Print
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Interview

The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), signed at the dawn of President Obama’s first term in 2010 was considered a turning point in US-Russia relations. Now, with the US President reelected the current framework of the bilateral arms control may be enforced by further agreements. General John J. Sheehan, a distinguished expert on the “nuke agenda”, who formerly served as Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for NATO and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (1994–1997) ponders over the development of the US-Russian arms limitation dialogue.

Interview

The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), signed at the dawn of President Obama’s first term in 2010 was considered a turning point in US-Russia relations. Now, with the US President reelected the current framework of the bilateral arms control may be enforced by further agreements. General John J. Sheehan, a distinguished expert on the “nuke agenda”, who formerly served as Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for NATO and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (1994–1997) ponders over the development of the US-Russian arms limitation dialogue.

How would you evaluate the current state of affairs as far as the bilateral dialogue between the United States and Russia on nuclear disarmament and deterrence is concerned?

First of all, I think we are talking about the general concept of what is referred to as reset. I think that today this is a bad word; it has a lot of negative connotations. I think that the continued relationship between the U.S. and Russia needs to be strengthened with Barack Obama being reelected and President Putin’s most recent note to him. This is a good opportunity to start the dialogue over within the strategic framework. We have issues of mutual interest: the world economy, instability because of terrorism and fissile materials being released to non-state actors. So, there are a lot of opportunities for the two countries to work together. My hope would be that at the end of three years there will be a new SALT agreement on strategic arms limitations.

You mean START 4?

Yes, something like that. It will take three years or so to do it, but that dialogue needs to be started soon. Now, President Obama won’t get down to it for a while, because he has serious budgetary issues to address. Still, by the first quarter of 2013 a serious dialogue should be in place. Personally I wouldn’t call it Reset II, but rather a kind of a new start leading towards a new START.

I see what you are getting at, but on reflection do you think that the positions of the two parties to this dialogue need to be revised, or are they, as they stand, conducive to generating mutually beneficial cooperation?

To begin with, I think that both countries are facing budgetary issues that need to be addressed. In the United States the debate on the size and the structure of National Security is going to entail budgetary cuts. As far as I know, the Russian authorities are also considering as restructuring the military system. In this context there are a lot of lessons to be learned, the United States can share the experience that it has gone through over the last fifteen years with its Russian counterparts. So, it does not necessarily have to be a president-to-president dialog, but it does have to take place within the framework agreed upon by the two presidents. In this framework there would be enough room for strategic cooperation, discussion and eventually moving towards a mutual reduction of military capabilities. It is important to keep in mind that we both face tremendous uncertainties in the Middle East. Neither of us wants a nuclear Middle East, so we have a confluence of requirements and objectives. Thus, we just need to create the dialogue in a very serious way to move towards these objectives.

You have pointed out that the arms limitation dialogue should be carried on not only between the two presidents. This might imply the engagement of other actors. Let’s take, for instance, the Ministry of Defense. What impact might the recent changes at its top level in Russia have on the U.S.-Russia nuclear agenda?

There has been, for years, a consistent dialogue between second- and third-tier officials on both sides: in the Foreign Ministry, in the Ministry of Defense, and in other government bodies. All this dialog is on-going. Even regarding forthcoming changes of the ministers in charge of handling the nuclear agenda, there is no reason not to continue the dialog at particular levels. When the new ministers come in, they have briefing papers given to them stating something like “Here’s where we are in the strategic relationship with Russia. You now need to take the next step.” Soon we’ll change our Secretary of Defense, you’ve just changed yours. So, they need to meet, which would be the first step, because at the end of the day they can’t just pick up a telephone and call each other when there is no relationship.

This concerns government circles but let’s focus on the academic community. What should its role be in terms of deepening this cooperation?

Well, conferences like this, that the Russian International Affairs Council is supporting, are incredibly important because they involve experts, students and the press. In the modern world it is absolutely necessary to have a discussion at the academic level because, at the end of the day, you have to educate your population, that is the general public, and that's why certain things you are doing are of great importance.

Taking all relevant factors into consideration, what is your general impression of this conference? How would you evaluate its organization, the relevance of topics covered and discussed?

First and foremost, it was very well organized: great building, great facilities. I think the topics that were on the agenda and those the speakers actually talked about were not always coherent. As a result, there was a wide-ranging discussion, some of it was absolutely relevant, some of it was not entirely to the point, but that happens during every conference and is part and parcel of academic discussion. I would like to stress once again that this is incredibly important, because it's the education of students and an efficient way for people to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Thank you very much for your answers.

Interviewed by Roman Raynkhardt, RIAC program assistant

 

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students