- Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over,
what do we have at the bottom line?
-
- First, the summit produced a framework document defining
the number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100) and the number
of nuclear warheads in a narrower corridor (1,500-1,675). The limits
are set by the US and Russian Presidents for their negotiating teams and
can easily be adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus on the
issue.
-
- Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed the
future of the US missile defense, but this part of the talks led to no
definite agreements. All that was said was that the existing viewpoints
would have to be taken into account. Moreover, by default the examination
of missile defense was limited to just two and not even the most
important of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises.
-
- There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing
the possibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointly analyzing
the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoring missile programs across
the world. As a clear reference to North Korea and Iran, the two Presidents
warned all the countries having missile potentials against missile technology
proliferation.
-
- Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its
airspace, leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal
-
- The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit.
Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of the agreement
on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at the same time. Given the current
situation in the nuclear arms sphere (the condition of Russia's strategic
nuclear forces, the level of development of the US missile defense and
precision weapons, the magnitude of the return potential concealed by the
START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard 1,700 warheads as the critical minimum.
Why? Estimates show that with this number of warheads and the corresponding
number of carriers the Russian nuclear forces can retain functionality
after an attack by US high-precision weapons, launch on warning before
nuclear warheads carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate
the US missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) and inflict unacceptable
damage on the US. This is the essence of the nuclear deterrence.
-
- The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruise
missile potential and the development of the US missile defense capable
of intercepting missiles at the boost phase and warheads after their separation
from carriers undermine Russia's ability to launch on warning or deliver
a retaliatory strike. In other words, the advancement of the US capability
to destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioning regions (on
the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields, and on docked submarines)
as well as to intercept Russian missiles and warheads creates such a situation
that even having a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will not
be able to deliver them to target locations.
-
- Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700
munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in more distant future
either the US arsenals will have to be slashed or Russia's capabilities
to safeguard its strategic nuclear forces will have to be upgraded to preserve
the balance. The latter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negative
situation in the Russian military-industrial complex and the current conditions
and trends in the Russian strategic nuclear forces. What we witness at
present is the degradation of Russia's military-industrial complex, the
ageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-grade uranium and
plutonium, and serious difficulties faced by Russian missile-manufacturing
enterprises.
-
- As the US Administration is fully aware of the state
of Russia's strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them, its consent
to the proposed parameters of the arms reduction was not hard to extract
Speaking precisely, Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposed
cuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy is to rely
less on nuclear arms and more on advanced conventional weapons, especially
cruise missiles and space-based, ground-based, and marine missile defense
systems. At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goes unchallenged
but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China, and other countries still
preclude the global US dictate. As a result, the reduction of nuclear potentials
plays into the hands of the US.
-
- There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russia
should exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national
security is in disrepair. Russia needs a fundamental analysis of the international
situation in the context of the current economic crisis and its own global
strategy aimed at rebuilding the international security system. It should
also make resolute efforts to restore its military-industrial complex.
Secondly, the ongoing shifts in the domestic situation in the US must be
taken into account. The US is struggling with the current global crisis,
and Washington is in the process of rethinking its politics, both domestic
and international. Russia should keep its finger on the pulse of the process
and be ready to support the US President's steps whenever they are constructive.
-
- Thirdly, the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle
seriously factors into the situation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization
and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B. Obama's Moscow visit, and
Beijing sided with Moscow at both forums. However, it is clear that China
will be concerned over Moscow's de facto consent to the continuation of
the US missile defense program and especially over the indications that
Russia and the US might start implementing it jointly. It is natural for
Beijing to regard the plan as a threat. Russia's opening its airspace to
US military transit is also an alarming development from China's standpoint
as Beijing probably suspects a correlation between the surge of the Tibet
and Uyghur separatism and the presence of the US forces in Afghanistan.
Attention should also be paid to the fact that China no less than other
countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Such partnership was
offered to Beijing unofficially some time ago at a high level and has not
been rejected so far.
-
- China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia,
but only as long as Russia does not drop out of the top international politics
league where it will remain only in case it manages to maintain nuclear
parity with the US and nuclear superiority over China. While the US and
China mainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economic might,
and their nuclear potentials only further strengthen their statuses, Russia's
geopolitical standing is based on the proportions of its nuclear arsenal
more than on anything else.
-
- In any case, it is a positive result that the nuclear
disarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. The Russian expert community
has the time to analyze the situation and to formulate suggestions for
the Russian leadership on the relations between Russia and the US in the
military sphere.
-
-
- © Copyright Leonid Ivashov , Strategic Cultural
Foundation, 2009
|