President Obama seeks Russian deal to slash nuclear weapons

[vector7]

Russia and US restart nuclear arsenal talks

By Charles Clover and Isabel Gorst in Moscow and Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: May 19 2009 11:39 | Last updated: May 19 2009 17:53

Russia and the US on Tuesday began talks in Moscow aimed at limiting their nuclear arsenals. The talks may provide the first breakthrough in an effort by both sides to “reset” a badly frayed relationship beset by mistrust.

The negotiations are intended to pave the way towards replacing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Start I, which expires in December.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Biden to press reset button in Balkans - May-19


US officials say a priority is to keep that arms control system – which they claim was neglected by the former Bush administration – alive.

The Obama team says it would be foolhardy to jettison the mechanisms put in place by the 1991 deal for each side to verify the size of the other’s nuclear arsenal. But swift progress will be needed in agreeing and ratifying a new treaty if the measures are not to expire.

Washington wants modest reductions in the two sides’ weapons in the current talks. A bigger cut – including the reduction to 1,000 warheads apiece favoured by Democratic liberals – would wait for another round.

The significance of the talks is more political than military: the outcome will largely determine the success or failure of a summit planned in July in Moscow between Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president.

Giving both leaders something to sign at the meeting – or at least the chance to demonstrate progress – will go a long way towards soothing tempers that have flared over Nato manoeuvres in Georgia and this month’s tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats accused of spying. These incidents had threatened US efforts to “hit the reset button” with Russia, in the words of US vice-president Joe Biden in February.

Andrew Kuchins, head of the Russia programme at CSIS, a Washington-based think-tank, said: “The key for the ‘reset’ . . . with the Russians is that we reach concrete agreements in time for the July summit.”

Differences remain but these should be tackled in the talks on Tuesday by US lead negotiator Rose Gottmuller, the assistant secretary of State, and her counterpart Anatoly Antonov, chief of the Russian foreign ministry’s security and arms control department. The US wants to limit the talks to nuclear warheads alone. Russia wants to limit delivery systems such as ICBMs, in which the US has an advantage.

“We are ready for a constructive dialogue and believe that the optimism expressed by both sides will bring about concrete results,” the Russian foreign ministry told Interfax.

The US faces pressure to link the nuclear arms talks with a retreat from plans to site an anti-missile shield in Poland that Russia says will undermine its own security.

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Duma’s international affairs committee, said talks could stall if the US went ahead with deployment of the shield in Poland. “If the Americans continue to insist on their right to develop anti-ballistic weaponry, the strategic disarmament will move at a significantly slower pace and could even get stuck,” he told the Vesti-24 television channel.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

[vector7]

MAY 20, 2009
The Arms-Control Dinosaurs Are Back
Why invite Russia to veto the nuclear progress we've been making on our own?
By MARC A. THIESSEN

When John Bolton served in the State Department during the Bush administration, he often walked the halls of Foggy Bottom wearing his trademark dinosaur ties -- a self-deprecating nod to those who thought his political views somewhat Jurassic. Today other dinosaurs have replaced him. The aging arms controllers who once haggled with Soviet officials are staging a comeback in the Obama administration.

This week in Moscow they'll pick up where they left off nearly two decades ago, sitting across the table from their Russian counterparts negotiating a renewal of the 1991 U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). One of the U.S. negotiators, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, refers to herself as a "Sputnik baby." She told the Washington Post after initial talks in New York earlier this month: "We've all been looking around and chuckling and saying 'We're all over 50.'"

President Barack Obama's goal of "a world without nuclear weapons" notwithstanding, the State Department is reportedly scrambling to staff its arms-control bureau because so many arms-control experts have retired and there's no one coming up in the ranks to replace them. Apparently not many young policy wonks are aware that cutting nuclear deals with Moscow is again the fast track to a high-flying diplomatic career.
[The Arms-Control Dinosaurs Are Back] Martin Kozlowski

The Obama revival of arms control comes at an odd moment. The past eight years have seen the fewest arms-control negotiations in a generation and some of the deepest nuclear weapons reductions in history. Thanks to the work of the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear stockpile is now one-quarter the size it was at the end of the Cold War -- the lowest level since the Eisenhower administration. When George W. Bush took office, the U.S. had more than 6,000 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Today, that number has been reduced to less than 2,200. The U.S. had originally planned to reach this milestone on Dec. 31, 2012, but instead met its goal this February.

How did the U.S. achieve such dramatic reductions so quickly? Answer: By abandoning traditional arms control. When Mr. Bush took office, he decided not to engage in lengthy, adversarial negotiations with Russia in which both sides kept thousands of weapons they did not need as bargaining chips. He did not establish standing negotiating teams in Geneva with armies of arms-control experts doing battle over every colon and comma. If he had done so, the two sides would probably still be negotiating today.

Instead, Mr. Bush simply announced his intention to reduce the U.S.'s operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by some two-thirds and invited Russia to do the same. President Vladimir Putin accepted his offer. These unilateral reductions were then codified in the 2002 Moscow Treaty, a three-page pact that took just six months to negotiate. By contrast, the Start treaty signed by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev -- and now being revived by the Obama team -- is 700-pages long and took nine years to negotiate.

Even as he enacted massive reductions in nuclear weapons, George W. Bush took other actions to reduce nuclear dangers. His administration launched the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which secured more than 600 vulnerable nuclear sites around the world and helped convert 57 nuclear reactors in 32 countries from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, removing enough weapons-grade material from countries around the world for more than 40 nuclear bombs.

With G-8 leaders, Mr. Bush launched the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction -- a $20 billion international effort to secure and dispose of nuclear and fissile materials and help former weapons scientists find new lines of work. The U.S. and Russia launched the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, a coalition of 75 nations that is working to stop the illicit spread of nuclear materials. The U.S. and Russia also launched the Bratislava Initiative, which has secured nearly 150 Russian sites containing nuclear warheads and hundreds of metric tons of weapons-quality material.

