... unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) that Moscow and Washington, which was signed in 1972 and had served as a foundation of global strategic stability for 30 years. I remember well the tremendous efforts the Russian leadership poured into trying to keep the American side from taking such a step. President Vladimir Putin met several times with President George W. Bush, suggesting various options for preserving the Treaty.
The overwhelming majority of states ...
... agreements that are subject to ratification—which have long constituted the structure of arms control—are also on their way out. Not only is it difficult and perhaps even impossible to ratify any national agreement today, especially with regards to nuclear weapons, the ongoing U.S.-Russia confrontation further complicates this process. Under such strained conditions, whether either side is able to guarantee compliance remains an open question. But the fates of the INF and ABM treaties suggest that even legally-binding agreements ...
The visit of John Bolton to Moscow attracted attention in connection with the announcement of possible US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. This is undoubtedly an important decision that will have major consequences for Russia, for the European security, and for strategic stability. There was a lot of talk about this, the debates will continue, but it is important to note that this issue was not the only one that was discussed during Bolton’s talks in Moscow. Moreover,...
... visited 22 December 2017).
29.
Anton Khlopkov, “Nuclear Power in the Middle East, "
Valdai Discussion Club
, at
http://ru.valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/yadernaya-energetika-na-blizhnem-vostoke
(last visited 22 December 2017).
30.
Eugeniya Malyarenko, “Russian Foreign Ministry Urged the US to Withdraw Nuclear Weapons from Europe”,
RBC
, at
https://www.rbc.ru/politics/18/12/2017/5a37cc569a7947585504e589
(last visited 22 December 2017).
31.
Michel Chossudovsky, “Double Standards? Europe’s Five ‘Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States’: Belgium,...
... warhead. This debate will become even more heated as soon as the new generation of air-launched weapons (LRSO in US and Kh-BD in Russia), and bombers (B-21 and PAK-DA) enter service, not to mention hypersonic systems. These shortcomings may lead to negative ... ... military-to-military) and begin work on precise, agreed, and approved (!) definitions for terminology and broader concepts related to nuclear weapons policy and strategy: deterrence, strategic stability etc. The latter process may start as a Track II discussion....
... time, the United States would not have any warheads left for SLBMs and ICBMs after the first countervalue strike and would only be able to carry out an air strike.
Fig. 3
Even if the United States were to enlist its NATO allies or, for example, if Russia were to enlist China to take part in the operation, and if strategic weapons were used instead of nuclear weapons, it would still not be possible to ensure the reliable defeat of the SNF forces of either the United States or Russia, assuming that the balance of powers was not altered greatly (through the deployment of hundreds of new combat units,...
... risk of a false warning of a nuclear attack or a nuclear accident or miscalculation.
Right now, both the US and Russian presidents may have only a few minutes to assess whether warning of a possible nuclear attack is real, and to decide whether to use nuclear weapons in response. Both the United States and Russia—and Europe—would be much safer if we could agree on steps to increase decision time to a few hours or a few days. A clear directive by the two presidents to their military leaders to work to develop options to achieve this goal would be a powerful ...
... not a government official and does not represent the U.S. administration, he is head the of a large organization (NTI) that calls for a world free of nuclear weapons, at the very least for the prevention of the use and the mitigation of risks of using nuclear weapons.
Ernest Moniz subscribes to the view
that Russia and the United States are the key players in the nuclear sphere and, as such, they need to cooperate on a permanent basis to reduce nuclear risks.
Seminar with Ernest J. Moniz, NTI CEO
“Russia – U.S. Relations in the Nuclear Sphere: Pathways ...
... agreement on “friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance.”
The USSR was instrumental in the development of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program in the 1970s
. Then-leader of the DPRK Kim Il Sung visited the USSR twice – in 1984 and 1986 – to ... ... partner with a
trade turnover
of $2.2 billion.
The break-up of the USSR changed attitudes vis-a-vis Pyongyang in Moscow. The new Russian leadership had been re-examining the country’s international strategic priorities, and the DPRK file was placed on a ...
On June 1, 2018, Russian International Affairs Council hosted a seminar «Russia-the U.S. Relations in the Nuclear Sphere: Pathways to Cooperation» with Ernest J. Moniz, Co-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative, nonprofit organization), Former ...
