>> russia says it is suspending the last remaining nuclear treaty with the united states. the deal limits the number of nuclear warheads the two powers can deploy. what does it mean, and could it trigger an arms race? this is "inside story." ♪ welcome to the program. russian president vladimir putin says his country is suspending its role in the new strategic

arms reduction treaty or a start. he made the announcement on tuesday in a speech ahead of the first anniversary of the start of the war in ukraine. start women see strategic nuclear arms arsenals of both russia and the united states. putin said russia is not completely withdrawing from the treaty, but it is due to lapse in 2026, and that will remove the last constraint on the arsenals of the world's two nature nuclear powers. >> the strategic arms reduction treaty first signed by president wish and gorbachev in 1991 has been part of the framework ever since. barack obama and dmitry medvedev -- would limit strategic warheads 21550 and long-range missiles and bombers to 700.

each side could inspect the others sites to ensure compliance up to 18 times a year. but inspections were halted first by covid-19 and then by deteriorating relations since russia's invasion of ukraine. on tuesday, vladimir putin announced russia was suspending its membership i'm he said in response to hostile u.s. actions. >> now they want to inspect our defense objects in the current condition of confrontation that takes place today. it sounds like nonsense. >> u.s.-russian relations have been strained for years. the u.s. pulled out of the antiballistic missile treaty in 2002 and left the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty in 2019, accusing russia of developing oak a cruise missile that reached its terms. experts fear breakdown of the architecture that for decades has reined in nuclear arsenals. >> we seem to be losing the last bilateral relationship governing nuclear weapons, so we could have an arms race after this.

that arms race has not existed because of this agreement, and so you have one of those pillars being taken away. >> joe biden agreed to five-year extensions of the new start when he took office in 2021. putin has raised the prospect of the treaty lapsing in 2026. he also said he would put new nuclear systems on combat duty pledged to resume nuclear testing if the united states did the same. >> for more on this, i'm joined by our guest, the russian director at the u.s. institute of peace, also former u.s. diplomat in moscow and a former soviet weapons inspector. and the director for the center

for security, strategy, and policy research, specializing in nuclear security deterrence. finally in moscow, political commentator at a news agency owned and operated by the russian government. welcome to you all, good to have you here for this important discussion. donald, i would like to start with you first, if i may. before we get into what the indications are, can we first just try and understand how important the treaty is, what function it has had, and how it has been keeping things in check. >> first of all, it is both important as a tactical agreement and a political agreement. it's the last main pillar of the very important security architecture that russia, the soviet union and the united states developed during the cold war. i was involved in negotiations.

it was painstakingly detailed, and i personally think that is very important that this trading -- treaty remain in place. but however, depends on trust. that trust involves allowing on-site inspections, that trust allows -- involves data exchanges, matters like that. so while president reagan said trust but verify, you can verify only with tactical exchanges and on-site inspections. if the treaty goes or is shaken or weakened, then we are back to the early cold war where the entire security architecture for strategic stability is gone. so this is a very important thing on both sides, both sides need to be careful. i think both sides a renewal or adaptation, but to some extent is caught up in the tensions between the two countries that are going on right now. >> each side could inspect each

other's sites, so that enable them to prevent things from spiraling. now i guess it is harder to monitor the compliance, and that is the issue, isn't it? >> yes, so under this agreement is verification and inspection of each other sites, it was a very important part of it. now basically the u.s., through their on ground inspecting -- inspections, they would not know what is going on with various elements that russia is planning going ahead. but also both sides had committed to deploying no more than a maximum of 700 long-range missiles and bombers. the good thing is that even though russia has suspended, and has not completely withdrawn from the treaty and will still

abide by the treaty obligations. >> that's the point, isn't it, because they haven't pulled out, they have suspended, but potentially we've got this whole renewal process coming up in four years time. if relations do not improve, we could have a situation where the whole international arms control regime is all but collapsed, because we've already had other agreements that have gone. >> you are absolutely right about the extension in four years. let me remind you that trump was going with a year of extending this treaty in 2021. so it was a sigh of relief in moscow when president biden extended it. however, also let me remind you that initially it was russia who insisted on this limit to the

number of warheads, because unlike the united states, which could increase the number of its warheads or keep them operational, russia was tight on money, we didn't have the resources to produce more warheads and was pretty costly to maintain the level of 1500. so basically it was russia who pushed for more transparency, for more reductions. in president george bush junior was very reluctant to make a detailed agreement. he just said, if you remember, the cold war is over, let's not go into details, that's not making implications. it was russia that insisted there should be inspections and there should be a pretty

detailed document. let me remind you, there were thick books which detailed everything. >> now we are at the point where compliance is going to be very hard to monitor. vladimir putin has said that he will stick to the limit of 1500 nuclear weapons. i was wondering, what is that even matter, because 1500 nuclear weapons is enough to send us all skyhigh, isn't it? >> well, i think putin mentioned it in his speech. little by little, other countries like the u.k., france, and even china, they are becoming important nuclear powers. they have always had their own capability, but it wasn't comparable to the nuclear arsenals of the soviet union and the united states. now that is starting to change, and obviously his speech was

