In early October, as Americans obsessed about their presidential election, the Russian government made a surprise and otherwise unnoticed decision: It would unilaterally suspend a 16-year old agreement with the United States requiring Moscow to get rid of dozens of tons of weapons-grade plutonium — used to make nuclear weapons.
This was the latest in a long string of nuclear arms control agreements that Moscow had decided to ditch, irritated with U.S. opposition over Ukraine and worse, sanctions that crippled the Russian economy. Under President Vladimir Putin, the Russian government has abrogated two other nuclear disarmament agreements, suspended outside inspections and just plain skipped the last nuclear security summit.
Welcome to your new job, Rick Perry. The Energy Department that he has been named to lead has about as much to do with energy production as Perry’s buddy, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, has to do with the truth: not much. About 60 percent of the $26.4 billion taxpayers spend on the Energy Department has to do with the kind of energy that comes out of bombs and warheads — the nuclear kind. And now, Rick Perry has his hands on them.
None of this is to say, of course, that Perry wouldn’t do a great job — in a position previously held by a handful of scientists, an admiral and a distinguished diplomat. Really. Perry might get the hang of it. But the important question is this: What is Rick Perry going to do about replenishing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the mainstay of his agency, while helping negotiate with the largest nuclear power in the world, Russia? Or is Rick Perry part of an administration that is planning to shift global geopolitics around a new axis, the one in Moscow?
The answer to the first is likely little. The answer to the second appears to be a decided yes. Perry appears to be enlisting as a foot soldier in Donald Trump’s campaign to revive Russia — with considerable risk — to offset China.
Formed in 1977, the Energy Department pulled together a string of civilian agencies in order to maintain civilian control over the production of the world’s most dangerous weapons. Today, there are about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. These are the ultimate bargaining chips in global geopolitics _ “the deal” as the president-elect ineloquently puts it. If you think of global politics as a casino, more gambling than deal-making, nuclear weapons put you at the high-rollers table. No. You needn’t use them or even threaten to do so. Just having them qualifies you to ante for the game.
Nearly three decades after the Cold War, the United States and Russia possess nearly all of these weapons. The Americans have nearly 7,000 and the Russians have a few hundred more. Each keeps a little fewer than 2,000 on alert. The warheads, though, have shelf lives; as their fissile material degrades it has to be tested for reliability, safety and, ultimately, for replacement. Nothing good lasts forever, not even a nuke.
For an inferior conventional military power, like Russia, nuclear weapons are the last bastions of independence. (China has fewer than 300 weapons, in contrast.) As a result, the Russian nuclear forces — to this day — are the only ones that can destroy the United States. Forget about ISIS. Russia “is one of a handful of (nations) that could actually pose an existential threat to the U.S.,” said Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James in August, also as American voters were fixated on the presidential contest.
The Putin government has made a show in places like Ukraine and Syria — while quietly dragging its heels on nuclear weapons because hardly anyone pays attention to them anymore. Yet they are, to keep the gambling metaphor alive, the ultimate hole card. If one takes Donald Trump at his word during his campaign, he intends to reserve the right to use such weapons when and how he sees fit, while being simultaneously concerned about the spread of nuclear weapon technology — and encouraging it among U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan. In other words, more nuclear weapons. Not less.
Fair enough: It’s a strategy, at least, however unproved and unexamined. And here is where the former Texas governor’s bid to become the 14th energy secretary comes into play. (Forget about oil leasing and wind power; that is small potatoes.) First, it seems that a Trump administration would bring Russia back into the game as a player, not just an observer. Moscow has been sidelined for years, allowing China to assume a global role instead, along with the Americans, Europeans, Japanese and South Koreans.
But if Trump wants to change the global economic equation then he must have leverage against China. To gain that leverage means getting it from the only other player in the room but not at the table, Russia. Forget conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation operations. This means Trump must give Putin something. Syria is fine — but it’s not a core Russian interest. A sphere of influence closer to home is better.
A pass on nuclear disarmament? Best of all. And if Trump is encouraging a multipolar nuclear world, there’s practically no harm. Except proliferation, of course. And miscalculation. But a stronger Russia, after all, will introduce complexity to Beijing’s thinking and, say, cow neighboring Iran. And this is where Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson comes into play as secretary of state. Tillerson is as qualified as anyone to hold the post. He is not a Russian lackey.
Yet he may be part of a vast shift in U.S. policy that favors Russia for the first time, really, since the Cold War. It’s certainly worth debating in Congress. U.S. strategy toward Russia has been stuck for two successive presidencies. But there are many unknown outcomes, namely the reaction in foreign capitals. And there are lots and lots of details.
If confirmed, Perry would do well to visit the national laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and also go to Sarov, Russia, once known as Arzamas-16. He might get a peek at exactly what the department he couldn’t remember to abolish does. Congress should grill Perry on all of the recent treaty abrogations by Russia _ and the Nunn-Lugar Act. He might also be asked how to spell Arzamas-16, while the senators are at it. (OK, that’s mean.)
But this is, ultimately, no laughing matter. A renewed Cold War is unnecessary, yet the Trump administration seems poised to rearrange America’s relationship with its most lethal, and often cornered, adversary with no public discussion. And lo and behold, a pair of Texans are wittingly, or unwittingly, there. Perhaps if they visit Moscow together they might send a postcard home.
It can just read: “From Russia, With Love.”
Richard Parker is the author of “Lone Star Nation: How Texas Will Transform America” and the lecturer-of-practice in journalism at Texas State University. He wrote this for the Dallas Morning News.
