The decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin to suspend his participation in the Nuevo Start nuclear disarmament treaty one year after the start of the invasion of Ukraine will have “no real scope,” said the political scientist and relations expert in an interview with Télam. international organizations Juan Battaleme, arguing that the safeguards established between Russia and the United States, the two world atomic powers, “are finished” long ago.
The New Start (or Start III), the only disarmament agreement in force between Washington and Moscow -powers that account for 90% of the world’s atomic arsenal-, has as its objective prevent a nuclear war and for that purpose it limits the number of strategic warheads that both countries can deploy, in addition to giving each the power to supervise the other.
Is third version of the pact It was originally signed in 2010 by the then presidents of the United States, Barack Obama, and Russia, Dmitri Medvedev, and requires that both nations can have up to 1,550 long-range nuclear warheads, which represents a cut of about 30% compared to to the limit established in 2002, in addition to limiting the maximum number of launchers and bombers to 800.
According to data from last year collected by the Stockholm International Institute for Peace Studies (Sipri), neither of the two powers had achieved this reduction: The United States has 1,744 warheads deployed, and Russia 1,588.
Last Tuesday, shortly before the invasion of Ukraine was one year old, putin announced in his annual address to both Houses of Parliament, delivered under a large Russian double-headed eagle crest, which his country suspended participation in the pact.
“Putin’s announcement only formalizes a factual situation that had already been occurring for a long time and, therefore, his words have only a symbolic character.” Juan Battaleme
Among various reactions to the announcement, considered “deeply irresponsible” by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg considered that it would “dismantle” the global arms control architecture.
But Battaleme, graduated in Political Science from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and academic secretary of the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI), provided a different perspective: “The real scope of the decision is null, because since the war began inspections have been suspended and, in reality, the Start has never fully come into effect, since the Obama and Putin administrations did not They finished agreeing on the official reduction number for this new stage”.
“Consequently, the real effect in itself at this moment is none. Eventually, in the long term, it will generate the discussion if the nuclear arsenals are going to be modernized or if there are going to be nuclear tests or not,” he explained and recalled that the foreign minister Russian Sergei Lavrov said that in principle the country will not carry out any tests “unless the United States does.”
The expert qualified that what can happen is that the debates about how many nuclear warheads they can possess”and that the powers, not only the United States and Russia, enter into a logic much more similar to the discussions of a few decades ago”, although now “in a space, cybernetic and nuclear strategic instability context”.
Despite this, Battaleme does not subscribe to the Stoltenberg hypothesis and NATO over a dismantling the global arms control architecture after the announcement of the Russian head of state.
“The global architecture of weapons has already been affected since 2003 with the withdrawal of the United States from what was the Anti-Missile Shields (AMB) treaty, which had been signed in 1973,” he argued.
“The nuclear safeguards regime between the two great powers is finished”, He stated and recalled “the withdrawal in 2019 of the United States from the Intermediate Forces Treaty (INF) and the withdrawal of Russia, in June 2021, from the Open Skies Treaty, which enables the signatories to carry out aerial surveillance flights over military installations from other countries”.
The only thing left standing is he Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)global in scope, which “is also likely to fall apart now that there is less consensus about why second- and third-order powers cannot have nuclear weapons,” he explained.
In summary, for Battaleme, Putin’s announcement only formalizes a factual situation that had already been occurring for a long time and, therefore, his words have only a symbolic character.
The foregoing, without prejudice to the unfathomable directions that the conflict in Ukraine can take, after its first anniversary and at a time when “the parties do not show signs of wanting to back down.”
On the other hand, the announcement of the Russian president unleashed a series of verbal exchanges, not only with the Ukrainian counterpart, but also with the other great nuclear power.
US President Joe Biden rated as a “big mistake” the Russian decision adding that “the appetites of the autocrat (alluding to his counterpart) cannot be appeased and must be confronted.”
A day later, in Poland, he again criticized the decision of the Russian leader and warned, during a meeting with leaders of the eastern flank of NATO, that Washington will defend “literally every inch” of the Atlantic Alliance.
This verbal escalation occurs at times when the date for German Leopard tanks and British Challengers arrive in kyiv, which will focus the discussion on the greater involvement of the West in granting military equipment to kyiv.
The Kremlin warned repeatedly that such aid will not bring Ukraine victory and “it will only prolong the conflict”, in addition to enhancing the risk of escalation “to unpredictable levels.”
“I think that although everyone is aware of this risk, they are not sure if Putin is willing to sustain this type of political dynamic over time,” Battaleme said.
“It’s just that, as they say in game theory: both are playing the chicken game, which is to see who stands up first. And when neither of them stands up, they end up colliding and that would be a tragedy for everyone,” he said.
Finally, the researcher added that another point that the West is concerned about is that China may be considering supplying Russia with weapons, a step that could turn the war into a battle between Russia and China, on the one hand, and Ukraine and NATO, on the other. for the other.
“Although the Asian country denies any nuclear escalation, it reaffirmed a new far-reaching alliance with Russia, which sees it as an ace up its sleeve to fight the West,” he concluded.
