Analysts at RAND, an American research corporation close to the Pentagon, have prepared a study titled Mitigating Challenges to Global Strategic Stability, in which they proposed a new security treaty with Russia. Military observer Mikhail Khodarenok studied this report. The RAND document outlines self-restraint measures that the United States and Russia could take, either together or unilaterally, but in concert with each other, that would provide “certain assurance that the parties do not intend to launch a preemptive strike, making it more difficult the possibility of delivering such a blow in a short time.

“The strategic stability paradigm of the United States and Russia is based on the common belief that a preemptive strike by one side will not be able to disarm the other side. Both sides are mutually vulnerable to retaliation and thus have no incentive to strike first. However, the United States has developed significant operational countermeasures that Moscow fears could be used in a first strike,” RAND analysts said.

Despite the nominal numerical parity, the balance of forces and means of the US and Russia is becoming more unbalanced. A variety of innovations related to nuclear forces and other strategic capabilities of the Pentagon, according to RAND analysts, has led to "an asymmetry in Moscow's awareness of the very possibility of a preemptive strike." As a result, Russia's confidence in its ability to ensure the possibility of delivering a retaliatory strike that causes unacceptable damage to the enemy has been shaken.

Moscow sees every new step the United States takes in terms of improving weapons and military equipment. These include improved warhead accuracy and advances in missile defense, American experts say.

Politicians in the United States could take the lead, according to RAND analysts, by proposing a dialogue that would address issues "of Russian concern about a pre-emptive strike." In the past, this topic has never been directly raised in bilateral negotiations.

The proposed dialogue will aim to bring these issues up for discussion. “It will be a difficult discussion given the sensitivity of the issues involved. But such a dialogue may be necessary to develop possible policy options tailored to specific problems,” the experts are convinced.

Thesis of "American superiority" in nuclear weapons capabilities and strategic missile defense is not uncontroversial.

“Yes, since the early 2000s, the Pentagon has been building up its strategic missile defense capabilities in Europe. These are facilities in Poland and Romania, the US Navy's missile defense capabilities, and a satellite constellation. In the end, they decided that they were guaranteed to be able to launch a first nuclear strike. That their rockets will definitely arrive first. This is very debatable, but the RAND report fixes exactly this thesis. Further, they make the assumption that Moscow, knowing about Washington's ability to deliver the first strike, will simply not wait for the development of the situation until the critical moment and will strike before that moment, knowing about its weakness, that is, it will behave inappropriately.

The United States believed that they could destroy Russia and receive no answer. And they were afraid of it. I repeat that the thesis is debatable, but if we take it as a basis, then the situation of strategic stability really seems to be destroyed”,

- said Major General of the Strategic Missile Forces, retired Dmitry Belenky.

At the same time, the general stressed that in Russia there is the Perimeter system - a complex for automatically controlling a massive retaliatory nuclear strike, created by the USSR during the Cold War. It is designed to guarantee the delivery of combat orders for the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons even in the event of the destruction of the military and political leadership of the country.

“In the West, this system is called the Dead Hand. There are no grounds to assert that this system will not work today. Russia will respond in any case, so there is no particular concern on our part. And if the Americans offer negotiations, that's good. Negotiations are always good,” concluded Belenky.

bbabo.Net