16 Mar 2022

Nearly 1,000 people in hospital with COVID in New Zealand

Tom Peters


The Omicron outbreak in New Zealand continues to expand dramatically, leading to increased deaths and hospitalisations, and growing anger among working people.

The number of people in hospital with COVID reached 971 today. There are about 20,000 cases being reported per day and roughly 200,000 known active cases, but experts say the real figure is likely far higher.

The death toll has more than doubled since the start of the year to 141. This is still low by world standards because for most of the past two years there was practically no COVID-19 in New Zealand.

The Labour Party-led government abandoned its zero COVID policy in October 2021. Since then it has removed more restrictions, promising to avoid lockdowns and keep schools and businesses open. The government has embraced a policy of mass infection that has unleashed a preventable disaster.

Wellington Regional Hospital | Ngā Puna Waiora, in Wellington, New Zealand. (Photo: Tom Ackroyd)

Epidemiologist Michael Baker told Stuff that deaths could soon reach 10 to 20 per day. So far, the record for New Zealand is eight deaths in a single day.

The much more contagious BA.2 subvariant of Omicron is now dominant in New Zealand. BA.2 is fueling a surge internationally, including rising hospitalisations in the UK and record deaths among children in the US. COVID-19 has killed more than 20 million people globally and continues to kill about 50,000 a week.

On March 10, the NZ Ministry of Health revealed that it had previously been undercounting COVID deaths due to overly restricted reporting criteria. Following a “reconciliation” of figures, nine deaths not previously recorded were added to the toll. Now, the government is reporting all deaths that occur within 28 days of contracting the virus as COVID-related deaths—the same approach used in the UK and many other countries.

The healthcare system is breaking down under high volumes of COVID cases and staff absences due to infection. On Monday, Christchurch Hospital and others in the Canterbury district announced the postponement of almost all non-urgent procedures. Nearly 500 healthcare workers were self-isolating due to COVID.

On Tuesday, it was reported that 15 percent of staff at Wellington Hospital were unable to work. In Auckland, the biggest city, hospitals have reported similar absences, and operations have also been cut back.

In response to the crisis, the Ministry of Health last week announced a criminally reckless decision to allow hospitals to ask workers to return to COVID wards while they still have the virus.

A worker at Taranaki Base Hospital, in the central North Island, told the World Socialist Web Site that the decision was “pure discrimination” against healthcare workers and “a violation of human rights.” He said the government had had “two long years to make sufficient preparations for a COVID-19 outbreak; they did nothing.”

He pointed out that the government had made the hospital staffing crisis worse by failing to recruit enough qualified workers from overseas. Hundreds have been refused entry to New Zealand and others already in the country face needless bureaucratic obstacles to having their qualifications recognised and becoming registered.

The government has also slashed the isolation period for people with the virus, and household contacts, from 10 to 7 days. This will force more people back to work before they have fully recovered.

This week, the government finally declared that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine are required for someone to be considered fully vaccinated. Only just over 2.5 million people are triple-vaccinated, about half the population.

When the outbreak began, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern encouraged complacency by boasting that New Zealand was in a strong position to withstand Omicron because almost 95 percent of the population aged over 12 was double vaccinated. It was already well known at the end of last year that three doses were needed to provide significant protection.

Schools are a major source of infection. On Monday the Ministry of Education announced 42,261 cases in schools over the previous 10 days. Many children are unvaccinated, and younger children are not required to wear masks. The teacher unions, which enforced the reopening of schools, bear responsibility for this crisis.

In the latest move to normalise the pandemic, Ardren announced today that the border will reopen for visitors from Australia on April 13, with no self-isolation requirements. It will reopen to several other countries on May 2.

Despite the government’s push to reopen everything, New Zealand’s city centres are largely deserted, with thousands of people either isolating due to COVID-19, or working from home to avoid infection.

The COVID crisis and the soaring cost of living are fueling growing anger towards the government. In a TVNZ/Kantar poll released last week, the Labour Party dropped to second place for the first time in the pandemic, with just 37 percent support compared to the opposition National Party’s 39 percent.

