ReSTARTing problems for the U.S. and Europe

What is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)? It is pomp and circumstance that restores Russian nostalgia to a day when they were our military equal. Now, they simply aren’t. The new treaty will reduce American and Russian strategic (intercontinental) nuclear weapons from about 2,000 to 1,500, still enough to undoubtedly annihilate an enemy and uphold the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  This new treaty may be blocked during the lame duck session of Congress by Republicans who have voiced concerns over ratification and want to deny the Obama administration a victory. This is a huge mistake for the U.S. and also has negative implications for Europe. 

In an article in Proliferation Analysis by James Acton, Acton mentions that a concern of Republican Senator Jon Kyl over the treaty is the huge stockpile of Russian tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons and the threat it poses to our European allies. Has anyone bothered to ask the Europeans what they think?

France and the UK both posses a limited but capable nuclear arsenal, serving as a direct deterrent against Russian nuclear aggression in the region. According to the Federation of American Scientists the combined arsenal of France and the UK amounts to around 525 warheads, again enough to obliterate an enemy state.

On a side note, I had the privilege to visit Hiroshima this year for the 65^th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the city. From visiting museums, the peace ceremony and listening to a survivor I can say with assurance that the devastation that one of these weapons can bring is truly unimaginable.

With their own capable nuclear force, how does Europe benefit from an arms control treaty between Russia and the U.S.? Through increased stable and predictable relations. Ask any European if they are more concerned about Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon against Lithuania or whether Russia can meet European gas demand and the answer will be gas. Russia is known from time to time to shoot itself in the foot with its policies but they have yet to come close to committing suicide. The use of a tactical nuclear weapon on European soil would surely be suicide.

Robert Kagan points out in an article in The Washington Post that the failure to pass START will do nothing but empower Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. As we have seen over the past 10 years a powerful Putin leads to an aggressive Russia. When Russia bullies its neighbors the U.S. suffers by losing ground in its foreign policy goals and Europeans suffer by freezing to death without gas to heat their homes.

While Russia no longer poses a direct military threat to the U.S. and EU it can still cause a major headache when it is ignored (the recognition of Kosovo has led to the continued Russian occupation of Georgia).

Conceding to START obligations, something the outdated Russian nuclear arsenal needs, will give Russia the political room to make a concession that will benefit the U.S. and EU. The U.S. “reset” policy with Russia has proven successful in the past by enabling UN sanctions against Iran, pointed out in both articles. Failure to pass START will end this reset.

Closer ties between the U.S. and Russia will foster a stronger EU-Russia relationship. Kagan also points this out, stating that Russia will demand concessions from Europe if START fails because the U.S. has undermined the Russia-transatlantic relationship and Europe will be the one who must pay to mend the ties.

Putin is still in power because he has vouched to restore Russia to the world power it once was. The arms race between the U.S. and Russia is a treasured Russian claim to international fame. An example: In the past decade the U.S. developed the world’s largest conventional bomb nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs." This was soon followed by development of a bigger Russian bomb called the "Father of All Bombs." Necessary? I think not.

Russia’s illusion of grandeur is its greatest weakness. Appeasing Russia by acknowledging that it is our military equal, which is all the New START does and in no way makes us less secure, is a small trade off for the possible benefits that both Europe and the U.S. can reap from a stronger relationship.

More pomp and circumstance summits and treaties like START that play to Russia’s vanity are needed. Letting Russia believe it is on par/winning the arms race with the U.S. will benefit both countries and all in between.  Foreign relations have always been tit for tat and giving Russia back its sense of military prowess is something the U.S. can easily concede. How long will Russia repay the West with a tat? Who knows? But this is no reason to abandon the reset policy.

Unfortunately, the recent shelling of South Korea by the North is another nail in the coffin of the New START. It gives Republicans another excuse to delay ratification because of the nuclear threat in the Yellow Sea. Unlike Russia, the North Koreans seem willing to play Russian roulette.