- On Tuesday, in an address to the Russian nation, Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow is suspending its participation in the New Start nuclear disarmament treaty.
- This bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia, signed in 2010 and extended to 2026, limits the number of operational nuclear warheads and visits to nuclear sites by the other party.
- For Isabelle Facon, research director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, and Philippe Migault, researcher at Iris and co-founder of the Brenus Institute, interviewed by 20 minutes, this announcement does not necessarily change the level of the threat level of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
A long speech, great hostility towards the West and a decision. “I am obliged to announce that Russia is suspending its participation in the New Start Treaty,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an address to the nation almost a year after the start of the war in Ukraine. Condemnations ranging from “serious mistakes”, “hasty” decisions and regrets immediately hailed within NATO.
But what does this nuclear disarmament treaty say? Why is Vladimir Putin only temporarily out? Should this be seen as a greater threat from the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine? 20 minutes takes stock with two experts.
What is the New Start contract?
“It’s a memoir from the good old days, when Barack Obama wanted to reshape Washington’s relationship with Moscow,” says Philippe Migault, a researcher at Iris and co-founder of the Brenus Institute. This treaty, signed in 2010 between the two main nuclear powers, envisages “reducing the number of usable nuclear warheads by 30%”, with a limit of 1550, on board “800 missiles or bombers”. This leaves “largely enough to destroy the earth several times,” emphasizes the researcher. One of the key points of the treaty is that Russia can visit and control American facilities and vice versa.
The idea for the American President is then to “send a signal” by showing that “the nuclear powers are well on the way to disarmament” in order to restart the non-proliferation dynamic, explains Isabelle Facon, head Researcher at the Strategic Research Foundation. The Russian side is then ready to negotiate a new treaty because “it makes visible the other power’s nuclear arsenal,” but also because “these bilateral negotiations with the United States on this issue are elements that support the idea that Russia is a great force”.
The contract originally expired in 2021. But in the context of already very deteriorated relations, New Start was extended in early 2021 to 2026, then “Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin” met in Geneva in June 2021, and on that occasion reiterated their desire to maintain dialogue on the subject. A little miracle.
Why does Russia want to suspend the treaty?
When Russia announced the “suspension” of its participation in the treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry was quick to specify that it would continue to respect the limitations on its nuclear arsenal. But according to Moscow, “the United States wants to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, which, according to Russians, significantly changes the environment for the implementation of the treaty,” notes Isabelle Facon. From the Kremlin’s point of view, the delivery of “increasingly heavier” weapons to Ukraine contradicts this point. “Strategic bases with bombers have already been bombed, like Engels’ on the Volga,” explains Philippe Migault. And since, in his opinion, “NATO already provides Ukraine with all the help of its secret services, Russia will not make it easier for it by accepting American visits to its bases.”
The gender confusion between NATO and the United States is also noted by Moscow, after “a February 3 NATO press release denouncing that Russia no longer accepts inspections,” notes Isabelle Facon. However, the treaty is bilateral, and “Moscow has been asking for some time to consider integrating the nuclear potential of the three nuclear powers in the alliance” into talks on a new treaty. So Vladimir Putin can use his usual “responsibility reversal” rhetoric by claiming “it’s not us who changed the terms of the treaty,” she decodes.
Does this decision increase the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons?
For the two experts interviewed by 20 Minutes, the threat situation does not change with this announcement. “It’s a sign of distrust, but the risk of not getting worse,” suggests Philippe Migault, invoking a “symbolic field”. “The New Start treaty concerns strategic weapons, while in Ukraine there are more concerns about the possible use of non-strategic weapons,” emphasizes Isabelle Facon.
The aim is above all to “stimulate those on the western side who are pushing to go to the negotiating table quickly” in order to avoid an escalation. All in a context in which Russia “occupies important areas in Ukraine” but can no longer advance. Especially since the Kremlin, by ordering a suspension instead of a total exit, “leaves the door open for a return to the treaty” if “the conditions are right”, i.e. Washington no longer supports the EU militarily.