Commentary
Dmitri Trenin
{
"authors": [
"Dmitri Trenin"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Stability Amid Strategic Deregulation: Managing the End of Nuclear Arms Control
Bilateral nuclear arms control is being succeeded in a polycentric nuclear world by deregulation. Rather than mourn arms control, we should focus on complimenting deterrence—which has been and will remain the bedrock of strategic stability—with reliable communication, contacts, transparency, and restraint among relevant parties.
Published on Sep 30, 2020
Source: Washington Quarterly
That nuclear arms control is on the way out is no news. The unraveling of its Cold War-era architecture started almost two decades ago, when US President George W. Bush welcomed Vladimir Putin to his ranch at Crawford, Texas and told the then-young Russian leader that he intended to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The withdrawal from this 1972 treaty, which placed severe restrictions on both countries’ strategic defenses, was a severe blow to the Russians, who had long considered it a cornerstone of strategic stability. Bush, however, couldn’t care less. The Cold War was over, and several countries around the world were busy developing ballistic missiles that required US response. Russia was neither an adversary nor a close partner of the United States, and it was lying flat on its back. While Washington was pointing to North Korean and Iranian missile programs, Moscow suspected it was seeking strategic superiority over both Russia and China.
In 2019, President Donald Trump took the United States out of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The 1987 agreement had eliminated a whole class of missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km, and its signers touted it as a major step toward strategic stability and US-Soviet understanding. However, the INF treaty had been in trouble for some time as a result of US com-plaints about Russian treaty violations, countered by Moscow’s own accusations leveled against Washington. Both Russia and the United States were also wary of continuing with self-imposed restraint while the rest of the world, particularly China, was free to develop and deploy INF systems. Thus, the decision taken by Trump was clearly a strategic move aimed at China, and potentially Russia, evoking bad memories of the 1980s US INF deployments in Europe, when US Pershing II ballistic missiles and ground-based cruise missiles (installed to counter the Soviet Union’s SS-20 systems targeting Western Europe) were positioned just a few minutes’ flight away from Soviet targets.
Read Full Text
This article was originally published in the Washington Quarterly, Fall 2020
About the Author
Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
- Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space
- What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West RevealedCommentary
Dmitri Trenin
Recent Work
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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Axis of Resistance or Suicide?Commentary
As Iran defends its interests in the region and its regime’s survival, it may push Hezbollah into the abyss.
Michael Young
- U.S. Aims in Iran Extend Beyond Nuclear IssuesCommentary
Because of this, the costs and risks of an attack merit far more public scrutiny than they are receiving.
Nicole Grajewski
- The Jamaa al-Islamiyya at a CrossroadsCommentary
The organization is under U.S. sanctions, caught between a need to change and a refusal to do so.
Mohamad Fawaz
- Iran and the New Geopolitical MomentCommentary
A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.
Michael Young
- All or Nothing in GazaCommentary
Implementing Phase 2 of Trump’s plan for the territory only makes sense if all in Phase 1 is implemented.
Yezid Sayigh