Despite this record of achievement, the arms controllers see the Bush era as a dark age from which they must rescue the world. They are intent on reviving the antiquated and adversarial approach to arms reductions. As serious negotiations begin, Russia will use these negotiations on arms reductions as leverage to get the U.S. to give up its planned deployment of ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Unlike Ronald Reagan at Reykjavik, it is not clear that Mr. Obama would walk away from a deal to preserve these vital defenses.

In addition to a new Start treaty, the Obama administration also reportedly plans to press the Senate to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a fatally flawed agreement that was rejected by the Senate in 1999 because it would undermine reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Instead of pressing the Senate to act on the CTBT, the administration should be calling on Congress to restore the funding it eliminated last year for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which would allow us to develop new warheads without the need for nuclear testing and thus ensure the reliability of America's nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Obama will visit Moscow in July where he and President Dmitry Medvedev will discuss progress on their stated goal to "move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations." Bringing back Cold War-era arms-control negotiations is a strange way to do so. In the 21st century, arms-control agreements are as antiquated as cave drawings. We no longer need pieces of parchment and armies of arms-control aficionados to achieve deep reductions in nuclear weapons. This fact is lost on the Sputnik babies now inhabiting the State Department.

Mr. Thiessen served as chief speechwriter to President

[vector7]

The New Russian Plan For World Domination

May 20, 2009: Russia has learned from its experience in the Cold War (thus the market economy and voting), but cannot get away from its Cold War thinking.

Russia's newly published defense strategy through 2020 is based on avoiding another arms race with the West, by also preventing neighboring nations from joining NATO.

While the document does not come right out and mention the United States as a rival, Russia is preoccupied with American military superiority. This is seen in its strong opposition to the American anti-missile system being built in Poland and the Czech Republic.

This system is to prevent Iran from intimidating Europe with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. Russia believes the anti-missile system is there to prevent Russia from intimidating Europe with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. Many European nations agree with this view as well. Russia seems, officially at least, oblivious of how much neighboring nations fear Russia. Russians take it as a given that Russia must dominate and manipulate its neighbors.

The neighbors are joining NATO to get away from this, and Russia does not like it. Russia won't admit what is actually going on, and invents other, rather vague, reasons for avoiding this neutralizing of their historical domination of their neighbors.

[vector7]

Op-Ed Contributor
A Fast Way to Lose the Arms Race
By JOHN R. BOLTON
Published: May 25, 2009

Washington

PRESIDENT OBAMA has called for a world without nuclear weapons, not as a distant goal, but as something imminently achievable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up, saying that American and Russian “leadership” in arms control and nonproliferation was “at the top of the list” of her priorities. Although the administration may be counting on the eyelid-lowering effect of arms-control terminology to minimize Congressional and public scrutiny, its plans are deeply troubling for America.

First, the administration’s bilateral objectives with Russia play almost entirely to Moscow’s advantage, as in arms-control days of yore. Hurrying to negotiate a successor to the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by year’s end, which Secretary Clinton has committed to, reflects a “zeal for the deal” approach that benefits only Russia.

We need not be rushed, since simply extending the existing treaty’s verification provisions would preserve the status quo. Fortunately, Russia seems likely to save us from the dangerously low warhead levels proposed by Senator John Kerry and others, but the risks of foolish, unnecessary concessions remain high.

Paradoxically, the administration itself might put the entire negotiating process into gridlock by reaching much farther than the Russians are willing to go, such as by trying to negotiate numerical limits on tactical nuclear weapons. More seriously, the administration has pre-emptively conceded to Russia on strategic defensive issues: first by linking the general subject of missile defense with offensive issues, long a Russian goal; and secondly by signaling that specific projects, like the defense system intended for Poland and the Czech Republic, might be abandoned or bargained away.

Second, the Obama administration is seriously weakening both our strategic offensive and defensive capacity. The Defense Department budget proposes major cuts in missile defense programs, returning to an emphasis both in operational and diplomatic terms on “theater” missile defense (mainly for defending deployed military forces), rather than “national” missile defense (for shielding America’s population from missile attack). Protecting our forces abroad must remain a top priority, but it need not be at the expense of homeland defense. President Ronald Reagan refused to bargain on missile defense, and President Obama isn’t bargaining either. He is simply giving it away.

The Pentagon also proposes ending financing for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a key to substituting safe, dependable warheads for the ones now aging. For the last two years, Congress refused President George W. Bush’s requests to pay for the program, but dropping it from the Obama budget altogether is another diplomatic freebie for Moscow. Even worse, in his public statements, President Obama’s seeming indifference to the beneficent effects of the United States’ nuclear deterrent has to worry our friends and allies, most notably Japan.

Third, the president is resurrecting President Bill Clinton’s unfinished multilateral arms-control agenda, committing, for example, to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would effectively make permanent the current moratorium on underground testing. Vice President Joe Biden is leading the administration’s effort to reverse the Senate’s 1999 rejection of the test-ban treaty, the first major treaty to fail on the Senate floor since the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.

The administration is also putting new emphasis on negotiating conventions against the “arms race” in outer space, which would undercut America’s current substantial advantage above the earth, and on resuscitating a proposed treaty that would prohibit the production of uranium and plutonium for weapons.

Unhappily, the administration is pushing Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a “non-nuclear-weapons state,” meaning Israel would have to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Iran and others will welcome this, given their repeated demands for the same result. Today’s real proliferation threat, however, is not Israel, but states like Iran and North Korea that become parties to the alphabet soup of arms control treaties and then violate them with abandon. Without robust American reactions to these violations — not apparent in administration thinking — more will follow.

