Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 12.11.2025

Photo: Russian President Vladimir Putin conducts an operational meeting with permanent members of the Russian Federation Security Council on 5 November 2025 / Photo by Gavriil Grigorov, RIA Novosti

The results of the recent meeting of the Russian Security Council, at which Vladimir Putin instructed the government to prepare proposals for the possible start of nuclear weapons testing in response to US President Donald Trump’s statements of 29 October about resuming nuclear tests, provoked wide resonance and many questions. Yuri Paniev, Executive Editor of the NG-Dipkurier paper, turned to Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and head of the IMEMO RAS Centre for International Security Alexei Arbatov for clarification. Academician Arbatov is a member of the Yabloko party Federal Political Committee.

Question: Alexei Georgievich, from Donald Trump’s statements one still cannot draw an unequivocal conclusion about what specifically is being discussed. Either nuclear explosions or launches of missiles — carriers of nuclear warheads. What is your opinion?

Alexei Arbatov: It seems to me that Donald Trump himself did not quite understand what he was talking about. He has a rather vague idea about nuclear weapons, treaties and doctrines. Trump said, firstly, that he gave the Pentagon an order to resume nuclear testing. Indeed, the USA had not tested nuclear weapons for 33 years, although testing and all work with nuclear charges is handled not by the Pentagon, but by the Department of Energy. Secondly, he indicated that the USA had not been testing, whilst China and Russia had been testing these weapons. Which does not correspond to reality. Russia has not tested for 35 years, and China for 29 years. The three powers, together with 184 other countries, are parties to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It, admittedly, for a number of reasons has not entered into full legal force, but is observed in the form of a mutual moratorium. Thirdly, Trump said: “We will test on equal terms”. That is, most likely he calls everything together — test launches of missiles, other carriers and so-called actual nuclear tests in the form of explosions – “nuclear testing”. For an ordinary person, all this may be one and the same. But the person who has been US President twice is not an ordinary person; the “nuclear briefcase” for transmitting the order for a nuclear strike is constantly carried with him, he approves all nuclear weapons development programmes, sanctions exercises of nuclear forces and their redeployment to other regions of the planet. He is obliged to understand that alongside the moratorium on explosive tests, all nuclear states regularly test carriers of this weapon (naturally, without nuclear munitions) to verify the reliability of existing ones and prove the characteristics of new systems of the corresponding class. With his sudden statement on 29 October, Donald Trump in his usual manner caused uncertainty and a surge of tension in the world, Congressional resistance, stormy debates in the global expert community, panic amongst allies and even divergences within his own administration. For example, the heads of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration stated that they were not planning any nuclear tests. And the head of the Pentagon, saving the President’s reputation saying it would be good to do this to verify the reliability of existing warheads and create new means of reduced-power.

Question: Donald Trump said that the USA has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 150 times. Is this his characteristic boastfulness or the actual state of affairs?

Alexei Arbatov: Of course, this is a figure of speech. Who there has calculated how many times one can blow up the world and what does it mean — to blow up the world? But everyone who deals with these topics knows: if a large nuclear war happens, then a global catastrophe will occur that will put an end to human civilisation. And how many times one can destroy the world — 150 or 300 times — this is simply another rhetorical improvisation from Trump. But if we don’t talk about a figure taken from thin air, then essentially in this case the President is absolutely right, although the thought cannot be called original. It has been expressed in the UN, at various levels and in different countries for several decades now.

Question: The US President wrote his post about resuming nuclear testing before a meeting with PRC Chairman Xi Jinping in South Korea. Was China not the main addressee of this statement?