A parent in Auckland told the WSWS “the way [the pandemic] is being handled now is just insanity.” People were “being told that schools are safe from COVID when they are not,” and that they can return to work even if they test positive. She denounced the Ministry of Health for repeatedly stating that Omicron is “mild” for “most people.”

Public transport workers in Wellington are concerned about the rapid spread of the virus, which has infected hundreds of bus and train workers in the city in recent weeks.

A train worker, employed by Transdev, told the WSWS: “When COVID first arrived, we felt that they were making an effort to look after us, but that’s much less so now. They think having the vaccine’s going to fix everything, but it won’t.”

The company only recently told workers that they should get a third shot. There is no physical distancing of passengers on trains, and staff are not able to enforce masking requirements.

Drivers for NZ Bus in Wellington are not being informed about the exact numbers of people in the company who are catching COVID. One driver said NZ Bus “won’t supply RAT [rapid antigen tests] as it costs them money,” yet the company had spent thousands of dollars on installing dozens of surveillance cameras.

Another bus driver said they are not required to wear masks inside the depot, despite it being a poorly ventilated area frequented by many workers. Management says they are “just following government advice; they do the bare minimum, they don’t seem to be concerned that half their workforce could come down” with the virus, she said.

The driver agreed that a lockdown “would be a good idea: that would protect us, instead of sacrificing us.” She added: “All those people making the decisions aren’t on the front lines, are they?”

Right-wing candidate narrowly wins South Korean presidential election

Ben McGrath & Peter Symonds


Yoon Suk-yeol, from the right-wing People Power Party (PPP), narrowly defeated Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DP) in South Korea’s presidential election last Wednesday, securing 48.6 percent of the vote to the latter’s 47.8 percent. Yoon will be inaugurated on May 10. Voter turnout reached 77.1 percent.

Yoon will replace Moon Jae-in, who won the 2017 presidential election following the impeachment and removal from office of President Park Geun-hye. Mass protests against Park over corruption allegations forced the government to remove her from office to forestall a wider explosion of anger at the political establishment as a whole. Riding this anti-Park wave, Moon was easily elected to office, but was ineligible for re-election as South Korean presidents can only serve one term.

The political crisis surrounding the mass protests and Park’s impeachment led to a collapse of support and the fragmentation of her Saenuri Party. The forerunner of the PPP—the Grand Unified New Party, quickly changed to the United Future Party—was only formed in 2020 as the merger of three right-wing parties that all trace their origins to the Saenuri Party.

Yoon was chosen as the PPP’s candidate in an attempt to distance the party from the crisis surrounding Park’s impeachment. He has never been elected as a legislator but rose to prominence as a government prosecutor. He served as the lead prosecutor in the corruption investigation that led to Park’s imprisonment.

South Korea's president-elect Yoon Suk Yeol speaks during a news conference at the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea on March 10, 2022. (Kim Hong-ji/Pool Photo via AP)

Moon appointed Yoon, then officially an independent, as prosecutor general in 2019. However, Yoon rapidly fell out with the ruling Democratic Party over his decision to prosecute Justice Minister Cho Kuk and was ultimately forced to resign in March 2021. He was almost immediately courted by the PPP, which presented Yoon as an anti-corruption figure opposed to Moon who had increasingly become unpopular.

Yoon’s election and the return of the unified conservative party is the result above all of the deep unpopularity of the Moon administration, which is responsible for the social crisis produced by the COVID-19 pandemic. With the assistance of the trade unions, Moon and the Democrats have sought to suppress growing unrest in the working class, reflected in strikes over pay, jobs and working conditions.

Two years ago, the DP won a huge majority in the National Assembly, taking 180 seats out of a total of 300, as people demonstrated their support for the government’s initial handling of the pandemic. At first, the Moon administration implemented widespread testing and contact tracing, closed schools, and enforced social distancing measures that managed to keep case numbers low.

However, social conditions have sharply deteriorated. Officially, the 3.7 percent unemployment rate is relatively low, but this hides the reality workers face. Statistics Korea reported on January 24 that more than 3 million people had given up looking for work last year, a number not included in the official unemployment rate.

