A P5 leaders summit on nuclear weapons is a potentially important development. There hasn't been such a mtg since Sept. 2009 when Obama convened UNSC for Resolution 1887. See armscontrol.org/pressroom/2009… This time around real progress is going to be difficult. Some background ... 2/
its important to note that the P5 heads of state summit idea is not a Trump initiative; the WH is responding to an invitation from President Putin sent to the leaders of the P5 members of the UNSC in late-January. Putin spoke about his concept in a speech a few days earlier. 3/
On Feb. 14, the Russia's MFA suggested this summit could be held in Sept. on the margins of the high-level UN week in NY. See: gazeta.ru/politics/news/… My sources tell me this would likely be a one-day meeting (at most) on “strategic stability” issues and nuclear arms control. 4/
Russia's goal is most likely to get Trump to agree on a five-year New START, which Trump has remained undecided on, and possibly to get P5 agreement or endorsement on launching follow-on arms control talks of some kind, not necessarily involving the other P5 n-armed states. 5/
Reuters reports that Trump "wants to use the meeting to try to make progress on a three-way arms control deal with Russia and China.” That's easier said than done. Some 11 months after floating the concept ( washingtonpost.com/world/national… ) it is STILL NOT clear what the WH wants. 6/
Trump admin. insists that by holding out on a decision on New START (which implies they would risk its expiry) they can make progress on a trilateral deal, even though senior officials admit that concluding a such a deal by Feb. '21 is impossible. See armscontrol.org/act/2020-03/fe… 7/ 
MT @KingstonAReif: Here are Trump's remark from Feb. 29. He continues to claim (incorrectly) that China can't wait to talk about arms control and suggests that any P5 meeting on the subject won't occur until UNGA in September. whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat… 8/
8/
@KingstonAReif Trump certainly likes the idea of a P5 summit on arms control for the pageantry, but the reality is that a one-day heads of state mtg can’t accomplish too much w/out serious preparation and maybe some dramatic and unexpected progress before it occurs, and there are challenges. 9/
@KingstonAReif Chinese officials continue to say that they are NOT interested in trilateral arms control talks at this time and urge U.S. and Russia, which have far larger arsenals, to do more to "fulfill their special responsibility for nuclear disarmament." See: fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/… 10/
@KingstonAReif Russia says they will not “pressure” China to join trilateral talks, but if the U.S. can convince China to join, Moscow believes that other nuclear-armed states (i.e. UK, France) should also be involved. U.S. view on how they should be involved beyond P5 summit is not clear. 11/
@KingstonAReif Bottom lines: First, talks w/other nuclear-armed states aimed at reducing & eventually eliminating all types of n-weapons are worthwhile and overdue. But such negotiations take time, planning, and a willingness to engage in give-and-take. A one-day summit could be a start. 12/
@KingstonAReif Second, we believe that any effort to “go big” on nuclear arms control should begin with a five year extension of New START. Such a move has P5 support, U.S. allies support, bipartisan Congressional support, and support of U.S. military leaders. See justsecurity.org/67666/trumps-a… 13/
@KingstonAReif If Trump really wants to 'involve" China, and isn't really trying to sabotage New START, he should extend New START, agree to talks w/Russia on a follow-on treaty, and to call upon China to agree not to increase the size of its stockpile and make basic arsenal declarations. 14/14
@KingstonAReif RT @KingstonAReif: This also indicates by the way that if the administration continues to insist on trying for a more comprehensive trilateral deal, there won’t be any administration decision on the future of New START until September at the earliest. Sigh.