insistent that their potential should be also included, since the government was ousted by the sokol revolution in ukraine. >> what is your thinking about it, of vladimir putin's motivation behind this? is he laying out his cards? >> i believe there are 50 plus countries that have come together to address ukraine's military needs with additional air defenses and armored vehicles and now tanks are being added. which one is talking about a diplomatic solution? none of them. so all of these countries led by the u.s. and nato -- here i am sitting in pakistan thinking, what if this was pakistan's backyard in afghanistan and india had done the same thing,

giving an umbrella to afghanistan, what would have happen then? so russia is definitely feeling threatened and pushed into a corner. this is just signaling, just telling the united states that any city in the u.s. was -- it's part of russia signaling, and the reason they're not withdrawing and just using suspension is also buying time, doing the same as the u.s. has done, and both of them are just trying to send each other's signals that we are going to be arsenal ready if it comes to that. but it is both signaling to each other and posturing. but i think russia definitely is cornered and will use every card in its playbook in order to not be the one to go down first.

>> donald, no one is talking about a diplomatic solution. russia is being pushed into a corner. do you think the west is going -- has gone too far in arming ukraine? >> there is talk about supplying f-16s, however they are not supplying f-16s. the u.s. has made it clear there are limits to its support ukraine in the sense only that they do not want any attacks on russia. i don't think russia is in a corner. i don't think the u.s. has pushed too far. this is actually basically a unifying western response to a war of the russian invasion of ukraine, which is a violation of international law. if i could go back to demetri's point, at the key moment for start architecture, number one is the fact that theoretically, i don't think it will happen,

but theoretically, both sides could deploy and develop more strategic nuclear weapons. however, the chinese in particular appear to be building up their nuclear forces. the start treaty does not take that into account at all. so any revised treaty probably would be best served by having china as participants. so far they are not that interested. the second phenomenon would be the development of new western systems. the ability of conventional weapons to inflict mass destruction is higher than ever before. there are space weapons, cyber, there are high velocity weapons which are not nuclear, necessarily. all those new systems are coming online at a time when start is under attack. all sides have to think through the strategic calculus right now. it's a good time for it and it is unfortunate that the war has gotten where we saw yesterday

with the russians suspending their participation. >> there certainly now an opportunity to rethink the whole concept of nonnuclear proliferation. saying if it disappeared tomorrow it would not trouble me at all, and he pointed to what you just mentioned, that china should be the main concern and they should be brought into the fold, and possibly we should bring others into the fold as well at that point in time, and maybe india as well. >> you are right, perhaps it is for the better that the global nuclear arms picture undergoes a revision. the u.s., china, and russia now need to sit down and talk with each other on something. there is no strategic arms control to address those, so i

think the time is opportune right now. and yes, nobody gets to use anything. russia is not unilaterally as possible for the breakdown of the arms control architecture today. it was george bush in 2002 who unilaterally withdrew from the antiballistic missile treaty and then it was president trump who unilaterally withdrew the u.s. from the inf treaty. at that time the united states was pointing fingers at russia, and russia pointing fingers at the u.s., that both were violating the terms of the treaty, and russia said that why should they in here -- adhere to the treaty stipulations anyway? i think with the new emerging technologies and new weapon systems, a new architecture needs to come into play, and perhaps this is the time for that. >> is this about getting president biden to approach russia and start negotiations to

try and end the war? is that what vladimir putin is trying to do and is that how he is playing his cards? >> i think nuclear weapons isn't too important an issue by itself. however, i agree that it was not putin who destroyed the system of arms control. she rightly mentioned the inf treaty scrubbed by the united states. dollars right, conventional weapons are becoming very destructive. and unfortunately it was the west that just refused to review this treaty, according to 1990, of course russia was right to require the review of that treaty, which is now dead,

actually. however, agree with you that of course russia would like some kind of negotiation on ukraine with united states because the ukrainian government under mr. zelinski, they have been unable to produce any tangible agreements. the trust between us is almost zero, especially after ukraine went out of peace negotiations last year in march. so russia would like negotiations with united states on ukraine, but i don't think nuclear arms will be one of their bargaining chips. that is too important, that will be set aside and decided separately, i hope. >> it seems the start treaty is a bargaining chip. what does a world without a start treaty look like if we come up to four years time and then one isn't negotiated, and then everybody is out, are we

looking at an arms race? >> we already are in an arms race. with the whole list that has been put forward, the word is already in, countries like india and pakistan, anything india does to modernize its forces says it is doing it because china is doing it and china says it is doing it because the u.s. is doing it. the nuclear arms race has been spiraling out of control. if we don't have something that looks like both countries getting back together, we have much to lose. the architecture, the order that was in place that was an

important period of arms control during the cold war is long dead and gone. if -- it needs to be settled, a new arms race architecture needs to be brought about, which is only going to benefit countries like india, pakistan and north korea. >> it wasn't that long ago that president obama was talking about world powers working toward a world without nuclear weapons at all. it shows how quickly things can collapse. >> that was always sort of in idealistic and unrealistic aspiration. you remember back in the 1980's, gorbachev and reagan talked about the same thing. one of the things you have to be realistic about are the categories, the weapons levels that this treaty has. these weapons are expensive. they take many years to get online.

