Expert: Moscow can reduce nuclear weapons only with Washington’s counter steps

A further reduction of the nuclear potential, indicated in the new foreign policy concept of Russia, is possible only with the counter steps of the US and its NATO allies, leads RIA News opinion of the chief editor of the magazine "National Defense" Igor Korotchenko.

On Thursday, Vladimir Putin signed a decree approving the new Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, which says that Moscow “confirms its readiness to discuss issues of further phased reduction of nuclear potentials based on the growing urgency of making this process multilateral”.

“Russia will be ready for practical negotiations to reduce its nuclear arsenal if the three key conditions are met. The first condition is the complete withdrawal of the American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe to the territory of the continental USA, ”Korotchenko noted.

The second condition is that the allies of the United States, Britain and France, who are also members of the “nuclear club”, are involved in the reduction process.

“When negotiating, on the one hand, the Russian delegation should speak, and on the other, the American-British-French one. The combined nuclear potential of these three countries should be summed up and counterposed to the Russian one ”,

- he said.

The third condition, according to the expert, is “the introduction of binding legal documents regulating the activities of the global American anti-missile defense system”.

“Here, some kind of agreement is needed that would regulate the deployment and operation of facilities of the American anti-missile defense system on the ground and sea echelons, potentially threatening the activities of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation,” he said.

In addition, “inspection procedures should be provided for Russian military specialists to verify types of missiles that are loaded into missile defense launchers at facilities in Romania and Poland,” since “these launchers can be used not only for anti-missile interception, but also for strikes against ground targets, which, given their combat radius, is a direct violation of the current INF Treaty, ”Korotchenko emphasized.

He also did not rule out that the new modifications of the SM-3 antimissiles, which are expected to enter service after 2020, "can be equipped with a nuclear warhead and used for percussion, not anti-missile functions."

Comments

[Samaritan]

Of course we are for PEACE! but keep the gunpowder dry ... and there is no and no confidence in the Americans ...

[Finches]

It seems to me that it is not necessary to be an expert in this matter either - it is obvious!

[Samaritan]

Meanwhile, in Chelyabinsk: Vladimir Degtyar is recognized as “Person of the Year 2016” according to the magazine “Business Quarter-Chelyabinsk”

[Finches]

"Sineva splashed, splashed ..."

[Rus2012]

Quote: Finches

in this matter

... something Korotchenko "cheapens" -

The third condition, according to the expert, is “the introduction of binding legal documents regulating the activities of the global American anti-missile defense system”.

db strict "binding of the ABM Treaties" to the SNS

In addition, “inspection procedures must be provided for by Russian military experts to check the types of missiles that are loaded into missile defense launchers at facilities in Romania and Poland,”

- not inspection procedures, and points CONTINUOUS MONITORING of these systems on the bases of potential "probable friends"!
If 3,14ndoses still will not bring them out.
And in the latter case, the symmetrical introduction of the "national missile defense systems of the Russian Federation forward-based in the Western Hemisphere"

Melchit, Korotchenko! However, he is not a rocket player, he is not a strategist ...;)))

[Finches]

He became - a public "expert", the stage when all professional knowledge is forgotten and a second wind opens up from the field "Meli Emelya is your week!" - that is, they become public politicians!

[The black]

Quote: Samaritan

Of course we are for PEACE! ..

We, of course, are peaceful people ... but this is so long as our armored train stands on a siding!

[siberalt]

If all nuclear powers do not agree to reduce nuclear weapons, then Russia's reduction will be an act of unilateral disarmament in fact. The number of nuclear weapons in the United States is a "carrot" for Russia to reduce. And how will we restrain the same China, if America buys it, as it already was?

[the most important]

In this matter, all nuclear countries must be taken into account, and the potential of China and Israel is quite substantial.

[rasputin17]

How many times can you step on the same rake?

[megavolt823]

yes yes last time it sucks ended. need to reduce the influence of the us. and missiles and warheads must be adequately and sufficiently ~ 1500. 300 under water. 400 into the air, 100 well done, and the rest are mine and mobile.

[rotmistr60]

All conditions are good, but not acceptable for the West. They sleep and see the 90s when Russia disarmed unilaterally.

“The introduction of binding legal documents governing the global US missile defense system.”

even with legal documents, the Americans are in no hurry to fulfill them, and here nuclear power is at stake.

[uskrabut]

So all negotiations should be conducted. Every step on the part of Russia should be determined documented step of the opposite side. And rightly so, that taken into account in the aggregate nuclear weapons of Britain and France.

[Gormenghast]

It’s interesting, if you take, and place in Cuba, an A-35 missile defense system - it’s clear that for "defense against Iran and North Korea" Modern - do not; you need exactly an outdated, but monstrous power.

