• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

START II: Better Late Than Never

In the Byzantine twilight of Russian political life it is ironically now the Communists (long-time treaty detractors) who seem ready to give the green light for the ratification of the START II treaty. The recent ascendancy of several prominent Communists into the cabinet of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov has turned the tide in favor of ratification.

Link Copied
Published on Dec 3, 1998

Source: Carnegie

In the Byzantine twilight of Russian political life it is ironically now the Communists (long-time treaty detractors) who seem ready to give the green light for the ratification of the START II treaty. The recent ascendancy of several prominent Communists into the cabinet of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov has turned the tide in favor of ratification. Prime Minister Primakov and First Vice Prime Minister Yuriy Maslyukov personally lobbied members of the Communist-led Russian Duma – the lower house of the Russian Parliament – to ratify the treaty during closed hearings on November 10, 1998. Following these increased efforts, chances for the approval of the treaty by the Duma sometime in December are now higher than ever before.

START II was signed in January 1993 amidst the honeymoon of post-Cold War relations between the United States and Russia. Its provisions require both sides to reduce their massive deployed strategic nuclear forces by almost half — to a level of 3,000-3,500 deployed warheads each. (The United States still plans to retain a total stockpile of some 10,000 nuclear weapons, though, even as the number of deployed weapons shrinks.) The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 1996. The Russian Duma, in contrast, has shelved it for more than three years since President Yeltsin formally submitted it for ratification in June 1995.


The Road Ahead

Just six months ago the Duma majority would not even consider a formal discussion of the treaty, but in November these same deputies agreed to accelerate the process considerably. Now they debate not just the notion of ratification, but specific implementing legislation drafted by officials from the Duma and Foreign and Defense Ministries.

In April, President Yeltsin submitted his own START II ratification bill, which lacks Communist support and thus, popular opinion holds, has no chance of approval. In order to forestall the possibility of such a rejection, officials both in the Yeltsin government and Duma have begun to favor a Working Group approach. A Working Group draft resolution is currently being prepared jointly by representatives from both houses of Parliament, the office of the government and the presidential administration. Once this joint resolution is completed, the President will formally denounce his April bill and submit instead the agreed draft resolution. Such an approach will provide the Duma with the opportunity to consider the agreed bill from the very beginning — with much greater probability of its rapid approval.

Reportedly, the ratification bill looks similar to that passed by the U.S. Senate, containing various conditions on START III, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, and non-deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members. Other provisions are addressed to the executive power, and call for the development of a START II-compatible plan for strategic nuclear force modernization, and sufficient financing of that plan.

Although the Working Group probably agrees on the necessity of the conditions, concerns on specific wording remain. Some advocate more obligatory language requiring that missile deactivation under START II be initiated only after a satisfactory START III agreement is concluded. Others prefer a softer approach, perhaps requiring only a presidential recommendation on further START II implementation, contingent on progress in the negotiation of START III.

Most likely, these concerns will not permit debates to begin on the Duma floor in early December, as some observers hurriedly predicted. Given that the Duma usually considers ratification of international agreements on Friday afternoons, December 18 or December 25 seem like more realistic deadlines.

Deployed Strategic Nuclear Forces, Russian Federation and the United States

 

CURRENT

2008

START II

2008

START III

 

Launchers

Warheads

Launchers

Warheads

Warheads

Russia1,4786,674No Heavy
ICBMs
= 3,000   -3,500
= 2,000 – 2,500
United States1,4827,982

Sources: START Memorandum of Understanding, July 1998; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


Potential Roadblocks Remain

Despite all the recent activity, START II ratification should not be taken for granted. Communist and nationalist hardliners have so strongly committed themselves to opposition of the treaty that it will be very difficult for them to change their position — even if they want to help their newly-appointed allies in the Cabinet. Similarly, parliamentary liberals who have supported ratification for many years might now be unwilling to make concessions to the pro-leftist ministers.

Moreover, there may be some opposition from deputies precisely because of the not very subtle linking by Maslyukov of START II ratification with new loans from the International Monetary Fund. In their eyes, the treaty deserves to be rejected simply because this would be the most efficient way to liberate Russia from the IMF and what they call its ‘charlatan prescriptions.’ Finally, the entire treaty could be revoked either by the Duma or by the U.S. Senate if the United States breaks out of the ABM treaty and deploys a national missile defense system, as some Senators advocate.

Nonetheless, by January 3, 1999, six years after START II was signed with much fanfare, President Yeltsin finally has a real chance to gain its ratification. Unfortunately for him, this triumph may only be possible because of the ascendancy of his political archrivals — the Duma Communists.

— Alexander Pikayev


Alexander Pikayev is a Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center and directs the Moscow-based activities of the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project.

CaucasusRussiaMilitaryNuclear 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Blocking of Telegram App Sparks Rare Public Rift Among Russia’s Elites

    The prospect of a total block on Russia’s most popular messaging app has sparked disagreement between the regime’s political managers and its security agencies.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle East

    The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer Market

    The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

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