There’s a Northern Michigan connection to the nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Russia dating back more than 35 years. But now that agreement is in jeopardy.
Following President Biden’s surprise visit to Ukraine and Poland, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced he is suspending Russia’s participation in the “START” nuclear arms reduction treaty.
Jack Segal is a retired diplomat now living in Northern Michigan. He helped establish the first consulate in central Russia and also served in Moscow.
“We have a history that goes back to even Soviet times, when we visited the Soviet Union as members of the staff and the State Department,” Segal says.
Segal worked at the State Department under President Ronald Reagan and drafted the Nuclear Risk Reduction agreement signed by both countries.
“One day we got evidence that the Soviet Union had tested an intercontinental ballistic missile... And then the Russians said, well, actually, you’ve been doing stuff that we don’t like. And they had a picture of four missile silos in Montana that had their lids open. And they were, you could look down and see the missile itself. And they said, you guys didn’t warn us that you were going to do that. We were on high alert,” Segal says. “So we decided we needed some constraints and some way of exchanging information that that became the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers, one in Washington and one at the Kremlin.”
The basis of the NRRC agreement was opening communication between the two countries about nuclear activity – even basic maintenance operations – at nuclear sites. “They would tell us, okay, we’re going to move this missile from point A to point B and don’t get excited when you see that. And we did basically the same things. This has been going on almost 20 years now and it’s been very successful.”
Segal says it laid the groundwork for the NEW START treaty, which Putin now says Russia won’t comply with.
“It was announced by Moscow that the Russians are suspending their compliance with the START agreement, the New START agreement. And that is a dangerous change because that tells us to stay calm. And we have this communication channel to do that. If we’re not going to exchange notifications, things could easily be misunderstood. And that was the original basis for this nuclear risk reduction agreement that there not be misunderstanding,” Segal says.
Segal says under the current agreement, thousands of notifications are shared back and forth between the two countries. The risk is that if Russia stops communicating, any movement at nuclear sites could be perceived as a threat and add to the increasing tension.
“The nuclear risk reduction element is part of the START treaty, but it now covers many other treaties and it has grown from a little baby step. When we first reached an agreement, to today. When we exchanged in the last couple of weeks, there are 2000 notifications about biological, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and submarines and bombers,” Segal says. “All the equipment ... had to be monitored. That was famous President Reagan line, you know, ‘trust but verify.’ And this was part of the verification process for the START agreement. And it has worked beautifully for the entire period that we’ve had the agreement (which renews) every five-plus years. So to say it’s suspended now is very dangerous and upsetting.”
Segal says for now, it appears the open communication continues. But if Russia backs out of its commitment it could increase tensions on nuclear issues.
“Putin has tried to keep in play the idea that, well, if things go badly, he might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He never says it quite that explicitly, but that’s the message he’s sending. And so suspending, not canceling, suspending the START agreement is one more step that throws the threat of nuclear weapons being involved in Ukraine back into the play. And that’s a very dangerous thing to be messing with,” he says. “I think Putin is far more strategic than some people give him credit for. He realizes that the words constraining us from sending, for example, F-16 fighters or more tanks to Ukraine is this implicit threat that if he gets pushed into a corner, he will resort to nuclear weapons, not the strategic nuclear weapons that the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center deals with and the START agreement deals with, but tactical nuclear weapons. Now, what is a tactical weapon? Well, it’s the size of the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. That would be a tactical nuclear weapon. Nowadays that’s still a city destruction. It’s a devastating use of power.”
“And it’s difficult for me to figure out how we would use it in Ukraine, because if he says he’s there to liberate Ukraine, which he does, and to get it out from under the Nazis who are running it, as he puts it, then why would he want to destroy part of Ukraine and make it uninhabitable for, you know, maybe forever, for decades, certainly. So it doesn’t make sense, this threat, yet. It’s there and it has constrained us,” Segal continues. “Personally, I think it’s over time. It’s past time when we should be supplying fighter jets to Ukraine and that will protect Ukraine from the Russians gaining superiority of the air over Ukraine. The Russians are not flying their jets into Ukraine anymore. They did at the very beginning of the war and they’ve stopped because so many of them were shot down.”
Segal says only time will tell, but America and the world will be watching.
“I’m keeping an eye on our first of all, maintaining the strategic Nuclear agreement, the START agreement, and the people at the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center would be the first to know if they stop getting enough notifications from Moscow. They haven’t yet. They’re still operating. So that’s a positive thing. I think there will be push in the war itself from both directions, and I think it’s important that Ukraine not get it on its back foot or run out of ammunition or something disastrous like that, because then they could be overrun by a much more numerically superior, if not superior militarily force from Moscow. And that’s a danger. That’s a huge danger because the Ukrainians won’t go, they won’t disappear. They’re going to keep fighting.”