For young people aged 15 to 29, the situation is bleak. The real unemployment rate is approximately 25 percent when the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work are calculated. Apartment prices have also doubled in the last five years, meaning for many young people securing a job and starting a family is far out of their reach.

Like its counterparts around the world, the Moon administration, under pressure from big business, has largely eliminated the initial public health measures put in place to stop the spread of COVID-19 resulting in a staggering rise in infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

On Election Day, the daily total of infections hit 342,446, eclipsing the previous record high by more than 75,000. Deaths are rising as the hospital system is becoming overwhelmed. More than 1,100 people are in intensive care units, including a number of people in their 30s and under. On average, 167 people are dying a week, including a teenager who passed away a day before the election.

Yoon and Lee Jae-myung largely ignored the pandemic during the election campaign. Neither candidate put forward any serious response to the growing health crisis highlighting the huge gulf between the concerns of working people and the political establishment as a whole.

The hostility towards the two main parties was reflected in the comments of voters. Lee So-jeong, told the Chosun Ilbo, “We feel that we’re voting for the lesser evil. That’s not what an election is supposed to be. Ideally, you have a lot of options… But these candidates, either one, there will be no real change.”

In an election campaign dominated by mudslinging and scandal-mongering, Yoon latched onto the feminism and the Me-too movement backed by the Democrats to blame the lack of jobs for young men on discrimination. He plans to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality.

The gender politics of both Yoon and Moon is reactionary as it sows divisions in the working class and diverts attention from the real cause of unemployment—the capitalist system.

Yoon will only deepen the attacks on the working class as he pursues economic policies to boost the profits of big business. In his first press conference last Thursday, the president-elect stressed that his administration will rely on the “free market” and remove restrictions that hamper its operation.

These will include “more flexibility in working hours” putting greater burdens on workers to enable manufacturers to operate around the clock. He also pledged tax breaks for small businesses and the easing of regulations on so-called platform companies offering digital online services.

Under the pretext of addressing the housing crisis, Yoon is promising a lowering of property taxes and an easing of regulations on home loans—measures that will be a boon to property developers and real estate agents.

Yoon has also foreshadowed attacks on the country’s limited welfare payments, saying, “Without growth, welfare, which is necessary, cannot continue.”

In foreign policy, Yoon has pledged to deepen cooperation with US imperialism, taking a particularly anti-China tone during his campaign. He has promised to work closely with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad, a Washington-led quasi-military alliance targeting China that includes the US, Japan, Australia and India.

Yoon’s election will only heighten tensions with North Korea. During a February 25 debate, he exploited the war in Ukraine to call for a bolstering of the South Korean military’s offensive capabilities. “The situation in Ukraine,” he stated, “shows us that national security and peace cannot be maintained with agreements on paper. War can be prevented only by securing a pre-emptive strike capacity.”

Yoon has also pledged to deploy a second US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in South Korea. The first battery’s deployment was concluded under Moon. These anti-ballistic missile systems are an integral component of US preparations for nuclear war. Far from being “defensive,” they are designed to counter retaliation in the event of a US first strike on Russia or China.

The incoming Yoon administration will only exacerbate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula and the broader Indo-Pacific region as it carries out class war measures to further shift the burden of the country’s economic crisis onto the working class.

China mounts all-out effort to stop the spread of Omicron BA.2 subvariant

Evan Blake


Over the past week, COVID-19 infections have reached record levels in China due to the penetration of the highly infectious and immune-resistant Omicron BA.2 subvariant, which has evolved as a result of the refusal by nearly every government to stop the pandemic. Backed by popular support for the “dynamic zero” policy that aims to continuously keep COVID-19 infections at zero, the Chinese government is mobilizing vast resources to quell the outbreak and save lives.

China’s National Health Commission reported 5,154 new COVID-19 cases Monday, of which 1,647 were asymptomatic. From March 1-14, over 15,000 domestically transmitted cases have been identified, affecting 28 provincial-level regions. The surge of infections began in early March in multiple provinces. It is centered in Jilin province in the northeast, where over 90 percent of all cases in the current outbreak have been identified.

