The international community is concerned about the future of arms control, particularly the fate of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) – issues that featured prominently during this week’s Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington, D.C.
The INF Treaty prohibits the fielding of ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with flight ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. U.S. officials determined as of last month that Russia has deployed such a nuclear-capable cruise missile, and the Pentagon is planning potential responses to the breach in its upcoming Nuclear Posture Review.
New START requires that the two countries by next February each cap their deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and long-range delivery systems at 700. The Trump administration will be responsible for either negotiating a follow-on to New START, which expires in 2021; extending the existing treaty for five years, as allowed by the text; or abandoning it entirely.
“The right path is the one marked by the New START treaty and its implementation. This is the kind of cooperation between Russia and the United States that we Europeans like to see,” Federica Mogherini, European Union high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said Monday at the conference. “Any violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, on the contrary, would endanger the security architecture that since the end of the Cold War has made Europe a safer place.”
The administration’s willingness to negotiate a follow-on to New START was called into question following reports that President Donald Trump in January called it an unfair agreement during his first telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
To restore U.S.-Russian relations, the first priority must be to resolve the crisis in Ukraine, save the INF Treaty, and start negotiating a successor deal to New START, according to Alexey Arbatov, head of the Center for International Security at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations. Then, if that succeeds, “we would be able to coordinate our fight against terrorism much better than before,” he said.
Arbatov said the major problem with the INF Treaty is that “neither side is trying to resolve existing controversies,” instead “using these controversies for political campaign” and accusing the other of violating the accord. In addition to the U.S. claim of a breach by Russia, the Kremlin has asserted that U.S. target missile tests for global missile defense and production of armed drones violate the treaty.
“If there was a strong political guidance from Washington and Moscow . . . to get down and resolve this issue, recognizing that the other side may have some grounds for suspicions . . . then the diplomats, military, engineers could resolve this issue in a week,” Arbatov said. Potential solutions might involve an agreement for on-site inspections or use of the same verification procedures – presumably including data exchanges or other site observations.
He noted that “in the course of 40 years of arms control, we have experience of resolving such technical issues again and again when there was a political will to do that.” Arbatov also said the Trump administration is likely not as interested in arms control as the previous Obama administration.
“If Russia will not take in its hands this issue and does not start much more active policy regarding INF treaty controversies, follow-on to New START, and other things, then nuclear arms control regime is in very big trouble” and will likely collapse in several years, he said.
This week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly said his country is ready to discuss further nuclear weapon arsenal reductions with the United States, provided that negotiations are not limited to strategic offensive weapon systems. Russia has long sought to address U.S. ballistic missile defenses in post-New START arms control talks.
