Missile Defense, Nuclear weapons - and the US

[N0NJY]

From The Times
February 4, 2009
President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons


The radical new treaty would reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each

Tim Reid in Washington

President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.

The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.

Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.

Any agreement would put pressure on Britain, which has 160 nuclear warheads, and other nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles.

Mr Obama has pledged to put nuclear weapons reduction at the heart of his presidency and his first move will be to reopen talks with Moscow to replace the 1991 US-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), which expires in December. Under that pact, the two countries have cut their respective stockpiles from roughly 10,000 to 5,000.

“We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process,” an official from the Administration said. “We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty.”

Efforts to revive the Start talks were fitful under Mr Bush and complicated by his insistence on building a missile defence shield. “If Obama proceeds down this route, this will be a major departure,” one Republican said. “But there will be trouble in Congress.”

The plan is also complicated by the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which launched its first satellite into space yesterday, and North Korea, which is preparing to test a long-range ballistic missile capable of striking the US.

Mr Obama views the reduction of arms by the US and Russia as critical to efforts to persuade countries such as Iran not to develop the Bomb.

[N0NJY]

Blueprint set out for nuke-free world
Tue Feb 3, 2009 11:49pm GMT

By Adrian Croft


LONDON (Reuters) - The government will set out a six point plan Wednesday for a nuclear free world, at a time when global powers fear Iran will produce a bomb and Barack Obama's inauguration has renewed interest in disarmament.

The document calls for watertight measures to stop terrorists or emerging states getting atomic weapons, deeper cuts in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals and the activation of a global nuclear test ban treaty.

"Although the challenges are considerable, progress on these six steps would mark a decisive break from the deadlock of the past decade," the Foreign Office said in a policy document.

Entitled "Lifting the nuclear shadow: Creating the conditions for abolishing nuclear weapons," the document is to be launched by Foreign Secretary David Miliband later on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said Britain will play a key role in efforts to speed up nuclear disarmament, though it was not immediately clear why Britain was proposing the new plan now, or what its timeframe would be.

Brown, unpopular at home because of the economy's woes but well-regarded abroad, is due to host a conference in March on cooperating with countries that want to develop a civilian nuclear energy industry.

Nevertheless, Brown's government plans to spend up to 20 billion pounds on a new fleet of nuclear weapons-armed submarines to replace the ageing current fleet. He has warned against unilateral nuclear disarmament.

The British initiative comes against the background of a meeting of world powers on Iran's nuclear program in Germany Wednesday. The West suspects Tehran is using a civilian program as a cover to make nuclear arms, which Iran denies.

Obama has backed direct diplomacy with Iran, which could involve talks, a departure from the policies of former President George W. Bush.

Obama has also said he would seek reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, signalling an interest in arms treaties not shown by his predecessor.

(Editing by Jon Boyle)

[N0NJY]

FACTBOX-Six-point British plan on nuclear disarmament

Tue Feb 3, 2009 11:40pm GMT

Feb 4 (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary David Miliband will set out a six-point plan for a nuclear-free world on Wednesday. A policy paper calls for:

* An agreement among signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on tougher measures to prevent more states getting the weapons.

* Working with the U.N. nuclear watchdog to help states which want to develop a civil nuclear energy industry to do so in safe ways.

* Negotiations between the United States and Russia and agreement on substantial further reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Other states with nuclear weapons should reduce their forces to a minimum, it said.

* Bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, banning all nuclear weapons test explosions. Nine states still need to ratify the treaty before it can take effect, the paper said.

* Talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which would ban future production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material.

* Discussion of political, military and technical issues that would have to be resolved if nuclear weapons states were to reduce and ultimately eliminate their arsenals. Britain has proposed a conference of the five original nuclear weapon states in 2009 to discuss confidence-building.

[N0NJY]

From The Times
February 5, 2009
Russia unclenches fist over nuclear weapons
Tony Halpin in Moscow

Russia moved swiftly yesterday to extend a hand to President Obama over American plans for big cuts in nuclear weapons. Sergei Ivanov, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that Russia was ready to sign a new strategic missile treaty with the US.

“We welcome the statements from the new Obama Administration that they are ready to enter into talks and complete within a year, the signing of a new Russian-US treaty on the limitation of strategic attack weapons,” said Mr Ivanov, a hawkish former Defence Minister, who was once seen as a candidate to become the president of Russia.

