New START would limit the total number of deployed
strategic warheads each side can deploy to 1,550 — still more than enough to
destroy each other and the planet many times over.
THE
U.S.-Russian relationship continues to spiral downwards. The administration of
U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed new sanctions on Russia, while Russian
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev accused Washington of declaring economic war.
Despite
the escalating tensions, a ray of hope for Russian-American cooperation still
exists.
A leaked Russian document published by Politico this
month revealed that during their July 16 summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir
Putin presented Trump with a series of proposals related to nuclear arms
control, as well as other measures to reduce the risk of military conflict
between the U.S. and Russia. Putin's proposals promote American interests, and
Trump should respond positively by directing his administration to begin
immediate discussions with their Russian counterparts.
First,
Putin suggested that Washington and Moscow extend the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (New START) — a step that many high-level American, European
and Russian nuclear experts have called for. New START would limit the total
number of deployed strategic warheads each side can deploy to 1,550 — still
more than enough to destroy each other and the planet many times over.
New START also contains a number of valuable verification
and confidence-building measures. Each side is permitted up to 18 short-notice
on-site inspections each year, as well exchanges of telemetry and other data.
New START also established a Bilateral Consultative Commission to meet at least
twice a year in Geneva. Both are critical confidence-building measures that
reduce the risk of surprises and misunderstandings. Put simply, extending New
START is in America's national interest because it reduces the risk of nuclear
war.
The Russian document also calls on both sides to
"reaffirm commitment” to agreements covering “intermediate-range
missiles.” That is a reference to the fate of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans the two countries from developing or
using nuclear and ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles that can travel
between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. American officials have accused the Russians
of violating the treaty, provoking angry denials from Moscow. Maintaining the
INF agreement in place is certainly in American interests, and it's important
American officials understand whether or not it's salvageable.
The third main suggestion in the document was for the two
sides to "discuss the non-placement of weapons in space.” While an
American-Russian treaty barring the placement of weapons of mass destruction in
space already exists, it's certainly worth considering whether banning
conventional weapons in space also promotes American interests. It's true that
it's not quite as clear-cut as nuclear arms control. For one thing, the Trump
administration might want to create a new branch of the military purely devoted
to space warfare — an idea at odds with a new space treaty.
Moreover,
as its testing of anti-satellite weapons demonstrates, China also seems
determined to pursue space warfare capabilities. This means that any further
space warfare treaty must necessarily include Beijing. However, neither of
these factors prevents American officials from at least discussing Moscow's
views on how to prevent the militarization of space.
Finally,
military tensions in Eastern Europe were also addressed in the document, with
Moscow proposing the two sides “take measures in order to prevent incidents
while conducting military activities in Europe, as well as to increase trust
and transparency in the military sphere.” Washington should heed this call.
After Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO boasted of
ending “all practical and military cooperation” with Russia, and since then
many of the regular military-to-military communications between the two sides
have been frozen. The problem with this breakdown in communications is that it
greatly increases the risk that a minor military incident in Europe or
elsewhere could rapidly escalate into a full-scale war — up to and including a
nuclear exchange. Avoiding such a disastrous scenario is certainly in American
as well as Russian interests.
To be clear, given Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, it's politically
difficult for Trump to pursue any new agreements with Moscow. Furthermore, many
issues still divide the two sides, most notably allegations of Russian
interference in America's 2016 elections as well as Moscow's ongoing hybrid war
against Ukraine.
Share on facebook or twitter