Why Should We Underwrite Russian Rearmament?

By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD

(The Wall Street Journal) The Nunn-Lugar program to help Russia destroy its nuclear weapons no longer makes sense. ....

.... Finally, and most critically, is the direction of Russian military spending. It had dwindled in the 1990s but is now soaring. The Russian defense budget nearly quadrupled from 2001 through 2007. Over the past few years, it has increased annually by between 20% and 30%. Russia, President Dimitry Medvedev announced in March, is embarking on a "comprehensive rearmament."

These were not idle words. Russia has been constructing the new Topol-M, a modern intercontinental ballistic missile. It continues to move forward with the new sea-launched Bulava ballistic missile to be carried aboard the equally new and state-of-the-art Borey nuclear-powered submarine. It has resumed production of its Tupolev-160 supersonic strategic bomber. Although the total size of Russia's arsenal is not expected to grow—old systems are being retired as new ones arrive—the net effect will be a more effective strategic nuclear force.

Money is fungible. If the U.S. were not defraying the costs of safeguarding or dismantling Russia's deteriorating weapons of mass destruction, Moscow would be compelled to do so out of its own pocket. Russia has an interest even more compelling than ours in the safety and surety of its nuclear systems. Thanks to political stability and a measure of prosperity—enough, certainly, to commence "comprehensive rearmament"—Moscow is now in a position to take care of such problems on its own.

Of course, the Russians much prefer our assistance. And why wouldn't they smile at a program that in effect pays for a build-up of their military even as we build down ours?....