... February 5, 2021, the ordinary virtual meeting of the high-level working group on strategic stability issues of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) took place.
The discussion focused on the following issues: prospects for strengthening strategic stability, taking into account the recent extension of Russia-the U.S. New START Treaty, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, new confidence-building measures in the nuclear field, and possible measures to limit the qualitative arms race. On the Russian side, the discussion was attended by Yevgeny Buzhinsky, RIAC Vice President,...
... ratification process. Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that the Russian side is ready to extend New START without any preconditions. There is nothing stopping U.S. President Donald Trump from immediately announcing the same.
Like any treaty, New START cannot resolve every problem related to strategic stability. That was not its purpose. Other negotiations will be required in order to adapt the arms control regime for modern military-political and technological realities. The extension of New START would create time and space for such negotiations ...
... of power (hypersonic weapons will take years to perfect, and it will be even longer before missile defence programmes are capable of deflecting a major strike, plus, exotic delivery vehicles are still far from being deployed), in the long term, even New START will become unacceptable.
Alexander Yermakov:
Darkened Skies: The U.S. Might Withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies
Fight to the End
Obviously, to preserve strategic stability in the future, we will indeed need a wonderful “big deal." However, it probably will not be Trump’s deal since even its basic outlines are unlikely to have been agreed on by 2024. All in all, the new instruments of undermining ...
... possible. There are at least four ways of doing this.
First, even the absence of formal obligations under the INF Treaty or the New START Treaty cannot stop the sides from honouring them de facto. The analysis of the Russian and American nuclear modernisation ... ... advantage of Washington’s decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty.
Second, any Russia-US consultations on the principles of strategic stability would be useful in the first or second track or even between them. It would be naive to expect a breakthrough,...
... 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....
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... (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 ...
