A STEP AWAY FROM MADNESS

International security is becoming increasingly worse every passing month. The big news of February was the withdrawal of Russia in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3) with the US.

Washington's total hybrid warfare

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the news on February 21 during his public address to the Federal Assembly and linked it directly to the situation around Ukraine - due to sanctions, impossibility of inspections, closure of US skies to aircraft from Russia. Article XIV(3) of the Treaty states that each party shall have the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests." According to President Putin, "The US and NATO want Russia to comply with START-3. They want to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on us and try to get to our nuclear facilities at the same time." As expected, the next day the bill was supported by both chambers of the Russian parliament, the Duma and the Federation Council. The Russian Foreign Ministry also noted that the West was waging a "total hybrid war" against Russia.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, was particularly harsh: "You cannot fight against Russia pretending that in matters of strategic stability everything is going on as usual. You deserve it!"

Remarkably, it was Medvedev, then President of Russia, who signed the treaty in Prague in 2010. Washington was represented by President Barack Obama. The document entered into force in 2011 for a period of ten years, and in February 2021 it was extended until 2026. The treaty is currently the only arms control agreement left between Russia and the US. The others—the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and the Treaty on Open Skies (multilateral)—are not in force any more. The key function of the START was to reduce the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), their launchers and warheads, and heavy bombers and their nuclear weapons. In addition, a bilateral consultative commission was in operation and mutual inspections took place at ICBM bases, submarine bases and air bases. Incidentally, Russia and the US suspended mutual inspections back in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the suspension of the treaty, the Russian defense and foreign ministries promised that Moscow would continue to comply with the START-3 provisions regarding the number of nuclear warhead carriers and would exchange notifications with the US on ballistic missile launches. The foreign ministry also noted that the decision to suspend "may be reversible", if Washington "demonstrates political will and makes a goodwill effort for general de-escalation". Until then any steps by Moscow towards the US are "absolutely impossible".

According to the document, the decision to renew Moscow's participation in the treaty will be made by the president. Therefore, many observers believe that this was probably the only leverage for Moscow to push on Washington, to demonstrate that it was a completely political decision and was more intended for international audiences. It is as if observers are given a chance to consider what price the entire international community is ready to pay for the war in Ukraine. After all, it now sounds as if it is only about Russia and the US, while the strategic arsenals of the two countries pose a threat to humanity as a whole.

On the other hand, it may indeed be a trick played by Moscow. According to Nicholas Miller, a nonproliferation expert and associate professor of governance at the Dartmouth University, this is another way for Putin to "impose costs or risks on the United States and the West, essentially saying: 'We know you value this arms control treaty, but if you continue to support Ukraine the way you do, you can say goodbye to the treaty".

Incidentally, Putin also stated that it was important for Russia to understand "the claims of such NATO member states like France and the UK" so that Moscow could "take into account their strategic arsenals, that is, the alliance's combined strike potential". As Russian experts point out, these statements are reminiscent of consultations on the extension of the START in 2019-2020, when Donald Trump's administration demanded that China also participate in the agreement. Beijing refused at the time, while Moscow understandably did not insist. On the other hand, there is still a difference - France and the UK are military allies of the US, while China is not a military ally of Russia. It is also clear that the introduction of the French and British nuclear arsenals would actually require drafting a new document.

Moscow's "big mistake"

Washington calls Putin's decision on the START Treaty "irresponsible" and a "big mistake". It has expressed readiness for dialogue on the issue. According to the US President Joe Biden, the whole world is waiting for responsible action on the treaty. Russia and the US are capable of "making things right". US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said Washington was ready to start talks with Moscow on strategic arms and to allow inspections. Meanwhile, Biden did not see any signs of Moscow's intention to use nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, a number of media outlets report that Russian submarines equipped with nuclear weapons appeared off the US coast, including nuclear submarines of the Yasen project. Michael Peterson of the Institute for Russian Maritime Studies at the US Naval War College is one of the sources who shared this news with the Newsweek. According to him, the case is similar to "the deployment of submarines in the Cold War style".

Earlier, the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), US General Glenn van Herk, said the same thing, calling Russian submarines "a constant, immediate threat capable of carrying significant numbers of cruise missiles to attack ground targets".

Meanwhile, according to the 2019 edition of The National Interest, the US Navy has the largest grouping of warships in the world, including a submarine fleet. Last December, the US Navy's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine Tennessee and the UK Royal Navy's Vanguard-class nuclear submarine, both equipped with nuclear-armed Trident missiles, were spotted in the North Atlantic, UK Defense Journal reported. Furthermore, it was reported last summer that the White House had plans to spend $110 billion for the construction of strategic submarines. Does this mean we can expect an underwater war, including the use of underwater drones and unmanned platforms?

Interestingly, in his speech, Putin emphasized the approaching expiration of safeguards on some US nuclear weapons, and that now "some figures in Washington" are thinking about testing nuclear weapons, particularly new types of them. If the US conducts tests, Putin promised that Russia would also conduct them. What does it mean? Unfortunately, it suggests that relations between Russia and the West are now generally linked to arms control. The stakes are being deliberately raised.

As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted, the current decision "destroyed the whole architecture of the arms control system". Confrontation between Russia and the US can generally provoke an arms race in the world.  Based on the 1990 joint statement between the USSR and the US, strategic stability is the balance of strategic power between the two sides where there is no incentive to launch a first strike. Currently, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, the US has the world's largest arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads, with 1,800 warheads. At the same time, Russia has 1,625 warheads on delivery vehicles and is ahead of the US in terms of the total number of them (6,255 and 5,550, respectively).

Nuclear weapons are supposed to serve as a safeguard in times of geopolitical tension. But now we see how they are actually turning into an instrument of confrontation. This is when the system of mutual verification and minimal trust between the parties equals to zero. This is alarming and dangerous.