... actually comply with the terms of the treaty, as was the case when it withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. The Americans quit, but they did not create an efficient missile... ... decision could create a ‘domino effect’: if it abandons the INF Treaty, it puts the New START treaty’s extension into question. Mutual accusations about the failure to... ... means that even given the absence of an adequate international legal foundation for strategic stability, this stability can and should be improved with the help of the...
... unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Yes, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty was signed in Moscow in 2002, and the New START was signed in 2010. And both these documents are, without a doubt, very important. However, they came as a result of specific political decisions taken by certain leaders, rather than a systemic approach of the two sides to ensuring strategic stability in the world. The ABM Treaty long served as a stabilizing factor in bilateral relations and international stability. All the main documents on strategic ...
... conversation
between Putin and Trump on March 20, after which the two presidents declared their interest in a meaningful discussion on strategic stability aimed at preventing a new arms race [
1
]. The first step towards a positive agenda should be a joint statement ... ... talks has not yet arrived.
Problems with prolongation
The simplest and most obvious option would be to prolong the current New START for another five years until 2026. There are, however, a number of obstacles to this.
Trump is extremely opposed to ...
