"The interpretation of the treaty's language and intent in reference to linkage of U.S. missile defense will have considerable influence on the outcome of the Senate and Duma votes; of which 67 out of 100 U.S. Senators are required to ratify the treaty.

"With this in mind, both Presidents will look to release unilateral statements outside of the treaty as well as language in the preamble to the treaty that will appease their legislators on the linkage or non-linkage of U.S. missile defense which may not be in the treaty, but will be regarded as binding by both sides. This diplomatic skill is necessary to achieve a ratified treaty that would unequivocally link missile defense forever to this treaty in intent and interpretation.

"The Russians have concerns that further expansion and development of U.S. missile defense, including President Obama's Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) in Europe, is a threat to Russian missile forces both tactical and strategic and could potentially upset the future 'nuclear balance of terror' between the two countries.

"For the Americans, any linkage of missile defense in an attempt to limit its capability, development and growth is unacceptable; this includes the PAA as well as existing systems. Any linkage to or limits of missile defense in the treaty are seen as being contrary to U.S. national security and its ability to protect the homeland, troops, force structures overseas and allies from ballistic missiles; as was laid out and directed by President Obama's Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) released February 1st. The BMDR further documented that the number of ballistic missiles currently in existence outside of the control of our allies, Russia and China, is 5,900. Limiting our nation's protection from current and future ballistic missile threats would put American lives and U.S. national security at unacceptable risk; especially with the increasing likelihood of a nuclear Iran and the continuing proliferation of missiles and nuclear technology around the world.

"The American public views Iran, North Korea, emerging terrorist groups and countries that sponsor those groups as the main threat to our national security, not Russia. The American public and war fighter would not dare give up or limit its current and future defensive capability against those existent and emerging threats for a strategic arms control agreement with the Russians; who are not viewed as a current or future threat to the United States.

"As such, the U.S. interpretation of non-linkage to missile defense in the treaty is the direct opposite of the Russians perception."

Ellison concluded with: "As the Senate works to understand, interpret and debate the intent of the new START treaty, it is beyond comprehension how it can have two diabolically opposing interpretations of missile defense. The reality of a successfully ratified new treaty outcome will most likely not happen unless we agree to disagree on the linkage of missile defense with Russia."