• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Does Moscow Know Something That Washington Doesn't?

The Russian Atomic Energy Agency announced on September 1 that additional troops had been dispatched to guard nuclear facilities throughout Russia.The troop move is a sign that Russia recognizes that the threat to its nuclear facilities. US programs to assist Russian nuclear security also need to recognize that the threat has changed and move to accelerate and expand ongoing efforts.

Link Copied
By Jon Wolfsthal
Published on Sep 2, 2004

The Russian Atomic Energy Agency announced on September 1 that additional troops had been dispatched to guard nuclear facilities throughout Russia. The move comes in the wake of a series of attacks from Chechen rebels, including the downing of two Russian aircraft, a subway bombing in downtown Moscow and a recent school seizure. The troop move is a sign that Russia recognizes that the threat to its nuclear facilities is growing and that additional steps must be taken to protect its stocks of nuclear materials and weapons. US programs to assist Russian nuclear security also need to recognize that the threat has changed and move to accelerate and expand ongoing efforts.

Despite these risks, as well as statements from top officials, the United States has not been doing all it can to protect Russian nuclear materials and weapons. While some important initiatives have been launched, the recent legacy of nuclear security programs in Russia has been disappointing. According to a major Harvard University study, fewer Russian nuclear materials were secured in the two years after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 than in the two years prior to the attacks. Moreover, at its current pace, US-assisted security upgrades will not be completed until well into the next decade, even though the government states it will complete them by 2008.

More Security, Deeper Cuts
In addition, the Bush administration arms reduction policies have increased the risk of Russian nuclear weapons being stolen. The President’s fateful decision not to include verification procedures or requirements for warhead elimination in the Treaty of Moscow means that Russia is retaining a larger nuclear arsenal than it needed and storing those weapons longer than it wants as a hedge against possible US rearmament. The Moscow agreement codified the decision in both countries to reduce their strategic deployed offensive arsenal to no more than 2200 weapons. Despite statements at the time, the Bush administration has made no efforts to follow up on the 2002 agreement with deeper cuts, to reduce tactical nuclear weapons, or to enhance the treaty’s verification procedures.

Even though the nature of the threat to Russia’s nuclear complex is increasing, US and international efforts to assist Russia to improve nuclear security are not keeping pace. Business as usual will not protect Russia’s nuclear materials or weapons, or American security. Programs now being implemented were designed to protect against insider theft and lightly armed attacks against Russian facilities. The growing sophistication of the attacks in Russia means that current programs may be addressing only one part of a more complex problem. Russia appears to have recognized this fact and is taking some modest steps to increase its own efforts. The US and its allies need to do the same by speeding up efforts to protect nuclear and chemical weapons sites, and take a more comprehensive approach to helping Russia eliminate its excess materials and warheads. This, finally, should include steps to accelerate the reductions called for in the Treaty of Moscow, verify those cuts, and eliminate the warheads slated for withdrawal from deployment. Anything less is courting disaster.

About the Author

Jon Wolfsthal

Jon Wolfsthal
North AmericaUnited StatesCaucasusRussiaForeign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.