Alexei Arbatov: No, I don’t think so. Frightening Beijing with resumption of testing is counterproductive — this will spur development of its nuclear potential, rather than prompt negotiations with the USA about its limitation. China ceased its testing in 1996 and by that moment had conducted them more than 20 times less than the USA. Therefore, from a technological point of view, China would gain more from resumption of testing than the USA, and could make up for lost ground in something. Apparently, China’s nuclear test site is ready, as is Russia’s — unlike the USA, which would need many months, if not years, to restore the Nevada test site. An hour’s drive from this test site is the well-known entertainment centre Las Vegas, and they are unlikely to welcome nuclear tremors there. As far as I know, we don’t have Las Vegas on Novaya Zemlya and it’s not foreseen. Most likely Trump in his “nuclear declaration” spontaneously reacted to President Putin’s recent statements about successful testing of qualitatively new Russian systems Burevestnik and Poseidon, which, naturally, were launched without nuclear warheads.

Question: What do these systems represent, what are their strategic tasks?

Alexei Arbatov: Burevestnik is a global-range cruise missile with a nuclear engine. Poseidon is an unmanned underwater vehicle (super-torpedo) of unlimited range, also with a nuclear engine. According to the President, they have unique technological characteristics that have no analogues in the world. But it is more difficult to speak about their strategic tasks. Regarding Burevestnik, Vladimir Putin made one unusual reservation, instructing the military to “determine possible methods of use”. This meaningful remark says much. Namely: taking into account the many hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles and strategic aviation deployed in Russia, it is necessary to formulate new tasks for the innovative systems Burevestnik and Poseidon that our existing nuclear forces would not be capable of successfully executing.

Question: Can Burevestnik and Poseidon be considered Moscow’s trump cards in negotiations with Washington?

Alexei Arbatov: In a certain sense they can, because back in 2021, when consultations between the two powers about the next treaty on strategic arms began (they were interrupted after the start of the special military operation), the Americans designated amongst their priorities, alongside tactical nuclear weapons, precisely these newest systems. It would be an exaggeration to consider that they were very frightened, but it is unclear to them what the purpose of Russia’s newest weapons is, their potential influence on the strategic balance and control systems. But what is unclear causes concern. Therefore, Burevestnik with Poseidon can be viewed as trump cards for bargaining. After all, we also designated our priorities: limitation of anti-missile systems, and long-range high-precision conventional weapons with disarming strike potential.

Question: The Americans are now beginning work on the widely advertised system — the Golden Dome. Will they be able to defend themselves from Burevestniks with this new anti-missile defence system?

Alexei Arbatov: This ABM system is still “a bird in the bush”, more precisely, in space. No one knows whether the Golden Dome will work or not. Competent sceptical assessments exist on this matter. Even apart from all countermeasures that Russia will be able to undertake, space-based ABM has two main “enemies” who lived respectively 400 and 300 years ago. These are Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, great astronomers and physicists who discovered the laws of celestial mechanics. The Earth rotates very quickly around its axis, and spacecraft in low orbits must orbit around it at even greater speed. To combine these planes of rotation so that at least one spacecraft is constantly above each point of possible missile launch is a task unprecedented in complexity and cost. Not because technology does not allow this, but because astronomy makes it extremely difficult. To intercept just a few ballistic missiles, one needs to have more than 900 such vehicles in space, not to mention equipping them with effective interception means. And if there are not one but several hundred such missiles, then the grandiosity of the task is clear. Reagan’s Star Wars did not cope with it, and whether Trump’s Golden Dome can is a big question.

Question: But many years have passed since then, space and other technologies have undergone revolutionary changes, haven’t they?

Alexei Arbatov: Yes, over the past 40 years science and technology have made great progress, but is it sufficient to achieve the goal? This is very problematic, as is the acceptability of necessary costs. Trump stated that 175 billion dollars will be allocated for development of this system in coming years. But specialists’ calculations say that we are talking about several trillion, moreover only the space echelon will cost 500 billion or more. As for Poseidon, it was originally conceived as countermeasures to Star Wars, as was the Russian hypersonic glide vehicle Avangard. Undoubtedly, Poseidon and Burevestnik can overcome any space-based ABM system, because from space you cannot reach an underwater vehicle, nor can you shoot down a low-flying zigzagging cruise missile. Anti-submarine and air defence are designed to combat them. But our new systems, certainly, will add doubts about the achievability of the Golden Dome’s goals even in the event of allocating enormous money to it. Which could contribute to a treaty-legal approach to this issue.

