Signed in 1996, the treaty bans any nuclear weapons tests, but it never entered into force because some countries, including the United States and China, did not ratify it.
During an accelerated reading in the State Duma on Wednesday, lawmakers voted unanimously in favor of Russia withdrawing ratification of the treaty during the joint second and third readings of the bill.
The initiative will later be voted on by Russia’s upper house of parliament, the Federation Council, before being sent to President Vladimir Putin for his signature.
Earlier this month, Putin said he was “not ready to answer” whether Russia should conduct nuclear tests.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters last week that Moscow would resume nuclear tests only if the United States did so first.
Although the agreement never entered into force, it was ratified by 178 countries, including nuclear-armed states France and the United Kingdom, and has symbolic significance.
Proponents of the accord say it establishes an international norm banning nuclear weapons tests, but critics say its potential remains unfulfilled without ratification of key accords.
The Russian parliament ratified the agreement in June 2000, six months after Putin became president.
Before the vote, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin accused the US of cynicism and double standards over its nuclear weapons policy.
“Our vote will be a response to the United States for its cynical approach to its responsibility to maintain global security,” he said Tuesday after lawmakers voted for the first time.
After Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, V. Putin repeatedly mentioned Moscow’s nuclear doctrine. As a result, the West has repeatedly accused Moscow of reckless nuclear rhetoric.
Earlier this year, Russia suspended its participation in the New START Treaty, the last remaining bilateral nuclear weapons treaty between Washington and Moscow.
Last September, Putin stated that he was “not bluffing” about his readiness to use nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat to Russia.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId: ‘117218911630016’,
version: ‘v2.10’,
status: true,
cookie: false,
xfbml: true
});
};
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {
return;
}
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/lt_LT/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
#Russia #preparing #withdraw #ratification #Global #Nuclear #Test #Ban
**Interview with Dr. Elena Petrov, International Relations Expert**
**Editor:** Good afternoon, Dr. Petrov. Thank you for joining us today. We’ve seen recent moves in the Russian parliament regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Could you provide some context on why these developments are occurring now?
**Dr. Petrov:** Good afternoon, and thank you for having me. The approval from the Russian State Duma to withdraw ratification of the CTBT is significant, especially considering the treaty was signed back in 1996 but has not entered into force due to non-ratification by key players, including the United States and China. The current geopolitical climate, with rising tensions and concerns about nuclear capabilities, is prompting Russia to reassess its stance on the treaty.
**Editor:** You mentioned the broader geopolitical climate. How do you think Russia’s potential withdrawal might impact international relations, especially with the United States?
**Dr. Petrov:** If Russia formally withdraws its ratification, it could lead to a renewed arms race. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov’s statement indicates that any move to resume nuclear testing from Russia hinges on actions taken by the U.S. This tit-for-tat mentality could escalate tensions, making dialogue more difficult. It could also erode the already fragile norms surrounding nuclear testing that the CTBT symbolically represents.
**Editor:** Despite never officially entering into force, the CTBT was ratified by 178 countries. What symbolic significance does this treaty hold for the global community?
**Dr. Petrov:** The CTBT embodies a collective desire for disarmament and non-proliferation. Its widespread ratification, even if it isn’t enforceable, reflects a global consensus against nuclear testing. Many countries view it as setting a standard that discourages nuclear weapon tests, which could have devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences. Should a major power like Russia withdraw, it might embolden other nations with nuclear ambitions.
**Editor:** Some critics argue that the treaty’s limited enforcement mechanisms lower its effectiveness. What are your thoughts on that?
**Dr. Petrov:** That’s a valid point. Critics often argue that without robust enforcement, treaties can lose their effectiveness. However, proponents contend that the CTBT has created a moral framework that discourages nuclear tests. While it may not be legally binding, it has influenced state behavior by establishing norms—something that could be undermined if prominent nations choose to ignore it.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Petrov, for sharing your insights. As we observe these developments, it’s clear that the future of nuclear arms control remains uncertain.
**Dr. Petrov:** Thank you for having me. It’s vital for the global community to remain engaged in dialogue about these issues to prevent a dangerous escalation.