On March 6, a day when 526 new cases were reported, officials deemed the situation “severe” and urged residents to use caution. On Monday, when Jilin reported 4,067 new cases, local officials warned that the situation remains “severe and complicated,” while vowing to stop transmission within a week if possible.

Map showing the location of every known case in China (left) and locations in downtown Beijing recently visited by infected people (right) (Credit: Baidu Maps app)

China is deploying nearly every available public health measure, including mass testing, contact tracing, the safe isolation of all infected patients and the quarantining of those who came into contact with infected patients. Over 88 percent of the country’s population has received two doses of vaccine, the sixth highest rate in the world, and the government has ample supplies of monoclonal antibodies and other treatments.

As took place in January 2020 in response to the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, within days of this month’s outbreak five makeshift hospitals were built in Changchun and Jilin, with a combined capacity of 22,880 beds. A 6,000-bed isolation center will be constructed by the end of this week. In addition, five provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities have sent medical teams and resources to Jilin.

Hundreds of millions of COVID-19 tests will be administered throughout the country in the coming weeks. In the southeastern metropolis Shenzhen, each of the 17.6 million residents will be tested three times this week. In Jilin, 12 million at-home rapid antigen tests are being distributed to residents, all of whom will also be given multiple PCR tests.

People line up for COVID tests on March 14, 2022, in Beijing. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

Every symptomatic COVID-19 patient will receive hospital care, while those with asymptomatic infections will stay at safe isolation centers. All close contacts will quarantine and test themselves daily at home for five days in addition to having regular PCR tests.

Most critically, the government has implemented partial or complete lockdowns in each city where infections are highest, including all of Jilin province, as well as the metropolises of Shenzhen, Langfang, Dongguan, Shanghai, Xian and other small- to medium-size cities. In total, an estimated over 50 million people are under strict stay-at-home orders and nearly 40 million are under partial lockdown.

These lockdowns, decried by the corporate media because they pause the production of profits, entail the temporary closure of nonessential workplaces and schools to stem viral transmission as quickly as possible. In Jilin and other cities, only essential workplaces remain open, including supermarkets, pharmacies, water, gas, sanitation and communication companies, and suppliers of essential goods.

Most of the Chinese population supports these necessary public health measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. The initial lockdowns of January-March 2020 were highly chaotic due to the novelty of the situation, but nearly two years after the end of the lockdown of Wuhan, the process has become more streamlined and widely accepted.

A forecasting model run by Lanzhou University in China’s northwest predicts that if all these measures are maintained, then the outbreak will be fully contained by early April after an estimated 35,000 people test positive for the disease. So far, no one has died in the latest outbreak. China has recorded only two COVID-19 deaths since May 16, 2020, compared to an estimated nearly 20 million excess deaths attributable to the pandemic outside of China over the past two years.

The aggressive pursuit of Zero-COVID on mainland China is influenced by the disastrous response of the local government in Hong Kong, a city and special administrative region of China, which has refused to implement lockdowns since BA.2 caused a major surge of infections and hospitalizations in mid-February. Daily death rates have skyrocketed and currently stand at a world record 37.68 per million people, in large part due to low vaccination rates among the elderly. While China’s elderly population is slightly more vaccinated, roughly half of those above 80 years old are unvaccinated.

It remains to be seen whether China will successfully eliminate the virus once again, but the rapid and comprehensive response indicates that this will likely happen despite the uniquely dangerous characteristics of the BA.2 subvariant. If successful, this would again prove that the massive spread of disease and death beyond the borders of China was not inevitable.

The very fact that China has had to repeatedly eliminate the virus and faces the constant threat of the reintroduction of COVID-19 from abroad testifies to the criminal character of the response to the pandemic in the advanced capitalist countries, above all in the United States and the European Union.

By refusing to implement the elimination strategy pioneered in China and replicated by many other Asia-Pacific countries in 2020, the capitalist elites and their political representatives are responsible for the mutation of SARS-CoV-2 into ever more infectious and immune-evading variants, from Alpha to Omicron and whatever comes next. Their promotion of vaccine nationalism and upholding of intellectual property rights have left 86 percent of people in low-income countries totally unvaccinated.