The Senate, which must approve any treaty with a two-thirds supermajority, is now the only obstacle to Obama administration policies that will seriously weaken the United States. Voters should remind their representatives on Capitol Hill that they have a responsibility to keep us safe.

John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.”

[vector7]

Russia breaks "wall" into U.S. nuclear market

Tue May 26, 2009 1:15pm EDT
By Simon Shuster



MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia signed a landmark deal to supply nuclear fuel directly to U.S. companies on Tuesday, setting itself up to control 20 percent of the U.S. uranium market and extending its global reach in the nuclear sector.

At a ceremony in the Russian capital, U.S. electricity firms PG&E, Ameren Corp and Luminant signed deals to get more than $1 billion in uranium supplies from Russia's state nuclear fuel exporter Tenex between 2014 and 2020.

"This is a revolutionary breakthrough," Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's state atomic energy firm, Rosatom, which controls Tenex, told reporters.

Until last year, U.S. anti-dumping laws had only allowed Russia to sell the United States uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons. These sales are carried out through U.S. uranium trader USEC Inc.

"We have broken through the wall forbidding us to sell Russian fuel to the American market. After the contracts signed today, we will start new contracts," a jubilant Kiriyenko said after drinking toasts of champagne with the Americans. "This is only the beginning."

Bruce Hamilton, the president of Fuelco, the intermediary set up by the three U.S. companies for the deal with Russia, said Tuesday's agreements open the door for Russia to directly take 20 percent of the U.S. uranium market between 2014 and 2020.

"The Russians do it all. They mine it, they convert it and they enrich it," Hamilton told Reuters after the deals were signed. "And after 2020, it's just wide open (for Russia)."

The Russian fuel would be used initially to provide power to 5 million U.S. homes in California, Texas and Missouri, he added.

NUCLEAR STORAGE IN THE U.S.

Russia, one of the world's biggest nuclear players, has long been seeking to expand its clout in the sector by moving into developed markets such as the United States, European Union and Japan.

Earlier this year, it signed deals to cooperate with Japan's Toshiba and Germany's Siemens, putting Russia in the center of a nuclear alliance stretching from Western Europe to East Asia.

Tuesday's deals extended its reach further into the United States, where Russia is now discussing access to nuclear infrastructure, such as uranium storage facilities, Kiriyenko said.

"The directors of the U.S. energy companies discussed this with us. For them it would be more convenient if these facilities were located right in the United States. This is a logical step for us," Kiriyenko told reporters.

He added that these facilities would be jointly owned.

Hamilton declined to comment on this project.

U.S. anti-dumping laws were eased last year in a deal between Moscow and Washington to allow direct sales of uranium to other U.S. firms aside from USEC.

Analysts expect the increased access for Russian uranium to lead to lower prices in the United States.

The head of Tenex, which is also known as Techsnabexport, said his company expects to get as much as 25 percent of the U.S. uranium market through the deals signed on Tuesday.

"I am confident other similar deals will follow," Tenex CEO Anatoly Grigoryev, who signed all the contracts on behalf of the Russian side, told reporters.

(Editing by Anthony Barker)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

Russian political expert says nuclear catastrophe 'inevitable'

MOSCOW, June 1 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian political expert has told RIA Novosti that the international community is not paying enough attention to the threat of an imminent nuclear catastrophe.

"Today we are rightly worried about problems such as the possible development of the economic crisis, a H1N1 pandemic, and ecological safety. However, humanity is not paying attention to the increasing potential for a nuclear catastrophe," said Vladimir Kulagin, professor of global politics at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

He also said that the peaceful use of nuclear energy had increased massively following a fall-off after the Chernobyl disaster, and that its further growth would "invariably" lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"The possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is being underestimated," he said, adding that global non-proliferation efforts were failing like never before.

Kulagin also criticized global efforts at encouraging disarmament.

"It's unfashionable to resist disarmament efforts," he said. "However, many states and political figures consider it a waste of time to undertake this."

"This is likely to continue until nuclear weapons are inevitably used," he warned. "It would be better if this use were confined to a regional scale, for example if the Koreas or Iran or some terrorists use a few warheads somewhere on the planet.

Then, it seems, humanity will recognize that the so-called idealists who are calling for the total destruction of nuclear weapons were right. Only then, it appears, will movement towards a nuclear zero and real nuclear safety begin."

[vector7]

Strategic arms deal may be drafted before Obama visit - Kremlin

More on this theme



Related News

• Russian, U.S. officials discuss strategic arms reduction in Rome
• Obama 'proud' of legislation to control wasteful military spending
• Obama confident that U.S., Russia can improve ties
• Treaty with Obama: will Moscow want to seal strategic imbalance?

16:0602/06/2009
Multimedia

• Video:Obama, Medevev pledge cooperation

MOSCOW, June 2 (RIA Novosti) - A new draft strategic arms reduction deal to replace the START 1 treaty may be ready before U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow on July 6-8, a Russian presidential spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

"We are working on it," Natalia Timakova said.

The Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1), which expires in December 2009, obliges Russia and the United States to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and their delivery vehicles to 1,600 each. In 2002, a follow-up agreement on strategic offensive arms reduction was concluded in Moscow. The agreement, known as the Moscow Treaty, envisioned cuts to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 2012.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama agreed during their London meeting in early April on an immediate start to talks on a new strategic arms reduction treaty.

The team of U.S. negotiators at the current talks is led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, while the Russian delegation is headed by Anatoly Antonov, director of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Security and Disarmament.

The first round of full-format negotiations was held in Moscow on May 19-21, and the sides described it as a success. They agreed to submit the results of work on a new treaty at a Russian-U.S. summit in Moscow in early July.

The second round of talks is being held in Geneva.

