Commentary: The Meaning of Putin's Declaration to Suspend Participation in New START

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0tCaMLi95w

Professor Shin Sung-ho of Seoul National University's Graduate School of International Studies explains the historical significance and background of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and discusses the purpose behind Putin's decision to suspend participation. Professor Shin argues that while the shaking of a key international nuclear disarmament agreement is a negative development, it is essentially a political rhetoric of warning and a response from Russia to President Biden's recent visit to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, and his expression of support.

Video Transcript

I think there is a need to re-examine the basic facts. First, the United States and Russia possess about 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, a product of the past Cold War arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. For example, if the US and Russia each have about 5,000 to 6,000 warheads, not all are deployed in combat. Among those deployed and ready for immediate use, there might be around 1,000. Then, is it necessary to stockpile thousands of nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence? Therefore, the idea is that it's not necessary to maintain such a large number, and it requires enormous cost to maintain thousands of nuclear weapons.

Thus, there is no need for that. Nuclear deterrence is still necessary, but the goal is to manage it stably at minimal cost. From this perspective, the treaty on nuclear weapons was established based on mutual understanding. Although the New START treaty was signed in 2011, the idea of stably maintaining nuclear deterrence has existed since the mid-1970s during the Soviet era. In this context, nuclear weapons have evolved from arms control to arms reduction, gradually decreasing the number of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, there were SALT I and SALT II, initiated by the Reagan administration. This continued, and after the Cold War, especially in the 2000s, the START treaty was signed between the Putin administration and the US government in 2011, which lasted until 2021. It included various measures to increase transparency in strategic arms and enhance trust.

However, as you mentioned, Russia, under Putin, is suspending participation. This is not an actual withdrawal from the treaty. To use an analogy, during the Moon Jae-in administration, South Korea once suspended the GSOMIA agreement with Japan, a military information sharing pact, in response to Japan's export controls on South Korea. At that time, the treaty was not terminated or withdrawn from, but temporarily suspended, with the possibility of withdrawal if the situation persisted. However, this did not ultimately happen. With the change in government to the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, the agreement returned to normal.

Therefore, Putin's current announcement of suspending participation in the New START treaty should be seen not as a breakdown of a crucial arms control treaty, but rather as a political and diplomatic statement or pressure. Consequently, it is unlikely that there will be an immediate arms race or sudden testing of new nuclear weapons. The Russian Foreign Ministry has also stated that they are not planning to develop or test new nuclear weapons. Realistically, what is happening is that inspections, which were already halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic for the past two years, will no longer be conducted. This is a symbolic statement for now. Nevertheless, given the ongoing instability in Ukraine and the broader geopolitical situation between the US, Russia, and Europe, the erosion of a fundamental agreement on arms control, which has been a significant symbolic and practical pillar of peace since the end of the Cold War, is not a positive development. Furthermore, this could be Putin's warning.

As widely reported in the media, today marks the first anniversary of the Ukraine war, which began on February 24 last year. President Biden's visit to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, and his expression of support, in conjunction with the security talks, can be seen as Russia's countermove or warning. From Putin's perspective, the prolonged and protracted nature of the Ukraine war, and the difficulties they are facing, are due to NATO and US support. He is likely warning against further escalation, perhaps hinting at the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the worst-case scenario, as he has stated before.

It has been exactly one year, and President Biden, during his visit to Seoul, actually visited the capital of Ukraine technically to express support. From Russia's perspective, this can be seen as a counter-card or a warning card. Thus far, Putin has believed that the war in Ukraine is dragging on and becoming prolonged, and that his difficulties are due to NATO and US support. Therefore, he issued this warning not to go any further, implying, as he has always said, that he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in the worst-case scenario. This is likely a warning statement.