By the degree of delirium - absolutely similar to missile defense in Romania and Poland

Now, no Caribbean crisis can happen - there is no difference in nuclear arsenals of one in ten in favor of the United States.

[BOB044]

It is impossible to agree with Washington. They are trying to deceive everything.

[Wedmak]

Nah, NATO will not agree to these conditions under any circumstances. This for them is actually a retreat from plans to destroy Russia. That means defeat.

[dsm100]

It is generally impossible to negotiate with mattresses.

[Proton]

We will reduce nuclear weapons by storing a potential adversary off the coast

[Tambov Wolf]

What could be the contracts with the USA? They always either refuse them or leave or do not fulfill. It may be enough to step five times on the same rake.

[Ivan Ivanov]

It is necessary to take into account the preponderance in conventional weapons, in numbers, in the aggregate economic west

[APASUS]

I am like an ordinary person - of course for peace! But since such a thing and it is necessary to reduce, then it is logical to reduce according to the principle of a bloc, otherwise the United States will reduce its nuclear weapons, and France or Great Britain, for example, will make an "incomprehensible leap"

[fa2998]

Quote: IvanIvanov

aggregate economic west

It is possible to reduce (even the maintenance of missiles and warheads requires funds). But firstly, to reduce the old systems, which are already close. The new ones DO NOT REDUCE. And do not follow the lead of the West. And then Oka was reduced (destroyed) in the agreement on the reduction medium-range missiles. "Friends" persuaded, "Oka" has a radius of 400 km. - the contract did not fall under the contract, but we see the result. Now, reluctantly, we are building Iskander. The means and industrial capacities of the West and Russia are incomparable. from the contract, they can build in a moment. And we will painfully revive again.

[razved]

While Russia has nuclear weapons and effective means of delivery, aggression against our country is unlikely.

[Old26]

Korotchenko is dreaming. Knowing full well that the Western coalition will not do this. It is one thing to agree on certain parameters between the two countries, and quite another - on the four sides. It is almost impossible to do. Even if Russia and the United States agree with some parameters, England and France simply won’t do it.

Further. There is no trump card that could be used for the Americans to withdraw their tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. These are blmbs, not rockets. On missiles, one could come to some kind of agreement, but on bombs, the probability is close to zero.

Here is the introduction of binding legal documents governing the global US missile defense system - this is still possible. so 2 out of 3 parameters are set such that the other side definitely will not agree to this.

Quote: Rus2012

db strict "binding of the ABM Treaties" to the SNS

Colleague! There has never been a rigid binding of a missile defense treaty to a strategic nuclear arms treaty. In the preamble of the strategic nuclear forces treaties, of course, there was a curtsy with respect to the ABM treaty, but no more. In articles this was no longer.

Quote: Rus2012

- not inspection procedures, but points of CONTINUOUS MONITORING of these systems at the bases of potential "probable friends"!
If 3,14ndoses still will not bring them out.
And in the latter case, the symmetrical introduction of the "national missile defense systems of the Russian Federation forward-based in the Western Hemisphere"

Do you think continuous monitoring is possible? Do not forget that continuous monitoring cannot be one-sided. And we ourselves will want to have constant monitoring at our military bases. We have already eaten up constant monitoring at the Votkinsk plant. Now we want at military bases?

The symmetrical introduction of the "national anti-missile defense systems of the Russian Federation of advanced deployment in the Western Hemisphere" is certainly beautiful, but IMPOSSIBLE. For several reasons.
1. We do not have systems similar to the American Aegis system in terms of their weight and dimensions.
2. We do not have missile defense systems that are comparable in their performance characteristics with similar American ones. We simply do not have analogs of THAADA and "Standards". What to post then? And where? In Cuba? the question is whether Cuba wants to have these systems on its territory. This is the first thing. Second. American missile defense systems in western Europe are located approximately 1000 km from the Russian border. It is difficult to hit them with ground forces and aviation. Having placed PRo in Cuba, we will put them on one side at a short distance from the territory of the United States. On the other hand, it will be much easier to hit them than the American ones.

Quote: the most important

In this matter, all nuclear countries must be taken into account, and the potential of China and Israel is quite substantial.

This is even more impossible than participation, besides Russia and the USA, of England and France. In addition to Russia, the USA, England, and France, the interests of India, Pakistan, China, Israel, and North Korea will also have to be taken into account. Which is impossible. The only thing these countries can theoretically go for is the complete destruction of nuclear weapons. In theory

Quote: BOB044

It is impossible to agree with Washington. They are trying to deceive everything.

True, for some reason, we have been negotiating with them for forty years. And both sides are trying to fulfill their obligations

Quote: Tambov Wolf

What could be the contracts with the USA? They always either refuse them or leave or do not fulfill. It may be enough to step five times on the same rake.

Give an example of a refusal, failure, or unauthorized exit? Can you name it?