Projects

The immense majority of countries and peoples stand for a nuclear-weapons-free world. The Russian Federation shares this noble goal.

Prime Minister of...

Articles

Various ideas for establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East were first voiced in the early 1960s. Nevertheless, negotiations on establishing a WMD-free zone in the region remain very far from conclusion. The establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East was part of the 1995 N...

The fast moving controversial developments in the Middle East and North Africa seem to be sidelining the search for responses to some fundamental security challenges in the region. This refers, among many other issues, to the discussion of steps for the preparation and successful conduct of this yea...

Dear Tom,

It is a pleasure to have the chance to correspond with you, and I am grateful to the Security Index for this exchange. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on whether a policy of nuclear disarmament is appropriate within the current international security climate.

For my part, I a...

Divergent perceptions of the proliferation threat play a significant role in the nonproliferation regime. By analyzing threat perception and resulting state policy preferences, the authors help identify issues on which a convergence of views, if not consensus, might be generated, and highlight those...

Experts

  • Position : Chairman of the Executive Board
  • Affiliation : PIR Center
  • Affiliation : Director, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
  • Position : Deputy Minister
  • Affiliation : The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
  • Affiliation : Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nation, Head of the new United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office
  • Affiliation : Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the CNS; Payne Distinguished Lecturer at the CISAC; Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
complete list

Shaping a New Agenda for U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms Control: Identifying Challenges and Exploring Opportunities 27.01.2012

 

flagi.jpg

International seminar

26 and 27 January 2012

 

 

 p4716.jpg

Photo gallery

List of participants

 January 26, 2012

09:30  Registration                        

10:00  Opening and introduction:  Dr. Vladimir Orlov and Prof. William Potter

10:15  Session I: Threat Assessment

Moderator:   Prof. William Potter, Director, The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies,Monterey, USA

Guiding Questions:

  • Which key threats do the United States and Russia, as well as their allies and partners, perceive? Which are similar (overlapping and constituting a common agenda) and which are unique to each of the countries?
  • Which threats belong to the bilateral agenda and which are “external” (for the United Sates, not associated with Russia and its partners, and for Russia, not associated with the United States and NATO)? Which “external threats” are common and which are unique to one of the parties?
  • Should a threat analysis incorporate intentions or should it only concentrate on capabilities (the question applies to both the bilateral relationship and to relations with third parties)?

Commentators:

The Honorable Rose Gottemoeller

Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, Washington, DC, USA

The Honorable Anatoly I. Antonov

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Deputy Defense Minister, Ministry of Defense, Russian Federation,Moscow, Russia

The Honorable Andrew C. Weber

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, Washington, DC, USA

Vladimir I. Voronkov

Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Russia's Permanent Representative at International Organizations, Vienna,Austria

11:45  Coffee break                                                                                    

12:00  Threat Assessment (continued)     

Moderator:    Dr. Vladimir A. Orlov, President, PIR Center, Public board member, Ministry of Defense,Moscow, Russia

Guiding Questions:

  • Can nuclear weapons address these threats? What is their value and what are the limitations?
  • How can arms control and disarmament measures help to address the perceived threats, both common and specific? Which arms control and disarmament measures are possible given the array of perceived threats?
  • How could one avoid the emergence of security dilemmas in the bilateral relationship: for example, when a party's attempt to enhance security vis-à-vis an “external” threat is regarded by the other party as a threat to itself (missile defense is one example of such a security dilemma, but the same approach can be applied to other issues)?

Commentators:

Gen. Vyacheslav I. Trubnikov

General of the Army, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Member of the Directorate at the Institute ofWorld Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) RAS, Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (1996-2000), Moscow, Russia

Dr. Edward Levine

Former Professional Staff Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senior Consultant, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Washington, DC, USA

Gen.-Lt. Leonid P. Reshetnikov

Lieutenant-General (ret.), Director, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS), former Head of Information and Analysis Office of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Moscow, Russia

13:30  Lunch                                                                        

Presentation: Looking at the Threats to Russia's Security from Inside the Ministry of Defense 

Honorable Anatoly Antonov and Col. Evgeny Ilyin, with Commentary by Dr. Ted Warner

15:00  Session II: Identification of Areas Where Progress is Feasible

Moderator:   Gen.-Lt. Leonid Reshetnikov

Guiding Questions:

  • What are the key issue-areas (negotiation tracks) of the disarmament process? For example, strategic, nonstrategic, missile defense, conventional forces, others?
  • How do issue-areas in arms control and disarmament relate to domestic policies of force posture?
  • To what extent are issue areas interrelated? Which agreements could be achieved separately and which should be concluded as a package? Whether and how could arms control negotiations be pursued in separate tracks? Or parallel tracks?

