WAR Russia Threatens to Build More Nuclear Weapons

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-threatens-build-more-nuclear-weapons-12912

Russia Threatens to Build More Nuclear Weapons[1]

Russia has threatened to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal, which would violate arms control treaties.

Zachary Keck [2]
May 18, 2015
Tweet [3]
Russia may increase the size of its nuclear arsenal, a senior Russian official revealed on Friday.

Speaking at the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York, Mikhail Ulyanov, the Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, said that Russia may be forced to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal in response to provocative U.S. actions.

Noting that the United States and Russia have drastically reduced the size of their respective arsenals in recent years, and that the United States has proposed reducing their arsenals by another third, Ulyanov stated [4] “U.S. actions have led to the appearance of completely contradictory factors which, in some circumstances, may even push Russia to begin increasing [its nuclear arsenal]."

The official elaborated on the alleged U.S. provocations, which included: “U.S. missile defense program, the U.S. refusal to negotiate on the ban on weapons in outer space, the U.S. military's Prompt Global Strike (PGS) system, Washington's de facto refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the serious imbalance in conventional weapons in Europe.”

Ulyanov clarified that Russia wasn’t currently actively considering increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal, but such a move would have to be considered should America’s action remain unchanged.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have slashed the size of their nuclear arsenals, from roughly 70,000 warheads at the [5] height of the Cold War to less than 15,000 today. Of the 15,000 warheads in Russia and U.S. arsenals today, only about 3,500 are considered operational. The rest are in their [6] inventories.

Still, despite the decline in numbers, nuclear weapons have arguably become more important in Russia’s national security since the end of the Cold War, thanks to its declining conventional military power. During the Cold War, for instance, Russia maintained a no-first use pledge when it came to nuclear weapons. By 1993, however, Russia had abandoned [7] that pledge.

Furthermore, in 1999 and 2000, Russia introduced a policy of de-escalatory nuclear strikes into its military doctrine. The 2000 Russian military doctrine explained that [8] de-escalation is “a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo ante.”

The 2010 update of the doctrine similarly stated:

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.”

Vladimir Putin has put a new premium on nuclear weapons since beginning his third term as president in 2012. Just months before taking power again, for example, Putin wrote an op-ed in Foreign Policy magazine [9] in which he stated:

“We should not tempt anyone by allowing ourselves to be weak. We will, under no circumstances, surrender our strategic deterrent capability. Indeed, we will strengthen it.”

Since taking office, he has made good on that pledge by repeatedly holding snap nuclear drills to ensure Russia’s strategic deterrent would function properly during times of crisis. The United States has also accused [10] Russia of violating the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned all land-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,000 kilometers, when it deployed the Yars (RS-26) intercontinental ballistic missile.

Zachary Keck is managing editor of The National Interest. You can find him on Twitter: @ZacharyKeck [11].

Tags
Russia [12]
Topics
Security [13]
Regions
Eurasia [14]
Tweet [3]
inShare24
Source URL (retrieved on May 20, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-threatens-build-more-nuclear-weapons-12912

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-threatens-build-more-nuclear-weapons-12912
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/zachary-keck
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150517/1022240247.html
[5] http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/poni/global_nuclear_stockpiles.pdf
[6] http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/world/russia-drops-pledge-of-no-first-use-of-atom-arms.html
[8] http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/russia-threatens-nuclear-strikes-over-crimea/
[9] http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/21/being-strong/
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russia-violating-the-inf-treaty-9859
[11] https://twitter.com/zacharykeck
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/russia
[13] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/region/eurasia

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/tuesday-19-may-2015

John Batchelor Show

Tuesday 19 May 2015
Air Date:
May 19, 2015

Hour Two

Tuesday 19 May 2015 / Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: . . . Kerry went to visit Putin, who gave him four hours (unheard-of), then was followed by the disgraced Victoria Nuland, who cursed foully in Ukraine. It's said that Kerry mission was to admit that the White House policy (Pres Obama: "I'll turn Russia in to a pariah state") toward Russia has failed. If so, what’s the new policy?

Poroshenko has just made provocative statements. Donetsk airport, having been shelled into disaster, looks like a moonscape. Part of the failed policy for the last year was its failure to understand, its misinterpretation of the nature of the Kiev govt called it democratic, which it emphatically is not. Washington thought that since it had created the Kiev govt, it could control it. However, Pyatt is called the "real head." In response to Poroshenko's intemperate recent statement, Kerry said, "We all support the Minsk II accords" – which mandates a ceasefire, then direct negotiations between Kiev and the rebels. It's Kiev who’s repeatedly violated this. Finally, for the first time, an American official (Kerry) has reproached Ukraine.

