The Russian President recently suggested extending the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the USA and Russia for an additional year beyond its February 2021 expiration. The proposed extension has been met with mixed reactions given the strategic implications for the two countries. Here we delve into the details of the treaty, the proposed changes, and their potential impact.
Understanding the New START Treaty
The New START Treaty is an agreement between the USA and Russia focused on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. The treaty, which came into effect on the 5th of February, 2011, serves as a successor to the START I treaty from 1991 and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) from 2002.
Originally created at the end of the Cold War, the START framework limited each side to 1,600 strategic delivery vehicles and 6,000 warheads. The New START continues this trajectory, limiting both countries to 700 strategic launchers and 1,550 operational warheads. Unless extended or superseded by a new agreement, the New START will lapse in February 2021.
Russia’s Recent Proposal
In response to looming expiry of the treaty, Russia has proposed a one-year extension. This move has piqued interest due to an apparent lack of initiative from the USA to renew the agreement. Notably, in 2019, the USA suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty (INF Treaty) with Russia. The INF Treaty was a 1987 accord between the USA and the Soviet Union that eliminated intermediate-range and shorter-range land-based missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The USA’s Stand on the Issue
The USA asserts that any replacement treaty should involve China and should cover all of Russia’s nuclear weaponry, including “strategic” weapons as well as smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapons. Russia has dismissed these demands, and China has declined to participate in negotiations. Despite this, the USA has indicated its willingness to negotiate an extension to the treaty.
The Way Forward
Moving forward, if an agreement is reached, negotiators must establish a verification system and agree on a precise definition of a warhead. Without such measures, the primary mechanism maintaining the nuclear balance between the USA and Russia would be lost.
If the treaty is not extended or replaced, the two largest nuclear powers will operate without substantive constraints on their arsenals for the first time in several decades. In contrast, an extension could serve as a positive development in the strained US-Russian relationship.
The extra time provided by the extension could also facilitate comprehensive bilateral negotiations on future control over nuclear missile weapons.
