How the US Destruction of the INF Treaty Backfired

August 29, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Western media headlines have announced the alleged use by Russia of what is being dubbed the “Iskander-1000,” a ground-launched ballistic missile with a potential range of approximately 1,000 km (Western sources claim previous Iskander missiles had ranges of around 390 km with the current Iskander-1000 having a range of 550 km and a potential future range of 1,000 km). Should the new Iskander variant achieve ranges of up to 1,000 km it would place all of Ukraine’s territory within reach from launch positions across pre-2022 Russian Federation territory.  

The Iskander’s range had previously been capped at 500 km by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. However, that cap was lifted following the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the treaty in 2019 under the first Trump administration. That had followed the likewise unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002 under the Bush administration - all part of a continuous US policy of dismantling arms control treaties and rolling out treaty-violating weapons along the borders of not only Russia, but also Iran in West Asia and China in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Among those US treaty-violating systems were Aegis Ashore installations capable of tracking and intercepting missiles fired by Russia as part of a retaliatory strike - a key violation of the ABM treaty which would theoretically allow the US to carry out a nuclear or conventional first-strike on Russia while preventing or minimizing any Russian retaliation. The Aegis Ashore system is also capable of ground-launching INF treaty-prohibited Tomahawk cruise missiles (2,500 km) offensively. Aegis Ashore was constructed and brought online in Romania and Poland during the Obama and Biden administrations respectively. 

Also following the US withdrawal from the INF treaty was the development and deployment of the mobile Typhon system capable of ground-launching conventional or nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles previously prohibited under the INF treaty. The first Typhon systems became operational and plans to deploy it began under the subsequent Biden administration - demonstrating continuity of agenda regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans controlled the US government. 

In addition to the Aegis Ashore and Typhon systems, the US also began work on the Dark Eagle hypersonic ground-launched missile (3,500 km) - another system prohibited under the previous INF treaty. 

There is also the US Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) slated to replace aging and less capable ATAMCS fired by HIMARS and M-270 launchers. PrSM is the closest US-equivalent to the Iskander with PrSM’s current range at 500 km and plans to likewise extend it to 1,000 km in future variants. 

With US-Soviet/Russian treaties abandoned by the US and a growing number of weapon systems being openly developed and deployed by Washington - Russia began rolling out its own comparable systems. 

In addition to the Iskander-1000, Russia has already introduced the Iskander-K (500 km with some variants reaching up to 2,000 km) - a cruise missile launched by the same mobile platforms used to fire Iskander-M ballistic missiles. Ground-launched versions of Russia’s Kalibr cruise missiles (1,500 - 2,500 km) and its hypersonic Zircon missiles (1,000 km) have also been developed and since deployed. 

Most notable among Russia’s rollout of systems to counter US INF treaty-violating weapons is the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile (3,000-5,500 km) capable of delivering up to 6 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) at hypersonic speeds - each of which contain an additional 6 submunitions for a total of 36 projectiles. Its destructive power has already been demonstrated amid the US proxy war on Russia in Ukraine. 

US INF Treaty Destruction Backfiring 

The US withdrawal from the INF treaty (and before that, the ABM treaty) was designed to give the US an advantage over not only Russia by further encircling it with treaty-violating anti-missile and offensive missile systems - but also over China which never signed any arms control treaties with the US. However, the emerging result is a lopsided quantitative and qualitative edge for both Russia and China - saying nothing of their combined capabilities. 

US War on Multipolarism: Turning the Gameboard Over

August 17, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - The US has pursued a policy of global primacy spanning the 20th and 21st centuries, enduring regardless of presidential administration or the balance between Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, carving out what is a modern day American empire. 

The US controls not only the entirety of the Western world (Europe, Australia, and New Zealand), but also proxies in South America, Africa, and all across Asia from east to west. It seeks to maintain - even expand its domination further through military and economic power, as well as through political subversion, infiltration and capture as well as through information dominance. 

Conversely - there emerges a multipolar world which favors a balance of power between nations rather than subordination to a single nation. 

Centered on the BRICS organization led by the rise of China and the reemergence of Russia, the multipolar world is not only creating the means by which to defend against US encroachment, encirclement, and eventual capture - it is creating an alternative global system holding the potential to entirely displace the toxic US unipolar system. 

Multipolar Ships Rise on China’s Tide 

China’s rise alone in terms of economic, industrial, and military power - has by nearly every metric matched or is now exceeding that of US power. 

China’s rise has created the opportunity for other nations targeted by US domination to trade with and benefit from a growing center of global power on par with the US and its proxies - allowing nations like North Korea, Russia, and Iran to sustain viable economies despite being cut off from US-dominated “global” economic systems, institutions, and services. 

China, together with a growing number of partner nations, are creating alternatives to these economic systems, institutions, and services long-since monopolized and perpetually abused by the US. 

