Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov delivered an online address to the Fort Ross Dialogue meeting yesterday, in which he reported that Russia is concerned about the fact that the United States is creating additional ambiguity on the issue of circumstances that permit the use of nuclear weapons. “We are concerned by the fact that in recent years the U.S. side deliberately introduced additional ambiguity into the issue of what might be the circumstances under which possible use of nuclear weapons would be conceivable. We need more certainty here,” he said, reported TASS. “On the Russian side, we have now three basic documents of a very recent date that … give you an explanation in what extremely, extremely hypothetical circumstances the possible use of nuclear weapons could be conceived,” he continued. “We are working towards elevating the nuclear threshold.”
“Hopefully, it would be reflected in the nuclear posture review that is ongoing in the U.S.,” Ryabkov remarked.
Ryabkov also dismissed the idea that the U.S. would ever be able to build a 100% leakproof missile defense system. “We think it was a fundamentally wrong decision when, under the [second] Clinton administration but much more so under George W. Bush’s administration, the U.S. decided to opt for a great deal of development of what now looks more and more like a global multilayered missile defense. I don’t think the U.S. would ever be able to establish through this very capital-intensive and very expensive in all other senses of the word [missile defense system] a waterproof, 100% watertight shield over itself. I don’t think so. At best, the U.S. would be able to protect itself from … limited missile attacks from some very specific directions,” he said.
“We consistently believe in an inseparable interlink between strategic offensive and strategic defensive capabilities of either side,” Ryabkov went on, urging that the two sides seriously address these issues. “We say, let’s try to give answers to the so-called new security equation where this aspect would be also addressed one way or another. We should not lose any more time. And we should focus the work on a framework with a right scope and parameters where we ensure that the missile defense of the U.S. serves the right purpose and doesn’t rock the fundamentals of the strategic stability.”
