{
"authors": [
"James M. Acton",
"Elizabeth Turpen"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Russia will not agree to the kind of deep cuts in nuclear weapons envisioned by President Obama without a concrete deal on missile defense.
Source: Bloggingheads.tv
At a recent U.S.-Russia summit, Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev reached a framework agreement to cut each country's nuclear stockpiles by about a third by year's end. James M. Acton discussed with Elizabeth Turpen of the Henry L. Stimson Center, the challenges to reaching that goal. In grading U.S.-Russian discussions, Acton said:
"The Obama administration played it very savvily today—they have committed to doing the joint threat assessment on ballistic missiles with the Russians and that appears to have been enough...to satisfy Russian concerns for the time being. Obama has been very clear that the current treaty they are negotiating is an interim treaty; he wants something much bigger—much deeper cuts—to follow on very shortly on this treaty and the Russians are not going to do that without a concrete deal on missile defense, but that then is going require [Obama] opening himself up to much more criticism domestically."
Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Elizabeth Turpen
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