Grigory Karasin, the deputy Foreign Minister, also hailed the initiative. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) signed by the US and the Soviet Union in 1991 expires in December. It reduced stockpiles held by the two states from 10,000 to 5,000 but there has been little progress in negotiating a successor.

Talks faltered in part over President Bush’s enthusiasm for siting a missile-defence shield in Eastern Europe, a move that infuriated Russia. A delay in the programme could ease Russian concerns and pave the way for talks.

[N0NJY]

UK nuclear policy 'insane'

Thursday, 05, Feb 2009 12:03
By politics.co.uk staff

The government has been accused of its left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing over its 'contradictory' attitudes towards nuclear disarmament.

The foreign secretary has unveiled the steps that need to be taken for the world to move towards a nuclear weapon-free future.

But campaigners have turned on the speech over continued plans to replace or upgrade the Trident missile system to a cost of up to £76 billion.

Greenpeace said the Trident plans "severely undermined" David Miliband's comments.

"Until the government puts plans to replace Trident on hold, anything they say about ridding the world of nuclear weapons is severely undermined," said the party's executive director John Sauven.

Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said Mr Miliband's speech, which accompanied a policy information paper from the Foreign Office was a "great disappointment", which treated Trident as the elephant in the room.

And the Liberal Democrats said the government's leadership on non-proliferation was threatened by the "premature and provocative" decision to renew Trident ahead of the global disarmament conference next year.

The policy document, which by its own admission "is not about launching new initiatives", comes after it emerged Barack Obama was prepared to delay the deployment of a US missile shield in eastern Europe to help persuade Russia to begin cutting its stockpile of nuclear warheads.

Mr Obama reportedly hopes to reduce both countries' arsenals by 80 per cent.

Deputy Russian prime minister Sergei Ivanov has already reacted warmly to the claims.

"Britain is in danger of playing catch-up to the Obama administration, which has already performed a massive policy U-turn on Bush's attitude to disarmament and missile defence," said Mr Davey.

"A renewed push for disarmament is crucial to a strategy to deal with non-proliferation, international terrorism and rogue states where the old policies of deterrence have been thrown into doubt.

"The British government will need to do far more, both with our own nuclear arsenal and with cooperation for international control of the nuclear fuel cycle, before these words can be moved beyond rhetoric."

"Over 100 military and defence experts, backed by the Obama administration, are calling for a new global programme to eliminate nuclear weapons," Mr Sauven added.

"But our government seems determined to scupper this major new initiative by replacing Trident and tying Britain into nuclear rearmament for the next 40 years."

Ms Hudson went on to say that Britain had been "overtaken" by President Obama's vision.

"His intentions are on a par with those of [Ronald Reagan] and [Mikhail]Gorbachev, who achieved the disarmament of thousands of nuclear weapons in the late 1980s," she said.

"Mr Miliband's 'vision' does not match up."

The Foreign Office told inthenews.co.uk it was "working hard to reinvigorate the global commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons".

Yesterday it published a booklet of three conditions and six steps that needed to be taken for widespread disarmament to take place.

* Watertight means to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading to more states or to terrorists at the same time as nuclear energy is expanding

* Minimal arsenals and an international legal framework which puts tight, verified constraints on nuclear weapons

* Finding solutions to the challenges of moving from small numbers of nuclear weapons to zero in ways which enhance security

Prime minister Gordon Brown has already said he wants to "accelerate disarmament amongst possessor states, to prevent proliferation to new states and to ultimately achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons".

Both Mr Obama and Britain's hopes of complete disarmament are stymied by the unclear nuclear objectives of Iran and the belligerence of North Korea.

Although it accepts the challenges are considerable, the Foreign Office insists it wants to end the deadlock of the last decade but admits it will require the active engagement of the entire international community.

"The UK is working to build a broad coalition of governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and businesses which share the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and to forge agreement on how we will work together to make it happen," the department said.

[N0NJY]

Russia: An American Olive Branch
February 4, 2009 | 1858 GMT

Russian Topol mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles
Summary

U.S. President Barack Obama will propose a massive reduction in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals through a new bilateral treaty on disarmament. Such a move could have broader and more profound implications for U.S.-Russian relations.
Analysis

U.S. President Barack Obama will propose to Russia that both Washington and Moscow reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles by 80 percent — with a treaty cutting the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 apiece, The Times of London reported Feb. 4. Though the White House has not yet made a formal announcement, such a move could have profound ramifications for the ongoing negotiations between the new U.S. administration and the Kremlin.