it is an acceptable framework from within which to work. by the way, i disagree with the narrative about the u.s. noncompliance, but let's not get into that. the problem is that we are at a turning point, as my two counterpoints said, and we need to be very serious about where we go next. one of the interesting dramas we have seen is that some people have tried to keep strategic discussion away from the war in ukraine. personally i think that would be useful, but we of not been able to completely do that, and as we saw yesterday, both crises are now tied together. need to separate those and make progress on strategic arms stability, not reduction necessarily, but stability, as best we can going forward now. that's why the two or three years we have left after the start extension is very

important payment what do we want, what did the russians want, what do the chinese want? how can we create a balance with all these nuclear powers, taking account of nuclear systems. i worry that we are running out of time. >> when russia's foreign minister says the united states must make a conscientious effort to de-escalate and create conditions for full functioning of the treaty, what does that mean, leave ukraine alone? >> no, just to limit the aspirations of the government in kyiv. let me remind you that just recently ukrainian president said ukraine was going to recall crimea. the russian leadership is taking this seriously. they are starting in crimea to

protect it from possible invasion. let me remind you that crimea has been a part of russia for eight years now. there are 2 million people living there. i will not go into the history, it was part of the russian power since the late 18th century. but of course it would be a tragedy if ukraine tries to take crimea back. so that talk about possible strikes against crimea, that should stop, and that would ease the situation, including of course the possible use of some destructive weapons. not necessarily weapons of mass destruction, but when all 27 countries of the european union and all the countries of nato talk about the need of russia's

defeat, of course that makes people in moscow nervous and angry and these situations should be de-escalated. i think this is what moscow wants and what kyiv should want. >> how much of a tight rope do you think the world is walking right now because of this, and the corner that vladimir putin finds himself in and may well find himself in as time goes on if things go against russia? >> i think it is a dangerous time, not only for the world, but specifically for the region itself. all russia wants is to maintain global strategic parity. it keeps making references to a global world order, in which

russia and china also have a say. the strategic competition that the u.s. is involved in with respect to china, on one hand, and with respect to pressure on the other hand, does not serve the others. all the things u.s. is doing to modernize its forces, both nuclear and conventional, you must've seen the nuclear issues that have come out in 2018 and 2022 are escalatory and offensive in nature. they talk about making smaller, usable nuclear weapons. the world is inching toward destruction with more emerging technologies and new weaponry added onto it. so it is a dangerous time for all of us to think about it as to whether going into a digital

and hypersonic age, in the age of ai, is it going to be sustainable in coming years? >> would you like to respond to that, and from your point of view, is the world a less safe place right now? >> i believe yes, the world is a less safe place, but to some extent that is the fault of china and russia. china and russia or directly challenging the rules based international order. the buildup of forces by the chinese has gone on for 20 years. the report that my counterpart talked about was a relatively lady -- response to modification a bose -- of both the russian and chinese nuclear forces. everybody should start thinking about how to manage these very serious challenges that the three of us are talking about today. i think there are ways to do

that. on ukraine, we are back to the russian narrative, which is simply wrong. crimea is not part of russia by international law -- and russia for example in the 1990's was part of the budapest memorandum which guaranteed ukraine security. what we have, however, is a brutal, violent war against democracy, which russia tried to justify unsuccessfully with various rationales that nobody really believed. as i my partners have said, it's a dangerous moment. i think the very interesting comments from putin and todayy russian officials is that they are not going to go ahead and violate the start limits. both russia and the u.s. want to move forward with a follow-on

start even as a revision to the current agreement or as a new agreement, taking into account all the factors we are talking about this morning. >> we have run out of time, i do appreciate your time. thank you so much for this important and illuminating discussion. and thank you for watching, you can see the program again at any time by visiting our website, and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for me and the whole team, it's goodbye for now. ♪

x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■x■xa

man: in the nineties, being japanese american wasn't cool, but it was cool to me. so i published "giant robot" to be different. is that how you want to start it? singer: ♪ kick me the in face yeah, hit me with that attitude ♪ man two: we were a bunch of misfits, skaters, punkers, artists, and i was "oh, finally, there's something for me." man 3: like, being the outsiders kind of makes for more interesting work. margaret cho: hey! let's really celebrate alternative asian americans.