Jack Segal is a retired US Senior US and NATO Diplomat who worked in Washington and Geneva during the START negotiations, from 1985-88. He drafted the agreement on the Nuclear Risk Reduction that led to the establishment of centers in Washington D.C. and Moscow, and was present at the signing of the agreement between the two countries in 1987. Segal served in Moscow in 1993.
Here is our complete interview with Mr. Segal:
Q: Well, Jack, for those of us who haven’t had the pleasure already, give us the brief biography, because you’ve got a lengthy connection to Russia at that time as a diplomat with both NATO and the embassies.
A: I’m a retired American senior diplomat. I served in Moscow in 1993 and then my wife and I, Karen, we opened the first Western consulate in central Russia. We had a consular district of 40 million people, two of us. So we were quite busy. Prior to that, both Karen and I worked on the nuclear arms reduction talks, the START talks, which were in the news in the last few days.
So we have a history that goes back to even Soviet times when we visited the Soviet Union as members of the staff and the State Department.
Q: You shared some photos with us of the signing of that agreement. The NRRC. Tell me how that came to be.
A: One day we got evidence that the Soviet Union had tested an intercontinental ballistic missile by firing four warheads, one on each corner of the island of Hawaii. Now, not on the island itself, but, you know, a couple of hundred miles in each direction. We didn’t think that was very humorous. And then the Russians said, well, actually, you’ve been doing stuff that we don’t like. And they had a picture of four missile silos in Montana that had their lids open. And they were - you could look down and see the missile itself. And they said, you guys didn’t warn us that you were going to do that. We were on high alert.
So we decided we needed some constraints and some way of exchanging information that that became the nuclear risk reduction centers, one in Washington and one at the Kremlin in Washington, in Moscow.
Q: And the basis of that is what? Notification and better communication?
A: Exactly. It was a regular communications in their language and in our in English from Moscow. And they would tell us, okay, we’re going to move this missile from point A to point B and don’t get excited when you see that. And we did basically the same things. This has been going on almost 20 years now and it’s been very successful.
I visited the center last year and they now exchange notifications all day long so we know where our (their) weapons are stored and where they’re moving to, if they have to be moved or if they’re being removed for maintenance. That agreement has been in operation and Americans speaking Russian and Russian speaking English. And it’s been, I think, an important confidence building measure.
Yesterday, it was announced by Moscow that the Russians are suspending their compliance with the START agreement, the new START agreement. And that is a dangerous change because that tells us to stay calm. And we have this communication channel to do that. If we’re not going to exchange notifications, things could easily be misunderstood. And that was the original basis for this nuclear risk reduction agreement that there not be misunderstanding.
Q: What’s the difference between the NRRC and the START treaty?
A: Well, the nuclear risk reduction element is part of the START treaty, but it now covers many other treaties and it has grown from a little baby step. When we first reached an agreement, to today, when we exchanged in the last couple of weeks, there are 2000 notifications about biological, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and submarines and bombers.
All the equipment that goes into the start of treatment treaty had to be monitored. That was famous President Reagan line, you know, trust but verify. And this was part of the verification process for the START agreement. And it has worked beautifully for the entire period that we’ve had the agreement every five plus years. So to say it’s suspended now is very dangerous and upsetting.
Putin has tried to keep in play the idea that, well, if things go badly, he might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He never says it quite that explicitly, but that’s the message he’s sending. And so suspending, not canceling, suspending the START agreement is one more step that throws the threat of nuclear weapons being involved in Ukraine back into the play. And that’s a very dangerous thing to be messing with
Q: How - ‘serious’ seems like the wrong word - How seriously do we take this? As opposed to a threat, or ‘big talk’ or puffing out of your chest and throwing out those terms?
A: I think Putin is far more strategic than some people give him credit for. He realizes that the words constraining us from sending, for example, F-16 fighters or more tanks to Ukraine is this implicit threat that if he gets pushed into a corner, he will resort to nuclear weapons, not the strategic nuclear weapons that the Nuclear Risk reduction Center deals with and the START agreement deals with.
But tactical nuclear weapons. Now, what is a tactical weapon? Well, it’s the size of the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. That would be a tactical nuclear weapon. Nowadays that’s still a city destruction. It’s a devastating use of power. And it’s difficult for me to figure out how we would use it in Ukraine, because if he says he’s there to liberate Ukraine, which he does, and to get it out from under the Nazis who are running it, as he puts it, then why would he want to destroy part of Ukraine and make it uninhabitable for, you know, maybe forever, for decades, certainly.
So it doesn’t make sense, this threat, yet. It’s there and it has constrained us. Personally, I think it’s over time. It’s past time when we should be supplying fighter jets to Ukraine and that will protect Ukraine from the Russians gaining superiority of the air over Ukraine. The Russians are not flying their jets into Ukraine anymore. They did at the very beginning of the war and they’ve stopped because so many of them were shot down.
So it’s another bad step in the war in Ukraine and our involvement in that war. And we this is not the time to hold back. Now’s the time to push, to really push. But we have to assess, you know, how serious is this nuclear threat? I don’t think it’s credible, but it’s out there.