Since the start of the Omicron surge in late November, nearly every country outside of China has surrendered to the pandemic and lifted all mitigation measures to slow the spread of the virus. Testing, contact tracing, data collection and reporting, isolation guidelines, and even the most basic masking protocols have all been curtailed. Falsely claiming that COVID-19 is now “endemic,” the ruling elites are enforcing a brutal “new normal” of unending mass infection, long-term debilitation and death.

As a result, cases are rising exponentially across Europe, including in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland and other countries, with hospitalizations again rising in the UK.

In the United States, BNO News reported 52,694 official new cases and 1,478 new deaths Monday, nearly one half of China’s cumulative cases and one third of China’s cumulative deaths since the start of the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly noted that BA.2 now accounts for 23.1 percent of all sequenced infections, a percentage that is nearly doubling each week. Wastewater surveillance between February 24 and March 10 showed that 37 percent of reporting counties experienced an increase of 100 percent or more in the presence of viral RNA in their wastewater, while 15 percent of all sites reported an over 1,000 percent increase.

The fundamental limitation of China’s Zero-COVID policy is its national character. As long as COVID-19 continues to spread globally, it remains possible for new variants to evolve that are more infectious, immune-resistant and virulent. Without an international strategy, the policy of Zero COVID will be continuously undermined.

To paraphrase the great Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky, the elimination of COVID-19 within national limits is unthinkable. The ending of the pandemic begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena.

The deepening crisis of the pandemic intersects with a mounting geopolitical crisis triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This desperate response of the Putin regime to the decades-long eastward expansion of NATO and drive by US imperialism to maintain its hegemony through the encirclement of Russia and China has profoundly destabilized an already fractured world order. Both crises, of the war and the pandemic, are fueling the rise of inflation and economic instability, which in turn are provoking the growth of the class struggle internationally.

US to send another $1 billion in weapons to Ukraine

Andre Damon


US President Joe Biden will provide an additional $1 billion in weapons shipments to Ukraine Wednesday, more than double the value of the military equipment that the US has sent to Ukraine since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war 20 days ago.

The weapons package, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, will be announced by Biden in a speech on Wednesday, following the address of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the US Congress.

The new weapons package will include anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. It will be funded from the $13.6 billion allotted for Ukraine in the omnibus budget bill Biden signed Tuesday.

Over the weekend, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the United States would also consider sending Ukraine anti-aircraft weapons.

Ukrainian servicemen load Javelin anti-tank missiles, delivered as part of the United States of America's arms shipments to Ukraine, into a military trucks at the Boryspil airport, outside Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, Feb. 11, 2022. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

Between 2014 and the start of this year, the US had provided $2.5 billion in weapons to Ukraine.

The White House is also considering sending additional troops to Eastern Europe on top of the 15,000 that have been deployed there since the crisis began, the Wall Street Journal reported.

In his address to the US Congress, Zelensky is expected to repeat calls for the United States to establish a “no-fly” zone in Ukraine, which would entail the US and NATO shooting down Russian aircraft. Ahead of Zelensky’s speech, the parliament of Estonia, a NATO member, demanded that NATO set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Zelensky’s appearance is tightly choreographed with calls by members of Congress—including both Republicans and Democrats—for the US to implement actions Russia sees as tantamount to war.

Zelensky spoke to Canada’s parliament Tuesday, demanding, “Please close the sky, close the airspace… Please understand how important it is for us to close our airspace from Russian missiles and Russian aircraft.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gestures during a joint news conference with Estonian President Alar Karis following their talks in Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2022. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)

In a preemptive response to Zelensky’s comments, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said yesterday that Biden “continues to believe that a no-fly zone would be escalatory, could prompt a war with Russia.”

Also on Tuesday, the White House announced that Biden will travel to Brussels, Belgium to take part in the March 24 NATO summit in response to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Ahead of Zelensky’s speech, members of Congress are scrambling over themselves to propose new ways to escalate the conflict.

The US Senate Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution condemning Putin as a war criminal. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared after the vote, “All of us in this chamber joined together, with Democrats and Republicans, to say that Vladimir Putin cannot escape accountability for the atrocities committed against the Ukrainian people.”

