There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the Wall Street Journal article that describes "U.S. worries" over alleged movement of Russian tactical nuclear warheads. The timing is, of course, one - the story "conveniently" surfaced at the time of the debate over the New START. But there are others as well.
First, the story seems to conflate missiles and warheads, so it is never quite clear what it is that was moved. The headline mentions missiles, so it's seems that Russia redeployed some Iskander short-range missiles from one place to another. As any reasonably advanced missile, Iskander is probably capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but it has never been deployed with one. And there are good reasons to believe that no nuclear warheads are assigned to these or any other short-range missiles and definitely no warheads follow the missiles in their movements.
Then, the story alleges that Russia violated a pledge that it never actually made - "to pull tactical nuclear weapons back from frontier posts." What Russia promised was to move its tactical weapons to centralized storage facilities, wherever they are located. And Russia is on record as saying it has done so - the most recent statement that I can find was made by Sergei Ivanov at the 2010 Munich Conference:
Russia has reduced by three quarters its tactical nuclear arsenals and concentrated them in central storage bases exclusively within its national territory.
In fact, there are not that many storage sites there, so even if you move warheads from one to another, the distance to NATO wouldn't change much (a good list was published in the Nuclear Notebook).
Some statements in the story are highly suspect. For example, it says that the United States believed that Russia "has expanded tactical nuclear deployments near NATO allies several times in recent years." But all the evidence that supports this statement is an April 2009 State Department cable that says that Russia made a threat to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad if the United States goes ahead with its missile defense deployment in Europe. We know, of course, that the United States changed its missile defense plans since then, and shortly afterwards Russia said that it sees no need to deploy anything in Kaliningrad. How all this amounts to an example of "expanded tactical nuclear deployments" in Kaliningrad completely escapes me.
Then, the story spends some time suggesting that the alleged movement was a response to U.S. missile defense after all - in May the United States deployed Patriot batteries in Poland. Russia certainly didn't like that deployment, but if it wanted to send a signal of disapproval it would have made it openly. It has done so in the past - the Kaliningrad threat was made in President Medvedev's annual address to the parliament in November 2008 (note, by the way, that neither Medvedev, nor the military have ever said anything about Iskander being nuclear):
[W]e will deploy the Iskander missile system in the Kaliningrad Region to be able, if necessary, to neutralise the missile defence system.
If you follow through on a threat like that, you would want people to notice, wouldn't you? So, any link between whatever missile movements might have happened in the spring and missile defense developments is tenuous at best.
Finally, the story makes a good point of noting that "the U.S. has long voiced concerns about Russia's lack of transparency when it comes to its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons." No doubt, Russian arsenal could use some transparency, but I would note that the U.S. has disclosed no information about its tactical nuclear weapons either, so this also should be a legitimate reason for concerns.
So, what happened in the spring of 2010? My best guess is that some missiles were redeployed from one location to another, probably as part of the process of reorganization of the military. I'm fairly confident that no nuclear warheads were moved in the process. I believe we can also be certain that whatever happened was not related to the U.S. missile defense moves in any way. And, of course, one thing we know with absolute certainty - someone desperately wants the New START treaty to fail.
The book
Comments
Russian Missiles Fuel U.S. Worries
By ADAM ENTOUS And JONATHAN WEISMAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645212272670200.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
However, you did have a Russian Minister of Defense stating nuclear weapons were being deployed on Russian fleet submarines in apparent violation of the “1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives”. Sounds like politics to me. If New START fails, Russia is just as much to blame. Both side have much to gain; both are uncertain of their loss.
Frank Shuler
USA
In July 2010, one senior Russian military officer reported that Iskanders moved to Leningrad District - near NATO/Estonia http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100720/159873088.html. Does that corroborate the WSJ story?
Chuck: Yes, that probably what it was.
Frank: As I remember, my conclusion was that there was no violation and no nuclear weapons were deployed on submarines. Then, I don't see how the U.S. partisanship, which is responsible for all New START problems, is Russia's fault.
Do we know that tactical nuclear missiles for Iskanders have been produced to begin with? Last I heard (late 2008) there weren't any. So redeployment of Iskander missiles wouldn't mean anything.
Russian military officials announced Iskander deployment on Leningrad MD (near Luga) in February, 2010:
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1328115
First missile photos from new base was presented in August, 2010:
http://www.redstar.ru/regions/2010/08/07_08/070810-na-s-r.pdf
These pictures demonstrated that LenMD missile brigade received launch vehicles which took part in Moscow Victory Day parade (2010-05-09).
