Search: New START,Strategic stability (9 materials)

End of Nuclear Arms Control: Do Not Beware the Ides of March

... sides are accusing each other of failing to observe the provisions of New START, with the United States even going as far as claiming that Russia is conducting banned nuclear tests [ 2 ]. While the sides have opened a cautious dialogue on issues of strategic stability, the prospects of at least extending the New START given the current trends in bilateral relations are bleak. Negative and Positive Experiences Igor Ivanov: Nuclear Catastrophe: Myth or Reality? This is not the first crisis in the recent history of agreements on limiting strategic nuclear forces....


The Domino Effect: America’s Withdrawal from the INF Treaty and Its Ramifications

... Andrei Kortunov, Director General of the Russian Council on International Affairs, the United States’ decision can create a “domino effect” in the nuclear arms control: by quitting the INF Treaty, Washington puts in question the prolongation of the New START agreement, and without the New START, there will be a broader issue of maintaining the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime. Three levels of argumentation Igor Ivanov: Nuclear Catastrophe: Myth or Reality? There are three circumstances ...


Strategic Instability. RIAC Experts Discuss the Outcomes of the INF Treaty Suspension

... U.S. and Canadian Studies, retired Major General, RIAC expert, noted that the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty threatens New START — an agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction ... ... prospects of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: “While Russia and the U.S. were engaged in maintaining strategic stability in a bilateral format discussing whether we could destroy each other or not, the world acquired three new ...


The Collapse of the INF Treaty as a Motivation?

... and Eastern Europe. On the contrary, the emergence of a purely European arms control regime should help the disintegrating U.S.–Russia system of treaties remain in place. This, however, would require both parties to act fairly boldly. The Future of New START and Arms Control It should be stressed here that, unless the United States resorts to overly provocative activities in terms of deploying new intermediate and shorter range missile systems aimed directly at the Russian strategic nuclear forces ...


Nuclear Catastrophe: Myth or Reality?

... a role. But, in my opinion, the most telling blow was dealt in 2001 by the decision of U.S. President George Bush Jr. to 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 weapons were “tied” to it in one way or another. Its destruction is generally ...


Post-Helsinki Opportunities for New START and the INF Treaty?

... (and some tweets by his American counterpart), two major arms control treaties were discussed: the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty [ 1 ] and the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START). There are issues with both of them, but they remain key to preserving strategic stability and global security. Over the last week, Vladimir Putin repeatedly claimed that Russia is ready to overcome the existing roadblocks that threaten the former treaty and prevent the extension of the latter beyond 2021. He mentioned this ...


On the Balance of Strategic Nuclear Forces

... unacceptable damage. The McNamara/Sakharov criteria of the Cold War period were purely speculative as well, although we can say that they were proven to be sound through empirical practice, as there were no nuclear strikes during that time. The maintenance of strategic stability in the current situation, which is marked by a significantly lower that the Cold War era level of SNF by numbers, paves the way for thinking about further reductions in the future. The model presented above shows that if the total ...


How to Reduce Nuclear Risks in Helsinki

... a military conflict. We must work together, including our militaries, to increase transparency and trust. Fourth, work jointly to preserve and extend existing agreements and treaties, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and New START Treaty. These two agreements are crucial to sustaining transparency and predictability. In the absence of these agreements, there will be no regulations on nuclear forces, exacerbating today’s already high risks. Fifth, continue consultations ...


Strategic Stabilization: A Window of Opportunities for Russia and the U.S.

... stability aimed at preventing a new arms race [ 1 ]. The first step towards a positive agenda should be a joint statement on strategic stability by the two countries’ presidents. Apart from the traditional talking point about the impossibility of winning ... ... 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 ...


Current poll

In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?

Poll conducted

  1. Korean Peninsula Crisis Has no Military Solution. How Can It Be Solved?
    Demilitarization of the region based on Russia-China "Dual Freeze" proposal  
     36 (35%)
    Restoring multilateral negotiation process without any preliminary conditions  
     27 (26%)
    While the situation benefits Kim Jong-un's and Trump's domestic agenda, there will be no solution  
     22 (21%)
    Armed conflict still cannot be avoided  
     12 (12%)
    Stonger deterrence on behalf of the U.S. through modernization of military infrastructure in the region  
     4 (4%)
    Toughening economic sanctions against North Korea  
     2 (2%)
For business
For researchers
For students