U.S. Should Accept Putin's Offer to Negotiate on Nukes
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the 2017 G-20 Summit in
Germany. (Kremlin / Wikimedia)
On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his state of the
nation address. Much of his speech focused on economic issues and proposals
to improve the Russian economy and well-being of the Russian people. Putin
did, however, devote a portion of his speech to what he called "the most
important defense issue." He was referring to Russia's next generation of
strategic nuclear weapons designed to overcome U.S. missile defense systems
and, thereby from his perspective, assure the effectiveness of Russia's
nuclear deterrent force and restore the global strategic balance.
Putin began his remarks on nuclear arms by harking back to the U.S.
unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002,
a treaty he described as "the cornerstone of the international security
system," due to the limits it placed on missile defense deployments. He
recalled Russian efforts, before the U.S. withdrawal and subsequent to it,
to dissuade the U.S. from abrogating the treaty, efforts that were all
rejected out of hand. He stated, "All our proposals, absolutely all of them,
were rejected."
It is not well understood in the U.S. that there is a strategic relationship
between offensive and defensive missiles. Although it is doubtful that
missile defenses would ever work as planned, the leaders of a country whose
offensive missiles are subject to being destroyed by missile defenses must
assume that they would work. In his speech, Putin explained this
relationship of defensive and offensive missiles by pointing out that
"uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles" by the U.S.
"will result in the complete devaluation of Russia's nuclear potential."
This situation, Putin argued, requires Russia to build new offensive nuclear
arms capable of penetrating the U.S. missile defenses in order to maintain
"strategic stability" and not allow the U.S. to develop a perceived
first-strike capability.
The U.S. has been dismissive of this Russian concern, arguing that its
defenses are only meant to stop attacks from small powers such as North
Korea or Iran (although Iran has no nuclear arms). However, it is a clear
and often repeated concern of Russia, just as it would be to the U.S. if
Russia were placing missile defense installations near the U.S. border and
around the world. Putin stated, "Let me recall that the United States is
creating a global missile defense system primarily for countering strategic
arms that follow ballistic trajectories. These weapons form the backbone of
our nuclear deterrence forces, just as other members of the nuclear club."
Putin mentioned new Russian strategic nuclear weapons that would be fast,
powerful and able to evade ballistic missile defenses. One of these new
missiles, known as Sarmat, he described as "untroubled by even the most
advanced missile defense systems." He also discussed development of new
types of nuclear-powered strategic arms that do not use ballistic
trajectories. These he depicted as "invincible against all existing and
prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems."
Russia's new strategic weapons systems do not change the balance of power
between the U.S. and Russia, though the U.S. may point to them in justifying
its own plans to modernize every aspect of its nuclear arsenal at a cost of
$1.7 trillion. Russia's new offensive nuclear weapons will only bring the
ongoing nuclear arms race to a position of strategic stability.
The fuel for a new nuclear arms race was already on the fire, and a Russian
strategic response was predictable, when the U.S. withdrew from the ABM
Treaty and began developing and emplacing missile defense systems globally.
The U.S. withdrawal and abrogation of the ABM Treaty may prove to be the
greatest strategic blunder of the nuclear age.
New York Times writers Neil MacFarquhar and David Sanger, reporting on the
speech, observed that Putin had "threatened the West with a new generation
of nuclear weapons. ." But in my reading of the speech, it seemed not to be
a threat but rather an announcement that Russia has found a way to assure
strategic stability by developing a nuclear force that can't be destroyed in
a U.S. first strike, with the U.S. able to use missile defenses to knock out
a Russian retaliatory attack with any of its missiles that survive the
initial attack.
Putin offered a critique of the recent U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, saying
it lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear arms, including "in response
to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyberthreat." This is a valid
critique.
Putin goes on to state: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its
allies . will be considered a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation
will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences." So long as nuclear
weapons exist, this kind of posturing, while unfortunate, is to be expected
by the logic of nuclear deterrence and is similar to statements U.S. leaders
have made.
Putin became conciliatory near the end of his address, stating, "There is no
need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the
negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of
international security and sustainable development for human civilization.
We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid.
Russia is ready for this."
The U.S. should take him up on this offer. As the two most powerful nuclear
powers on the planet, with enough nuclear weapons to end civilization as we
know it and possibly the human species, the two countries need to be engaged
in productive and good-faith negotiations to end the nuclear weapons threat
to each other and to all humanity.
Putin has opened the door for the two countries to negotiate to resolve
their differences.
Now it is up to the U.S. to respond.
David Krieger
David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and has
served as its president since.
David Krieger
