President Trump’s envoy for arms control said the US and Russia agreed to start nuclear arms control talks this month. “Today agreed with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on time and place for nuclear arms negotiations in June. China also invited. Will China show and negotiate in good faith?” Marshall Billingslea said on Twitter on Monday. An anonymous US official said the negotiations will start on June 22nd.
The last arms control treaty between the US and Russia, the New START, is set to expire in February 2021. Russia has offered to extend the treaty, but the US insists on including China in the deal. The New START limits the number of nuclear warheads the signatories can have deployed, but China’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller than the US and Russia’s so it is unlikely that China will agree to enter the deal. If the treaty collapses, the US will no longer be able to inspect Russia’s nuclear forces.
China has repeatedly said they do not want to take part in trilateral arms control discussions. Last month, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian said the US and Russia “possess the largest nuclear arsenals” and should have a responsibility to reduce them. Current estimates put Beijing’s arsenal at 320 warheads, the US has 3,800 warheads in its stockpile, and Russia has 4,310. The New START caps the number of warheads deployed at 1,550.
If the US lets the New START lapse, it will follow a pattern of the Trump administration withdrawing from arms control agreements. Last year, the administration withdrew from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prevented the development of medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Most recently, the administration announced its intended withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, an agreement that allows surveillance flights over the US and Russia.
In the face of crumbling treaties, Washington’s NATO allies are advocating for negotiations and arms control with Russia. “A new armed race will be dangerous and costly, and we’ve continued to work hard for arms control with Russia,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday.
These ‘negotiations’ will be as effective in preventing world war as the Munich Pact in 1938 was.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Munich didn’t have to worry about nukes, which really keep the formal peace between ‘great’ powers.
The danger is that the ‘unarmed’ conflict where everything and anything is a political-socio-econommic weapon, will only grow more covert, subversive and toxic.
This is about trying to get Russia to cooperate against China. And to have Russia self-limit on the rolling out of new military technology announced back in 2018.
There is nothing US can offer to make any of these remotely possible.
But there are folks in la-la land who think Russia can be bought through removing some sanctions. Those have been asleep since bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, missed Georgian attempt at catching Russia off guard on 8.8.2008 — day Beijing Olympic opened. Or Crimea 2014, and many many more.
Escalation via Iran ir Venezuela look risky in the current atmosphere.
“China also invited. Will China show and negotiate in good faith?”
No.
They have made that very clear. They are not interested.
This whole issue “with Russia” is really not about Russia at all. It never has been. It is an attempt to reach entirely new limitations on China, with which there has never been any such Treaty.
China’s nuclear doctrine is entirely different from the US and old USSR, and always was. It is not going to change, and has said so very clearly.
Will the UK, France, and Israel show up and negotiate in good faith? To call this a discussion among three adversaries neglects NATO’s other participants.
Should we include Pakistan and India?
China is having trade-oriented issues with Washington and I think Beijing may accede to talks but not in conjunction with Russia and only when the economic issues with Washington are resolved.
While the U.S. is obviously up to tricks and games, some the games are patently obvious and mostly about China. All warpaths lead to Russia, but convenient doormats, especially those that spare Europe, are lacking for the last stage of the game.
At the diplomatic/propaganda level, split Russia from China, paint China as aggressive if they no-show, and compliant with the U.S. if they do, then aggressive if they do-show but can’t agree to the terms that work for the U.S. and Russia.
At that point the plan seems to fall apart shot of an honest arms treaty; terms that work for Russia generally should work for China but not U.S. aggression.
China should show up, if only to point out, there are a lot of other unregulated nuclear powers that should be at that table. Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and even North Korea. This would be the single most import reason for China to show up at all; to ask that the others be represented for a comprehensive nuclear arms regulatory system.
A blast from the past to consider, though, would be the Washington (1922) and London (1930) Naval Treaties which proposed to prevent war by limiting naval construction of the superweapons of the day; battleships, battlecruisers, and aircraft carriers, as well as support vessels and submarines.
Caps didn’t work; in fact they were provocative and misleading.
The Washington and London Naval treaties seemed psychologically geared to encourage cheating, while leaving out key capabilities the allies had going for them.
For example, the Japanese were almost encouraged by denial, to build the biggest, baddest dreadnought, but ended up missing that technology had moved on to the fast battleship – itself a misleading term; Britain’s advantage was in enduring long-ranged battleships. This in the long term undercut Japan’s ability to wield aircraft carriers, and submarines.
There needs to be an honest treaty to prevent war, not a stealthy setup for a next war.
The Great Depression eventually led to and economic resurgence-cum-World War II.
The Greatest Global Depression may not lead to an economic resurgence in anticipation of the war to end all wars.
The differences may lie in nuclear weapons and Washington’s preference to spend huge sums on military hardware while implementing regime change through its alphabet soups via the Trojan horse method: look here, don’t look there.
Indeed. WWII redirected the economic resurgence from the civilian economy to an elite-dominated war economy.
The present global depression is likewise artificial, an attempt by supposed globalist elites to restore the power gap between themselves and the unwashed classes.
Globalism is merely European financial dominance.
The contest is on for ownership of America. Whatever the methods of the reset game, ownership of this planet’s second world heartland is critical to Europe’s imperialists.
Too bad so few nationalists and patriots recognize, the enemy is neocon globalist Europe, not China. Chinese finance could never own the U.S. nor the Chinese political class defeat the U.S. meaningfully in hot war.
Now, just like WWII, two giants threatening imperialist European hegemony are taking each other down. Nazi Germany versus Stalinist Russia is being repeated in Imperial America versus CCP China.