Trump's "Promises Without Action": Actually Giving the Green Light for a New Arms Race

Konstantin Blokhin: The reason why the United States pushed for the collapse of the Soviet Union was because they realized that they were losing to the Soviet Union in many areas!

Figure: Former US President Donald Trump.

Recently, a rather rare "encouraging" message has come from the White House in contemporary geopolitics: Current US President Donald Trump publicly supported Russian President Vladimir Putin's initiative to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (SNV-3, i.e., the New START Treaty), calling it a "good idea."

The full name of the treaty is the "Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms," signed 15 years ago (April 2010) and came into effect one year later.

Although Trump expressed support verbally, the US government did not provide any official confirmation through diplomatic channels in the following days. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov also confirmed this on Wednesday (note: the original text does not specify the exact date).

This experienced Russian diplomat said, "The current discussion is not about the proposal to extend the treaty. Our position is that both sides should abide by the core quantity limits stipulated in the treaty within one year after the treaty expires, but with a strict condition — the US should not take any measures during this year that could disrupt the existing balance and equilibrium."

Ryabkov then further clarified, "We put forward this proposal as an olive branch to the US side. If they are not interested, we can deal with it." He also added, "Moscow will not link the issue of providing 'Tomahawk' cruise missiles to Kyiv with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty initiative; these are two completely different issues."

The US side's failure to respond promptly raises doubts about whether they are willing to support Russia's practical initiative. On one hand, the US expresses "appreciation" for the Russian proposal, while on the other hand, they continue to discuss with Zelensky about providing "Tomahawk" missiles to his "group"……

After receiving the proposal from the Kremlin, is it still too much for Americans to realize the importance of this proposal for the entire international community in just a few days?

It should be noted that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is currently the only effective arms control treaty between Russia and the US, and its validity will expire on February 5, 2026.

In fact, Russian President Putin recently proposed at a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council that, after the treaty expires, Russia will voluntarily comply with the restrictions set out in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty for one year.

The so-called "restrictions" specifically refer to maintaining the "ceiling" of strategic weapon numbers: a total of no more than 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers, and no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads in total.

Looking back at history: After the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty came into force in 2011, both Russia and the US strictly fulfilled their treaty obligations — inspection teams regularly visited each other's nuclear facilities and exchanged relevant data. By 2018, both countries had officially confirmed that they had reduced their strategic weapons to the levels stipulated in the treaty.

However, after that, the US government changed: Obama stepped down, and Trump took office, who immediately claimed that the bilateral treaty model could no longer cope with new challenges and insisted that China join the treaty……

Later, the Biden administration extended the treaty for five years (this might be one of the few positive actions he took during his presidency!). Now, with Trump back in power, the treaty issue is stuck again……

It seems that this current US president never intended to accept the proposal from the Russian president, and his "good idea" was merely a publicity tactic.

Senior researcher at the Center for Security Issues of the Russian Academy of Sciences and political scientist on US affairs Konstantin Blokhin also holds this view. "Svobodnaya Pressa" (SP) conducted an interview with him on this hot topic.

"Svobodnaya Pressa" (hereinafter referred to as "SP"): Konstantin Vladimirovich, during the late Cold War, the arms race was considered to have drained the Soviet economy, ultimately leading to a major crisis and indirectly causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will today's militarization trends lead to similar consequences?

Konstantin Blokhin: This is a complex question... Indeed, in the 1990s, some Russian politicians involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union used to claim that it was the arms race that drained the Soviet economy. They argued that if there had been less investment in military matters and more attention to people's livelihoods, this would not have happened.

But in fact, the Soviet Union collapsed when its national strength (including military power) was at its peak. At that time, we had matched the US in the number of nuclear warheads, and in some weapons systems, we even exceeded the US.

How could a truly powerful superpower collapse like that? Remember, during Stalin's time, even after Hitler invaded and cities were in ruins, the Soviet economy still managed to maintain and develop; in the mid-1950s, when the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union still survived; in the early stages of the Cold War, the West launched an arms race, and the Soviet Union coped well.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was due to Gorbachev handing over all our strategic cards to the so-called "partners". The reason why the United States pushed for the collapse of the Soviet Union was because they realized that they were losing to the Soviet Union in many areas!

Certainly, some people believe that economic difficulties were caused by the "military priority" policy. However, there is also an opinion that military priority was actually a driver of technological development. In my view, the latter perspective is closer to the truth.

Nevertheless, there was indeed a problem at the time, simply put, the principle of "moderation" was difficult to manage.

SP: Now, this principle is probably still crucial for nuclear powers, isn't it?

Blokhin: Yes, this principle is still applicable. At that time, the Soviet Union was constantly expanding its military arsenal, and initially, the United States tried to drain the Soviet economy through an arms race, but later they began to slow down. Various movements emerged in the US advocating for disarmament and world peace.

Even former US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Kissinger advocated for peace and friendship during negotiations with Soviet leaders. He believed at the time that the US was facing a systemic crisis, and the future belonged to the Soviet Union.

SP: That is surprising! However, Kissinger did once call the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest crime of the United States."

Blokhin: It was only after Gorbachev came to power that the situation began to change rapidly and thoroughly.

SP: Some of your colleagues believe that the arms race is actually an effective deterrent factor. What do you think?

Blokhin: There are indeed differing views. But the peace between Russia and the US is essentially based on the simple principle of "mutual assured destruction."

In other words, if we have the ability to destroy the US, the US also has the ability to destroy us. This balance forces both sides to refrain from starting a global conflict. Once this balance is broken, one side may move toward aggression.

In the arms race, many factors are crucial: the quality and quantity of both sides' weapons, the willingness to use weapons, and the current international situation.

Speaking of the US, one thing must be clear: Republicans believe that all arms control treaties are obstacles to the US, limiting its space for development.

It was during the presidency of George W. Bush that the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the Treaty Between the United States and the Soviet Union on the Elimination of Their Intermediate- and Shorter-Range Missiles).

Therefore, considering the demands of the current White House, the prospects for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are not optimistic.

Of course, we still have room for maneuver, but the US is likely not to abide by any restrictions, instead trying its best to get rid of constraints.

SP: So, does this mean that Trump, who once promised to "end the Ukraine conflict in the short term," is just talking nonsense?

Blokhin: He is a "two-faced propagandist." He says, "We are willing to cooperate, but your requirements from Russia are too harsh..." Then, he presents his own harsh conditions, such as demanding that China join the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, China obviously does not want to join, and Trump knows this, yet he insists on achieving a trilateral treaty.

SP: Why don't the related countries want to join?

Blokhin: Because 90% of the world's nuclear weapons are concentrated in the US and Russia, and the related countries have about 500 nuclear warheads, less than 1% of the global total. The related countries say that they will consider joining the treaty only when their nuclear forces reach the level of the US or Russia.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7559413872608707113/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below using the [Up/Down] buttons.