"Take Out the Missiles": Did the U.S. Ambassador to NATO Just Threaten a War Against Russia?

Dave Majumdar

Security, Europe

Kay Bailey Hutchison says that the United States could “take out” Moscow’s intermediate range missiles. Did she make a mistake? Or was it intentional? 

The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, says that the United States could “take out” Moscow’s intermediate range missiles that are being developed in contravention of the bilateral U.S-Russia Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Hutchison insists that the United States will adhere to the INF, but that Russia must stop its violation of the treaty.

“The countermeasures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty,” Hutchison told reporters on Oct. 2. “So that would be the countermeasure eventually. We are trying not to do anything that would violate the treaty on our side, which allows research, but not going forward into development, and we are carefully keeping the INF Treaty requirements on our side, while Russia is violating.”

The United States has accused Russia of developing the Novator 9M729  cruise missile—which carries the NATO designation of SSC-8—in violation of the landmark 1987 treaty that many scholars believe marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War. “We have documented on numerous occasions that Russia is violating,” Hutchison said. “We have shown Russia that evidence. Some of our allies have seen that evidence. All of our allies have seen some of that evidence.”

Hutchison said that the United States would prefer that Russia withdraw the missiles, but that Washington would not tolerate the presence of those weapons in Europe or elsewhere. “Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering,” Hutchison said. “And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska. So it is in all of our interests, and Canada as well, I suppose. So we have our North Atlantic risk as well as the European risk.”