Erin Powers Memo No. Formal agreements are always based on compromises, which turn maintenance of and even elimination of weapons into an expensive exercise. Unilateral reductions can be more cost-effective. Negotiated reductions are no longer needed, because unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Russia will reduce its nuclear arsenal anyway, so there is no risk that the absence of arms control treaties would result in a new arms race. It was, in fact, liberals who promoted unilateralism in the first place.
Similar sentiments are popular in Russia as well, especially among the military.
The lion's share of time is consumed by domestic debates and the political decision to enter serious negotiations. This period included a seven-month break in late 1998 and the early half of 1989 during the transition from the Reagan to the Bush administration. In sum, claims about the inevitable length of the process of negotiations are sometimes little more than a pretext to avoid confronting domestic political challenges. Expensive Proponents of unilateralism often fail to understand that US freedom from inconvenient treaty restrictions means similar freedom for Russia. Similarly, some Russian moves toward cost optimization might not be to the liking of the United States.