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal and Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn are planning to introduce a resolution that would sanction all Russian banks, which Blumenthal said would mean “Putin would be unable to collect the revenue, which is the lifeblood, of his oil and gas sales,” and would keep other countries from doing business with Russia.

Blumenthal bragged that if his measures were passed, they would disrupt Russian energy exports to China, declaring, “China could buy the oil, but they couldn’t pay for it.”

In addition to these measures, Zelensky has called on the United States and NATO to close international waterways to Russian ships, implementing an effective blockade of the country—traditionally seen as a wartime measure.

The moves come against the backdrop of major NATO military drills near Russia’s borders. This week, NATO began Cold Response 2022, a series of military exercises in Norway involving 40,000 NATO troops.

Meanwhile, demands for a no-fly zone are escalating in the media and political establishment. On Tuesday, Tom Enders, the former CEO of Airbus and the president of the German Council on Foreign Relations, demanded the US shoot down aircraft over Ukraine.

Enders dismissed the threat of nuclear escalation, declaring, “Would Putin then escalate further and attack NATO countries in the east or the Baltic, even use nuclear weapons? This is still very unlikely, especially since the West would not be attacking Russian territory—only Russian aircraft, cruise missiles and missiles in Ukrainian airspace.”

He concludes, “Establishing such a no-fly zone over western Ukraine is not just feasible; it is necessary. It is time for the West to expose Putin’s nuclear threats for what they really are—a bluff to deter Western governments from military intervention.”

The press is full of such demands for war with Russia, packaged in media-friendly names such as “no-fly zone,” “humanitarian corridor,” and “humanitarian airlift.” Writing in the Washington Post, Joe Scarborough—the son-in-law of US military strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski—declared that it is “time for NATO to stop being reactive to Putin’s ever-changing definition of what constitutes an act of war… Biden should change the dynamic by employing his own disruptive tactics.”

Scarborough concluded by demanding that the US create “humanitarian safe zones”—over which the United States and its allies could shoot down Russian aircraft.

15 Mar 2022

Could the Ukraine War Go Nuclear?

Miles A. Pomper


a group of men look at a pair of disassembled missiles lying on the ground in a deserta group of men look at a pair of disassembled missiles lying on the ground in a desert

Soviet weapons inspectors examine two disassembled Pershing II missiles in the U.S. in 1989. MSGT Jose Lopez Jr./Wikimedia.

The prospect of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States seemed, until recently, to have ended with the Cold War. Threats by Russian President Vladimir Putin to use the weapons to keep NATO out of the Ukraine conflict have revived those decades-old fears.

The threats come amid the fraying of nuclear arms control agreements between the two nuclear superpowers that had stabilized strategic relations for decades.

As an arms control expert, I see the war in Ukraine as an added strain but not a fatal blow to the system that has helped to keep the world from nuclear devastation. That system has evolved over decades and allows U.S. and Russian officials to gauge how close the other side is to launching an attack.

Keeping an eye on each other

Arms control treaties rely on each of the nuclear superpowers sharing information about deployed delivery systems – missiles or bombers that could be used to deliver nuclear warheads – and to permit the other side to verify these claims. The treaties usually include numerical limits on weapons, and implementation of a treaty typically begins with baseline declarations by each side of numbers and locations of weapons. Numbers are updated annually. The two sides also regularly notify each other of significant changes to this baseline through what are now called Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers.

A key element of all arms control treaties has been the two sides’ ability to use “national technical means,” such as satellites, along with remote monitoring techniques such as radiation detectorstags and seals, to monitor compliance. Remote monitoring techniques are designed to distinguish individual items such as missiles that are limited by treaty and to ensure that they are not tampered with.

The 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty introduced a major innovation: the use of on-site inspections. Before that treaty, the Soviets had resisted U.S. proposals to include such inspections in verification. But as Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev moved domestically to a process of glasnost(openness), he embraced on-site inspections, and similar provisions have been included in subsequent treaties. They include both regular announced inspections and a certain number of annual unannounced short-term challenge inspections to guard against cheating.