A Russian diplomatic source told RIA Novosti on Tuesday that the negotiations are being conducted in a "constructive atmosphere."
"The second round of talks opened yesterday at the Russian mission [in Geneva], and they are continuing today at the U.S. mission,' the source said.

"The sides are focusing on the issues earlier outlined by the Russian president and the foreign minister, and they are trying to understand one another," he added.

According to a report published by the U.S. State Department in April, as of January 1 Russia had 3,909 nuclear warheads and 814 delivery vehicles, including ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers.

The same report said the United States had 5,576 warheads and 1,198 delivery vehicles.

Russia, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement with the U.S. in 2005, expects Washington to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads, but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles.

"The final result of the talks should certainly be a step forward compared to the current regime of limitations," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov earlier said.

[vector7]

Here it comes...

SUPERPOWERS
Kremlin chief sees possible deal in US arms talks

by Staff Writers
Windhoek (AFP) June 25, 2009

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday suggested Moscow and Washington could agree on nuclear disarmament if the US gave up existing plans to set up a missile defence shield in Europe.

"No doors have been closed yet," Medvedev said during a visit to Namibia.

"We are continuing discussions with our American partners on these issues including on the linking of missile defence shield questions and the reduction of strategic offensive weapons," he added.

Russian and US negotiators are currently in talks to renew the START nuclear arms control treaty, which was agreed between Moscow and Washington in the dying days of the Soviet Union in 1991 and runs out this December.

Russian officials say there could be an agreement on reducing nuclear arsenals by the time US President Barack Obama visits Moscow on July 6-8.

But Russia is fiercely opposed to US plans to deploy missile defence capabilities in Poland and the Czech Republic in what Washington insists is a measure to guard against rogue states such as Iran.

[vector7]

More aid to help the disarm the Americans and remove them from Europe...

Friday, June 26, 2009
Updated at 26 June 2009 3:56 Moscow Time.
The Moscow Times » Issue 4175 » News

Medvedev Says Russia's Allies Should Aid U.S.

26 June 2009
Reuters

WINDHOEK, Namibia -- Russia wants its Central Asian allies to cooperate with Washington on Afghanistan and is ready to work with the United States on a new nuclear arms cut pact, President Dmitry Medvedev said Thursday.

Afghanistan and a replacement for the expiring 1991 START I pact will be at the center of talks between Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama in Moscow next month.

Russia has pledged to let the transit of vital nonlethal goods for U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan through its territory. But in February, it sent a confusing signal by encouraging Kyrgyzstan to shut the U.S. Manas air base. Earlier this week, Kyrgyzstan allowed the United States to continue at Manas. Medvedev said he saw nothing wrong in the decision.

"We are helping them [Americans] ... and Kyrgyzstan is ready to help," Medvedev told reporters in the Namibian capital, Windhoek. "They are welcome."

Medvedev said he had discussed allowing the U.S. military base to remain at Manas with Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Bakiyev ordered Manas shut after securing $2 billion in aid from Russia, though Moscow denies any role in his decision.

Medvedev said Russia was happy with the terms of the new deal, under which Washington agreed to pay $180 million for the use of Manas to refuel U.S. aircraft bound for Afghanistan.

"[The deal] envisages that the military base ceases to exist, while new transit activities will be run on a different basis without any immunity for the U.S. military, without much U.S. military personnel," he said.

In Bishkek, Kyrgyz lawmakers unanimously backed the deal Thursday.

Medvedev denied suggestions that Washington and Moscow were at loggerheads over a new nuclear arms deal to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires on Dec. 5.

"So far, no one closed doors," Medvedev said. "We continue talking about this with our U.S. partners ahead of the visit by my colleague Barack Obama, including on linking anti-missile defense and limiting strategic weapons.

[vector7]

NATO, Russia Resume Military Ties

By VOA News
28 June 2009

NATO and Russia agreed Saturday to resume military ties, ending a 10-month rift caused by Russia's war with Georgia, but they failed to bridge major differences over the conflict.

The agreement, which clears the way for the two sides to restore cooperation on anti-piracy operations, counter-terrorism, and the war in Afghanistan, was reached at a meeting of NATO and Russian foreign ministers in Greece.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
NATO's outgoing Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that the NATO-Russia Council, set up to improve ties between the two sides, is operational again.

Also Saturday, in Moscow, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, called on Russian officers to help move U.S.-Russian military relations to a new level.

Mullen and his Russian counterpart will sign a new military cooperation agreement next month, during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow.

Dialogue between NATO and Moscow was suspended last August after Russia used force to stop Georgia's attempt to retake one of its breakaway regions.

An attempt in May to resume ministerial-level talks failed over NATO-led military exercises in Georgia, which Russia labeled a provocation.

Another source of tension has been a U.S. plan for a missile defense shield in Central Europe.

The NATO-Russia Council session was held on the sidelines of a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

That two-day meeting focuses on resolving differences over Georgia, as well as Russia's proposal for a new European security pact.

One divisive issue is extending the OSCE monitoring mission in Georgia, which is set to expire Tuesday. Russia has blocked past attempts to keep monitors there.

When the OSCE talks end on Sunday, European Union ministers will remain in Corfu to discuss Iran policy.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

[vector7]

Monday, June 29, 2009
Updated at 29 June 2009 0:23 Moscow Time.
The Moscow Times » Issue 4176 » News
print
General Surprises U.S. by Pledging Deal

29 June 2009
Combined Reports

A top general has surprised the U.S. military by announcing that Russia and the United States would sign a military cooperation deal when U.S. President Barack Obama visits Moscow next month.

"We have outlined the main issues of military cooperation for 2009 and beyond," the head of the General Staff, General Nikolai Makarov, said Friday after a 90-minute meeting with his U.S. counterpart, Admiral Michael Mullen.

