New START Suspension By Russia Can Trigger New Arms Race In Long Term

Moscow's decision to put the brakes on its participation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) could potentially usher in a new nuclear arms race between the two countries, experts told Sputnik

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 22nd February, 2023) Moscow's decision to put the brakes on its participation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) could potentially usher in a new nuclear arms race between the two countries, experts told Sputnik.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced this step during his Tuesday address to the Federal Assembly, noting that the country was not fully withdrawing from the treaty. The Russian president also accused the United States of developing new types of nuclear weapons and considering new nuclear weapons tests.

On Wednesday, the Russian parliament's lower and upper houses approved a bill to halt Russia's participation in the New START treaty.

New START, in effect since February 5, 2011, is the last remaining legally binding agreement between the US and Russia � the two countries with the largest nuclear capabilities. Under the treaty, the US and Russia have been required to reduce their nuclear arsenal to a total of 700 missiles, 800 launchers and 1,550 deployed warheads.

In June 2021, Putin and US President Joe Biden signed a joint US-Russia statement on strategic stability, where they pledged to "lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures" through the bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue and reaffirmed the principle that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."

Earlier that year, the Biden administration agreed to extend the New START accord to February 5, 2026.

The announcement by the Russian president is the latest reaction by Moscow to the US involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which includes sanctions against Moscow as well as weapons deliveries to Kiev.

Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, compared Russia's decisions with the US's approach to the arms control talks in the early 1970s, when Washington pursued negotiations with Moscow despite the fact it was providing assistance to North Vietnam.

At the same time, he noted that "the status and the impact of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is greater."

"The statement confirms what Russia said before � the United States is regarded as a party in the war and thus all forms of cooperation are not acceptable until the situation changes," Sokov said.

Professor M. V. Ramana, the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the school of Public Policy and Global Affairs and the director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia, suggested that Putin's decision would escalate the conflict in Ukraine and in other areas.

"This is unfortunate because the value of arms control agreements is perhaps the greatest during moments of crisis because it keeps open channels of communication," the expert said.

Both Sokov and Ramana agree there is a possibility the two countries could enter some form of arms race in the wake of Moscow's decision.

"In the longer term perspective, if the situation does not change, both parties may more actively engage in a qualitative arms race: numbers will hardly change, but the capabilities of both parties will grow. The strategic balance will become less predictable," Sokov said.

Qualitative modernization has already been taking place but will become more dangerous due to a lack of restrictions and transparency, he warned.

At the same time, the expert cautioned against overestimating the consequences of the announcement and falling into a panic. He pointed to the resilience of strategic nuclear balance and suggested that there will be no significant changes in strategic nuclear postures for at least a couple of years, which leaves enough time to bring back New START and launch new nuclear arms talks.

Ramana, for his part, outlined a scenario in which the suspension could result in more hawkish elements in the US pushing to expand their country's capabilities.

"Without robust and functioning arms control bureaucracies, even well-intentioned leaders may find it difficult to counter such pressures to build up their arsenals. That, in turn, might lead Russia to respond with its own actions. In short, this could lead to an arms race," Ramana said.

Meanwhile, Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist and professor of public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University, said that while it was hard for him to believe there could be similarly large buildups as happened during the Cold War, "the situation is definitely unstable."

He went on to cite the George W. Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which helped drive China's military buildup as well as Russia's development of new delivery vehicles.

"I was already worried about the future of strategic arms control because of China's buildup. In physics, a three-body problem is much more difficult to solve than a two-body problem. The same is true in politics," von Hippel said.

At the same time, John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, thinks the decision will have few consequences as both countries already possess "a ridiculously large number of nuclear weapons" and that another global arms race is unlikely.

"I don't see that Putin's effort has much to do with anything except to remind people (unnecessarily) that Russia has nuclear weapons. It really doesn't matter much," Mueller said, quipping that "exploding nuclear weapons in a country on your western border when the prevailing winds come from the west has its downside as a policy."

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticized the decision as "deeply unfortunate and irresponsible," while simultaneously confirming Washington's readiness for strategic arms limitations negotiations with Moscow regardless of the global situation or Russia-US relations. Biden, for his part, called Putin's decision a "big mistake."

Ramana described the part of Blinken's statement about Washington's readiness to talk as "very welcome" and expressed the hope that "Russia would reciprocate by starting talks on resuming the START treaty."

When asked about a potential US response, Mueller noted that the US was likely to engage in little more than rhetoric "unless Putin decides to build more of the useless weapons, in which case the US will want to show it can waste money on them just as well."

Similarly, Sokov predicted that Washington would stick to political statements and political pressure.

"At the same time, domestic pressure, especially from the Republican party, will continue to increase; the United States has already entered the period of full-scale modernization of its strategic forces, and these plans may be modified. Thus, if the situation does not improve in the next one or two years, modernization plans will be irreversibly changed in the absence of restrictions contained in New START," Sokov said.

The expert also said it could be worth bringing back the Cold War practice of dealing with the issue of nuclear arms control separately from all other conflicts due to the inherent danger of the matter. Though, he warned that "while the active phase of the ongoing conflict continues, it will be difficult to expect this."

In the same vein, von Hippel stated that it was both in the US and Russia's interest to cooperate on keeping the danger of nuclear weapons under control.

"My colleagues and I are trying to prevent a mindless response here. I hope there are voices of reason within Russia's policy debate as well. The hawks react to the hawks on the other side. The doves must work together as well," von Hippel concluded.