Arms-control proponents are urging Washington and Moscow not to stop discussing new nuclear-weapon curbs, as tensions soar between the capitals.
A so-called “Deep Cuts Commission” advocated steps such as curbing the readiness of the former Cold War rivals’ nuclear weapons to fire on a moment’s notice, as well as reducing long-range warhead deployments beyond levels mandated by the 2011 New START agreement.
In an inaugural report issued on Monday, the group of independent analysts and former officials asserted that mistrust between Russia and the United States over military maneuvers in Ukraine underscores a need for the two governments to jointly consider how they can reduce the risk of a nuclear exchange.
“The current political environment is anything but conducive” to achieving significant nuclear-arms curbs, according to the panel composed of 21 experts from Russia, the United States and Germany.
Its members include former Russian strategic missile forces chief of staff Victor Yesin, one-time White House National Security Council official Catherine Kelleher, and Oliver Meier, who worked for former German lawmaker Uta Zapf when she chaired the parliament’s Foreign Affairs Disarmament, Arms Control and Nonproliferation Subcommittee.
Pulling back from dialogue could lead to a “hardening of each side’s existing positions” that would complicate any future nuclear-reduction talks and increase the potential for “misunderstandings,” the group stated in its findings.
The authors suggested that in the absence of new arms-control talks, Russia may increasingly rely on nuclear weapons to counterbalance Washington’s “growing technological edge” in the development of missile defense systems, conventional long-range strike capabilities and potential space-based weapons.
The panel reaffirmed in its report all of the recommendations it devised in internal deliberations in the months before Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. The group’s advice calls in part for actions to meet New START reduction targets well ahead of a 2018 deadline, and for renewed efforts to develop trust on entrenched disputes over missile defense, nonstrategic nuclear arms and long-range conventional capabilities.
“The value of such measures in putting tighter constraints on nuclear arms becomes all the more apparent in times of tension,” Steven Pifer, a commission member and a Brookings Institution senior fellow, said in released comments.
Correction: This article includes corrected text describing a position earlier held by Oliver Meier.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.