"Our intention is that those documents should be signed when U.S. President Barack Obama arrives here in Moscow in July," Makarov said.

Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, made no mention of any military agreement after the talks but said he was looking forward to the outcome of Obama's visit to Russia on July 6 to 8.

"I can't emphasize enough my belief that we need to work on these very hard challenges to improve security not just in Europe but in the world," Mullen said.

At the Pentagon, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S. officials "had no idea" that Russian leaders were going to announce the intention to sign the agreement.

He called the expected agreement a sign of good will but would not discuss details.

"It's good for two countries to have strong, bilateral military-to-military relations," Whitman told reporters Friday. "We think it's valuable."

Makarov said he and Mullen discussed the U.S.-Russian talks on a successor to the 1991 START I arms control treaty, which expires Dec. 5, as well as U.S. missile defense plans, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and possible joint action against sea piracy.

Mullen, on his first visit to Moscow, said the meeting was frank and open.

The top military brass gave no further details about the talks.

The military talks follow renewed efforts by the two countries to reset relations that have become strained by events such as last year's Georgia war and NATO's expansion eastward.

"I'm very encouraged by our meetings and our mutual commitment to address these issues and strengthen our military-to-military cooperation," Mullen said.

"We have many common challenges … whether in Afghanistan or the challenges in missile defense, or in Iran or particularly for security in Europe," he added.

[vector7]

From The Times
June 29, 2009
Lose Trident and win the moral war
Forget the financial, military and political arguments, owning nuclear weapons makes us hypocrites


Cardinal Keith O'Brien

A recent editorial in this paper on Trident, noting that “national defence is one of the cardinal duties of the statesman”, caused me to reflect on the moral duties of a cardinal.

In the debate surrounding the replacement of Trident, we have heard a great deal about the financial, diplomatic, military and political arguments relevant to retention or rejection. By contrast we have heard precious little about the moral arguments involved. Sometimes the debate around a particular topic becomes so confused and nuanced that the moral considerations of any decision can be lost in the fog.

In the context of Trident renewal, the moral case is really quite simple. It cuts through and across any others. Because it is simple, let me put it simply. In any and all circumstances the use of a nuclear weapon would be immoral. Since, to use these weapons would be immoral, to threaten their use is immoral and to hold them with a view to threatening their use is also immoral.

We not only violate moral principles with our nuclear weapons but undermine our moral authority in the world. We were prepared to engage in a brutal war with Iraq to ensure that nation did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. We did this in the belief that possession of such weapons is morally reprehensible, which it is, unless of course we possess them. Our duality and moral hypocrisy fatally undermined our motivation in Iraq.

We must simply ask ourselves: “Are nuclear weapons useable?” The inherently indiscriminate and devastatingly powerful destructive force of nuclear weapons makes them qualitatively different from any other type of ordnance. Their first use, under any circumstances whatsoever, would be a crime against God and humanity. Likewise, a counter-strike in retaliation would be just as immoral, even more so, because it would be motivated not by defence but by the hollow and hellish vengeance of the vanquished. It is perhaps no coincidence that one of the British Trident fleet is named HMS Vengeance.

In war a primary duty of the military is to protect the innocent and non-combatants. This foundational aspect of military conflict through the ages is brutally and utterly violated when a nuclear weapon is deployed.

Even a tactical deployment would constitute such a violation, yet Britain has no tactical nuclear weapons. Instead 200 identical warheads leased from the US and quartered for the most part in Scottish waters comprise Britain’s strategic arsenal. Each one is eight times more powerful than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima.

We all accept that threatening behaviour is a crime. In the domestic context it instils fear and mistrust and destroys relationships, so too in the international military context. To the Christian and to most people of faith, threatening someone with such awesomely destructive power runs utterly counter to the call of God: a call to love, peace and reconciliation, not destruction, domination and force.

I join this debate as a Christian minister and a human being who believes in the dignity and sanctity of human life. This pro-life message is at the heart of the Catholic Church and is one that the Church champions, “in season and out of season”. No one can uphold the teachings of Christ unless they speak out in defence of life, and the mass killing of innocent victims at any time and in any place.

Life must mean life in all its fullness and at every stage, from conception to natural death, and any premature taking of life at any stage has deep moral implications.

This is why the Catholic Church opposes abortion, stands against capital punishment, works to bring an end to the scandal of child soldiers, the trade in small arms and so much more. It is why the Church has consistently opposed the development of nuclear weapons, and why it demands their abolition, now more than ever. None of what I say comes from me alone, but from the highest moral authority in the Catholic Church; the Pope and the bishops working together and in Council.

The last Council was Vatican II more than 40 years ago, but its teaching on this subject rings down through the decades: “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”

This is moral teaching of the clearest kind, and my duty is to pass that teaching on. To act morally, to do the right thing, often takes courage, and sometimes means taking a stand that others do not agree with or accept. That is the test of leadership. Britain now has a golden opportunity to truly lead and to turn its back on the path of mass destruction.

In doing so we can assist others, particularly Russia and the United States who have shown much more willingness to be courageous than Britain has in recent months, but who have so much farther to go to disarm. Rejecting Trident, not in 2024 but right now, will bring economic dividends at home and give moral leadership abroad. It would allow us, at last, to stand on the moral high ground and to invite the nuclear armed nations of the world to join us there.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland

* Have your say

Close your eyes and imagine a world where the UK has no nuclear weapons but Iran, China and N. Korea do.

Does the moral high ground feel comfortable or does it simply make you look like an easy target.

John G, Vancouver, Canada

This is the man who advised voters not to vote Labour and now complains about SNP politics.

He is a bigot and who elected him to dable in politics. Look after the poor the meek and the hungry by all means and try and turn the other cheek yourself but don't tell me how to defend my country.

