Arms-control ball in Washington’s court: China Daily editorial

The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was a major Cold War-era arms control pact between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that set equal limits on tanks, artillery and aircraft that could be deployed in Europe.

For its role in limiting conventional military buildup in Europe, the treaty was a milestone arms control mechanism that for decades served as a cornerstone of the transatlantic security architecture. That is why some observers have lamented its collapse. After all, Moscow on Nov 2 just signed a law withdrawing ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, in a conspicuous setback to global nuclear arms control.

NATO responded immediately after Russia’s Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday that the procedure for Russia’s withdrawal from the CFE had been completed, declaring a suspension of its corresponding obligations“for as long as necessary”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the move would not have any“direct ramifications”, as the treaty was already a“dead mechanism”. Russia had unilaterally suspended its CFE obligations in 2007, claiming the treaty had lost touch with modern reality.

The move has been taken as a response to the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as well as its refusal to renew the New START in recent years.

The cumulative effects of such moves seriously undermine the transatlantic security equilibrium and threaten peace and stability in the long run. But the latest move may be more than just the laying to rest of a long-dead treaty on Russia’s part.

Prior to the Tuesday announcement, Peskov reportedly told Russian media that the US side should take a more constructive stand on Russia for possible top-level contact, and was quoted as saying“Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that he is ready for any contacts”.

Following the Tuesday announcement, Peskov told the media strategic dialogue with the US is“unequivocally necessary”, but“it cannot take place in a situation where one country lectures another country”. Only when forced“to return to constructive and realistic positions” can appropriate dialogue be revived as part of the effort to shape a new European security system, he said.

Moscow is ready for dialogue. Therefore some kind of security arrangement is possible, so long as the US is willing to engage constructively with Russia on an equal footing.