Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
9/5/2014
With Russian President Vladimir Putin increasingly emphasizing Moscow’s nuclear firepower amid growing tensions with the United States over Ukraine, nuclear weapons experts suggested this week that Russia’s nuclear bluster could provide more ammunition to supporters of modernizing the U.S. nuclear stockpile and weapons complex. Speaking Aug. 29 at a youth forum in central Russia, Putin said that it is better for countries to avoid provoking conflict with Russia and reiterated his nation’s nuclear proficiency. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words,” Putin said, according to the ITAR-TASS news agency. “We are strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces. They are getting more compact and more efficient at the same time. They are getting more modernized in terms of their supply with the latest armaments. We continue building up this potential and we’ll be doing this in the future.”
Ploughshares Fund Policy Director Tom Collina said Putin’s comments were not unusual, but added that certain U.S. lawmakers could cite the Russian president’s words in hopes of garnering more funding for nuclear modernization. “This is Washington, and I have no doubt that people will use that to serve their political ends,” Collina told NS&D Monitor. “Putin is not increasing the size of his forces. He’s modernizing his forces … the same thing the United States is doing. So, sure, some people might try to use that as an excuse to increase funding for U.S. modernization, but there is no rational basis for that.”
State Dept. Official: Russia Moving in Wrong Direction
A State Department official told NS&D Monitor that Russia won’t solve its problems with nuclear weapons and said Putin’s remarks push Moscow in the wrong direction. “In light of the continuing actions of Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine, any discussion of nuclear forces is contrary to Russian claims that it seeks de-escalate the conflict,” the official said. “Russia is fully aware of its commitments under a variety of international arms agreements and treaties, and along with the international community, we expect Russia to honor those commitments. We call on Russia to instead look for ways to enhance mutual security and confidence.”
In a press briefing Sept. 2, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said she hadn’t seen Putin’s remarks, but lumped the comments in with other remarks coming out of Moscow. “There have been a series of escalatory remarks made by President Putin,” Psaki said. “I don’t want to judge or predict what his remark meant. I don’t have any assessment of that, so I would ask you to ask them that question.” Asked by a reporter whether there should be concern that Psaki hadn’t heard the comments, she responded: “I think you are leading to a conclusion about what it meant, but I’m happy to give you a test of what happened over the weekend and see how you do on that test.”
Putin ‘Stirring Up’ Proliferation?
Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, said that while Putin’s comments could strengthen the case for U.S. modernization funding, they might also motivate non-nuclear nations to pursue a nuclear capability. “Then it’s anybody’s guess how bad that gets. I don’t think it gets good,” Huessy told NS&D Monitor. “Putin could be stirring up and precipitating a rush—what I call a cascade—of nuclear weapons emerging in the world.” Huessy added that Putin’s recent behavior has moved nuclear deterrence closer to the forefront of the NATO discussion, and member countries recently have given the issue greater importance.
No Reaction from NATO on Nukes
As Washington reacted to Putin’s comments, NATO allies gathered in Wales for the annual NATO Summit, and while experts suggested that Putin’s comments were on the mind of allies, discussions at the summit were dominated by Russia’s burgeoning conventional forces and its willingness to deploy them as shown in Ukraine. “Mr. Putin’s comments may be cited by one or two of the leaders in the room,” Steven Pifer, director of the Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative and former ambassador to Ukraine, told NS&D Monitor before the summit. “I think NATO is already on the course, having concluded that Russia has changed significantly and you can’t look at Russia the same way as you did five years, or even one year, ago.”
Putin’s comments, however, will certainly suppress talk about removing U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, according to Ivo Daalder, the former U.S. representative to NATO. Daalder, who is now the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, suggested this week during a conference call with reporters that any talk of reducing NATO’s nuclear posture is likely to be squashed by actions by Russia. “Although I have long been on record favoring the elimination of nuclear weapons in Europe, under the present circumstances the kind of language that Vladimir Putin was uttering over the weekend, I don’t see a NATO consensus emerging on moving in that direction nor, I am afraid, that we’re going to see the kind of reciprocal cuts that are necessary on the part of Russia in order to move in that direction,” Daalder said.
NATO Nuclear Posture Expected to Remain the Same
While NATO has previously said it will remain a nuclear alliance and has said it will keep a small arsenal of nuclear weapons spread out among a handful of bases in Europe, it has also said it will look to find ways to reduce its nuclear posture. “We are pretty much where we have been for quite a long time which is a small NATO nuclear presence in Europe that is subject to modernization at the present time and dependent on some indication from Moscow that there is an interest in changing the situation, which right now there isn’t,” Daalder said.
Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Nonproliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, said Putin’s “unhelpful” words are part of a Russian track record of “making irresponsible nuclear threats.” “This is not the first time that Putin or a Russian leader has engaged in nuclear saber-rattling since the end of the Cold War,” Reif said. “I don’t expect NATO’s nuclear posture to be really much of a topic of conversation as part of the formal summit proceedings.”
Another Blow to Arms Control Efforts?
Huessy said Putin views NATO merely as a “paper tiger,” and that the leader’s recent behavior has diminished the chances for reducing nuclear warheads below current New START levels. “We’re not going down below 1,550 [warheads]. Period.” Officials or experts might raise New START abrogation as a potential response, but it would be the first time since before 1972’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the U.S. and Russia/USSR did not share a window into each other’s reentry vehicle inventory, Huessy said. Abrogating the treaty might induce Russia to do the same, he said.
Collina drew no correlation between Putin’s words and a possibility of withdrawal from New START. “Russia is free to modernize its forces as long as it stays within the limits of New START,” he said. “I have not seen any evidence that Russia is violating New START. And as long as that’s the case, New START is still in the U.S. security interests, and therefore, the United States should not be questioning the viability of New START….[B]oth the United States and Russia are in a state of modernization, so no one is getting put at an advantage or disadvantage.”
Future Arms Control Prospects Remain Bleak
Pifer downplayed the possibility of Putin’s recent words having any impact on New START, and instead cited Russian policy. While President Barack Obama 14 months ago raised the idea of reducing the number of strategic warheads to about 1,000, approximately one-third less than New START levels, Putin never jumped aboard. “My sense is that the Russians like having the New START Treaty because it provides an overall cap on U.S. capabilities,” Pifer said. “They like the predictability, they like the transparency in the same way I think the U.S. military appreciates it, but it’s very hard to see any indication in Moscow the last couple of years that they were prepared to go beyond that, so again I don’t think Mr. Putin’s comments on Friday have much impact.”
While arms control prospects remain bleak as the U.S. relationship with Russia undergoes strain, New START provides mutual assurance against an arms race, Reif said. Furthermore, he said abrogating the INF Treaty in the face of alleged Russian violations of the pact (see related story) would be financially and politically counterproductive. “There’s not money at the Pentagon for a new program to even research and develop a new cruise missile, new inter-range nuclear forces, let alone actually build them,” Reif said. “And U.S. withdrawal would be a pretext for Russia to also get out of the treaty.”