Phil1, Edinburgh, UK

What a load of naive rubbish. Very poor arguments. If priests like this had run the West in the 20th century, we'd be saluting the swastika or the hammer and sickle. In international relations, moral principles are worth little without the force to back them up - read Thucydides' Melian Dialogue.

NT, Pittsburgh, USA

[vector7]

Experts back calls to axe Trident

By Jim Pickard
Published: June 28 2009 22:20 | Last updated: June 28 2009 22:20

Axing the new Trident nuclear deterrent would help fill a growing “black hole” in the defence budget, according to a report by senior military figures to be published on Tuesday.

The radical proposition will be put forward by Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, Lord Ashdown, former head of the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Robertson, the former Nato secretary-general.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Brown urged to review Trident plans - Jun-14

Rebellion fails to halt Trident replacement - Mar-14

Text of aide’s resignation letter - Mar-14

New resignation in Trident storm - Mar-14

Editorial comment: The virtue of delaying the Trident decision - Mar-14
Blow to Blair ahead of Trident vote - Mar-12

The trio of influential *figures wrote the report for a “national security commission” put together by the Institute for Public *Policy Research, a think-tank.

It comes after the Ministry of Defence was forced to deny claims on Sunday that the government had put the £20bn Trident replacement programme under “review” in an attempt to cut costs.

Trident’s upgrade, involving replacing four nuclear submarines, was agreed by Tony Blair in 2006.

Scrapping or downgrading Trident, a move advocated by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg last week, could save billions of pounds at a time of severe Whitehall belt-tightening.

Des Browne, former defence secretary, said on Sunday that the MoD was facing tough financial decisions: “There is an order book which outstrips the department’s capacity to pay for it – that’s no secret,” he said.

It was reported on Sunday that the MoD was considering options for the Trident upgrade.

This could mean a ballistic missile system operating from mainland Britain or an aircraft fitted with a nuclear bomb that could be launched from an aircraft carrier.

One government source said ministers were still committed to renewing Trident because it was the “cornerstone” of Britain’s defence strategy.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

[vector7]

Trident alternatives under review

Monday, June 29, 2009

The government is reportedly reviewing the Trident replacement programme in an effort to both find savings and appease Labour backbenchers and core voters.

An official announcement could be made sometime this autumn before the Labour party conference in Birmingham.

In terms of defence, a cut to or elimination of Trident could result in substantial savings for the MoD at a time when it faces one of the bleakest budget situations ever.

MoD procurement officials are believed to already be studying alternatives to the £20bn programme.

These include going ahead with the Vanguard replacement programme, but with less boats, and going ahead with the Vanguard replacements but extending the life of the current warheads by 15-25 years. This would bring the warhead replacement programme into line with the US and may allow the two countries to partner together on the project.

Some commanders may feel uneasy about the former option given the fact that recently two of the submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines.

Other options include an aircraft that carries a nuclear payload. It would be launched from one of the two new aircraft carriers which would have to be on deployment at all times. This however would force Britain to build the new carriers, an option still under review, and create a lower profile for the carrier fleet.

A final option would be to have a land based ballistic nuclear missile system. This option would be among the cheapest but it would limit Britain's ability to respond to threats in Asia, in particular, North Korea.

The new Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is believed to be open to the idea of at least reviewing the Trident programme.

[vector7]

Trident deterrent is vital - Waiting

Last updated 12:17, Monday, 29 June 2009

THE Trident missile nuclear deterrent and a fleet of replacement submarines are needed as badly as ever, according to the head of a shipyard lobby group.

Parliament voted in favour of renewing Britain’s deterrent-carrying submarines in 2007, believing them necessary in a world where other nations were investing heavily in renewing their nuclear arsenals and submarine forces.

The so-called Successor Project for a fleet of up to four big submarines to replace the existing Barrow-built fleet will secure the future of Barrow shipyard until 2030.

But with the economic crisis and spending cuts looming, Trident is increasingly being criticised.

Terry Waiting, chairman of the Keep Our Future Afloat Campaign in Barrow, which lobbies for shipyard work, said it was vital to sustain key skills and capability in the UK submarine industrial base.

Discounting Liberal Democrat claims that the UK submarine-based deterrent is a “cold war missile system,” Mr Waiting said nations like Russia and China were reinvesting in their nuclear submarine fleets.

Mr Waiting said: “Nuclear weapons are possessed or strongly desired by an expanding number of nations.

“Some say that Britain can no longer afford or needs the protection provided by the nuclear deterrent that my generation enjoyed. I think that view is fundamentally misconceived. Economic turbulence can quickly lead to instability and the potential for state-based conflict. Adversaries and other nations will always seek whatever advantages they can. Knowing that, we have to be prepared for contingencies we haven’t even considered yet.”

Mr Waiting said at a cost of less than 0.2 per cent of UK’s GDP over the lifetime of the deterrent, Trident represented good value insurance in an increasingly uncertain world. It would be dangerous for Britain to divest itself of its nuclear weapons, he added, which was why the skills and capabilities of the UK submarine industrial base needed to be sustained.

Around 150 engineers and designers are working in Barrow on concepts for the Successor project submarines.

[vector7]

US, Germany seeking to boost Moscow ties

Posted: 27 June 2009 0442 hrs

WASHINGTON : The United States and Germany are working to build warmer and more solid ties with Russia, US President Barack Obama vowed Friday ahead of a key visit to the former Cold War foe.

In talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel the two leaders "reaffirmed our commitment to a more substantive relationship with Russia," Obama told a White House press conference.

"Working with the Russian government on issues where we agree and honestly confronting those areas where we disagree."