Related Links

• U.S., Russia: The Future of START
• Geopolitical Diary: A New Start for Arms-Control Talks?
• Geopolitical Diary: New Questions About Nuclear Sustainability
• Nuclear Weapons: Devices and Deliverable Warheads

Bilateral disarmament is immensely important to Russia. Faced with an aging nuclear arsenal, a dramatic quantitative decline in the Kremlin’s nuclear arsenal looms on the horizon, and replacement systems have either experienced difficulty in development or been slow to be fielded. Moscow knows that it cannot sustain its current arsenal much longer, but has struggled because the rules of the nuclear game in the 21st century have not been defined. With continued hope for a new treaty, Russia wants to keep its options open in order to retain its negotiating position and wait until the finer points of such a treaty become clear (for example, if certain classes of delivery systems might be prohibited).

A new treaty on disarmament offers Russia two things. First, it places limits on the parameters of the two states’ nuclear arsenals. Second, it essentially locks Washington into defined force structure and prevents another nuclear arms race that Moscow knows it cannot win. It accomplishes this by pushing for explicit prohibitions and specific limitations that constrain the United States from dramatically changing the composition of its arsenal, and thus the strategic threat Russia must counter. By urging limitations, Moscow can avoid the kind of massive spending on the nuclear arsenal that helped drive the Soviet Union into the ground.



Simultaneously, it serves the needs of the Russian resurgence by putting the White House and the Kremlin at a negotiating table on equal footing, reminiscent of the Cold War. Its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons is one of the few ways in which Russia is still uniquely distinctive in the global community. There is no clearer way of reminding the world of that than bringing the United States back to the negotiating table to discuss something the entire international community agrees on — the reduction of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals.

The Pentagon has struggled with the underlying purpose of its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War. Unsure of what the future held (vis-a-vis China, for example), it has sought to keep its options open, and eschewed rigorous, highly-structured arms control treaties that not only place a cap on the size of the arsenal, but place restrictions on the structure and disposition of its nuclear weapons.

The 9/11 attacks and a constant fear of weapons of mass destruction did little to help assuage U.S. concerns about an uncertain strategic environment. What has changed is not control of the White House but the fact that Russia has found the critical pressure point of the United States: the logistical nightmare of Afghanistan. With the deterioration of the situation in Pakistan, the American need for a rapprochement with Russia has taken on a new urgency.

At the moment, Moscow has held all the cards; not simply its own territory, but its influence over the Central Asian states that would be critical to the establishment of alternative supply lines. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s consolidation of power has allowed Russia to move aggressively in its periphery while the United States lacked military resources to counter. Russia even used its control of natural gas to divide Europe and prevent a consolidation of European powers that would support American policies against Russia.

The disarmament treaty is therefore a great incentive to entice the Russians to come to the table, as they did in 2002 to sign the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. And Moscow will be willing to make very real and very deep concessions if it can get the sort of rigorous treaty it desires — and it does so in a way that encourages the Russians to come to the table. The United States is simply not in a position to force the Russians to acquiesce.

For Russia, it is all one negotiation: not just a potential alternative supply route to Afghanistan, but American plans for placing ballistic missile defense installations in Europe, and the position of the United States — and the rest of NATO — on what remains of Russia’s periphery, particularly Georgia and Ukraine. By signaling a willingness to move forward with nuclear disarmament talks, the White House opens up the possibility for movement on all of these issues.

Although American uncertainty about the future strategic environment remains deep, everyone on the American side also believes that enormous reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are in order. The immense stockpiles on both sides are exceedingly expensive to maintain and keep deployed; both the White House and the Kremlin would like to lower the costs to a more reasonable level through extensive reductions. Further reductions have always been a possibility, but while Obama would sacrifice some long-term freedom of action if he gives the Russians some of the rigor in the treaty that they desire, in exchange he could potentially cement a long-term working relationship with the Kremlin.

[N0NJY]

U.S. eyes process of nuke reduction to ease up tension with Moscow
English_Xinhua
2009-02-05 06:14:40

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- The Obama administration on Wednesday voiced its concern over the process of further reduction of nuclear weapons, looking forward to more cooperation with Moscow.

"The administration is very serious about further reductions in nuclear weapons," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters, when asked whether President Barack Obama is ready to seek an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuke stockpiles.