Question: Incidentally, Donald Trump also said that an American nuclear submarine is currently on duty off Russia’s shores. Interestingly, in which seas or oceans is it located?

Alexei Arbatov: Theoretically it could be in both the Barents and Kara seas. But why? American strategic nuclear submarines do not approach any shores. They carry Trident-2 intercontinental-range missiles of 8,000 –10,000 kilometres. The USA has 12 such submarines in combat-ready composition (two usually undergoing major overhaul), of which six – seven are constantly on combat duty in the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic. They cruise where it is safe to be within reach of their assigned targets. They don’t need to advance anywhere so as not to put themselves under threat of impact from our fleet. I believe this was another Trump fantasy on the nuclear theme.

Question: How should one assess the Russian leadership’s reaction during the meeting of permanent Security Council members on 5 November to Trump’s statement about nuclear testing?

Alexei Arbatov: Judging by everything, this was perceived there very seriously. I don’t know whether this pleased Donald Trump or upset him. Defence Minister Belousov, Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov and heads of other respected departments stated that not only the words but also the actions of the USA substantially raise the level of military danger for Russia. They spoke in favour of immediate preparation for full-scale nuclear testing, so as not to miss time for timely response to the actions of the probable adversary. For his part, President Putin emphasised that Russia strictly adheres to obligations under the Test Ban Treaty and has no plans to depart from these obligations. At the same time, he instructed all responsible departments to collect additional information and submit proposals about the possible start of work on preparing for nuclear weapons testing. That is, for now one can state a rather restrained reaction from the top leadership and a desire to leave open the “window of opportunity” to reduce the heat of nuclear tension.

Question: But is Donald Trump fantasising when he states that the USA and Russia are now discussing nuclear disarmament? Does this correspond to reality?

Alexei Arbatov: Having come to power for the second time, Donald Trump has spoken about this several times, for some reason calling nuclear disarmament denuclearisation. But this is not fantasy, but rather a pious wish. However, a head of state needs to operate not with wishes, but with practical deeds. It will soon be a year since Trump came to power, but no positive shifts are occurring. For example, Vladimir Putin in September proposed mutually adopting for a year or more an obligation not to exceed the ceilings of the New START Treaty, whose term expires in February next year. Trump reacted to this very vaguely, saying literally that it seems to him that it looks like a good idea. But things are still there, there are no signs of movement. Only on the basis of real negotiations and agreements can results be achieved. I want to remind you that over the past 40 years, global nuclear arsenals have been reduced tenfold; in the 1990s and 2010s people generally forgot about nuclear weapons, as the probability of war approached zero. Which was humanity’s historical achievement. Now, unfortunately, the process has gone into reverse.

Question: Can one say that Moscow and Washington are currently threatening each other with nuclear weapons?

Alexei Arbatov: I would not use such strong formulations. Although Trump does not restrain himself in expressions and allows statements that previous US presidents did not permit themselves. Undoubtedly, nuclear weapons have prominently returned to great power relations, and in military doctrines the role of their use has significantly increased. If compliance with New START limitations is not extended, if nuclear testing begins and the treaty banning them collapses, then following this the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will quickly fall apart, along with all remaining agreements and norms in this sphere. Soon there will be not nine but 15–20 nuclear states, conflicts with nuclear strikes will begin, this weapon will fall into terrorists’ hands, global nuclear chaos will ensue. In the matter of eliminating the nuclear threat, we are irresistibly rolling back several decades. It is time to stop this destructive process and urgently begin restoring the nuclear arms limitation system.

Source

 ALEXEI ARBATOV

is a member of the Federal Political Committee of Yabloko. Head of the Centre for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences