Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
10/31/2014
U.S. arms control advocates and nuclear deterrence experts alike are attaching little importance to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent calls for further arms control reductions, with some suggesting that the statements were largely an effort to improve Russia’s global image and political standing. “I think Russia is feeling some pressure from the international community for further progress in US-Russian nuclear arms reductions, and Russia does not want to appear, in the eye of the international community, to be the guilty party,” Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball told NS&D Monitor.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported that Putin made the comments last week during a speech at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting in Sochi. “We insist on continuing negotiations,” Putin was quoted as saying. “We are not just in favor of talks, we insist on negotiating further nuclear arms reductions. The fewer nuclear weapons there are in the world the better. And [we are also] ready for a most serious talk on the issues of nuclear disarmament.”
In a statement emailed to NS&D Monitor, a State Department official underscored recent U.S. arms reduction efforts, and called for Moscow to engage the Obama Administration on concerns about Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. “We’ve made it clear that we are prepared to engage Russia on the full range of issues affecting strategic stability and that there are real and meaningful steps we should be taking that can contribute to a more predictable, safer security environment,” the official wrote. “In June 2013 in Berlin, President Obama stated U.S. willingness to negotiate a reduction of up to one-third of our deployed strategic warheads from the level established in New START. Progress on this front will require a willing partner and a conducive strategic environment. This includes a willingness by Russia to address our concerns about Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.”
‘No Double Standards’
Putin was also quoted as saying that further arms control discussions should be undertaken “with no double standards.” This language parallels statements made by Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on Oct. 8 at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly’s First Committee, according to Kimball. During his address, Ulyanov expressed concerns including U.S. conventional prompt global strike capabilities, the lack of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the forward deployment of NATO tactical nukes in Europe, and the transfer of nuclear arms from nuclear states to non-nuclear states. “In the context of nuclear non-proliferation we would like to emphasize the following point of concern for us,” Ulyanov stated in his remarks. “It is the so-called ‘nuclear sharing’ in NATO member countries. As part of this the non-nuclear members of the alliance accept nuclear weapons on their territory and participate in the planning of their use while their military and air forces participate in nuclear strike training. We fully share the view of the Non-Aligned Movement member states that this practice is incompatible with either the letter or the spirit of the NPT. ….We call on NATO member states to bring their policy in compliance with their obligations.”
Kimball said he interpreted Putin’s “with no double standards” comment as more of a caveat than as a signal for an unequivocal willingness to reduce nuclear arms. Kimball highlighted Putin’s and Ulyanov’s statements alongside Russia’s inaction on further arms reduction negotiations. “I think Vladimir Putin’s comments suggest to me that Russia does not want to be perceived as the impediment for further reductions, and he has used this phrase without double standards,” Kimball said. “I think that probably refers to Russia’s longstanding complaints about a lack of limits on US strategic missile defense capabilities, their concerns about NATO conventional forces, and their concerns about the slowly growing numbers of third-country nuclear forces.”
Is Russia Opportunistic?
Through his words, Putin could be trying to provoke the U.S. to unilaterally reduce nuclear arms or to singularly halt its nuclear modernization plans as sequestration looms in Washington and as Moscow rapidly modernizes its arsenal, according to experts. “I think [Putin’s comments are] opportunistic rather than reflecting any particular interests in arms control,” said Hudson Institute senior fellow William Schneider, who in addition to other advisory positions, served as chair of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament from 1987 to 1993. “The U.S. is just at the front end of replacing its own legacy Cold War systems, and because of the financial difficulties we have, that process would not be completed for nearly two decades, so I think it’s an effort on the Russian part to try and prevent the U.S. from modernizing so that the Russians could secure an advantage from their own modernization program and their diplomatic dealings with Europe and the nations in the Russian periphery.”
Scowcroft Group principal and former defense advisor Frank Miller expressed similar views, saying that Putin was using a bilateral guise in an effort to surreptitiously provoke U.S. unilateral action. Citing false Kremlin denials about the presence of regular army units in Ukraine, as well as Russian violations of the INF Treaty and the 1991-92 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, Miller categorically dismissed the idea that Putin’s recent remarks were made in good faith. “This is a sham, but it’s designed to suck in well-meaning Americans to halt our modernization programs while they continue theirs, without any kind of restrictions,” Miller said. “[Putin is] not interested in arms control. The guy cheats on the treaties, right? This is not someone you can do business with, unless they dramatically and remarkably changed their ways. And he knows that we know that, but nevertheless, he’s trying to get Americans to cut back on our beginning modernization efforts while he keeps doing what he’s doing. … I think it’s a stunning audacity of Putin to hold out this idea when he cheats every day.”
When Could Further Bilateral Nuclear Arms Reductions Occur?
As the Administration’s proposal for further nuclear reductions remains on the table, Putin’s recent comments have inspired hope in some for future bilateral arms control negotiations. “I see them as a hopeful sign, but certainly we can’t bank too much on them until there are some contacts at higher levels to try to figure out whether there’s anything real there,” Ploughshares Fund Director of Policy Tom Collina said. “But, we also have to remember that stranger things have happened in times of bad relations between the United States and Russia. Sometimes, negotiations over arms control and nuclear reductions manage to keep going. So maybe this is a step toward some level of cooperation, but I think it’s just too soon to tell.”
Kimball, Miller and Collina said that from a U.S. national security standpoint, the onus to resume further nuclear arms reductions remains in Russia’s hands. Steven Pifer, director of Brookings’ Arms Control Initiative and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said it might be in Russia’s interest to reignite such talks in 2019, “because at that point, you’re a year-and-a-half, two years out from the expiration of the New START Treaty,” he said. “And my guess is, I think the Russians, while they may not want to do much to go beyond New START, they want to have some kind of an agreement that caps American strategic forces, and also provides a basic degree of transparency regarding those forces: Transparency and predictably.” While Russia doesn’t appear interested in starting negotiations sooner, Pifer pointed to 1983, when Soviets halted SALT talks and negotiations on intermediate-range missiles before resuming arms reduction talks two years later and ratifying the INF Treaty in 1987. Given this history, Pifer said Russia could rapidly reverse its balky nuclear posture if Putin changes his mind.
Russian resistance to negotiations might stem from the country’s biggest claim to superpower status: A large arsenal of nuclear weapons, Pifer said. Other possible motives for Russia’s idling could include a desire to improve the country’s conventional capabilities and a reluctance to move nuclear jobs away from the one-factory towns where many reside, he said. “I think there are four or five possible motives out there,” Pifer said. “The exact mix that leads the Russians to keep saying no to further negotiations, I’m not sure.” Arms reductions could follow from a lackluster economy that relegates Putin to a “guns-versus-butter” choice, whereby he could cite maintaining social peace as a reason for cutting the arsenal. “Whether that will happen the next four or five years, I don’t know,” Pifer said. “But I think that’s what brings the change.”
