Military Review

Moscow refused to accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

45
Russia does not plan to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear weapons (JNA) transmits RIA News Statement by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.


Moscow refused to accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons


The JNO was signed at the UN headquarters on 7 on July 2017 by representatives of 53 countries, and Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican have already ratified it. However, the Russian Federation, the United States, China and other nuclear powers did not sign this document.

Russia does not intend to join the JNA. We presume that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is possible only in the context of general and complete disarmament in conditions of ensuring equal and indivisible security for all, including the possessors of nuclear weapons, as stipulated by the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
Lavrov said at a meeting of the UN Security Council on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Earlier, the Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, spoke about the possible negative consequences of the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. He pointed out that the document would not be able to contribute to the advancement of nuclear disarmament, since it does not take into account the legitimate security interests of the nuclear states.
Photos used:
Press Service of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bogart047
    bogart047 19 January 2018 09: 22 New
    +9
    in p * pu contract with those who do not fulfill any contracts.
    1. The black
      The black 19 January 2018 09: 28 New
      18
      The United States is ready to use nuclear weapons with or without, and Russia should ban it. In addition, the states from such agreements can easily unilaterally withdraw, examples are known. All agreements that they sign are no more expensive than the paper on which they are printed.
      1. Major Yurik
        Major Yurik 19 January 2018 09: 44 New
        21
        I’m crying, an amazing unity in the rejection of nuclear weapons pages that have no nuclear weapons, did not exist and never will be!
        1. zivXP
          zivXP 19 January 2018 10: 20 New
          20
          It’s good to give up what you don’t have. I, too, will probably give up the yacht and the golden toilet. Well for a while. smile
          1. LSA57
            LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 40 New
            +4
            Quote: zivXP
            I, too, will probably give up the yacht

            leave the yacht. you can rent
        2. Alf
          Alf 19 January 2018 23: 45 New
          +1
          Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican have already ratified it.

          Well, if such great nuclear powers as Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican have signed, then the nuclear security of the world has improved thousands of times.
    2. AUL
      AUL 19 January 2018 09: 33 New
      12
      Such an agreement could be signed in the Khrushchev era. Then we had an army - not a couple of today, and the Warsaw Pact was in contrast to NATO. And now, when all of Europe has gone into NATO and our economy with industry in the deepest ass, nuclear weapons are our only way to avoid war.
      1. zhekazs
        zhekazs 19 January 2018 11: 17 New
        +4
        Quote: AUL
        Such an agreement could be signed in the Khrushchev era. Then we had an army - not a couple of today, and the Warsaw Pact was in contrast to NATO. And now, when all of Europe has gone into NATO and our economy with industry in the deepest ass, nuclear weapons are our only way to avoid war.

        Maybe you are right about the times, but to prevent the states from quietly developing nuclear weapons technology in their secret laboratories? At a time when it was not possible to record the tests, neither by seismic for underground, nor from space for ground / atmospheric. I believe that the nuclear arms race for that time was the right decision in those conditions. Well, for the present: let the countries that do not have nuclear weapons ALL sign this agreement, and those countries that have nuclear weapons will only have to endorse it with some guarantees for the first that nuclear weapons will not be used on their territory, except for cases of fixed missile launch with nuclear weapons from their territories. With options, but something similar, I think Russia would have signed, leaving itself the room for maneuver at Ch.
      2. hrych
        hrych 19 January 2018 11: 40 New
        +4
        Quote: AUL
        Then we had an army - not a couple of today, and the Warsaw Pact was in contrast to NATO.

        Where was she? Under Stalin, yes. And under Khrushchev, that's all, he squandered the veteran cadres, flew the aviation and fleet. The delivery vehicles were imperfect, etc. And the so-called Warsaw Pact was a crowd of traitors who, at least, would scatter, but at the maximum would go over to the side of the enemy. From Khrushchev to the end of the USSR, the army, as a mushroom picker, was permeated by immigrants from an independent, moreover Westerners, and Khrushchev amnestied the banderlogs and appointed them chairmen and oblast commanders. From ensigns to generals, they dominated, as a result: nepotism, drunkenness, theft and hazing. Yes, what can I say, when the guarantor of the state - the army did not save the USSR, but vice versa. All, at least say something, nostalgic, but the army was not combat ready. And the industry of the RSFSR plowed on CMEA and other parasites, including cannibals. Therefore, the so-called fallen industry, you have the 2nd place in the world in the military-industrial complex, the United States complains of steel, the first place in wheat exports, when the USSR and the breadbasket were always hungry and bought wheat in the USA for petrodollars and gold, etc.
        1. Lavrenti Pavlovich
          Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 January 2018 12: 22 New
          +7
          After the Second World War, the Soviet army was the strongest army on the planet, Khrushchev took part in the collapse, but this is not so scary as Brezhnev’s last years, and of course Mechny put up a cross (he betrayed the army, declaring a victory war in Afghanistan a defeat and withdrew troops). The USSR was not hungry both during perestroika and during the democrats; no need to carry nonsense. In the USSR, bread cost from 3 kopecks, a kilogram of meat about 2 rubles, there was a law on parasitism, there was no unemployment, and the work of the worker was appreciated. The USSR did not save Kryuchkov, the head of the KGB, only by constitution he could remove Mechen and his gang from power.
          1. hrych
            hrych 19 January 2018 12: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
            The USSR was not hungry both during perestroika and during the democrats; no need to carry nonsense.

