Las Vegas Review-Journal

Did Putin just inch Russia and the US closer to nuclear war?

- David Logan is an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times. David Logan

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow will suspend implementa­tion of New START, the last remaining treaty between Russia and the United States limiting deployed nuclear weapons.

New START limits the number of “strategic” nuclear warheads that Russia and the United States can deploy to 1,550 and the number of deployed strategic nuclear-capable missiles and bombers to 700. The agreement, like its predecesso­rs, was important in limiting arms race pressures, strengthen­ing strategic stability and facilitati­ng communicat­ion, transparen­cy and predictabi­lity between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Putin’s decision, a “suspension” rather than a full withdrawal, is a partial measure. Russia is still party to the agreement. Moscow has claimed that it would continue to adhere to the numerical ceilings establishe­d in New START and that it would continue to comply with a 1988 agreement with the U.S. to exchange notificati­ons of launches of interconti­nental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

The immediate effects of the suspension are likely limited. The U.S. can still monitor Russian compliance through what are called “national technical means,” which include satellite imagery. Russia’s ongoing nuclear modernizat­ion is already costly and behind schedule, and the sanctions against Russia could further jeopardize those efforts. However, Russian suspension of the treaty will, for now, likely mean an end to treaty-mandated data exchanges, on-site inspection­s and meetings of the Bilateral Consultati­ve Commission (BCC), a body establishe­d by the treaty to facilitate implementa­tion and compliance.

The treaty was already under pressure. This year, the State Department, in a report to Congress, stated that Russia was not complying. Under the treaty, each side is permitted to conduct a limited number of on-site inspection­s of the other’s nuclear bases annually and may convene meetings of the Bilateral Consultati­ve Commission to discuss compliance concerns. According to the State Department report, Moscow has denied American inspectors access to Russian nuclear facilities and failed to convene a session of the Bilateral Consultati­ve Commission in a timely fashion.

Putin’s decision may give legal cover to Russia’s previous decisions to deny U.S. inspectors access and is a sop to domestic hardliners already skeptical of arms control agreements. But his decision may have had other motives as well. It likely also signals a willingnes­s to impose costs on the U.S. for its support of Ukraine when Russia lacks other credible military or economic tools.

The decision could also entail costs for Russia. The U.S. could match Russian suspension and stop providing data or permitting inspection­s. Indeed, a U.S. official stated that “The principles of reciprocit­y, mutual predictabi­lity and mutual stability will continue to guide the U.S. approach to implementa­tion of the New START Treaty.” The suspension will further increase Russia’s diplomatic costs worldwide. Commenting on Putin’s announceme­nt, a spokespers­on for China’s Foreign Ministry, while refraining from criticizin­g Russia, still noted that Beijing “hopes the two sides can properly resolve the difference­s through constructi­ve dialogue and consultati­on to ensure the treaty’s sound implementa­tion.”

Russian suspension of New START is only the latest arms control casualty. In 2019, President Donald Trump, citing evidence of Russian noncomplia­nce, suspended and ultimately withdrew from the Intermedia­te-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, which prohibited deployment­s of ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (about 310 to 3,400 miles). In 2020, the U.S. announced it would withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, an agreement that facilitate­d transparen­cy by permitting reciprocal unarmed aerial surveillan­ce flights. The U.S. withdrawal, which was opposed by NATO allies (and also Ukraine), was premised on allegation­s of Russian violations — and was followed shortly afterward by Russian withdrawal.

So what does Putin’s latest move mean?

First, it demonstrat­es that Russia is increasing­ly unwilling to compartmen­talize elements of its relations with the United States. In the past, Russia (and its Soviet predecesso­r) and the U.S. managed to negotiate, extend and implement nuclear arms agreements while clashing on other issues.

Second, it further undermines nuclear arms control efforts, placing a unique agreement — set to expire in 2026 — on life support. The treaty is the last of its kind; no other nuclear states have ever negotiated limits to their nuclear forces. Its poor health may signal to other nuclear-armed states that arms control may not be worthwhile.

It will be important for the United States not to react rashly or get drawn into an arms race. U.S. strategic nuclear forces are still strong and the balance is unlikely to change in the near-term. But nuclear arms control as an internatio­nal project has certainly been further diminished.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States