Obama is due to visit Russia on July 6-8 in a bid to improve relations with Moscow that sunk to their lowest level in decades under the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"In Moscow, we will continue to explore ways in which the United States and Russia can advance our common interests, including our joint commitment to reducing our nuclear arsenals and strengthening the global nonproliferation regime," Obama said.

Signs of the warming ties came already Friday when Moscow's top military commander Nikolai Makarov, the head of Russia's general staff, said the US and Russia would sign a military cooperation agreement during Obama's visit.

"We reached an absolutely identical understanding that in the world there are many more threats and challenges that we should solve on the political and military levels," Makarov said after talks with his US counterpart Admiral Michael Mullen in Moscow.

Such an announcement would have been unthinkable in August when the Georgia crisis pushed relations between the two nations to their lowest point since the Cold War.

For her part, Merkel said Obama's Russia visit would be important for Germany and the European Union.

"We have every interest also in seeing a very good relationship between the United States of America and Russia," she said.

She highlighted the important role Moscow could play in the current crisis over Iran's suspect nuclear program, adding "We want to forge a common position wherever possible with Russia, but also with China.

"We've done that over the years in the format of the United Nations with a number of resolutions, and that needs to be continued."

January's inauguration of Obama, who has pledged to "reset" US-Russian relations, has contributed to the friendlier atmosphere but obstacles still remain to smooth ties between the two former Cold War superpowers.

One major sticking point is the dispute over the US missile shield. Russia fiercely opposes a US plan to place anti-missile radars in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland, calling them a threat to Russian security.

Washington says the shield is no threat to Russia and is instead meant to protect against "rogue states" like Iran. But since Obama took power it has been reviewing the project.

- AFP /ls

[vector7]

World
Russia to deliver new security proposal in Brussels July 22

Dmitri Rogozin
RIA Novosti Sergey Subbotin | Buy this image
Related News

* Moscow says European security treaty not aimed against NATO
* Russia offers to host series of global security meetings in 2010
* Security issues to be discussed at St. Petersburg economic forum
* Lavrov says arms control pact with U.S. must give equal security

16:1629/06/2009

MOSCOW, June 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's proposals for a new National Security Strategy is to be presented at NATO headquarters in Brussels on July 22, Russia's envoy to NATO said Monday.

"A high-level expert - one of the leaders of Russia's Security Council - will arrive for that," Dmitry Rogozin said during a video link from Brussels organized by RIA Novosti.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree in May on the National Security Strategy up to 2020.

Rogozin also said that NATO had invited "the Russian envoy to take part on July 7 in a seminar devoted to NATO strategic development issues."

He also said the first meeting between a Russian representative and the newly-appointed NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who takes up the post on August 1, will be held August 11.

"I think at the August 11 meeting he is to outline prospects for his trip to Russia," Rogozin said.

Rogozin said discussions on a Russia's proposal for a European Security Treaty could start in September during a Russia-NATO Council session.

[vector7]

US military chief hopeful on Poland deal

12 hours ago

WARSAW (AFP) — The US military chief Monday said he was hopeful Washington and Warsaw could wrap up talks on a deal tied to a anti-missile plan opposed by Russia but which Washington says is needed to counter threats by Iran.

"There are very important ongoing negotiations," Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters, referring to talks on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) governing the presence of US troops on Polish soil.

"I'm not just hopeful, but also optimistic, that they can move forward," he said.

Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Warsaw to meet with his Polish counterpart General Franciszek Gagor.

In 2008, Warsaw and Washington struck a deal on deploying 10 US long-range interceptor missiles in Poland as part of a global air-defence system.

They also inked a related accord on boosting Poland's air defences by deploying Patriot missiles.

Before the deals can come into force, however, the two allies have to complete their SOFA negotiations.

Gagor noted the talks were in the hands of defence and foreign ministry negotiators from both sides, rather than the military.

"They are dealing with the political and legal issues. They are proceeding with that," he said.

According to the previous US administration of George W. Bush the anti-missile system -- meant to be ready by 2013, and including a radar base in the Czech Republic -- aimed to thwart attacks by "rogue states", notably Iran.

But Moscow was enraged by the plans in its Soviet-era stamping ground, and threatened to train nuclear warheads on Poland and the Czech Republic, which broke free from the communist bloc in 1989 and joined NATO 10 years later.

Bush's successor Barack Obama this year launched a review of the controversial system, saying it must be cost-effective and proven to work.

The issue is expected to be on the table during Obama's July 6-8 visit to Moscow. Russian officials have said that if Washington gives way on the shield, Moscow may agree to a reduction of both nations' nuclear arsenals.

Obama has nonetheless said Washington would move forward with the system as long as there was an Iranian missile threat -- something Mullen underscored.

"Clearly the United States is both concerned about the growing missile capabilities, and the destabilising aspect of those capabilities, that are coming out of Iran, and is very committed to looking for solutions that best resolve and protect against that threat," Mullen said.

Earlier this month, the Polish government complained Washington was failing to give it a clear indication on the future of the shield and the Patriots.

"It would be weeks to months after the completion of a (SOFA) agreement that we would be able to deploy the first Patriot battery," said Mullen, noting that Washington's initial plan is to provide one for training purposes.

Poland has insisted it wants a fully-operational battery that can be integrated directly into the nation's air-defence system.

Gagor, however, did not stoke the spat.

"The Polish military is looking forward to the battery being deployed in Poland... I believe that the battery will be in Poland sooner rather than later," he said.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

Poland waits patiently for U.S. decision on missile shield: FM
www.chinaview.cn
2009-06-30 05:33:50

WARSAW, June 29 (Xinhua) -- Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on Monday that Poland waits patiently for the confirmation of the U.S. decision on the anti-missile shield to be stationed in the country.

The minister stressed that the agreement on the anti-missile shield signed by Poland and the United States last August was accompanied by a declaration providing for the deployment in Poland of a Patriot missile battery.

