On the issue of treaties, which Russia wants and which it is fair for them to want, it is fair to point out the the United States withdrew from one such treaty that directly effecting Russian security concerns. This is how Putin put it in his Valdai speech:
"From here [The Russian invasions of Ukraine] emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system."
The view here is and always had been that Putin is and the Russians always have been right that the U.S. should not have withdrawn from the ABM treaty. They are absolutely right about that. Putin is also correct that withdrawal from an anti-ballistic missile treaty destabilizes ballistic missile treaties.
Putin went on:
"The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament--but only serious discussions without any double standards.
"What do I mean? Today, man types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities,..."
That is really above my pay grade but it does seem to be so.
"...and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting."
So: Even with complete nuclear disarmament Russia would still feel threatened by America because America has these high-tech conventional weapons and Russia does not; Russia will not even enter into nuclear disarmament talks with the U.S. unless coupled with high-tech conventional weapons. That does not sound reasonable for Putin to demand but I don't know enough. The pre-emptive strike concern is legitimate with regard to the nuclear shield, that concern was discussed within American think-tanks forever. That is a legitimate concern. It does not seem reasonable to me that non-nuclear albeit "high-precision" pose the same risk.
Strategic parity: That's Cold War, bipolar-think.
"From here [The Russian invasions of Ukraine] emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system."
The view here is and always had been that Putin is and the Russians always have been right that the U.S. should not have withdrawn from the ABM treaty. They are absolutely right about that. Putin is also correct that withdrawal from an anti-ballistic missile treaty destabilizes ballistic missile treaties.
Putin went on:
"The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament--but only serious discussions without any double standards.
"What do I mean? Today, man types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities,..."
That is really above my pay grade but it does seem to be so.
"...and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting."
So: Even with complete nuclear disarmament Russia would still feel threatened by America because America has these high-tech conventional weapons and Russia does not; Russia will not even enter into nuclear disarmament talks with the U.S. unless coupled with high-tech conventional weapons. That does not sound reasonable for Putin to demand but I don't know enough. The pre-emptive strike concern is legitimate with regard to the nuclear shield, that concern was discussed within American think-tanks forever. That is a legitimate concern. It does not seem reasonable to me that non-nuclear albeit "high-precision" pose the same risk.
Strategic parity: That's Cold War, bipolar-think.