The history of keeping nuclear arms in check

National security scholars such as Thomas Schelling and Morton Halperin developed the concept of arms control in the late 1950s and early 1960s amid an accelerating U.S.-Soviet arms race. Arms control measures were designed to increase transparency and predictability to avoid misunderstandings or false alarms that could lead to an accidental or unintended nuclear conflict. As the concept evolved, the goal of arms control measures became ensuring that defenders could respond to any nuclear attack with one of their own, which reduced incentives to engage in a nuclear war in the first place.

The approach gained traction after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the surprise deployment of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles less than 100 miles from the U.S. brought the world to the verge of nuclear war. Initial agreements included the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement (SALT 1), which put the first ceilings on U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Gorbachev negotiated the INF treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which brought reductions in the two sides’ nuclear forces.

The INF treaty for the first time banned an entire class of weapons: ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (311 and 3,418 miles). This included U.S. missiles capable of hitting Russia from the territory of U.S. allies in Europe or East Asia and vice versa. START I applied to strategic nuclear weapons, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched from one superpower’s homeland to attack the other’s territory. In 2010, President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed the New START agreement, which further reduced the two sides’ deployed strategic nuclear forces. And in 2021, President Joe Biden and Putin extended that treaty for five years. The treaties have supported dramatic cuts in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.

New challenges for an aging system

Inspections under the INF treaty ended in 2001 after the last banned missiles were removed from deployment. Under the Obama and Trump administrations, the U.S. accused Russia of violating the treaty by developing, testing and deploying cruise missiles that exceeded its 500-kilometer limit, an accusation Russia rejected. Backed by NATO allies, the Trump administration withdrew from the treaty in 2019. This left long-range strategic weapons as the only nuclear weapons subject to arms control agreements.

Shorter-range non-strategic nuclear weapons – those with a range of less than 500 kilometers, or roughly 310 miles – have never been covered by any agreement, a sore point with Washington and NATO allies because Moscow possesses far more of them than NATO does.

Arms control has been declining in other ways as well. Russia has embarked on an ambitious nuclear weapons modernization program, and some of its exotic new strategic weapon systems fall outside of New START’s restrictions. Meanwhile, cyberattacks and anti-satellite weapons loom as new threats to arms control monitoring and nuclear command and control systems.

Artificial intelligence and hypersonic missile technology could shorten the warning times for a nuclear attack. Russia has been deploying missiles that can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, sowing confusion. And Russia worries that U.S. missile defense systems, especially in Europe, threaten strategic stability by permitting the U.S. to carry out a nuclear first strike and then prevent an effective Russian nuclear response.

Before the Ukraine war, Biden and Putin had launched a Strategic Stability Dialogue to tackle these issues and lay the groundwork for negotiations on a replacement for New START before it expires in 2026. But the dialogue has been suspended with the outbreak of hostilities, and it is difficult to foresee when it might resume.

Putin turns up the heat – but not to a boil

Putin’s recent moves have further shaken the rickety strategic security architecture. On the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he said that “anyone who tries to interfere with us … must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history” and that Russia possesses “certain advantages in a number of the latest types of weapons.”

With the war underway, Putin announced an “enhanced combat alert” of the country’s nuclear forces, which is not a regular alert level in Russia’s system comparable to the U.S.‘s DEFCON status. In practice, the enhanced combat alert consisted largely of adding staff to shifts at relevant nuclear weapon sites. The announcement was designed to discourage NATO from intervening and to intimidate Ukraine.

Nonetheless, U.S. national security officials expressed concern that Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine if NATO forces were drawn into direct conflict with Russia. Use of the weapons is consistent with Russia’s military doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate,” according to the officials.

Even in the face of Putin’s strategic nuclear saber rattling and concerns about Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons, however, the arms control framework has held sufficiently firm to preserve strategic stability. U.S. nuclear commanders have criticized Putin’s moves but have not sought to match them. They do not see evidence that Putin has taken steps to escalate the situation, like placing non-strategic nuclear warheads on airplanes or ships or sending nuclear-armed submarines to sea.

So far, arms control has played its intended role of limiting the scope and violence in Ukraine, keeping a lid on a conflict that otherwise could become a world war.

How Russian (and US) Oligarchs Funnel Money Through Charities