What to know about Russia’s latest move on nuclear weapons

(CNN) Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on Tuesday that Russia would suspend participation in the conference The new START treaty, a key deal to reduce nuclear arms, is the latest in a series of ominous statements in which it references its nuclear arsenal.

Exactly what this latest move will mean in terms of the global nuclear threat is something of a question mark.

The contract was already essentially on hold, as Russia recently refused to open its arsenal to inspectors.

CNN’s report notes that Putin is not technically withdrawing from the treaty, so his statement appears to “formalise his current position.”

Russia’s foreign ministry later clarified that Moscow would continue to respect the caps set out in the treaty and that Putin’s suspension of the treaty was “reversible.”

What is NewSTART?

The new START – “START” is short for “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” – is the latest in a long line of nuclear treaties between the US and Russia, the former Soviet Union.

Strategic nuclear weapons are larger warheads that could wipe out cities. Russia and the US both also have smaller “tactical” nuclear weapons that are not covered by the New START treaty. Much less is known about Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Read more about Russia and tactical nuclear weapons.

First signed to take effect during the Obama administration in 2011 and then renewed in February 2021, shortly after President Joe Biden took office, the Strategic Arms Treaty sets a ceiling on the number of nuclear weapons each country can have.

What are the upper limits for “strategic” nuclear weapons?

The upper limits described by the US Department of State are:

• 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons (each such heavy bomber counts as one warhead against this limit);
• 800 deployed and undeployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons.

The current extension lasts until February 2026, but both countries have complained about the other’s compliance.

In January, the US accused Russia, among other things, of continuing to refuse to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities, a key verification condition of the treaty.

Russia has raised questions about US claims that it has converted some previously nuclear-capable bombers to only carry conventional weapons.

Here is a 60-page report from the Congressional Research Service on debates surrounding New START.

In general, recent Democratic governments have pursued such treaties, and recent Republican governments have questioned their usefulness. President George W. Bush withdrew the US from an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Presidents Barack Obama and Biden both supported New START.

what will happen now

I went back to the authors of the year 2017 Book “Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy” — Matthew Fuhrmann, professor at Texas A&M University, and Todd Sechser, professor at the University of Virginia – for their assessment of what this new development means for global nuclear safety.

I’ve spoken to them regularly over the past year about Putin’s nuclear rhetoric. I asked Sixer some specific questions, and Fuhrmann offered some general thoughts on what Putin’s move means. Portions of both conversations are below.

This feels like a form of retaliation

LEADER: Putin’s announcement strikes me as retaliation for increased US support for Ukraine, including Joe Biden’s recent visit to Kiev. The Russian leadership seems to think the US is now more determined to roll back its invasion of Ukraine and try to facilitate what it would see as a strategic defeat.

However, Putin’s New START announcement formalizes much of what Russia is already doing. The treaty requires mutual inspections to verify compliance, but Russia has not allowed this since last fall when they were due to resume in the wake of the Covid pandemic.

Building on this, Washington had already accused Russia of breaching the treaty.

More symbolism than substance

WOLF: Does Putin’s announcement significantly change the nuclear situation?

SIX: In the short term, the impact of this announcement is symbolism rather than substance. Half a year ago, Russia announced that it would no longer allow inspections of its nuclear arsenal. And it will not suddenly build a huge new arsenal tomorrow.

But the symbolism matters: This is the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia. In the longer term, the deterioration in US-Russian relations, combined with the failure of this treaty, provides both motive and opportunity for a new nuclear arms race.

US support for Ukraine has evolved in important ways

WOLF: Many of the guard rails that the US had put in place in its support for Ukraine, hoping not to threaten Russia within its borders – not to send certain offensive weapons such as long-range missiles – were abandoned as the war progressed. Now there is serious talk about the delivery of F-16. Have the US and the West gone too far in arming Ukraine? Should they go further?

SIX: I am impressed by how cautious the Biden administration has been with its military aid, even going so far as to modify weapon systems so Ukraine cannot use them for long-range strikes against Russia. It has provided more and more sophisticated weapons, but only gradually.

In a way, Putin’s announcement of New START can be seen as an endorsement of this careful strategy, because it is not: namely, a massive military response against the West.

Only Putin knows where his red lines are, but this announcement suggests the United States has not yet crossed them.

Putin’s nuclear threats have so far failed

WOLF: A year into the war – and about a year after our first conversation – I’m wondering what you think people should know about the evolution of the nuclear threat.

SIX: It’s hard to ignore how little Putin’s nuclear threats have accomplished. After a year of blustering about Russia using “all available means” against its enemies, Ukrainians have not backed down and the West is stepping up its commitment to Ukraine rather than backing down.

If anything, Putin’s nuclear belligerence has only fueled the international backlash against Russia. Russia’s experience over the past year is a stark reminder that nuclear weapons are not a magic wand.

A new era of arms control

WOLF: This is the last remaining nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia. Is the non-proliferation era essentially over?

SIX: US-Russian arms control has long been in a downward spiral. This is the fourth US-Russia arms control agreement to expire under Putin’s regime.

The extension of New START two years ago was a cautiously optimistic sign, but the invasion of Ukraine undid those advances. This announcement is truly the culmination of more than a decade of gradual erosion. It’s hard to see a future for US-Russian arms control as long as Putin remains in power.

The likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons remains low

LEADER: The potential for a nuclear escalation increases as the situation in Ukraine worsens for Russia. The overall likelihood of Russian nuclear use remains low in my opinion, but it will increase as desperation sets in in Russia. (Former Russian President Dmitry) Medvedev recently wrote: “Nuclear powers do not lose the major conflicts on which their fate depends.”

Nuclear-armed states have a history of ending wars on unfavorable terms without using nuclear weapons. Examples are the US experiences in Korea and Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.

The question is whether Russian leaders regard the operations in Ukraine as sufficiently important to justify the use of tactical nuclear weapons – an action that would be enormously costly for Russia and possibly Putin himself.