Q: Obviously, you have a background as a diplomat and we like all things to be solved with diplomacy. Is that any more or less reasonable now than it was a year ago when this war in Ukraine started six months ago?
A: We’re still going. Yeah, the war has dragged on and the Russians have been stopped but not kicked out of Ukraine. So we our position is that we do we’re not going negotiate for Ukraine. Ukraine is going to decide what is a reasonable outcome of this war.
The position of the Ukrainians is right now we want all Russian troops out of Ukraine, all including Crimea. That’s the hard position. That’s a credible position. But it will be a long time before we would get to that point. It’s just fighting this war. So there is pressure to find a negotiated settlement. But the opening position, at least for Ukraine, is all Russian troops out of Ukraine, and that we support that position.
Q: Is there the belief that Russia just doesn’t have the might to do what they say they’re going to do? For example, why didn’t they do it in the first week, month, six months, a year?
A: Yes, it’s a great question. I think we overestimated the capabilities of the Russian army and the Russian combined forces, air force, naval and army. And they were not successful. They didn’t know how to do logistics. And that’s always the key in a war is do you have enough ammunition? You know, can you have fuel for all the vehicles you’re pushing in there? They ran out of gas on the way to Kiev. And so they looked ridiculous. And they were they were pathetic.
And they are still not really moving forward. They’ve been dragging on the mood of the town and Bakhmut. They’ve been fighting over it now for three months and they have not really moved forward. They say they’re going to there’s you know, the analysts say there’s going to be a big push by the Russians, perhaps for them to overcome that problem of logistics. The only the big problem we have in in Ukraine war is our production of ammunition was never a priority. And so we are running low on ammunition that they can use in Ukraine. The Russians have 100 years worth of ammunition that they could keep firing and they could just keep destroying apartment blocks and things like that. So they have a long timescale that’s that. And we we have not yet successfully geared up our production of ammunition.
Q: Is their lack of success, the Russians’ lack of success - Is that part of the reason you’re so skeptical of their nuclear ambitions?
A: Yes and no. They have an equal nuclear strategic nuclear capability to ours. We can destroy each other many times over. So that’s still there, and that hasn’t changed even with the START agreement. But they have thousands of tactical nuclear weapons and just one which the enormous and scary signal to the rest of the world. So they that temptation out there that if they get pushed into a corner there where Putin feels he’s going to be overthrown or defeated on the battlefield, then then he’ll be desperate. And that’s not where you want him to be. You want to be in a position where you can then negotiate some kind of a solution. I don’t think the Ukrainians want to be part of Russia, though. The even the ones most people speak Russian in Ukraine there many times. I was director for Ukraine at the White House for a year and the Ukrainians want to be have a better government than they had in the last 30 years of independence. But they want to be independent of Russia and they’re not going to back away from that.
Q: Do you think Putin was equally surprised by President Biden’s visit? And is there more diplomacy to be had or are all - all the gloves are off?
A: No, I think the gloves are not off. They are never off completely. I mean, there are some contacts that continue at the embassy in Moscow, for example, that’s still open.
I do think that they are surprised by President Biden’s strength of conviction to support in Ukraine. We’ve already put $50 billion into supplies for Ukraine. Not a much of that has arrived yet. We have a friend who has been working in Ukraine and he said there’s great promises of what’s to come, but it’s not arriving yet. So we need to get that stuff moving. We need to not delay any more... whether Putin will like it or not, if we supply this or that weapons system to Ukraine, We don’t want Ukraine firing missiles into Moscow. But, you know, it’s a war. Q: I know as always, we could go on for hours. Let me just ask you lastly what you’re looking for next. Is there a next move or a next signal from Moscow that would indicate something to you that you’re just keeping an eye out for? A: Yeah, I’m keeping an eye on our first of all, maintaining the strategic Nuclear agreement, the START agreement, and the people at the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center would be the first to know if they stop getting enough notifications from Moscow. They haven’t yet. They’re still operating. So that’s a positive thing. I think there will be push in the war itself from both directions, and I think it’s important that Ukraine not get it on its back foot or run out of ammunition or something disastrous like that, because then they could be overrun by a much more numerically superior, if not superior militarily force from Moscow. And that’s a danger. That’s a huge danger because the Ukrainians won’t go, they won’t disappear. They’re going to keep fighting.
And you may have other events. It’s only about 100 miles from the border of Belarus to Kiev, the capital. So they could get to the capital. They almost did at the beginning of the war a year ago. But then what? Are they going to destroy the beautiful capital of Ukraine? I can’t imagine they would ever be forgiven by Russians, not just by the Ukrainians. It’s a beautiful city. It would be a tragedy for that to happen. And we have a role to play here. We have we have an important role to keep the Ukrainians in the in the fight.
Q: Jack Segal, thank you, sir.
