When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia “suspended” its participation in the “New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” that it signed with the United States to limit the strategic nuclear arsenals of both sides, the American circles were looking for the motives behind it.
“In this regard, I have to announce today that Russia has suspended its participation in New START,” Putin told Russian lawmakers.
Russia and the United States have nearly 90 percent of the world‘s nuclear warheads, weapons that have been partly restricted in previous treaties, including New START, which came into effect in 2011 and was extended in 2021 until February 2026.
Putin’s decision came as no surprise. As the influence of the Russia-Ukraine war expands, some experts do not rule out the possibility that this war will have an impact on the Russian-US nuclear arms race.
At present, Russia’s true intentions are not clear, but since the beginning of the Ukraine war, Russia has continuously issued nuclear threats, and this latest move seems to be a new escalation of European and American commitments to Ukraine through nuclear escalation.
Russia warned days earlier that the only remaining agreement with the United States on limiting nuclear weapons might not be renewed in 2026 because it believed the United States was trying to inflict a “strategic failure” on Russia in Ukraine.
Agreement cannot be suspended
The United States regrets Russia’s decision to suspend the nuclear treaty. The State Department called Russia’s decision “deeply regrettable and irresponsible,” and stressed that “the United States sees no reason to change its nuclear status following Putin’s suspension of his country’s participation in New START.”
On the other hand, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that “Moscow will maintain a responsible attitude and will continue to strictly abide by the quantitative restrictions on strategic offensive weapons stipulated in the treaty.”
Matthew Whalen, chief executive of the American Security Project, a think tank that focuses on military affairs, believes that the Russian president’s move is very short-sighted.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Whalen said President Putin “choose to use the phrase ‘suspension’ on New START, which doesn’t have that option, only the withdrawal option.” Formal Notification Procedure”.
The treaty covers long-range and intercontinental nuclear missiles, and its ICBM nuclear arsenals limit the two countries to no more than 700 nuclear warheads on ground bases and 1,550 nuclear missiles on submarines and strategic air bombers. In addition, they can have 800 A fixed or non-fixed platform for launching nuclear missiles.
The agreement calls for the two sides to conduct 18 annual inspections of the nuclear weapons base, in addition to exchanging data to verify compliance with the terms of the treaty.
Russia refused to launch an inspection last year after the two sides failed to conduct on-site nuclear weapons inspections for the past three years since inspections were delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Whalen predicted that Putin might try to suspend the treaty “to get the U.S. out of the way before blaming Washington. It’s clear that Putin is desperately using every measure available to try to increase U.S., Western and NATO support for Ukraine.” cost.”
Stress and Lack of Benefits
Over the past few decades, New START has proven to reduce the risk of nuclear war by limiting the size of Russia’s and the United States‘ strategic nuclear arsenals while still permitting their use, thereby reducing the risk of nuclear war for both the United States and Russia National security benefits greatly.
The two countries have come a long way from the days of mutual fear of nuclear annihilation in the 1950s to the decades-long Cold War that finally set limits on the number of nuclear weapons each could have and made a commitment to do so.
Because New START is the only remaining nuclear treaty between the world‘s two largest nuclear powers, “Russia no longer appears interested in continuing to abide by or replace it, so we may again find We find ourselves in the midst of a nuclear arms race, and the inevitable multitude of confrontations and incidents that follow.”
not a gift
Steve Bayev, an expert on European affairs and disarmament at the Brookings Institution, believes that the New START is by no means a gift from Russia to the United States, nor is it a gift from the United States to Russia.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Bayef said, “The two countries reached this agreement because it is in the interests of both parties to limit strategic nuclear weapons and take appropriate verification measures. Therefore, Putin’s decision is an irresponsible one. Wrong, this could destabilize strategically and could lead to a future arms race. This situation is in no one’s interest.”
He also pointed out that “Russians should ask themselves: What will the collapse of New START bring about? Without the restrictions of this treaty, the US military may be loaded with spares on missiles that currently carry warheads below their capacity.” Warheads, thereby substantially increasing the number of warheads for ICBMs at a relatively low cost.”