"The START treaty expires in 2009, so negotiations with Russia on a replacement treaty will be on a fast track," said the spokesman, adding "The administration is looking at how it wants to work this issue."

The START, signed by U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush and USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 and came into force in 1994, will expire in December 2009.

The treaty places a limit of 6,000 strategic -- or long-range --nuclear warheads on each side, and limits the number of strategic delivery vehicles -- such as bombers, land based and submarine based missiles -- to 1,600 each.

It was the first treaty requiring the elimination of U.S. and USSR -- now Russian -- nuclear weapons systems. According to the treaty, its extension should begin at least a year before the expiration.

According to Wood, the U.S.-Russia 2+2 meeting participated by foreign ministers and defense ministers from the two sides would remain. "We certainly have been wanting to discuss and have very good and thorough and serious discussions with Russia on missile defense, and we want to see that at some point happen."

Analysts here said the Obama administration expects to ease up tensions with Moscow, which was ignited over the U.S. missile defense system plan and the enlargement of the NATO, through more strategic cooperation and conversation with the Russian government.

Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush and his administration planned to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic as part of its European missile shield. Meanwhile, the Bush administration had voiced its strong support for Georgia and Ukraine to join the NATO.

Russia strongly opposes the measures, saying they pose threat to its security.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to deploy the missiles in Kaliningrad shortly after Obama was elected U.S. president in November 2008, obviously to counter the U.S. missile defense system plan in Eastern Europe.

And in the Russia-Georgia conflict in August 2008, the Kremlin has showed its tough stand on defending its core interest against the United States and its NATO allies by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both from Georgia, as independent countries.

Editor: Mu Xuequan

[N0NJY]

February 5, 2009, 3:52
Russian Press Review of the Situation

This Thursday Russian newspapers report on the U.S. plan to cut down nuclear weapons by 80%, note the start of the presidential race in Iran and interview Russian and American defence intellectuals on Russia-U.S. relations. KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA writes that while the issue of the elements of the U.S. missile defence system in Eastern Europe is still hanging in the air, pending the results of a feasibility study, Washington has been busy preparing a brand-new offer to Russia: to stand down and destroy 80% of each side’s nuclear weapons. That would leave both nations with approximately 1000 nuclear weapons each, says the paper.

The article also reminds the readers that a new Russia-U.S. strategic assault weapons limitation treaty is due this year, and that in spite of the fact that the American initiative goes beyond the expected conditions of the new treaty, Moscow has already signaled that it is ready to discuss with the U.S. any ideas concerning nuclear weapons reduction.

The paper says that Barack Obama’s initiative is going to draw a lot of flack in Congress, especially from the Republican congressmen who are likely to site Iran’s recent satellite launch and North Korea’s preparations for a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile as arguments against the proposed weapons reduction.

NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA writes on the same topic: the new U.S. administration seems to be rapidly dismantling the system of international relations created by George W. Bush. It says that the offer to Russia to reduce nuclear arms by 80%, quoted by the British media, includes, contrary to the usual form of weapons reductions in Russia-U.S. arms limitation treaties, means not only to cut down the strategic weapons but the tactical weapons as well.

The paper says that the White House believes that a significant nuclear arms reduction by the U.S. and Russia would facilitate a firmer stance of the existing nuclear power in the matters of proliferation, especially regarding the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes.

The paper also quotes a comment by Reuters saying that there is a possibility of a ‘new détente’ starting in Russia-U.S. relations and predicts a possible general deal between the two nations that could include cooperation in the fight against the global economic crisis, cooperation on the issues of Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear disarmament, missile defence, conventional weapons and the expansion of NATO. The quoted comment also mentions the differences existing between the U.S. and Russia on many issues that may prevent such a deal from happening.

The paper also quotes Dr. Sergey Rogov, the Director of the Moscow-based Institute of the U.S. and Canada, who says that significant reductions may indeed take place but it is too early to speak of 80% cuts, as arms reduction is a lengthy technological and political process in which every small detail is important. The academic also says that Barack Obama’s idea of a fast nuclear disarmament may reflect the opinion of certain circles in the U.S. who consider the nuclear weapons a liability in the circumstances when the U.S. has undisputed and overwhelming supremacy in non-nuclear strategic weapons.