Despite this, the US remains a powerful and dangerous global power - but a global power whose limits are increasingly exposed by the equally powerful and growing multipolar world. 

What has resulted is no longer a contest between two global players - but a player who inevitably faces defeat seeking to topple the gameboard altogether before that defeat fully materializes.  

Toppling the Global Gameboard

The US finds itself an aggressive global hegemon with a system built upon the perpetual pursuit of power and profit in a finite world where its means to do so are in decline relative to China’s rise alone - saying nothing of the multipolar world China is helping take shape. 

This can be defined in real-world metrics. 

Anduril: “Hyperscaling” the Worst of America’s Military Industrial Complex

August 13, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Arms manufacturer “startup” Anduril headed by billionaire Palmer Luckey has quickly morphed into a smaller, more efficient version of legacy American arms manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing - a new model for efficiently transferring billions of taxpayer dollars into private industry based on fabricated threats and manipulative promises - all ultimately falling far short of misguided public expectations. 

While Luckey and Anduril have vowed to “hyperscale” production on par or exceeding Russian and Chinese military industrial production with concepts like “software-defined production” - a process Chinese factories have already incorporated within China’s vastly greater industrial base for years - the only thing actually being “hyperscaled” is war propaganda and its resulting war profiteering. 

Doing “Better” Than Legacy US Corporations, Falling Short of Russia and China

While it is true Anduril is developing weapons that may be a fraction of the cost of other weapons manufactured by legacy US arms producers, they fall short of the quality, quantity, and cost-savings of their Russian counterparts - saying nothing of how far they fall short of China’s military industrial capabilities.

And while it can be said an Anduril cruise missile is cheaper than those produced by Raytheon, they fall far short of the range and destruction Raytheon missiles can achieve.

Many of Anduril’s broken promises have been laid bare on the battlefields of America’s many wars of aggression abroad. 

Anduril drones - having promised to revolutionize the battlefield - have already been sent to Ukraine only to be overwhelmed by Russian quantities and quality - along with quickly evolving Russian electronic warfare capabilities transforming Anduril’s drones into yet another overpriced, underperforming capability. 

The Wall Street Journal in a late 2025 article would admit: 

Anduril’s only real battlefield experience—in Ukraine—has been marred by problems as well, including vulnerability to enemy jamming, according to former employees and others familiar with the systems in Ukraine. Some front-line soldiers of Ukraine’s SBU security service, for instance, found that their Altius loitering drones crashed and failed to hit their targets. The drones were so problematic that they stopped using them in 2024 and haven’t fielded them since, according to people familiar with the matter.

Other Anduril products being developed include the Barracuda family of “affordable mass” cruise missiles. While claimed to already be under “mass production,” only about 1,000 are expected to be delivered annually beginning in 2027. 

The Barracuda 500 variant is the longest ranged missile of the family, claiming to have a range of 930 km, a speed of 930 kilometers per hour, but a warhead of only 45 kilograms. 

This missile - yet to be delivered - already falls far short of various "affordable mass” missiles and loitering munitions being employed by Russia on the battlefield including its Geran family of loitering munitions. 

Its propeller driven variants feature longer ranges and heavier warheads than the Barracuda 500. 

China’ Long March 10B Rocket Closes Gap on Space Launch Capabilities

July 21, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - On July 10, 2026 China successfully launched a payload to orbit and recovered the first stage booster of its Long March 10B rocket system making China only the second nation after the US to do so. 

The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) through its commercial subsidiary - China Rocket Company - has developed the Long March 10B - featuring a reusable first stage recovered by landing under its own power on a recovery ship using a cable net system. 

In function, it is similar to the US-based SpaceX’s Falcon 9 which can return to landing pads on shore or land on recovery ships at sea using deployable legs. By eliminating the legs from the first stage booster and using the cable net system, the Long March 10B saves weight that can be used instead for additional fuel. 

Both the Long March 10B and the Falcon 9 use kerosene and LOX (liquid oxygen) fueled engines - though each system uses different types of engines. The Long March 10B has 7 engines, while Falcon 9 has 9. 

The Long March 10B can carry 16 metric tons into orbit in reusable configuration while the Falcon 9 can carry 17.5 metric tons into orbit - fairly comparable. 

China seeks to examine, refurbish and relaunch this recovered booster a second time by the end of 2026. 

This was only the second test of the Long March 10B - the first occurred in February this year featuring a planned soft-landing at sea next to the recovery ship after propelling China’s new manned spacecraft - the Mengzhou - to maximum dynamic pressure (the highest speed and pressures within the Earth’s atmosphere) before conducting a launch abort test which was also successful.

To have successfully designed, tested, and successfully recovered a first stage booster with capabilities on par with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 in just 2 attempts is a monumental achievement considering the multiple failures that took place when developing the Falcon 9 itself.  