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations; May 2015. A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the U.S. Army War College; Carlisle, Pennsylvania http://csis.org/files/attachments/150518_Russia_War_Games_Report.pdf
Tuesday 19 May 2015 / Hour 2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus (2 of 4) Kerry's pointless diplomacy in Russia From the moment John Kerry's trip to Russian President Vladimir Putin's summer ... / A Diplomatic Victory, and Affirmation, for Putin / Kerry Is So Very Nice to Putin / Nato to counter 'hybrid warfare' Nato says that Russia is backing rebels in Ukraine - a claim denied by ... of Nato troops on their soil to act as a deterrent to the Russian military. http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150515/1022157700.html / US Authorizes $300Mln in Lethal Defensive Aid, Training to Ukraine ... The United States authorized providing Ukraine defensive lethal aid and training that the country needs to protect its sovereignty, US Senate ...

(FT) This discussion of nukes and the possibility of moving nukes into certain areas or employing nukes if something had not gone correctly in Crimea and all these other things, which have been put out there — this is not responsible language from a nuclear nation,” he said at meeting of Nato foreign ministers in Antalya, Turkey. Nato diplomats have been struck by Russia’s aggressive discussion of the use of nuclear weapons, noting a pattern of threats that were rarely seen even at the height of the Cold War. It is prompting a potential rethink of the military alliance’s planning on deterrence and nuclear doctrine, in part to ensure no miscalculations are made in a crisis.

Tuesday 19 May 2015 / Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus (3 of 4). The Herszenhorn NYT piece that the US is backing down, but can easily reverse itself. The Herszenhorn piece in the NYT that Kiev is corrupt. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/w...ns-linger-a-year-after-a-revolution.html?_r=1

A Diplomatic Victory, and Affirmation, for Putin By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN A visit by Secretary of State John Kerry was seen as an olive branch and an acknowledgment that Russia is too important to ignore.

Lead news is that the RU has cut the air bridge to Afghanistan. We do not have good alternatives. Lead news is that Kiev claims it has captured two Russian soldiers. Ukraine Says It Has Captured 2 Russian Soldiers By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN The Kremlin repeated its longstanding denial that any Russian troops had been deployed across the border, despite growing evidence to the contrary.

Tuesday 19 May 2015 / Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus (4 of 4). . . . for the first time in his many years in Russia, he sees the emergence of a new nationalism – native, not from above – and it's anti-American. The turning point was Pres Obama's equating Russia with ebola and ISIS. Russian people said they understood that Washington regarded Russia as an actual enemy. See an article in The Nation. The rhetoric that comes out of he president's mouth has become a new reality in Russia. Putin has fostered nationalism/patriotism, but it wasn't anti-American. After Kerry and Nuland left, the Deputy Foreign Minister said, "We appreciate the visits of Secretaries Kerry and Nuland, but we have principled positions that are not bargaining chips."

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations; May 2015. A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the U.S. Army War College; Carlisle, Pennsylvania http://csis.org/files/attachments/150518_Russia_War_Games_Report.pdf
Batchelor and Cohen Podcast — Kerry comes to Sochi Media Unveiled The world may be a safer place because of it, and John Batchelor and Russian expert Stephen Cohen discuss what they think transpired.

5/19/15 Hr 2, JBS: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/batchelorshow/JBS_2015_05_19BB.mp3
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...on-professor-emeritus-author-soviet-fates-and
Air Date:
May 19, 2015
Broadcast Hour:
Second Hour

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...g-punishments-for-russia-s-nuclear-violations

Declassified

U.S. Weighing Punishments for Russia’s Nuclear Violations

comments 418
May 20, 2015 6:30 AM EDT
By Josh Rogin

The Obama administration is considering a range of options to respond to Russia’s ongoing violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Part of the response could involve deploying new U.S. weapons to Eastern Europe.

Admiral James “Sandy” Winnefeld, the outgoing vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience Tuesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that Russia continues to violate the 1987 agreement, which banned both the U.S. and Russia from developing or deploying nuclear weapons with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The treaty was the first nuclear arms agreement to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

The administration is currently debating both defensive and offensive responses, Winnefeld said, while top officials continue pushing the Russians to get back into compliance. Secretary of State John Kerry raised the issue with Russian leadership “very recently,” Winnefeld added.