"The declaration specifies that a garrison will be set up in a location selected by the Polish side in accordance with its defense needs by the end of the year 2012. Rotational stationing of the Patriot missiles is possible also before that date," Sikorski was quoted as saying by the Polish news agency PAP.

There are no legal problems preventing such rotational deployment to begin still this year. "We would be pleased if this is indeed the case, but we will not enter into a dispute over a few months this way or another," Sikorski noted.

Poland wants the missiles "not only to arrive here armed, but also to be incorporated IT-wise into our air defense system," he stressed.

The foreign minister ironized about some recent Polish press articles suggesting that the U.S. authorities, including President Barack Obama, preferred to put off detailed agreements with Poland concerning the Patriot missile base and the anti-missile shield base in Redzikowo.

"We are waiting for the confirmation of U.S. decisions on Redzikowo, the Patriot base should be ready by 2012," the minister noted.

Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said on Monday that the installation of Patriots in Poland would be possible after the signing of a Polish-U.S. SOFA accord on the stationing of U.S. troops on Polish territory.

Mullen, who was in Warsaw to meet with his Polish counterpart, General Franciszek Gagor, added that the Patriots could be located in Poland "within weeks or months," but noted that the missiles would be armed only for training purposes.

Under the Polish-U.S. accord signed last year, 10 ground base interceptors are to be installed in Redzikowo, northern Poland, as part of a larger missile defense system that would include a radar system in the Czech Republic.

Russia objects to the missile shield plan, warning it will deploy a short-range missile system in its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad bordering Poland in response to the U.S. system.

Earlier this year, U.S. President Barack Obama launched a review of the controversial plan, saying the anti-missile system must be cost-effective and proven to work.
Editor: yan

[vector7]

Partnership for a Secure America
START is Just the Beginning
by Daniel Cassman | June 29th, 2009

This December, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), is set to expire. START is the only mechanism that places verifiable limits on Russian and American nuclear arsenals. Currently, diplomats from both nations have been hard at work negotiating an extension or successor to the treaty. At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, Ambassador Thomas Graham, and Dr. Keith B. Payne discussed the prospects for U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reductions. They were generally optimistic that we can make progress on arms reduction talks. It is imperative that we negotiate a new arms reduction treaty with Russia. But renegotiating START should be only the first step in a much longer process. We should view a new START as the beginning of a broader effort to curb nuclear proliferation and repair our relations with Russia.

Many experts agree that progress on START is crucial to maintaining the nonproliferation regime. Indeed, Ambassador Graham cited the recent PSA statement on nuclear proliferation as evidence of a broad bipartisan consensus on the importance of strategic arms reduction. Additionally, Dr. Payne called for an agreement that encompasses Russia’s large supply of tactical nuclear weapons, something Russia has resisted. Another major proliferation concern (though unrelated to arms reduction) is Russia’s continued support for Iran; it has supplied nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr reactor and blocked or weakened efforts to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment.

The Russians have their own list of objectives. Russia has insisted that arms reductions talks should encompass more than offensive strategic forces. Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev has stated that he will only agree to a START successor if the United States addresses Russia’s concerns about ballistic missile defense. Russia is also disturbed by the expansion of NATO. While Medvedev has voiced his support of modest stockpile reductions, he has called for reducing the number of delivery vehicles by “several times.” According to Dr. Payne, Russia wants to limit delivery vehicles because Russia’s long-range missiles are quickly becoming obsolete. Due to a lingering Cold War mentality and self-consciousness over its limited conventional power, Russia is eager to maintain strategic parity with the United States. As Russia’s delivery systems go off-line, Russia will need American cooperation to maintain a comparable array of delivery systems.

Both the United States and Russia have compelling security reasons to negotiate a successor to START, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that things will go flawlessly. There is, however, room to maneuver—for example, Russia might agree to reduce its tactical nuclear weapons if we limit our delivery systems. At the very least, we should be able to extend START’s crucial verification mechanisms and reduce our arsenals below the ceiling set in 2002. That limited agreement needs to come before START expires in December, and therefore it should be relatively modest and focused on offensive weapons. But it should be negotiated with the understanding that it will be followed by a more comprehensive nonproliferation agreement that will address American and Russian concerns beyond offensive weapons. Given both sides’ interests, it’s not hard to imagine how that second agreement might take shape.

Generally, the United States should work to relieve Russia’s concerns about missile defense and the expansion of NATO in return for more support on Iran. Though missile defense has been a sticking point, the witnesses agreed that there is some room for flexibility. For example, the United States might agree not to deploy missile defense systems in former Soviet satellites. Another option would be to negotiate a new ABM treaty. American officials insist that our missile defense efforts are arrayed not against Russia, but against emerging threats from rogue states. If that’s the case, then the two countries should be able to find some middle ground in which the U.S. can pursue missile defense without threatening Russia’s strategic forces. With regard to NATO, we should agree not to recruit aggressively in Eastern Europe and to slow expansion of the alliance.

In exchange for our cooperation, we should request Russia’s support on a Security Council resolution to enforce sanctions on Iran. We should encourage Russia to help us lead a multilateral effort to end Iran’s uranium enrichment programs. Only if Russia agrees to support us in negotiations with Iran will we be flexible on NATO and missile defense.

An agreement along these lines will have crucial implications for international security. A new arms reduction treaty will reduce the world’s nuclear weapons and demonstrate our commitment to our Article VI obligations under the NPT. A more amenable approach to missile defense will ensure that we can continue to develop that technology without threatening Russia. An agreement on tactical nuclear weapons will reduce a serious proliferation threat. Gaining Russia’s backing against Iran will help us make progress on one of the most intractable security problems that we face. Repairing our relations with Russia is critical to American security, and extending START will be a strong first step.