Lynn Rusten, OC ’80, an expert in nuclear arms control and non-proliferation, delivered a talk on U.S.–Russia nuclear security on Wednesday at the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies. Rusten had a long career across the federal government and was senior director of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation on the National Security Council during the Obama administration. Since retiring from government, she has served as vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and is currently a national security consultant.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How did your career in arms control begin?

At Oberlin, I actually started out as an English major, but halfway through my time here, I came under the tutelage of a wonderful professor named George A. Lanyi, who specialized in Soviet foreign policy. I got really interested in the Soviet Union and Russian Studies, and I went on and did graduate work in that field. Then when I went to Washington, D.C., after graduate school, through some combination of luck and interest, I fell into the subspecialty of US–Soviet nuclear arms control.

Oberlin really imbued in me a sense of wanting to do something and make a positive difference in the world, and so as I became interested in Soviet studies, the idea of working on an important problem — risk of nuclear use — appealed to me a lot more than, say, working on the military side of things or just being an analyst.

How have things changed regarding arms control and nuclear security since you started your career?

The world has changed a lot, and more than once. When I first got into the field, it was still the Cold War. There was a huge nuclear buildup. In fact, when I went to Washington, D.C., in the early ’80s, there was something called the nuclear freeze movement, which was a large grassroots movement in opposition to nuclear weapons. Eventually, that put pressure on former President Reagan to engage in arms control and negotiations with the Soviet Union. And then, in my time, of course, I saw the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Soviet era, and a period where we  weren’t worried so much about the Soviets launching nuclear weapons at us, but we were worried about the disposition of nuclear weapons and materials and expertise as a country was becoming basically a failed state. Then, we had a period of really fruitful arms control agreements with Russia and improved European security. Now, we’re in a very difficult period of great power competition, [there is] arms racing again, China is a rising nuclear power … I feel like a lot of the positive efforts that I contributed to have come unraveled, and it’s a pretty discouraging time.

The United States’ diplomatic posture on the world stage is not particularly stable right now. How is that affecting our approach to nuclear security, and do you have any concerns?

There’s a lack of clarity right now about what U.S. policies are. Now, in fairness, it’s a new administration. Any administration would take some time to get its policies together and announce them. But this is an unorthodox administration where the orderly processes for treaty negotiation are not in place. It’s a government that seemingly doesn’t trust the career bureaucracy and expertise that exists. We have a president who probably doesn’t have a deep understanding of these issues, although he probably knows more than he did the first term. He made a statement recently on nuclear testing, and it was concerning because it was clear that he didn’t know specifically what he meant by what he said, and neither did anybody else — our government or foreign adversaries or competitors or allies. So there’s still a lack of clarity. It’s also a problem that our allies don’t feel as confident in the U.S. as a guarantor of security, which can fuel very bad things, including an impetus by some countries to consider getting their own nuclear weapons if they don’t feel they can rely on the U.S. and it can tempt competitors or adversaries like Russia or China to take advantage and test our resolve in Europe and Asia.

How have broader shifts in global politics affected arms control and nuclear security, and what concerns do you have about that?

There has been a breakdown in the global nuclear order, if you want to call it that. This has been going on for decades now. Especially in terms of the U.S., Russia, and Europe, there has been gradual erosion of that framework of various conventional and nuclear arms control agreements that helped regulate military competition between Russia and the West; a lot of those treaties have broken down. Certainly, President Putin has really been prioritizing his war aims in Ukraine above all else, and has not been willing to compartmentalize, but also you could make the case that, to some extent, the U.S. and the West is doing the same with cutting off dialogue in various areas. I always like to say, you don’t need diplomacy with your friends. You need diplomacy with adversaries and competitors too, to talk about differences. It’s not a reward for good behavior, it’s a tool to manage your relations.

What advice would you give to Oberlin students who are interested in going into the arms control field, especially with regards to the current political climate?

We need smart, committed, capable, passionate people to be working on all aspects of domestic and foreign policy. I’d say, whatever you’re interested in, pursue your passion, we’re going to need it. 

There is an unprecedented and very concerning destruction of our capacity in the federal government that’s going on right now and a devaluation of expertise. But I’m an optimist, and there will be an opportunity to rebuild. This isn’t the last word. So, I would urge people to follow your interests and try to make a difference. The other thing is just, as citizens, whatever you do professionally, people need to care about this issue. I think one challenge is, in the Cold War, people were acutely aware and afraid of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, hence the freeze movement, and now people don’t think about it as much. People are very focused on climate change, as they should be, but the threat of nuclear weapons hasn’t gone away, and policies will only change when citizens let their elected leaders know they care.