“The first solution to this problem is for Russia to stop doing this. That’s the most important thing,” said Winnefeld. “That’s the way out of this problem. If it doesn’t look like that is going to happen, there are options.”

The State Department admitted publicly last July that the U.S. government believes Russia is violation of the treaty. Privately, top administration officials have known that Russia was in violation since at least 2012, because it has tested ground-based cruise missiles with the prohibited range. So far Russia has faced no punishment.

Two U.S. officials briefed on the options said that the Pentagon has submitted a list of potential countermeasures to the National Security Council, but the White House has yet to schedule a high-level NSC meeting to discuss and decide what to do. Some of the more aggressive options would include deploying more land-based military hardware to NATO allies for missile defense near the Russian border, to counter the new Russian cruise capability. Expanded targeted sanctions and added patrols near Russian space are less aggressive options on the table.

Consequences from the U.S. “would indicate to Russia that this is not going to do them any good … and would go a long way to reassuring our partners that we are very serious about wanting to keep Russia’s adherence to the treaty that we all signed so long ago,” Winnefeld said.

The State Department sent a delegation to Moscow last September to confront Russia on these treaty violations, led by Undersecretary of State for Nonproliferation Rose Gottemoeller. The delegation returned to Washington empty handed.

U.S. and Russian officials told me that the U.S. delegation refused to tell the Russians exactly what Russia had done to violate the treaty. U.S. officials said they didn’t want to risk disclosing intelligence that could compromise sources and methods, and besides, the Russians already knew exactly how they were violating the treaty.

But the Russian side used the American officials' circumspection to rebuff the accusations. In a blustery speech in February at the Munich Security Conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the American allegations "avoid specific facts.” He went on to accuse the U.S. of violating the treaty, both by deploying ballistic missile defense elements in Europe and by using drones. (This is an odd accusation; the treaty is silent on drones.)

The State Department categorically denies that the U.S. is violating the treaty in any way.

Russian officials told me their side wants to negotiate over the violations in a way that addresses both Russia's cruise missile programs and the U.S. missile defenses. That’s unlikely because the Obama administration has no real space to negotiate over U.S. missile defense. It already conceded to Russian demands by cancelling sites in Eastern Europe and a phase of the European missile defense program in 2009.

And that was when U.S.-Russian relations were relatively positive. Now, since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, which included thinly veiled threats by President Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons, there’s no appetite in either Europe or Washington for further missile concessions to Moscow. And in Congress, pressure is mounting on the administration to do something about Russia’s nuclear weapons violations.

The House’s version of next year’s defense policy bill has some strong language regarding the violations. The bill would require the administration to tell Congress whether Russia is taking any steps to come into compliance. If not, the bill directs the president to develop military capabilities to counter the new Russian missiles.

“They need to do something about it,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee member James Risch told me. "Why have a treaty if you don’t do something about it?"

Risch said that treaties with Russia, including the New START treaty he opposed in 2010, are more trouble than they are worth because the administration never had any plan about what to do if Russia was in violation. If Russia doesn’t get back into compliance, he said the U.S. should consider withdrawing from the treaty altogether.

“Certainly, they need to have some strong understandings about whether or not everybody is going to abide by the treaty. If not, we are going to have to go in another direction,” Risch said.

Scuttling the 1987 treaty altogether by unilaterally withdrawing seems like a drastic option. That would also scuttle the verification and inspection regimes that go along with the agreement, which provide the U.S. valuable insight and reassurance about Russian nuclear activities.

On the other hand, treaties with Russia are not as beneficial as they used to be. The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty is all but defunct. Russia blatantly discarded the Budapest Memorandum when it invaded Ukraine. In the larger view, Russia is a declining power. The U.S. may need to resume development of its own medium-range nuclear arsenal to confront this century’s biggest challenge, a rising and increasingly militaristic China.

To contact the author on this story:
Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:
Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

 

[Medical Maven]

I see a coordinated attack by Russia and China in the future. We will never know what hit us. It will be a maelstrom--Grid Down, Biological Agents Released, Nukes in Play.

I hope it happens after Obummer leaves office, and that he and his family are too far from the bunkers. And I hope it is slow for him and his wife.