No-Longer-Cooperative Threat Reduction

Last week the Russian government indicated it would not renew the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. This two decade-old effort was established to dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons in the Former Soviet Union.  According to Sen. Richard Lugar, one of its sponsors, it has succeeded in deactivating more than 7,600 nuclear warheads and eliminating 498 ICBM silos, 33 ballistic missile submarines, and 155 strategic bombers.

Friction between Russia and the US about ballistic missile defense is the obvious correlate to this decision, and the New York Times reported that President Putin sets higher priority on arbitrating that issue than on cooperative nonproliferation.  Yet later in the same piece the Times connected this decision to another that has been generally overlooked: last month Russia tossed USAID out of the country. The resulting loss includes USAID support for child welfare, public health, land rights, microfinance, as well as an independent election-monitoring group.

None of this involves big money.  That makes Russia’s choices all the more telling, since they found these foreign aid programs worth resisting despite them being low-dollar.  And, though shutting down CTR may be more about the influence it adds to US foreign aid than about missile defense, it serves as a reminder of the economy and efficiency CTR has brought to nuclear threat reduction going back to the early ‘90s.

Comments

[Nukular Strategery]

You write that Russia's concerns with missile defense "correlate" with CTR's demise, but you make no mention AT ALL of Russia's longstanding opposition to the umbrella agreement's liability provisions.

Why not? Russia's opposition to the liability provisions do not just "correlate" with CTR's demise, they IMO are a major cause.

Luongo makes this point at http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2012/lugar_responds: 'If the Foreign Ministry does not wish to crush Nunn-Lugar altogether, Luongo suggested that one sticking point that the Russia’s may have with the current Nunn-Lugar Umbrella Agreement could be liability provision that makes Russia responsible for all accidents occurring in Nunn-Lugar funded projects, even if non-Russian personnel are not responsible.'

Once upon a time, Stimson used to talk about this issue: http://www.stimson.org/liability-issues-in-cooperative-nonproliferation-programs-in-russia-/ ....