Strategic Arms Reduction Was Approved: Russia Ratified the Treaty

On January 27th, the Russian parliament completed the ratification procedure of the new Russian–American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The Federation Council approved the drafted law as together with the additional amendments (which were brought forward by the State Duma in response to similar amendments introduced by American senators). Though neither Russia nor the U.S. consider the supporting resolutions to be legally binding, the experts warn that by amending the drafted laws the lawmakers of both countries “put the bomb under the treaty” — it will detonate as soon as the reset fails.*

On the day of voting, few minutes were necessary for members of the Federation Council to unanimously approve the drafted law of the START Treaty between Russia and the U.S. Their colleagues from the State Duma, who finally approved the document on Tuesday, needed three hearings to do it. As a result, the deputies transmitted to the senators the document containing some supporting resolutions.

In particular, the deputies proposed to notify Washington that they consider the preamble of the START Treaty, which sets forth the connection of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms, to be legally binding. Additionally, they stipulated the conditions in which Russia could denunciate the treaty or stop carrying out the obligations of the treaty, for instance, because of infringement of the treaty by the U.S. or the creation of a substantial threat to Russia by increasing the AMD [Editor’s note: Anti-Missile Defense] system scope or a U.S. decision to deploy non-nuclear strategic systems without consulting with Russia.

The amendments inserted in the resolution supporting the treaty by Russian members of the Parliament echoed their American colleagues’ stipulations. One of them states that the U.S. intends to develop an AMD system in the future and does not believe the preamble of the START treaty bans it. Nevertheless, it was Moscow that began to make stipulations – even as the two countries’ respective presidents were initialing the treaty.

The members of the Federation Council approved all amendments adopted by the deputies and made a resolution on the ratification of the treaty: “The Federation Council believes that the START Treaty is the result of compromises, and all its clauses are closely interconnected. The implementation of the START Treaty is possible only if all principles and regulations, including those in the preamble, are allowed.”* When Mikhail Margelov , the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Federation Council, was asked about the significance of the adoption of America’s resolution supporting the treaty, he responded, “The resolution is not a law and is not an obligatory norm for the U.S. government.”* The U.S. Congress is of the same opinion about Russian amendments.

Meanwhile, the experts warn that the consequences of both parties making amendments cannot be underestimated. “Yes, the treaty itself was not modified, but the parties provided their ratification documents with the amendments, which under unfavorable circumstances can be used as pretexts to denunciate the treaty,”* claimed Vladimir Evseev , the director of the Center of Social and Political Studies. “Thus, the legislatures of both countries put the bomb under the treaty. If the reset goes on, Russia and the U.S. will observe the treaty, but as soon as their relations deteriorate or a crisis like 2008, happens, the bomb may detonate.”*

In the expert’s opinion, the divergences regarding AMD are crucial. The Americans intend to develop AMD, whereas Russia warned about the denunciation of the treaty in case of “the deployment by the U.S. or other states or a group of other states of antimissile defense system that can substantially reduce the effectiveness of strategic nuclear arms of the Russian Federation. At the same time, it is not clear what, where and how many units the U.S. are going to deploy: mobile systems THAAD, which have an interception altitude of only 75 km or a land-based variant of warship-designed BMD — Aegis, which in the future will probably be able to intercept the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles.”* And Russia did not stipulate what increase in scope of an AMD system is considered to be “substantial.” All this can impede the implementation of the treaty, the expert warns.

The idea of creating a so-called sectored AMD system by Russia and NATO would settle these contradictions. This system presupposes that Russia would intercept the missiles, flying over its territory and aiming at objects in Europe, or at least notifying partners about them in advance. NATO should act exactly in this way in case of a missile attack on Russia. However, Vladimir Evseev considers this idea to be speculative: “I cannot name a state that would direct missiles through Europe to attack Russia. Besides, it is not clear how Russia would intercept medium-range missiles over its territory, as it does not have systems capable of intercepting the objects at an altitude of about 100 km, except in the Moscow district.”*

For the time being, discussions in the U.S. and NATO on the outlines of an AMD system are developing unfavorably for Moscow.

*Editor’s Note: These quotes, though translated accurately, could not be verified.