBM were scrapped how did the ussr plan to compensate for their loss in the short term ?
I mean they were only left with SCUD and FROg rockets for delivering TNW
I've heard that the AS 15 of bear H and SSN 6 Serb of Yankee class were a way to compensate for them ?
Or am I missing some other missiles they had in the IRBM category at that time ?

They still had thousands of ICBM warheads able to complete the task of obliterating the west.

The short range of the IRBMs made them destabilising and therefore rather dangerous and so it was useful to remove them from service then.

There were few systems able to intercept such threats so with less than 5 minutes to decide it was a real attack or a mistake everything was on a hair trigger for a while.

The INF treaty solved those issues.

Now of course with IADS and new SAMs able to engage all sorts of very high speed targets things have changed as the chance of shooting down an IRBM is much better.

Also the shift of balance of power where all of the warsaw pact is now part of NATO and even former parts of the soviet union are now enemies of Russia things become rather different.

treaties limiting missiles are one thing but when the other side builds ABM systems right on your doorstep things change and priorities change with them.

In the US Congress introduced a bill that would lead to the termination of the Treaty on the Elimination of INF

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2442801.html

Whole thing is really odd.

Russia has been complaining of 3 different US breaches for years but US refuses to address them.
I actually read the treaty & came to the conclusion US is clearly in breach for 2, not clear about the 3rd.
Specifically:

Article II
2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

1988 note from US to USSR
the Parties share a common understanding that the term "weapon-delivery vehicle" in the Treaty means any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile in the 500 kilometer to 5500 kilometer range that has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon -- that is, any warhead, mechanism or device, which, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it. Therefore, the Treaty requires elimination and bans production and flight-testing of all such missiles tested or deployed to carry or be used as weapons based on either current or future technologies

This is clearly & undeniably breached by US armed drones like Reaper.
Reaper is:

• Unmanned
  
• Self propelled
  
• A vehicle
  
• Which flies with aerodynamic lift
  
• And carries weapons to destroy ground targets
  

From recollection the US claims Drones are excluded because:
They aren't 'launched' -but launch method isn't defined in the treaty presumably specifically to exclude clever work-arounds. Many (admittedly smaller & probably sub 500km) drones do use launch rails & even canisters.
They are ground piloted -but guidance method isn't defined in the treaty presumably specifically to exclude clever work-arounds. Many missiles are manually guided eg Maverick & TOW.
They fire missiles but don't themselves have a warhead -but the treaty & 1988 US note clearly envisage multi-stage missiles & missiles which deliver their warhead as sub-munitions.


AEGIS Ashore with Mk 41 launchers is clearly a breach of the launcher clauses.
US claims it doesn't count because they don't have Tomahawk guidance software or missiles present, but the physical launcher & electronic equipment is the same, only needs a software change to enable.
Just because a launcher doesn't currently have missiles doesn't exclude it from the treaty, its the physical existence of the launcher that is a breach.

The 3rd one is US ABM test ballistic target, US claims its 'scientific' & there is an appropriate clause for that in the treaty.
Question is if 'scientific' can reasonably include military weapon testing, I'd have thought the intent of the 'science' clause would be civilian science.
It's hard to see it as a serious breach but forcing US to destroy them would be handy politically for Russia since it would hurt US ABM development.


Meanwhile US is currently complaining about Russian Iskander-M which appears to be using essentially the same Calibr missile as used in ships, with reported & proven range well within the INF range.
The existing missile is shorter with 500km range but it's not clear to me that the longer new missile necessarily matches the ship launched Calibr in range: they could be using the extra length for a bigger warhead & a bit of extra fuel to come out with an equal range.
Doubtful that full range would be over 5500km.

If it is the full range missile its hard to fathom exactly WTH Russia is doing? It would be an obvious, complete breach.
Arguably its a response to US breaches but if so surely Russia should publicly say 'this is our response to US clear & persistent breaches'.
Maybe the intent is to provide leverage for negotiations with US around ABM/bringing other countries in to INF?
But if they just want to build missiles in that range they should surely have pulled out of the treaty like US did with ABM treaty.

Reading this http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7449/more-details-on-kratos-optionally-expendable-air-combat-drones-emerge
Even if you don't think the ones that take off from runways count as 'missiles' the XQ-222 is absolutely an INF breach

it can fly a 3,000 mile one way trip when being used as in a disposable manner.
...it launches via rocket assisted takeoff from a stand