The same paper follows the beginning of the presidential race in Iran. It says that if the former president Mohammad Khatami decides to contest, that may mean a direct clash between the supporters of totalitarianism and reform. Khatami, says the paper, came to power in 1997 with a programme that included a whole range of reforms, but the second-in-command position prescribed by the Iranian political system for the president didn’t allow him to implement any of these reforms. The paper says in Iran any political decision may be confirmed or condemned by the Ayatollahs who are a ‘government above government’ in Iran.

The paper says if the rural population supports Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as happened in the previous election, that would mean his victory. The paper says the rural folk are much more likely to vote for Ahmadinejad who dresses modestly and creates jobs in the rural areas then for Khatami who holds a score of honorary doctorates from Western universities. The paper adds that his election could be instrumental in the improvement of U.S. relations with Iran and may help the U.S. regain some of the influence it used to have on Iran before the Islamic revolution, and for that reason it is extremely unlikely.

KOMMERSANT says that support for Khatami comes from the reformist-minded Iranians who are getting more and more politically active. Khatami says he has to run in this election, so he can make good on his promises to the people made during his first presidential campaign in 1997. The paper says that his reforms were blocked by the conservative clergy, but Khatami promises to implement them this time, as it can improve the image of Iran in the world and discharge the tense international political atmosphere around the country.

The paper also notes the special support of the spiritual leaders of Iran enjoyed by the current president Ahmadinejad and says that it is very unlikely that he could be defeated by anyone in the coming presidential race.

VREMYA NOVOSTEI publishes two interviews reflecting Russia-U.S. relations seen from two very different angles.

Professor of national security Stephen Blank of the U.S. Army War College says that Russia and the U.S. are so different in their perception of the world and of the modern threats that they can never find enough common ground for fully-fledged cooperation, least of all – strategic partnership. He says that Russia’s system of national security is based on the idea of complete sovereignty, that Russia would simply refuse to delegate part of that sovereignty to anyone – but that is a necessary condition of participation in an alliance, such as, for instance, NATO.

The American academic adds as an example that ‘Russia still publicly says that Iran presents no immediate nuclear threat, and cites that as the reason for its position being totally different from that of the U.S. But simultaneously Russia is trying to use Iran against the U.S. in the Central Asia.’ Blank also calls the U.S. missile defence ‘an American National program’ 40 years in the making, which cannot be stopped by anyone, whatever opinion on the matter the Obama administration may have.

Aleksandr Sharavin, the Director of the Moscow-based Institute of Political and Military Analysis says that the U.S. is probably the only major nation with which Russia has never been at war, and also a nation together with which Russia has fought two world wars as an ally. He says Russia and the U.S. are bound to be allies if they do not want to lose their leadership role in the 21st century.

The Russian academic continues: both Russia and America are facing the same giant threat: the expansion of Communist China which in the future may subdue both our nations, one after another, the U.S. after Russia, to its will – if the two get carried away by their confrontation with each other. Sharavin says all known reasons for Russia-U.S. confrontation are secondary. NATO, he adds as an example, is now too amorphous, and ‘there is no problem about Ukraine and Georgia entering – provided that Russia enters first.’

Evgeny Belenkiy, RT

Related links:

Wednesday's press review

[N0NJY]

Obama seeking deep nuke cuts with Russia




Published: Feb. 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM

• Obama to face nuclear weapons decision
• Putin sees promise in Obama presidency
• Russia delays Euro missile deployment
• Lee, Obama discuss 6-way talks on N. Korea

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to slash the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia by as much as 80 percent, sources say. Obama is intent on re-engaging with Russia on the kind of arms reduction talks that resulted in the 1991 START treaty, which expires at the end of this year, and envisions as few as 1,000 nuclear warheads for each country, The Times of London quoted unnamed administration sources saying Wednesday.

Negotiations on such a new arms treaty would include a review of the Bush administration's plans for an Eastern European missile defense shield, which the Bush administration said was meant to protect against "rogue states" -- but which Moscow sees as part of a NATO expansionist push, the newspaper said.

The talks will be overseen by U.S. Secretary State Hillary Clinton, the sources said.

"We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process," The Times quoted a White House official saying. "We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-START treaty."

[N0NJY]

Cold warrior Henry Kissinger woos Russia for Barack Obama

Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win backing from Vladimir Putin's government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.



By Adrian Blomfield, Moscow Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:14AM GMT 06 Feb 2009

The Daily Telegraph has learned that the 85-year-old former US secretary of state met President Dmitry Medvedev for secret negotiations in December. According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials to win their support for Mr Obama's initiative, which could see Russia and the United States each slashing their nuclear warheads to 1,000 warheads.

The decision to send Mr Kissinger to Moscow, taken by Mr Obama when he was still president-elect, is part of a plan to overcome probable Republican objections in Congress.

Mr Kissinger is believed to have won a verbal rather than written undertaking for the deal. Tom Graham, a senior associate at Kissinger Associates and a former member of the national security council in the White House, on Thursday confirmed that Mr Kissinger had met Mr Medvedev but denied that any negotiations had taken place and said he had not met with Mr Putin.

However, a diplomatic source said that Mr Kissinger held two days of talks with Mr Putin at his country house near Moscow.

While the details of the ambitious initiative are yet to be revealed, the proposal to return to the negotiating table after eight years of reluctance in Washington has been welcomed in Britain and elsewhere.

Mr Obama apparently chose Mr Kissinger for his consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open acknowledgment of Russia's international resurgence.

Despite his pariah status with many Left-wingers in Mr Obama's Democratic Party, the president forged relations with Mr Kissinger during his campaign.
The compliment was returned when the 85-year-old veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations said last month that the young president was in a position to create a "new world order" by shifting US foreign policy away from the hostile stance of the Bush administration.

He publicly supported Mr Obama's notion of unconditional talks with Iran, though not at the presidential level.

Further demonstrating his willingness to work with his opponents on foreign policy issues, Mr Obama turned to two veteran Republicans steeped in Cold War experience to press home his plans.

Shortly after Mr Kissinger's trip, Richard Lugar, a Republican senator from Indiana who has worked on nuclear disarmament issues for 30 years, also visited Moscow. George Schultz, another former secretary of state, has also played a vital role.

Observers say signs of progress towards a new treaty could come as early as this weekend, when senior government officials meet at a security conference in Munich.

Joe Biden, the US vice president, is expected to address the conference and diplomats hinted he could announce the suspension of plans to erect a missile defence shield in central Europe, a project that has been frequently denounced in Moscow.

Despite widespread praise for the proposals, many European officials are privately urging the United States to be cautious, aware that Kremlin policy towards the West in recent years has been characterized by reversals.

Apart from worries over Russia's increasingly belligerent international policies, there is also little doubt a disarmament deal would benefit Moscow more than Washington -- even if the Kremlin has threatened to stall talks on a new treaty in the past.

Russia has long called for a new agreement to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on Dec 5. Under START, the two Cold War adversaries agreed to halve their stockpiles to 5,000 warheads apiece. An addendum negotiated in 2002 under the START framework saw both sides agree to cut the number of warheads in service to between 1,700 and 2,200 each.

Despite pressure from Moscow, the Bush Administration was reluctant to begin negotiations on a successor to START because it feared losing the flexibility needed to respond to potential challenges from rising nuclear powers such as China.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, has been desperate for a new treaty because Russia's dilapidated nuclear stockpile is no longer sustainable either financially or practically.

Despite developing a new class of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the bulk of Russia's arsenal has passed its sell-by date. Even though many warheads have been kept alive artificially, Russia has long been aware that most of its missiles will have to be decommissioned much faster than they can be replaced.

Nuclear parity, the crux of Moscow's defence policy, is therefore fiction in all but name. A new treaty, however, would allow Russia to compete and free up money for other armament programmes.

In return for a new disarmament deal, Mr Putin has demanded that the United States delay Nato membership for Ukraine and Georgia as well as shelving the missile shield, which Moscow believes is directed at Russia rather than Iran.

The United States is reportedly ready to accept those demands after Mr Kissinger, who is deeply respected for his recognition of Russia's resurgence, may have won concessions of his own, a diplomatic source said.

Frequent visits by Mr Kissinger to Russia since 2000 have largely gone unreported in the Western press. But in 2007, the Russian news agency Novosti reported that Mr Kissinger and Yevgeny Primakov, a former KGB master, were appointed by Mr Putin to co-chair a bilateral "working group" of Russian and American political insiders to tackle issues such as global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear threats.

Mr Putin is understood to have signalled his willingness to drop Russian objections over tougher sanctions against Iran and could also suspend the sale of sophisticated air defence missiles to Teheran which Washington fears could hamper a military strike against the country's nuclear installations.