In recent years, the security architecture inherited from the Cold War has been turned on its head with the end of several high-profile agreements, such as the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty [FCE]the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty [FNI] or the Open Skies Treaty [que les États-Unis et la Russie ont dénoncé, ndlr]. And the last valid disarmament agreement, affecting only Washington and Moscow, is New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]which will soon expire.
As a reminder, this text, which came into force in February 2011 for a period of at least ten years, limits the size of the US and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 strategic launch vehicles.
If President Trump’s administration was unwilling to renew that treaty in its current form to include China, Mr. Biden’s administration finally agreed with Moscow to extend it for another five years by deleting a clause of its Article XIV activated. Clearly, 2026 marks the end of the new beginning… And unless renewed or replaced by another text, the arms race that the world experienced during the Cold War could begin with renewed vigour.
In any event, and at the moment, certain New START commitments are struggling to be met. And it has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine…
So, on January 31, in response to a question from the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the State Department [diplomatie américaine] claimed that “Russia has failed in its new START obligation to facilitate inspection activities on its territory” and canceled talks provided for in the treaty. However, there is no indication that Moscow has increased its nuclear arsenal beyond the agreed limits.
However, these allegations are not surprising… given the current context. In August, Russia decided to “temporarily” suspend inspections of its nuclear bases due to difficulties in obtaining visas for its inspectors to travel to the United States. And to “report realities that give Washington unilateral advantages” and that “deprive Moscow of its right to conduct inspections on American territory.”
Moreover, emphasizing New START’s “unique role” in its relations with the United States, Russia had promised that inspections would resume “immediately” once the visa issue was resolved. At the time, however, American diplomacy maintained that “the principles of reciprocity, mutual predictability, and stability will continue to guide the United States’ approach.”
What was it really? Did this visa story really justify Moscow’s decision? Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, responded to the State Department’s rebukes by accusing Washington of “refusing to see the root causes of the problem” and “blaming others.” He also continued, “We kept emphasizing [aux autorités américaines] that the treaty situation is a direct result of the hybrid war unleashed against our country by the West.”
And to add: Russia “has warned about arms control [nucléaires] cannot be isolated from geopolitical realities. [Aussi]We believe that, under the current circumstances, it is unwarranted, untimely and inappropriate to invite the US military to our strategic installations.”
For his part, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not provide the same reasoning. “We see that the United States has indeed destroyed the legal framework for arms control and nuclear safety,” he told reporters on February 1.