WASHINGTON, January 31. /TASS/. The refusal of the US administration to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will result in serious risks and negative consequences for Washington, military and political commentator Jennifer Kavanagh wrote in a story she contributed to The American Conservative magazine.
"It’s probably too late to prevent the agreement’s demise (it expires on February 5 - TASS), but the [US President Donald] Trump administration could still take steps to mitigate some of the more serious potential consequences by sticking to New START’s caps and limitations, at least in the short term," she pointed out.
Kavanagh casts doubt on the idea that extending the deal could have escaped the attention of the US administration because it had been dealing with other problems all last year.
"More plausibly, Trump’s advisors may have decided that they could not move ahead on strategic stability talks—or any other Russia-U.S. bilateral issues—until the war in Ukraine comes to an end, for fear of the bad political optics of returning to business as usual with Moscow while the conflict is ongoing," the story says.
"This would be both understandable and a huge mistake. Strategic stability with Russia, the country with the largest nuclear arsenal, is simply too essential to the United States and its national security to be tied to the outcome of war in Ukraine, where U.S. stakes are at best very low."
She noted that preserving the treaty would be beneficial for the United States both from a security point of view and for purely economic reasons, and would also be consistent with Trump's election promises, which allowed him to gain the support of the electorate.
"Maintaining the current nuclear balance is not a giveaway to Russia. Instead, it is a move with huge security and economic benefits for the United States. In other words, it aligns clearly with Trump’s commitment to put America first," the story says.
Other considerations
According to the analyst, the American administration could have other reasons not to extend the agreement: Trump and his advisers may have already decided to go beyond the restrictive limits outlined in the treaty, including setting the number of warheads and launchers. Kavanagh notes that increasing the number of deployed warheads and their delivery vehicles will be extremely expensive. Besides, the United States is already several years behind the schedule in modernizing its nuclear triad.
"Such costs do not make sense, especially when a larger nuclear stockpile will do little to make the United States safer," she added.
Kavanagh pointed out that Trump could still declare his intention, at least on an informal basis, to adhere to the current restrictions outlined in the treaty, agreeing to "matching Russia’s year-long offer. Most importantly, it would avoid doing further damage to the U.S.-Russia relationship and avoid new tensions that could derail Ukraine peace negotiations. It would also signal U.S. restraint to other nuclear and near-nuclear powers, delaying any "race for the bomb" a little longer," she concluded.
NEW START DATE
On September 22, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was ready to adhere to the quantitative restrictions under the treaty for another year after the New START Treaty expires on February 5, only if Washington acts in a similar way.
Responding to a question from TASS on October 5, US President Donald Trump called the Russian leader's proposal a good idea. However, there has been no official reaction from Washington to Moscow's proposal.