MUNICH — Tension between Europe and America has gone nuclear.

Just when it looked like the U.S. and EU had run out of things to fight about, a fresh rift has emerged over how to forestall a new arms race with Russia in the wake of the collapse of a Cold War-era treaty designed to keep mid-range nuclear weapons out of Europe.

The Trump administration withdrew from the so-called INF Treaty (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty) earlier this month after accusing Moscow of years of non-compliance. Signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, the treaty is regarded as one of the crucial steps toward ending the Cold War.

While the U.S.’s NATO allies acknowledged the legal basis for Washington’s move to withdraw, concern over what will happen next was palpable at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend. The Europeans were hoping for some indication of what the U.S.’s next move would be, but went home none the wiser from the annual gathering of leaders, ministers and policymakers from around the world.

“We cannot start another nuclear arms race,” Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said in an interview with POLITICO, urging an immediate effort to build a new treaty that would also include China. “We need a comprehensive agreement on nuclear weapons with all stakeholders. What does Mr. Trump want? No agreement at all? This is not our view.”

Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell |

Security analysts say the real reason Donald Trump pulled out of the treaty was over concern that China, which is not bound by the INF, could deploy precisely the type of weapons Washington was banned from producing.

Most observers are skeptical that the administration has any plans to send such weapons, which the U.S. has yet to even make, to Europe. Such deliberations would only antagonize the Russians and worry the Europeans, said Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who worked closely on nuclear disarmament policy in the 1980s and 1990s.

“Where would you deploy them?” he asked. “It’s a lose-lose situation.”

Nunn was part of a group that came to Munich to urge leaders to try to preserve and modernize the INF. But given the unpredictability of the Trump administration’s foreign policy and the Continent’s deep distrust of the U.S. president, reaching transatlantic consensus on a new approach won’t be easy.

“On the most important threats we’ve been discussing — climate change, multilateralism, the rise of China, terrorism, the war in Syria, trade — wherever you look there’s complete disagreement between the States and Europe,” Borrell said. “It’s a divorce in values.”

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and U.S. Vice President Michael Pence at the Munich Security Conference | Thomas Kienzle/AFP via Getty Images

European officials warned that the vacuum created by the treaty’s lapse could put their security at risk by reigniting the nuclear competition between the U.S and Russia with the Continent caught in the middle. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and other leaders took pains in Munich to reassure the public that the U.S. has no intention of stationing mid-range nuclear weapons in Europe in response to the treaty’s collapse.

In Germany, where the stationing of mid-range nuclear missiles at the height of the Cold War in the 1980s created deep political divisions and sparked violent mass protests, the issue is stirring old ghosts. Some Social Democrats have even suggested it is time to rethink the country’s nuclear alliance with the U.S.

Even Angela Merkel, a leader not known to sow fear, made little effort to hide her deep concern over the issue.

“To be perfectly honest, for us Europeans the really bad news of this year is the cancelation of the INF Treaty,” the German chancellor told the conference in a keynote address, voicing frustration over Europe’s powerlessness to do anything about it. “The answer can’t lie in a blind race to build more weapons.”

The U.S. and Russia have six months to resurrect the treaty, but most observers say that’s unlikely. Given Russia’s investment in new missile technology, it would take a “miracle” to preserve the INF, Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs said in an interview.

“Frankly, Russia possesses those missiles, they are deployed and they’re violating the INF Treaty,” he told POLITICO, arguing that European concerns are more about symbolism than strategic reality.

“It looks bad because one of the iconic treaties of the beginning of the end of the Cold War is over, but why do we need a treaty that’s not enforced?” he said. “If someone violates it, it’s dead anyway.”

Read this next: Theresa May sets course for Brexit disaster

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir – Analysts and pro-Indian political leaders have warned of an escalation in tensions after a decision to withdraw the security detail for top Kashmiri separatist leaders.

The move by India’s home ministry came days after a suicide attack on Indian paramilitary forces that killed 42 Indian troops in the restive region and raised fears of a confrontation with Pakistan. 

On Sunday, a formal order was issued to remove government protection given to the region’s four separatist leaders because of the attack. 

“In view of the recent terror attack on a Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Lethpora village in Pulwama, the government of India has emphasised the need to immediately review the wastage of police resources in providing unnecessary security to a large number of non-government persons, particularly relevant in the context of security provided to separatists and their sympathisers,” the order said.

The announcement could lead to further crises in the region that has been engulfed in violence for years, analysts said. Last year was the deadliest in nearly a decade with the highest number of casualties of rebels, security personnel and civilians.

More polarisation

In the past, several Kashmiri separatist leaders have been assassinated under mysterious circumstances.

While India has blamed Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI for its role in eliminating leaders for their alleged proclivity towards a compromise on the disputed region, pro-separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir state have also been a thorn in the side of Indian security agencies.

Ajai Sahni, a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera “the entire orientation of this [BJP] government as far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned has been directed towards their own electoral interest”.

