The Russian government reportedly intends to budget extra funds for the disposal of old chemical weapons following the recent break in NATO cooperation.
Russia is disposing of a Soviet-era chemical stockpile as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention and, in the past, has received U.S. funding to support that effort.
On Tuesday, a member of the Russian parliament’s upper chamber, Viktor Ozerov, said the government would have to allocate close to $1 billion for domestic chemical disarmament to make up for the funds that NATO countries had promised to provide, ITAR-Tass reported.
NATO has suspended military cooperation with Russia as punishment for its annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula. However, there has been no word that individual member states have decided to cancel planned nonproliferation funding destined for Moscow. The United States is typically the biggest contributor of such funding through its Cooperative Threat Reduction program and there has been no announcement from Washington that it plans to halt CTR program funding to Russia.
Ozerov, who heads the Federation Council’s Defense and Security Committee, said the recent geopolitical events had not changed Russia’s focus on meeting a Dec. 31, 2015, target date for completing eradicating its chemical arsenal, which at one point measured 44,000 metric tons of warfare agents.
Ahmet Üzümcü, who heads the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, applauded Russia’s progress in destroying its chemical arsenal, Interfax reported. The chemical-arms watchdog organization oversees implementation of the CWC treaty.
The country to date has eradicated 78 percent of its chemical stockpile, Üzümcü said.
“We know that there are certain technical difficulties in destroying chemical weapons,” he said during a visit to Moscow. “We hope that this process will be over” by the end of next year.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."