{
"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.
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
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.
Vrinda Sahai
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …