"Moreover, since 2010 Russia has achieved major progress on missile defence, so the situation is getting more complicated: many in the US think that it would be unwise to leave missile defence unregulated but the clearly outdated pro-missile defence lobby is still there and very strong", Sokov added.
"First, Russia responded by withdrawing from the START II Treaty that had banned multiple warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles (MIRVs), and developed such systems to counter US defences. Then, after the US further developed its defensive systems and extended them to NATO, Russia responded by investing in hypersonic missiles also designed to bypass US defensive systems", the expert explained.
"Lack of predictability drives the modernisation of offensive forces – the US has not been able to create a highly capable missile defence, as it promised, but Russia has conducted modernisation in the last 20 years under the assumption that the US would succeed. That situation will repeat again and again unless there is greater predictability", Sokov stated.
"Russia has insisted on that for 20 years or so. The US has resisted, but given advances in Russian missile defence and long-range conventional weapons, the old approach is against US interests. Unfortunately, few in Washington are prepared to accept that", the expert said.
"Its [NATO's] policy is premised on two beliefs: First, that Russia already has an INF-range missile in violation of the INF Treaty; second, that Russia has already deployed these missiles in Europe. Any Russian statements to the opposite or even proposals for verification have been rejected and I do not see a reason to believe NATO's position will change in the near future", the expert noted.