<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAS Strategic Security Blog &#187; Russia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/category/russia/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp</link>
	<description>Comments and analyses of important national and international security issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:21:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Missile Watch: Global Update (April &#8211; October 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/missile-watch-global-update-april-october-2009.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/missile-watch-global-update-april-october-2009.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Schroeder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Man-portable Air Defense Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Schroeder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arms trafficking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manpads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small arms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=2001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Missile Watch
A publication of the FAS Arms Sales Monitoring Project
Vol. 2, Issue 2
October 2009
Written by Matt Schroeder and Matt Buongiorno

&#160;
Table of Contents:
Honduras/Mexico: Alleged arms trafficker offered to sell &#8220;17 or 18 surface-to-air missiles,&#8221; claims US informant
Kenya: MANPADS threat affects US air travel to Nairobi
Russia: 20 MANPADS seized from militants in North Caucasus region
Sri Lanka: Terrorist [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/missile-watch-global-update-april-october-2009.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton On Nuclear Preemption</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/10/clinton.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/10/clinton.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[






No preemptive nuclear options, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.




By Hans M. Kristensen
During an interview with Ekho Moskvy Radio last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked if “the American [nuclear] doctrine incorporate[s] preemptive nuclear strikes against an aggressor?”
The Secretary’s answer was: “No, no.”
Ahem….
Secretary Clinton’s denial that U.S. nuclear doctrine incorporates preemptive [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/10/clinton.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Big Picture &#8211; what is really at stake with the START follow-on Treaty</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/the-big-picture-what-is-really-at-stake-with-the-start-follow-on-treaty.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/the-big-picture-what-is-really-at-stake-with-the-start-follow-on-treaty.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:59:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alicia Godsberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alicia Godsberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Proliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arms control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonproliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[npt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[START]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Alicia Godsberg
There is cause for cautious optimism after Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed their START follow-on Joint Understanding in Moscow last Monday – the goal of completing a legally binding bilateral nuclear disarmament agreement with verification measures is preferable to letting START expire without an agreement or without one that keeps some sort of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/the-big-picture-what-is-really-at-stake-with-the-start-follow-on-treaty.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not Getting It Right:  More Bad Reasons to Have Nuclear Weapons</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/1518.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/1518.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ioelrich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ivan Oelrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recently released report, U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century:  Getting It Right, by the ad hoc New Deterrent Working Group with a forward by James Woolsey, is an interesting document.  I believe this report is significant because it might typify the arguments that will be used against arms control treaties in the upcoming [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/1518.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>START Follow-On: What SORT of Agreement?</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/start.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/start.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1497</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





Presidents Obama and Medvedev sign a joint understanding on a START follow-on treaty.




By Hans M. Kristensen
The Joint Understanding for the START Follow-on Treaty signed by President Obama and Medvedev on July 6, 2009, commits the United States and Russia to “reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1500-1675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/start.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US-Russia Summit Nuclear Weapons Information</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/summit.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/summit.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[








By Hans M. Kristensen
Can they do it? Expectations are high for the July Moscow Summit to produce an agreement to extent the START Treaty and commit to additional nuclear weapons reductions in the future. The following provides quick access to information about nuclear weapons numbers:
Overview of World Nuclear Forces
Global Nuclear Stockpiles, 1945-2006
US and Russian Total [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/07/summit.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Air Force Intelligence Report Available</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/06/nasic09.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/06/nasic09.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[







The NASIC report dispels many web-rumors.





By Hans M. Kristensen
The Air Force Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) has published an update to its Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat.  The document, which I obtained from NASIC, is sobering reading.
The latest update continues the previous user-friendly format and describes a number of important assessments and new [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/06/nasic09.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strategic Failure: Congressional Strategic Posture Commission Report</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/05/commission-2.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/05/commission-2.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 19:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ivan Oelrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[






The final report from the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission seems focused on hedging rather than leading.



By Ivan Oelrich and Hans M. Kristensen
The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission report published today is definitely not the place that the President or the nation should look for new ideas on how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/05/commission-2.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Briefing on US-Russian Nuclear Forces</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/usrusnukes.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/usrusnukes.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Proliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





Vast inventories of nuclear weapons remain after the Cold War arms race ended.




.
By Hans M. Kristensen
Russia&#8217;s nuclear forces are expected to drop well below 500 offensive strategic delivery vehicles within the next five years, less than one-third of what&#8217;s permitted by the 1991 START treaty. Unless the next U.S. Nuclear Posture Review significantly reduces the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/usrusnukes.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Russian Foreign Ministry Responds to FAS/NRDC Study</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/russianresponse.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/russianresponse.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hans Kristensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=1185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[






Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov says he has read the FAS/NRDC report. 



By Hans M. Kristensen
Russia&#8217;s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Ryabkov, gave a lengthy reaction to the FAS/NRDC report From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence during a press conference Wednesday.
The transcript from the press conference shows that in response to a question that the &#8220;report [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/04/russianresponse.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
