US-Russian nuclear treaty ratified

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Moscow-based political analyst Mikhail Troitskiy says the new START treaty is an important milestone for US-Russia relations. He tells anchor Lisa Mullins that ratification would push both sides toward further cuts in their nuclear weapons arsenals. Download MP3

• How can Russia and the US work together towards nuclear disarmament?
• Mikhail Troitskiy biography page

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: As we mentioned, U.S. lawmakers and others have expressed concerns about the direction in which Russia is heading.  Still, congress appears on its way to ratifying the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START.  The treaty would limit the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. and Russia can deploy, and would allow U.S. inspections of Russian nuclear facilities. Mikhail Troitskiy is a political analyst now in Moscow.  He says START has more to do with establishing mutual trust between the U.S. and Russia than it has to do with cuts in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.

Mikhail Troitskiy: It is indeed symbolic, but it is an extremely important milestone.  It is a sign of whether both sides can really take off in their substantive [inaudible 0:41], whether they can deliver on the commitments of the executive branches to advance cooperation.

Mullins: Okay, so if this treaty itself is designed to, as it is, to cap nuclear weapons and restart weapons inspections, is this an effort that most Russians back?

Troitskiy: The public opinion, if it has a say on whether the treaty is good or bad, would I think back the treaty, as again, to a certain extent, a sign of Russia negotiating with the United States as an equal at least in the nuclear field, but also because I think the Russians have got a feeling of a nuclear confrontation being a horrible thing.  And I think many Russians would just say that anything that promotes the goal of stepping away from possible nuclear escalation is good for anyone.

Mullins: But I wonder at the same time you know, there’s a U.S. legislator here, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, announced that he will indeed be voting for the measure.  What he said is interesting.  He was talking to those who believe that signing the treaty would leave the United States less powerful in terms of facing its adversaries: “I will vote to ratify the new START treaty between the United States and Russia because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come.”  How do you hear that?

Troitskiy: Well, certainly it’s absolutely clear that the number of warheads as well as missiles on both sides are far, far more than enough to annihilate each other.  But I think the treaty, the spirit of the treaty actually goes beyond that.  And the argument which sounds stronger to me is that the treaty puts both sides firmly on the track towards further negotiations about nuclear cuts.  And that can give a very positive example and an impetus to other nuclear nations across the world.

Mullins: Conservative republicans here though have been saying that START would restrict U.S. options on a missile defense system.  They say the accord has insufficient procedures to verify Russia’s adherence to it, and that the United States hasn’t gotten enough from Russia in exchange for this. Now, the treaty has to go to Russia’s parliament to be approved there.  What are those who are against it in Russia say?  Does the argument against START echo what’s being said here?

Troitskiy: Well, the main argument I think here in Moscow would be that Russia may be left in an unfavorable position with regard to high precision conventional weapons.  If Russia proceeds with cuts of nuclear arms, than it may become vulnerable to something the United States for example, calls a prompt global strike, and that is the use of conventional warheads on strategic missiles to disarm Russia. But this belongs to you know, this fear of pure fantasy, these are fantastic scenarios.  Some would probably be opposed to the momentum in these strategic and tactical arms reduction talks, but there’s certainly no question for any sensible person that Russia retains enough nuclear warheads and launchers to cause the United States an unsustainable damage in any case.

Mullins: Mikhail Troiskiy is a political analyst in Moscow.  We have more on U.S.-Russia relations and START at our website, theworld.org.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.