Chronology

Atomstroyexport brought the first unit of Tianwan NPP in China to 100% capacity
20.04.2007
The Moscow Summit of the seven most industrially developed countries and Russia discusses nuclear security issues.
20.04.1996

International Security Index iSi

PIR PRESS LOGO

PIR PRESS NEWS

11.03.2019

"After the leaders of the United States and the DPRK failed to reach a compromise on further steps for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in Hanoi, the parties sent each other signals that in case of a complete failure of the negotiation process, they will be ready to continue on the previous course. At the same time, Pyongyang did not immediately start preparations for a full-scale missile test, and Washington decided to limit the scope of its exercises with South Korea. This means that both capitals are set to continue negotiations and expect that the other side will become more сoncessive," Adlan MargoevDirector of the PIR Center “Russia and Nuclear Nonproliferation” program. 

08.02.2019

“Vienna document is a good example of a politically binding agreement having a verification mechanism. This system works, however, as long as it is a multilateral arrangement reached within the framework of OSCE. Bilateral political documents concerning arms control function quite ineffectively”, – PIR Center Board Chairman Evgeny Buzhinskiy. 

21.01.2019

“During your tenure, you took an active part in the discussions of the Board, formulating concrete recommendations on a number of important issues. I applaud your important contribution to the work of the Board,” — Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General.


Missile Defense Issue

It is difficult to see how Washington, Moscow or NATO would benefit from missile defense remaining a problem issue. Among other things, that could pose an obstacle to further U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reductions below New START levels. It could interfere with other types of cooperation. Agreement on a NATO-Russia cooperative missile defense arrangement, on the other hand, could remove this problem.

Real partnership on missile defense would provide a better missile defense of Europe, including European Russia. It would make NATO and Russia allies in protecting Europe, which could prove a ”gamechanger” in altering lingering Cold War attitudes in both Russia and NATO member-states.

Experts from the Pentagon and Russian Defense Ministry reportedly held productive exchanges in early 2011 regarding what a cooperative missile defense arrangement would entail. They discussed transparency, joint exercises and two jointly manned missile defense centers: a data fusion center, and a planning and operations center.

Progress slowed in spring 2011, when Russia took the position that it required a “legal guarantee” that U.S. missile defenses would not be directed against Russian strategic forces. The Russian concern has an understandable basis in principle: if U.S. missile defenses continue to grow in numbers and quality, at some future point they could undermine the balance in strategic offensive forces between Russia and the United States.

While studying the missile defense issue, PIR Center experts provide a set of recommendations which should lead to establishing the real (not declarative) partnership between Russia and its partners on the missile defense issue.

Publiscation:

1. Steven Pifer. NATO-Russia Missile Defense: Compromise Is Possible. Russia Confidential, №12, 2012

2. Evgeny Buzhinsky. The Results of NATO’s Unremarkable Summit in Chicago. Russia Confidential, №6, 2012

2. Recommendations of the Sustainable Partnership with Russia Group

loading