But brigade has no nuclear warheads. All russian nuclear warheads are stored in special arsenals, but not in regular militari units.
Pavel, let me start my dissertation. Nuclear Arms Control between Russia and the United States is much broader than just the legal provisions of New START. In fact recently both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have “threatened” a new nuclear arms race if NATO proceeds with its ABM plans without Russia’s participation. What exactly Russian “participation” is; what the Kremlin actually wants is undefined at this point. Does Russia want to join NATO to be apart of such an effort? Does Russia want to veto the combat use of such an ABM system if it selectively chooses? Does Russia want all NATO command-and-control decisions to run through the Kremlin for approval? While the Kremlin builds the latest S-500 surface-to-air system, that will have ABM capabilities, it feels “threaten” by NATO deploying a similar system, the SM-3. Puzzling...
What are Russia’s intentions?
I would argue it is Russian linkage between START, which after all is a strategic “nuclear” arms reduction treaty, and conventional ballistic missile defense systems that is the real “partisanship” issue here. Threatening the West with a new nuclear arms race and bullying small NATO members in Eastern Europe with the Kremlin’s vast inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, is no way to gain favor with the US Senate. If New START fails to ratify, it won’t be because of the treaty itself. It will be due to lack of trust between Moscow and Washington.
Frank Shuler
USA
I agree that the Kremlin doesn't know what it wants as far as arms control is concerned. But neither does Washington. Yes, arms control is part of a broader process and each side does what it believes is best for it. Russia's fixation on its opposition to missile defense may not be rational, but neither is missile defense itself. Russia's "threats" of a new arms race are no more threatening than the U.S. intent to spend $180+ billion on its nuclear modernization. In any event, the Republican opposition to the New START has nothing to do with the treaty itself or with Russia's behavior. I would think it is quite clear at this point.
The US Republican Party is not opposed to New START in principle. In fact, most members of the US Senate view the reductions and inspection provisions of New START favorably and have no real counter-negotiation points with Russia. It’s not like the US Republican Party wants a 2000 warhead limit with 1000 launchers in response to the existing agreement for their approval. Of course, the Republican Party’s issue is with a sitting US President from the “other” party. What can the Republican's gain at President Obama’s expense to have this treaty ratified? However, we also need to understand the Obama commitment to spend $180+ billion on nuclear modernization is a “red herring.” Any funds directed over the next twenty years to update the US nuclear labs & weapon facilities will have to be voted on 20 times in annual appropriations by the US Congress. Any commitment by President Obama to support such is “political drama” and not policy. Who is going to be President of the United States in 2030?
Frank Shuler
USA
The idea that to approve something that everyone agrees, the President should make a concession is so ludicrous I can't even begin to approach the issue.
Frank I think it's indisputable that NATO has a critical advantage in conventional arms. So critical that no deployment of tactical ABM or new theater-SAMs by Russia can change that. What little strategic parity Russia has is derived from nuclear weapons. Hence the sensitivity of any issues surrounding that. Anyways, as has already been said Russia does not oppose the new plan involving localized SM-3 based BMD.
So if new Start does fail because of Senate opposition it will be largely because of the insanity of Congressional politics.
Feanor
Of course, we are talking in the abstract. The end of the world won’t occur if this treaty is approved by the US Senate in February (2011). By the way, how will the Duma handle all this? Are the “greens” to the left opposed to any Kremlin spending on nuclear weapons? Are the “old communist” to the right opposed to any concessions to the West? Are there “greens” or “old communist” in the Duma?
[Frank I think it's indisputable that NATO has a critical advantage in conventional arms.] I honestly don’t think Warsaw has any territorial ambitions on Russia. Neither does Vilnius. Not sure about Tallinn. (grin)
We need to accept that politics in Moscow and Washington exist and that some “geo-political events” are subject to such. That being said, President Obama had the votes to pass New START ninety days after the signing. Why he waited until the “lame duck” session of Congress to press for passage is beyond me. Who actually wants this Treaty passed and why is a very interesting question...?
I always enjoy our conversations.
Frank Shuler
USA
The Duma is not a real legislature. Aside from the CPRF there are no real opposition parties in the Duma. It's a well managed "democracy". I wouldn't worry about genuine opposition in the Duma on any level.