Danger of Russian Aggression Outweighs Nuclear Danger

Until Russia removes its troops from eastern Ukraine and ceases its military support to pro-Russian separatists there, the United States should suspend any discussion on future arms reductions or cooperation on securing Russian nuclear materials and weapons.

This would, for all practical purposes, end such cooperation. But the threat from Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe outweighs the potential threat from loose nuclear material.

The United States could continue to meet its obligations for nuclear reductions under the New START treaty, which include reducing strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 by 2018 and participating in verification inspections with Russia. But Russia has said that no new cooperative projects in Russia are “envisioned” in 2015, and U.S. officials have canceled some meetings and lab visits with Russia.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has spent more than $9 billion to better secure Russian nuclear weapons and materials – all of which greatly benefited American security. But today the threat from Russian proliferation is greatly diminished and the United States has already significantly reduced the amount of money it is spending in Russia on nuclear security improvements.

In addition, Russia today is no longer the financial basket case it once was. It is now able to spend an ever increasing amount of money on its own military budget.

These facts alone would be a strong argument to end American subsidies for Russian security efforts but, when viewed in the context of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its provocative actions toward Europe and the United States, the choice should be clear.