Commentators: 

Gen.-Lt. Evgeny P. Buzhinskiy

Lieutenant-General, Senior Vice President, PIR Center, Moscow, Russia

Mr. Miles Pomper

Senior Research Associate, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Washington, DC, USA

16:30  Coffee break 

17:00  Identification of Areas Where Progress is Feasible (continued)

Moderator:   Dr. Edward Levine

Guiding Questions:

  • What is the impact of “external” threats on the delineation of issue-areas? When and how could/should other nuclear-weapon states be included into the arms control and disarmament process? How one should treat “unofficial” NWS?
  • Which agreements are possible? For example, is it possible to pursue nuclear arms reductions without resolving CFE-related issues?
  • What is the relationship between legally binding verifiable agreements and confidence-building measures? For example, is a package of a nuclear arms reduction treaty possible in a package with CBMs on missile defense?

Commentators:

Mr. Evgeny V. Myasnikov

Director of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, Dolgoprudny, Russia

Dr. Nikolai Sokov

Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Vienna, Austria

18:15 Close

19:30 Dinner (“Indochine 21”, Stubenring 18                        

 Friday, January 27, 2012

09:00 Session III: Specific Options for Possible Agreements

Moderator:   Lt. Col. (ret) Bryan Lee

Guiding Questions:

  • Assessment of New START and its implementation: is this the end of a series of START agreements or just one more stage in a longer process?
  • Outer space security: an inevitable irritant in bilateral relations in the near future or an area of possible cooperation?
  • What are advantages and challenges of the approach proposed by the Obama administration (including all nuclear weapons, deployed and non-deployed, strategic and nonstrategic into the next treaty)? What might the structure of limits and sublimits be, verification requirements, etc.?
  • Will the CTBT enter into force in the foreseeable future? Will the Obama administration be able to deliver on its commitment to aggressively pursue CTBT ratification if there is a second term? What, if anything, should Russia and the United States do with respect to the CTBT before it enters into force (e.g, confidence building)? 
  • Should we contemplate a new framework for conventional forces in Europe?
  • Should we continue to seek the launch of negotiations on FMCT within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament or should we consider an alternative option? How quickly should we expect to achieve results of the negotiations if/when they start? 

Commentators:

Dr. Ted Warner

Secretary of Defense representative to New START and senior advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense (policy) for Arms Control and Strategic Stability, Washington, DC, USA

Mr. Evgeny V. Myasnikov

Director of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, Dolgoprudny, Russia

Dr. Nikolai Sokov

Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Vienna, Austria

10:30  Coffee break                                                                        

11:00  Specific Options for Possible Agreements (continued)                    

Moderator:   Gen. Vyacheslav Trubnikov

Guiding Questions:

  • What are the regional implications of arms control and disarmament measures? Does the INF approach (global application) remains valid today or should we consider regional agreements? Which target assets (strategic, non-strategic, various conventional) can or should be covered by global treaties and which are more appropriate for regional approaches? Which regions should be considered for different types of agreements?
  • Do we need treaties? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of legally binding verifiable treaties and unilateral parallel reductions? How far could PNI-type measures take us until we need a treaty? How might CBMs help in setting the stage for the next treaty (treaties)?
  • How might verification requirements limit the scope of future agreements and how might they open new opportunities? To which verification, data exchange, and transparency requirements might the parties agree?        

Commentators:

Gen.-Lt. Evgeny P. Buzhinskiy

Lieutenant-General, Senior Vice President, PIR Center, Moscow, Russia

Ms. Amy Woolf

Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service,Washington, DC, USA                             

12:30  Lunch 

Photogalery

p4716.jpg

Comments

 
 
loading