            What, I say, if I remember, shpig on the shelves and queues for sausages. They fed half of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and there were no lousy bananas in stores. The death of the USSR, for objective reason and God be with him. And all the speculation is supposedly the treacherous elite is to blame, so the system was such that the EBN, Gorbi, Khrushch, Gaidar and Chubais reached the top of the party and Komsomol careers. And the greatest commanders such as Pasha Grachev and Kvashnin, more than once Suvorov in the grave turned over his strategic talent. History passed a sentence and moaning at the departed is useless. And the system was pre-trained.
    3. Lavrenti Pavlovich
      Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 January 2018 12: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: bogart047
      in p * pu contract with those who do not fulfill any contracts.

      Everything is correct, this agreement is necessary there. We just need to go further, to classify the number of nuclear charges and carriers - let the West be furious, not to let any commissions even close to our nuclear centers, to break the agreement on the reduction of nuclear weapons ...
  2. zzdimk
    zzdimk 19 January 2018 09: 22 New
    +1
    So here she is, Kuzkina’s mother!
  3. Altona
    Altona 19 January 2018 09: 23 New
    +4
    Representatives of 7 countries signed the DTZ at the UN headquarters on July 2017, 53, with Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican already ratifying it.
    -------------------------------
    So I imagine a couple of Pershing in the Vatican. Domes can quite replace themselves. And the Swiss guards in their striped medieval robes pace next to the halberds. laughing hi
  4. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 19 January 2018 09: 23 New
    +9
    Representatives of 7 countries signed at the UN headquarters on July 2017, 53 Guyana, Thailand and Vatican have already ratified it.
    sausages me with laughter ... and Honduras, Chad, the ivory coast- "ratified"? - laughing
    1. novel66
      novel66 19 January 2018 09: 32 New
      +6
      they think ..... lol
      1. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 19 January 2018 10: 14 New
        +6
        Roma, hi! hi I wonder what penguins think about Antarctica in the Antarctic? wassat Yes, and I would like to hear the opinion of Comrade Un with the preservation of all the epithets.
        1. novel66
          novel66 19 January 2018 10: 22 New
          +3
          Pasha. great hi Eun - oriental man: he will make his eyes alkali and keep silent
          1. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 19 January 2018 10: 28 New
            +4
            Quote: novel xnumx
            will make eyes alkaline and keep silent

            But be sure to smile insidiously. wink
            1. novel66
              novel66 19 January 2018 10: 34 New
              +3
              pressing the button yes
        2. BARKHAN
          BARKHAN 20 January 2018 00: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          Yes, and I would like to hear the opinion of Comrade Un with the preservation of all the epithets.


          Eun handsome. He turned the Americans on a genital organ, and without lubricant ...
          And no one will do anything to him.
        3. Amurets
          Amurets 20 January 2018 01: 16 New
          0
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          I wonder what penguins think about Antarctica in the Antarctic?

          If penguins sign this treaty, they will have nothing to fight with skuas.
    2. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      and Honduras, Chad, Ivory Coast- "ratified"? -

      Somali abstained. together with andorra and the principality of monaco
  5. Vladimir16
    Vladimir16 19 January 2018 09: 23 New
    +4
    Nuclear ban treaty. laughing

    Those who do not have nuclear weapons want to agree with those who have it. lol Those who have it can ban it, but those who don’t have it can get a response? What kind of contract is this?
    The contract of the wolf and the ram is not mutton. wassat
    1. novel66
      novel66 19 January 2018 09: 33 New
      +2
      oppresses, well, their position is understandable - they are reluctant to get a star in their garden by mistake, only we need their fears to one place, their own shirt,
  6. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 19 January 2018 09: 32 New
    +4
    The JNO was signed at the UN headquarters on 7 on July 2017 by representatives of 53 countries, and Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican have already ratified it. However, the Russian Federation, the United States, China and other nuclear powers did not sign this document.
    And what, someone expected that Russia itself would ban the guarantee of survival? DB..B .. fool
  7. Simon
    Simon 19 January 2018 09: 44 New
    +4
    I just did not understand, and Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican ratified it! belay But in general, when they had nuclear weapons, especially since the Vatican ?. The Vatican is a soldier only a few dozen. Wonders. request
  8. victorsh
    victorsh 19 January 2018 09: 56 New
    +1
    Russia does not intend to join the JNA. We presume that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is possible only in the context of general and complete disarmament in conditions of ensuring equal and indivisible security for all, including the possessors of nuclear weapons, as stipulated by the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
    Does anyone believe in general disarmament? No, we don’t take House No. 6.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 20 January 2018 01: 36 New
      0
      Quote: victorsh
      Does anyone believe in general disarmament?

