{
"authors": [
"Alexey Arbatov"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission"
],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Disarmament cooperation between Russia and the U.S. has stalled. Negotiations must be renewed, for inaction could revive an arms race.
This brief examines the disarmament vacuum that has emerged, focusing on the deadlock over the Russian-American Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START-1). The treaty expires in 2009 and no agreement has been reached on a legally binding treaty to replace it. Arbatov emphasizes that for the first time in 40 years there is a danger that a legal vacuum and growing uncertainty over each other’s strategic capability and intentions could arise in the crucially important area of Russia’s and America’s military and political security. He points out that the system of laws and agreements on military security put together through many decades of exhausting and unbelievably complex negotiations has been almost completely dismantled today. As he states, “winds reminiscent of the Cold War have begun to stir once again and signs of a renewed arms race are ever clearer.”
Arbatov sets out several reasons why Russia and the United States have failed to find common ground and draw up a new treaty. One of the main factors as far as America is concerned is that “Washington’s priority is to agree on a broadly transparent regime incorporating as many of the START-1 verification measures as possible, in order to maintain mutual trust and predictability. Given the prevailing negative attitude in the U.S. towards arms control treaties, the proposal is to conclude a legally binding new treaty but with only a politically binding agreement.” As for Russia, “The new Russian political elite that came to power after the Cold War has no historical and institutional memory of the decades of exhausting efforts, successes and failures of disarmament as one of the most important areas of national and international security.”
Based on the history of strategic relations between the two countries over the last 15 years, Arbatov proposes ways to break the current deadlock. One of the best solutions would be a legally binding agreement in this area concluded with the current U.S. administration before it hands over the reins to its successor in January 2009. Arbatov suggests that the best base on which to draft a new agreement would be the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) and not a reworked version of START-1.
In conclusion, Arbatov writes: “Once they have propped up the ‘supporting pillar’ of Russian-American relations and global security, the two powers could then work at a calmer pace over 3-4 years to draw up a more radical agreement – SORT-2 – for the post-2012 period.”
Alexey Arbatov
Alexey Arbatov is the head of the Center for International Security at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
Carnegie India 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.
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia