calendar

Select period
22.10.2018

“Everything points to the fact that the New START will follow the fate of the INF Treaty, and the whole system of arms control will cease to exist. But I think it is not going to be like that for long. Sooner or later, the United States will come to the same conclusion they reached in the late 60s: when it comes to nuclear weapons, predictability is even more important than arms reductions. Considering that the United States and Russia already have experience in providing predictability in this area, it will be necessary to return to it,” – Gen. Evgeny Buzhinskiy, Chairman of the PIR Center Executive Board.

04.09.2018

“At the time of confrontation between the United States and Russia, two summits – one in Geneva in 1985, and the other one in Reykjavik in 1986 – helped to change the atmosphere. Neither resulted in specific agreements, but they turned the developments for the better. Although President Trump is facing strong domestic pressure against any meetings with President Putin, this channel of communication should be maintained,” – Amb. Yuri Nazarkin, Professor of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Member of Centre russe d’etudes politiques.

01.08.2018

“The NPT is the foundation of our life. It is the most important contemporary international treaty. There is just no treaty more important than the NPT. We must fight for this treaty at all costs; we are doomed without it. We must talk more about the NPT so that everybody knows about it,” – Ambassador Roland Timerbaev, PIR Center Advisory Board Member, one of the negotiators of the NPT.

15.07.2018

“А third party, be it a country or a non-state actor, can attack critical infrastructure of the US or Russia, making it look as if the aggressor was the other one, thus provoking war between them. In cyber space this is possible. Both the Russian and the US cyber doctrines allow them to react to major cyberattacks with all military means. Therefore, an effective direct communication and de-escalation channels between the two countries are a priority,” – Dr. Elena Chernenko, PIR Center Executive Board Member and Deputy Head of the Kommersant Newspaper Foreign Policy Department.

12.07.2018

“The Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, through its mandate to recommend studies, could be more closely integrated into deliberative processes and negotiations,” — Agenda for Disarmament of Secretary-General “Securing Our Common Future”.


04.07.2018

“It might seem that NPT is an unfair treaty. Five countries are allowed but others are not. However, past 50 years have proved: it is not abstract justice that is important but substantive providing security to states which are free from the principles of “nuclear domino”,  Argentinians have no reasons to keep up with Brazilians and be ashamed of their non-nuclear status. NPT protects their interests.” — member of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, PIR Center Founder & Special Advisor Dr. Vladimir Orlov.


07.06.2018

“The contemporary Russian and American leaders should reconfirm unequivocally and without any reservations the conviction of their predecessors of the 1970s and 1980s that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” Dr. Alexei Arbatov, Head of the Center for International Security, Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO).

25.05.2018

The disarmament agenda I am launching today goes beyond nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Disarmament concerns every country, and all weapons, from hand grenades to hydrogen bombs. Deadly weapons put us all at risk and leaders have a responsibility to minimize that risk. The paradox is that when each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all. Disarmament – including arms control, non-proliferation, prohibitions, restrictions, confidence-building and, where needed, elimination – is an essential tool to secure our world and our future,” Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General.

10.04.2018

 “At the beginning of the 2000s, the United States informed us about their desire to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. We warned that we would have to do something to enhance our deterrent capabilities. We did not plan to build up nation-wide defense because due to the size of our country this measure would take large amount of resources and would still be ineffective. Therefore, we had to design new warheads and new armaments. On behalf of the State Department John Bolton said to us: “Do whatever you want, we do not care.” Even though President Putin demonstrated new weapons, including hypersonic ones, I do not think we are going to produce those systems in big numbers. That was a signal to the United States: if they want us to develop those weapons further, that is ok, but we prefer to stop and start talking about limitation of our systems, including missile defense,” – Gen. Evgeny Buzhinskiy, Chairman of PIR Center’s Executive Board.

15.02.2018

“The current state of US-Russian relations is depressive and stimulating. Depressing because there’s so little optimism in the expert community, and there’s so much concern that we are heading in the direction that neither of us really seems to want but neither of us can avoid. And that direction seems to be bringing us to the potential for conflict... That generates the commitment, which was the positive side of the discussion. We had a very pragmatic discussion. There was relatively little posturing, and there was a lot of serious direct constructive exploration of our differences,” — Dr. Brad Roberts, Director of Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

loading