Putin’s Finger On The Nuclear Trigger — U.S. Sees A Scary Reversal In Russian Policy
What’s more dangerous – Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dedication to building up Russia’s nuclear and missile strength or North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un’s commitment to the North’s nuclear program as the centerpiece of the policy of “songun,” military first?
Tom Countrymen, assistant secretary of state at the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, minced no words about the threat posed by Putin’s tough rhetoric as Russia flexes its muscles from eastern Europe to the middle east – and possibly northeast Asia too.
At a conference on nuclear issues staged by the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, Countrymen excoriated Putin for having raised the risk of a nuclear holocaust while asserting Russia’s power in terms reminiscent of the worst moments of the Cold War.
“The most dangerous development in the field of nuclear weapons is the reversal of a positive trend,” said Countryman, blaming Putin for escalating tensions even if he doubted the Russian leader’s show of strength would lead to withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
“I don’t think there is any country out there that would leave the treaty and develop nuclear weapons,” he said, with one notable exception. “North Korea has done so,” he said. “Nobody can beat North Korea for doing stupid things.”
If that turn of phrase seems flippant, though, U.S. defense planners cite North Korea along with China and Russia when they talk of rising threats against the U.S.
Nobody seriously believes North Korea has developed a hydrogen bomb, as Kim Jong-un mentioned almost in passing in a visit to a “revolutionary site” memorializing his grandfather, Kim Il-Sung, founder of the North’s ruling dynasty, and his father, Kim Jong-il, the “dear leader” who died four years ago. Nonetheless, there is no doubt North Korea is developing the technology for fixing a warhead on the tip of a long-range missile with a theoretical range as far as the U.S. west coast.
Air Force Lieutenant General Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, reflected the concerns as he spoke of the rising threat of nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles posed by Russia, China and, yes, North Korea.
Weinstein’s message was basic. “We must focus on nuclear deterrence in other nations,” he said. “Others have modernized their nuclear weapons, and some have upgraded.” He left no doubt whom he had in mind.
“The Russians are developing ICBMs and nuclear bombers,” Weinstein told the CSIS forum. “They are developing a whole new infrastructure for an ICBM force.” Moreover, he said, “the Chinese are doing the same thing” – and North Korea also is working on ICBMs albeit with uncertain success.
For that reason, he went on, “The nuclear deterrence mission is number one in the air force and vital to our defense strategy.”
Weinstein hinted at the dilemma, however, when he said the U.S. air force “is smaller than it has ever been, and the average age of weapons is older than it’s ever been.” In the face of such challenges, he declared, “The Air Force is fully committed to modernizing our nuclear force” with the nuclear deterrent forming “the foundation of our nuclear strategy.”
Far more than North Korea or China, the State Department seems worried about the escalation of tough words from Moscow.
For 25 years, Countryman said, the five original members of the nuclear club, the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia, “stopped talking about nuclear weapons as a source of national pride.” Putin, he said, “has reversed that trend.”
Nor did he think Putin’s expressions of pride in Russia’s nuclear strength should be dismissed as idle boasting. “Rhetoric has an effect,” he said. “Words matter….They make it more likely nuclear weapons could be used. It’s important to avoid that chest-thumping. It is important for leaders not to go down that same path just because Vladimir did.”
The return to the rhetoric of the period of communist power comes a quarter of a century after the end of Soviet rule, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the fall of Soviet-sponsored regimes in eastern Europe. If the communist era is over, however, the sense is that something much more central to Russian history and deep-rooted pride is happening – a renaissance of nationalism that far predates the communist revolution.
Countryman suggested the complexes at play as Russia flexes its muscles by supporting the regime of Bashir Assad in Syria and exercises control over portions of Ukraine while intimidating other neighbors forced until 1990 and 1991 to bow to Moscow as Soviet satellites.
“Disagreement in Ukraine goes to the concept of European security challenged by a revanchist power,” he said. Nuclear weapons “are a political tool of the Russian federation” that the NATO powers need to comprehend – and counter.
But what about dialogue, negotiations? Countryman was not optimistic.
“It is a goal of Russian foreign policy to scream, ‘I’m important,’” he said. It was “worrying” that, for the first time in more than 50 years, there is “neither an active dialogue with Moscow or anything scheduled on nuclear weapons.”
Some experts see non-nuclear deterrence as intrinsic in Russia’s nuclear policy. “Cruise missile strikes in Syria demonstrate Russia has the will to use them,” said Harrison Menke, a war-gaming analyst with the Science Applications International Corporation. He sees “non-nuclear deterrence as an extension of nuclear deterrence,” affording the flexibility to challenge NATO with “a nuclear warning.”
The ultimate dangers are obvious. “Kremlin officials believe they understand the enemy’s pain level and potential reaction,” said Menke, but “the potential for miscalculation and escalation is high.”
No comments:
Post a Comment