“They [BJP] use polarisation as a principal weapon for whatever they have been doing in the region and this step will feed more polarisation. This is essentially going to appeal to the constituency who have been demanding these things for a long time. It is not a considered move by the state apparatus. It is a political move. If these people are under threat the state cannot simply remove their security,” he said.

Sahni said there has been a political destabilisation in Kashmir for the past five years. “That’s why we are in a condition that we are in now,” he said.

With separatist leaders enjoying overwhelming public support in the Muslim-majority state, any attack on them carries the potential to trigger a new law and order crisis in the restive state. 

“If something happens, anyone is attacked, it will impact the local situation. It will put pressure on local police and the governor,” another security analyst, Rahul Bedi, told Al Jazeera.

Police officials in the region expressed the same fear of attacks on the Kashmiri leadership.

“Some of these leaders have been attacked several times. It’s worrying. If anything happens it will be difficult to handle,” a senior police official told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity.

The latest attack has also escalated tension between India and Pakistan, with New Delhi warning Islamabad of reprisals. The Indian government has also accused the separatist leaders of “receiving money from Pakistan and its intelligence agencies”.

Separatist leaders in Kashmir demand an independent state or a merger with Pakistan.

‘Diverting attention’

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, one of the four separatist leaders whose security was withdrawn, accused the Indian government of “diverting the attention from the Kashmir dispute”.

“The government provided me security. I did not ask for it. And now they have withdrawn it. Let them. They just want to divert the attention of people from the real issue, which is Kashmir’s struggle for the right to self-determination,” he told Al Jazeera.

Umar, whose father Moulvi Mohammad Farooq was assassinated by unidentified gunmen in 1990, said he will continue to “fight against the Indian oppression in Kashmir”.

“This won’t affect us; our struggle will continue. We won’t change our stand,” Farooq said.

Another separatist leader, Abdul Gani Bhat – leader of Muslim Conference – said “it is a non-issue for them”.

“The government kept these guards in our offices and homes. It was their decision. We never told them to give us any security. I even requested them once to withdraw it. Even our security and the recent attack has no connection. They are deliberately connecting the two things,” Bhat told Al Jazeera.  

“Without anybody guarding me with a gun, I will move freely.”

The adviser to the state governor Vijay Kumar told Al Jazeera the decision was made by the federal home affairs ministry and “they are looking into some more nuances of it”. 

‘Knee-jerk reaction’

Mehbooba Mufti, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir and a senior pro-India politician, called the step as “kneejerk reaction”. 

“Why was the security granted to them? It was because of the threat perception and who assessed that threat perception? It was the government. Many leaders were killed and that was the basis why security was granted. That’s what a country has to do for its citizens,” Mufti said.

The killing of dozens of Indian security forces by the 20-year-old local suicide bomber has triggered xenophobic attacks against Kashmiris in several parts of India by right-wing groups.

On Sunday, the Himalayan region observed a complete shutdown to protest the reprisal attacks.

Israel says it will withhold $138m in tax transfers to the Palestinian Authority over payments given to  Palestinians involved in attacks against Israelis.

The government’s security cabinet said Sunday that it was implementing a law passed last year allowing Israel to withhold funds equivalent to those the Palestinean Authority pays in stipends to Palestinians jailed in Israel, their families and released prisoners.  

The money comes from taxes Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israel transfers the tax funds to the PA on a regular basis as outlined by a 1994 economic agreement.

‘Pay for slay’

Israel says the PA’s payments to attackers’ families encourage violence — a claim the Palestinians reject.

The Palestinean Authority sees them as a kind of welfare system for families who have lost a breadwinner.

The law is referred to by Israel as ‘pay for slay’.

The freeze comes as the Palestinians face major budget cuts made last year after the United States  slashed funding for the UN’s Palestinian refugee programme UNRWA and for development programs in the Palestinian territories.

The UN’s World Food Programme also cut back services due to funding shortages.

The funding reduction is a major setback for the PA, which faces constant budget shortfalls.

The prime minister of the Palestinian caretaker government Rami Hamdallah, however, said the government would be able to cope with the decision, according to Palestinian new agency Maan.

“Scenarios have been put in place to deal with any deduction in tax revenues equal to the amounts of the salaries the government pays to the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the families of those killed by the Israeli occupation forces,” Maan quoted him as saying on Saturday.

System part of ‘life under occupation’

Speaking from Jerusalem, Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett said that “in the face of warnings from his own security establishment”, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone ahead with this law which “could risk making a situation more unstable”.

Israel is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections April 9th, which may have influenced Netanyahu’s decision. 

“Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for votes on the right – his natural constituency – and he very much wants to shore it up,” Fawcett said.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, according to Fawcett, has reacted with “outrage and fury”.

“The Palestinians have accused the Israeli government of piracy, of coordinating this as part of pressure with the United States ahead of the publication of the Trump peace plan,” he said, referring to the US president’s son-in-law’s Middle East peace plan dubbed “deal of the century”.

Palestinian society at large sees the prisoner paid system as part of “life under occupation”, Fawcett said, “so for any Palestinian leadership to abandon this practice, especially under Israeli pressure, would be all but politically unthinkable.”