A New Start for US-Russian Relations

The US and Russian presidents released in London today a remarkable statement that breaks from the stale mumbo jumbo of the past and details an ambitious work plan for a new relationship between the two countries--starting with the goal of a nuclear-free world.

Compare this statement to the 2006 Bush-Putin statement. The latter is almost claustrophobic in its fixation on minor details and export control restraints. Obama and Medvedev pound the reset button, establishing "a substantive agenda for Russian and the United States" and promising, "now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements."

First and very interesting is the frame of their nuclear discussion. Rather than beginning, as did almost all Bush-era statements, with warnings of the threat of new nations getting nuclear arms, its focus is on their own arsenals and their own obligations.

Upfront is a significant commitment to achieving a nuclear free world, consistent with Obama's repeated statements. They restore arms control and conflict resolution to central policy roles.

They have committed to a new treaty (to replace the expiring START agreement) by the end of the year and want a report from their negotiators by July. These guys are not fooling around. There is no mention of numbers, but that is reasonable. They will have to talk before committing to a specific number lower than the existing 2002 SORT agreement of 1700-2200 strategic deployed warheads.

The number of 1500 deployed strategic warheads has been widely mentioned. But many believe this would be a way station on the way to the next treaty that would bring in all nuclear weapons, deployed and non-deployed, strategic and tactical, and cut down to 500 to 1000 total warheads for each nation.

Nuclear Numbers

Just to keep all this is perspective, here is the best estimate of total US and Russian nuclear weapons today. The existing treaties just cover the long-range warheads on missiles, bombers and submarines. A future treaty could cover all weapons and mandate their verified dismantlement, not just storage.

US
Strategic Deployed: 2200
Non-strategic: 500
Reserve: 2500
Stored awaiting dismantlement: 4200
TOTAL: 9400

Russia
Strategic Deployed: ~2800
Non-strategic: ~2050
Reserve/Stored: ~8150
TOTAL: ~13000

Getting Real on Missile Defense

Obaman and Medvedev clearly want to work out a compromise on anti-missile systems in Europe. Obama recognizes that the weapons Bush was rushing to deploy do not really work and Medvedev seems to acknowledge that they there are ways to deploy systems that would not threaten Russia. This is the beginning of a cooperative approach based, as they say, "on joint threat assessments of missile challenges and threats."

Some in the Obama administration seem to want to keep playing games with this. Helene Cooper reports in The New York Times, that some do not want the administration "to give up on the missile shield until it gets something from Russia in return [like] more cooperation...on Iran." Obama should reject such juvenile posturing. The Bush plan would deploy weapons that do not work against a threat that does not exist with money we do not have. There is no shield; there is no trade. The sooner we start working on cooperative efforts to address the real threats from Iran, the better.

Test Ban

Finally, there is some real news on efforts to stop all global tests of nuclear weapons. Both nations in the statement pledge to bring the the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty into force. Russia has ratified it, Bush refused to, Obama now promises to make it so.

This was a Obama pledge during the campaign. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her January 13 confirmation hearing promised to seek Senate ratification of the test ban, but this may be the first public commitment by Obama to do so since becoming president. This could be the beginning of a serious administration effort, though he doesn't explicitly promise to do so this year.

More to come when President Obama speaks this Sunday in Prague in what is billed as a major speech on nuclear policy. Stay tuned.

 

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[wallyone]

Reagan and Gorbachev tried to begin the path to zero nukes in Iceland, but were stopped by Richard Perle. It would have been a great triumph for Reagan and the best part of his mixed legacy. Chalk up another egregious tragedy to Perle.

[Unsui]

Kudos to Huffpost for publishing important, knowledgeable, policy wonks like Cirincione. Many of us are in need of the information and analysis provided by those who are intimate with these issues.

I think it is noteworthy that people like the author of this post and Queen Noor of Egypt are lauding the change in direction and tone that President Obama represents in Russian and US relations. This gives me confidence in the choice we made for America in November.

[RobHunt]

Putin to Obama: Cancel any attempt to establish a missile sheild in Europe.

Stop messing with Poland and Ukraine. Those countries are in our "yard" and the people who live there have no business talking to you.

I know we SAY we want to help you reign in Iranian nuclear ambitions, but we have much to gain by sowing discord in the Middle East, and they pay cash (sometimes.) We will continue to talk out of both sides of our mourths on this one.

We have learned that we can control you and get you to meld to our will much easier if we describe our relationship as a "partnership." It was so much harder to get away with things when we were adversaries. We prefer the kind of "peace" where we can dictate terms to the EU on natural gas, but still get invited to your parties. Like my pals in China say: "Long live the UN!!!!"

[MilwaukeeDan]

RH,#1, the missile shield won't work and the their citizens don't want it.
#2, Poland and Ukraine have American installed puppet governments, they do what we want.
#3, Is the Iranian nuclear program offensive? You don't know.
#4, On natural gas, if you don't pay, you don't play, how do EU/Russia natural gas contracts affect Americans?
#5 just another Cold Warrior that can't give up the past.

[RobHunt]

Those pipelines that run thru the Ukraine and ar supposedly "owned" by Russia, were built by Ukranians that had been ENSLAVED by Russia. That's ONE reason Russia had been selling gas to Ukraine below market rates. Fast forward a few years and Russia decides that contracts they signed should be voided. You correcty point out that the US is not hurt by such actions, but we can be INFORMED by them. The fact is, Russia ain't ready to be partners with ANYONE. They are a rogue state that cannot be relied upon to do ANYTHING constructive.

As for calling the first ever democratically elected government of Poland a puppet of the US - you're on acid. What they HAD under the USSR was a tyrant puppet master. What they have NOW is freedom, and they LIKE it. Just ask them.

And the past? I'm happy to leave it behind. I'm focused on the challenges in FRONT of us.

[WmC]

"The Bush plan would deploy weapons that do not work against a threat that does not exist with money we do not have."

Bravo Joe Cirincione. The next U S Secretary of Defense. . . in a rational world.

[AirForceBlue]

We could hear Putin & Medevev laughing out loud as they embraced each other in congratulations for pulling off another scam on the USA. Will the famous phrase of the biggest neocon of all, "trust but verify," be in play here?

[brklynivn]

Too bad he didn't see Putin's "soul" when he looked into his eyes like our last genius.

[RobHunt]

OK so Bush was hopeful on that score, but wrong. How is Obama any different? He plans to partner with Russia on a whole HOST of issues. NOW who is being naive?

[gmlaster]

It's almost too much to hope for. I'm keeping my fingers and toes crossed that they can make this work. It would be so cool if our two nations could finally unify on this matter and come down like Judgment Day on ANYONE (North Korea & Iran) who tries to build nukes in the future.