Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
8/22/2014
LA VISTA, Neb.—Tensions involving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have “tamped down” talk of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation among United States allies at NATO, according to a senior NATO official. Speaking at U.S. Strategic Command’s Deterrence Symposium last week, Fred Frederickson, the director of the Nuclear Policy Division on the NATO International Staff, said arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation still remain a goal of some allies, but Russia’s actions have made nuclear reductions less of a priority for the alliance. “I would say that recent actions in Ukraine by Russia and over the longer run Russia’s nuclear doctrine, modernization programs, exercises, and this recent announcement that the U.S. has determined they’re in violation of the INF treaty may cause some allies to lower their expectations of progress on arms control and disarmament initiatives in NATO,” Frederickson told NS&D Monitor on the sidelines of the symposium.
In its Deterrence and Defense Posture Review released in 2012, NATO concluded that its nuclear forces would remain a core element of its posture, but it also said it would examine ways to reduce its nuclear weapons. Frederickson acknowledged that there remained a divide between allies about priorities. “The security situation has changed in a significant way and you could walk the halls at headquarters and go into one delegation and they would say it’s still a high priority and in the Cold War we still made progress on these issues, even in the darkest days,” he said. “Others would say, ‘No, see we’ve been telling you this all along.’ ”
But he acknowledged that efforts to make progress with Russia have faded with the increased tensions over Ukraine. Track 1.5 workshops aimed at improving transparency and building confidence for more disarmament have disappeared, he said. “Right now I don’t know even the most optimistic nations that are scheduling the next workshops,” he said.
Will Nuclear Disarmament Be Topic of Looming Wales NATO Summit?
Brad Roberts, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy in the Obama Administration, suggested the issue could be addressed at the upcoming NATO summit in Wales next month with a “re-endorsement” of the general approach to deterrence and defense that the alliance has pursued. He suggested over the next several years that the strategies outlined in the DDPR would come under question. “The DDPR began with the premise that Russia is not an enemy and not an ally but a partner. Russia clearly sees the alliance as an enemy, or at least Mr. Putin does,” said Roberts, who is now a consulting professor and William Perry Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
He later added: “There will be an interesting nuclear discussion if Russia proceeds to break out of the INF Treaty and proceeds to deploy nuclear-tipped INF missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe. I think one of the interesting nuclear questions for the alliance is, ‘Was the trajectory we were on the right trajectory after all,’ or is there a different one?”
Gottemoeller Disagrees, Says Momentum Not Fading
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said she disagreed with the sense that momentum for arms control and disarmament was fading at NATO. In her speech at the symposium, Gottemoeller continued to suggest that future arms control and disarmament talks with Russia remained in the national security interests of the United States. “In my conversations with the NATO allies there has been a real sense that arms control has served an important purpose in this moment,” Gottemoeller said. “Honestly the only message I get is there is work to be done and we need to stay focused.”
Russia has rebuffed attempts at future arms control talks, but Gottemoeller said President Obama’s year-old offer to lower the 1,550-warhead ceiling established by the New START Treaty by one-third remains a “sound” proposal. “We will continue to be open to discussion of agreements that would reduce nuclear and other military threats,” she said. “Of course, we know that the situation is different than it was four years ago, four months ago, four weeks ago.”
With a lull in talks, Gottemoeller said the U.S. was taking time now to prepare for future talks. “That includes more research into how we incorporate new technologies and innovations into verification and monitoring,” she said. “We can also shape, maintain, and improve strategic stability through a variety of bilateral and multilateral dialogues, including in the Track 1.5 and Track 2 realms. These engagements reduce the potential for misunderstanding and provide the basis for future agreement and cooperation.”