Why China’s Success is Important

In 2020 and 2021 China was outpacing the US in space launches. By 2022 the US had surpassed China, and every year since the US has surpassed China solely because of SpaceX’s ability to launch, recover, and reuse its rocket fleet - where China - until now - has been forced to fully expend every rocket it launches.

Over the years SpaceX has launched and recovered its Falcon 9 rockets over 600 times. 

In 2025 - last year - the US launched a total of 181 rockets - China 92-93 - Russia 17 - meaning the US launched more rockets than both China and Russia combined. 

The US has exploited this advantage in launch cadence by building the Starlink (approximately 10,000 active satellites) and now the Starshield (approximately 200 active satellites) low earth orbit satellite constellations used to wage war around the globe - from Russia to Iran and eventually against China itself. 

Russia and China have been deploying their own versions of these low earth orbit satellite constellations for low latency communication for both civilian and military applications - but because of their lower launch cadence - they have many times fewer satellites of this kind in orbit - thus coverage and resolution lags behind their US counterparts.

The Ukraine War is a US war on Russia

July 16, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - As the Western media continues shaping narratives depicting a growing divide between the US and Europe regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine - a narrative involving an increasingly disinterested and disengaging US with an increasingly desperate and confrontational Europe - it is important to remember precisely how this war was started and why, as well as the material reality shaping its continuation. 

By doing so, it is revealed the only "division" taking place between the US and Europe is a “division of labor,” a phrase literally spoken  by the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in Brussels in February 2025 delegating the continuation of what is a US proxy war on Russia to Europe while the US redirects resources toward Asia. 

Precisely because the war in Ukraine is a US proxy war on Russia, and the fact that Ukraine’s trained military manpower and territory continue to contract under the pressure of Russia’s strategy of attrition, to continue the war will require introducing additional pools of trained military manpower - and to extend Russia further - to do so along a wider front. 

The military build-up of the Baltic states appears to be at a minimum an attempt to fix Russian forces along their border with Russia. The worst case scenario for Moscow would be for the US to repeat with its Baltic state proxies what it has already done in 2008 with its Georgian proxies and what it has done from 2011 onward with its Ukrainian proxies - attack Russia and its allies militarily, precipitating wider war along a wider front.  

Western European nations, including the so-called “coalition of the willing,” led by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have implemented Secretary Hegseth’s directives from February 2025 enthusiastically - directives including to “double down” on arming Ukraine, “spending more on defense,” and convincing the European public of the “threat facing Europe” (meaning Russia). 

With this in mind, it is clear there is not only no split of any kind between the US and its European proxies, Washington’s European proxies have demonstrated unflinching servile obedience even at the cost of placing themselves on the precipice of war with neighboring nuclear-armed Russia themselves.  

The Larger, Long-Engineered War on Russia

Surrounding Russia with a number of geopolitical and economic crises to “extend Russia” with the hope of eventually precipitating a Soviet Union-style collapse, is the subject of numerous US policy papers spanning the entirety of the post-Cold War period. 

There is even a paper published by the RAND Corporation literally titled, “Extending Russia,” listing a number of measures the US has since implemented verbatim before and since its publication in 2019. 

The paper lays out the economic and geopolitical measures the US has since used to both prepare the grounds for this current proxy war, and to both perpetuate and expand it over time. These measures include targeting Russia’s energy exports including specifically targeting pipeline expansion (Nord Stream, since destroyed by the US), the imposition of sanctions on Russia, the destabilization, destruction and/or the political capture of Russia’s allies both along its borders and beyond (including Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, and Armenia, as well as Syria), and the arming of Ukraine itself following its political capture by Washington in 2014. 

This latter measure, the RAND paper admits, would inevitably invite in wider conflict with Russia - and it did. The paper also admitted the measure would likely end in “disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows,” and that, “it might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.”

The purpose of US policy is not to necessarily “defeat” Russia in Ukraine, or in Georgia, or Armenia, Syria, or in any other particular region - but to create a multitude of crises mounting ever increasing pressure on Russia to create cracks and collapse wherever opportunities allow, and eventually precipitate overall collapse following pressure along a large and growing collection of fronts. 

And this is precisely what the US is doing. 

It doesn’t matter that Ukraine can’t win the current US proxy war against Russia - or that Europe collectively might not be able to either. US objectives are to create a growing conflict that eventually outpaces Russia’s ability to respond and defend itself against. 

Similar strategies have been used against other targets of US “regime change” including Libya, Syria, and Iraq spanning decades before finally and fully succeeding. 

Thus, the measure of Russia’s success is not simply on the battlefield in Ukraine, but its success or failure in defending itself against this much wider campaign of US-driven encroachment - a campaign that has transcended all US presidential administrations since the end of the Cold War without exception and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.