PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2019-02-08 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • insists the U.S. could have only "indirect" evidence -- that the rocket had not been tested to distances that would verify a violation. The indirect evidence could include "detailed blueprints of the missile and all its technical characteristics." The Dutch government says it has verified (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • A nuclear treaty involves many complicated issues. And we will get to those in the narrative lower in this article. We thought it would be helpful to break down the claims and counterclaims involving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty before directly addressing the details that lead to the Polygraph.info verdict:What the US ClaimsU.S. Government: The U.S. has said since 2014 that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, though very few of the details have been made publicly available. In 2017, the State Department did reveal the missile in question -- the 9M729. In 2018, the U.S. ambassador to Russia said the U.S. had provided geographic coordinates" and the dates of tests showing the violations.​Infographic showing missiles banned under the INF Treaty.​Russian Response: The Russian government consistently denies violations.Third Party: The director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url