      Tagged still believes, although NATO already borders Russia. And he gives advice to our leadership on how to surrender Russia faster. Despite the fact that his mind never existed, he lived with the mind of his wife, now he lives with the mind of the same senile as he himself.
  9. Nemesis
    Nemesis 19 January 2018 09: 56 New
    +1
    Well, at least that’s enough in the Kremlin and that’s good ...
  10. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 19 January 2018 10: 09 New
    +6
    Russian nuclear weapons are the only weapons that maintain parity with NATO. If we eliminate nuclear weapons, we can already dig trenches, build bomb shelters, since Western "scientists" will trample us with non-nuclear means of "geological exploration", look for minerals and other resources in Russia, which is poorly populated by "uncivilized" people, deserving, as the West and others like him, of complete extermination.
  11. Evil 55
    Evil 55 19 January 2018 10: 18 New
    0
    Don’t go to the grandmother, obviously pin .. dosovsky feed ..
  12. pvv113
    pvv113 19 January 2018 10: 18 New
    +5
    Guyana, Thailand and the Vatican have already ratified it

    Is this a new topic for jokes?
    request
  13. Skay
    Skay 19 January 2018 10: 51 New
    0
    Cats with mice do not conclude contracts. They eat them.
  14. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 19 January 2018 10: 59 New
    0
    Thank God that even in this matter Lavrov did not “chew snot”, but answered unequivocally. Maybe on other issues will learn to talk with the American "hegemons."
  15. Svist
    Svist 19 January 2018 11: 17 New
    0
    Figas news! It took a long time, already in July! belay
  16. Old26
    Old26 19 January 2018 14: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    Representatives of 7 countries signed at the UN headquarters on July 2017, 53 Guyana, Thailand and Vatican have already ratified it.
    sausages me with laughter ... and Honduras, Chad, the ivory coast- "ratified"? - laughing

    Ts-ss. Do not shoot. They are still "thinking." But Mexico has already ratified. Signed - 56, and ratified 4.
    1. Alex-a832
      Alex-a832 19 January 2018 16: 11 New
      +2
      I believe that all non-nuclear countries will ratify it, but those who are in NATO and occupied by the United States (such as Japan), as well as those under external control (such as Ukraine) are in question.
  17. Lexus
    Lexus 19 January 2018 17: 44 New
    0
    Moscow refused to accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    Her, "pigeons", we are not on your way.
  18. faterdom
    faterdom 19 January 2018 17: 47 New
    +1
    Guyana, Thailand and Vatican
    Well, let them do it. In general, the phrase "refused to join" seems strange to me. To whom, to the Vatican and Guyana? Did they have nuclear weapons? Or will it ever be at all?
    In response, we can also impose a taboo on ourselves, say completely ban the hunt for penguins.
  19. Old26
    Old26 19 January 2018 18: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Alex-a832
    I believe that all non-nuclear countries will ratify it, but those who are in NATO and occupied by the United States (such as Japan), as well as those under external control (such as Ukraine) are in question.

    Total countries in the world, UN members, about 200 hundred. Well, let's say, about 190 of them are about a dozen nuclear ones. All the rest should logically sign (well, except, as you say, "occupied"). But they signed only 56. FIFTY SIX.. That is 1/3 of those who could sign ...
  20. acetophenon
    acetophenon 20 January 2018 00: 16 New
    0
    To paraphrase a quote from one famous movie: ""Nuclear weapons are good for those who have them, and bad for those who don’t have them at the right time." hi
  21. BARKHAN
    BARKHAN 20 January 2018 00: 35 New
    +1
    Interestingly, how do the Sumerians relate to this issue? They seem to be trying to regain their nuclear status ...
  22. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 20 January 2018 18: 34 New
    +3
    What other contract? You look who nominated it and who signed it! There are countries that are up to nuclear weapons, like walking to the moon! With what intercession will the nuclear powers sign this nonsense?
  23. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 21 January 2018 00: 57 New
    0
    But the NPT is a fiction, because it recognizes by the nuclear powers those they want, and not those who are. How can you refer to it when solving important issues?