Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson argues that the United States remains vulnerable to Russian nuclear forces after the 2002 withdrawal from the ABM treaty, a claim he discusses on his Judging Freedom YouTube channel.
Johnson contends that if a conflict between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine intensifies, the United States would face a prolonged delay in mobilizing and deploying forces. He asserts that such a lag would prompt an immediate Russian response, including efforts to neutralize American warships, leaving Washington with limited capacity to counteract the actions that follow.
According to Johnson, the withdrawal from the treaty in 2002 enabled Russia to build a potent and reliable missile defense capacity. He argues that this capability gives Russia a credible chance to deter or deflect a substantial portion of U.S. nuclear missiles, a scenario he believes is not matched by American defenses. The analyst emphasizes that such a disparity would significantly constrain U.S. leverage in a high-stakes confrontation.
Johnson maintains that while Russia may not be able to strike every incoming missile, it could still neutralize the vast majority of warheads, thereby preserving national security in ways that the United States may find difficult to replicate. He contends that the United States lacks a comparable, equally effective shield against a large-scale nuclear exchange.
The analyst concludes with a stark assessment, saying that the United States could be rendered virtually absent from the global order in the event of a nuclear conflict. This dramatic claim underscores his view that strategic defense and deterrence dynamics have shifted in ways that favor Russia in certain scenarios. (Attribution: Judging Freedom)
Earlier remarks from Russia’s permanent mission to the United Nations echoed similar themes, suggesting that decisions about nuclear testing and escalation are heavily influenced by U.S. strategic choices. The dialogue highlights the persistent tensions surrounding arms control, verification, and the balance of power in a volatile geopolitical landscape. (Attribution: UN Mission statements)
These discussions touch on broader questions about where to prioritize safety and resilience in the event of a nuclear threat. The debate encompasses not only policy decisions but also practical considerations for defense planning, international diplomacy, and the protection of civilian populations in potential conflict zones. (Attribution: General policy discourse)