Military Review

Foreign Ministry called the conditions under which it will discuss the extension of the START Treaty

26
Russia will be ready to discuss the issue of extending the five-year START Treaty with the US after the settlement of a number of problems by the American side, follows from the materials of the Russian Foreign Ministry.


We will be ready to discuss this issue with the American side after resolving the problems of excluding funds from the Treaty under the Treaty, which the United States declares "reequipped"
- stated in the materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, referred for discussion to the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, in response to the question of readiness to extend the START Treaty for another five years.

Foreign Ministry called the conditions under which it will discuss the extension of the START Treaty


The materials say that the Russian side notes that one of the three START categories is exceeded - "deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers."

For the other two categories (deployed carriers and warheads), the United States fit into the marginal levels. There is a serious anomaly that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, there may be a threat to the viability of the contract - the Russian Foreign Ministry said in the materials, in response to the question of whether the fact that the Russian Federation does not confirm American data on the amount of strategic offensive arms means that the United States did not fulfill the contract.

The United States claims to have fulfilled its obligations back in August 2017. According to State Department spokesman Heather Nauert, the United States expects the Treaty to continue to be implemented and believes that the START Treaty makes relations with the Russian Federation more stable and improves the security of the US and its allies.

Moscow also states that they have fully fulfilled their obligations to reduce strategic offensive arms. At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russia could not confirm that the United States had fully brought its strategic offensive weapons into compliance with the START treaty, RIA reports. News
Photos used:
TASS
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 16 February 2018 13: 41
    +3
    They are holding us for fools ... Like it’s not us ... it just happened so ...
    1. vlad66
      vlad66 16 February 2018 14: 03
      +14
      To play with a sharpie, you yourself have five aces in your pocket. yes
      1. Anarchist
        Anarchist 16 February 2018 14: 07
        +9
        Or a hammer! To fingers in the meat ...
        Then it’s not that he doesn’t want to cheat - he won’t!
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 16 February 2018 14: 11
      +1
      The main thing here is to sit on the mountain and look into the river, along which the corpses of enemies will float. We’ll go the Chinese way, comrades! good
    3. Esoteric
      Esoteric 16 February 2018 14: 16
      +1
      Quote: Vard
      They are holding us for fools ... Like it’s not us ... it just happened so ...

      No, dear man. Those who are obliged to uphold the sovereignty of Russia have dressed us up as fools. And the US is talking with the Russian authorities, as it should be with the power of the balabol. In Russia they used to say: "To whistle - not to carry bags." So they whistle. And you listen to the masters of art whistle. fool
  2. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 16 February 2018 13: 41
    +7
    In general, the conditions were sensibly outlined - we will continue to play if you remove the ace from the sleeve.
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 16 February 2018 13: 55
      +4
      But will this not give occasion to the mattresses to once again point a finger at Russia: "You see, they are setting conditions for us! We will leave the contract !!!" . what
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 16 February 2018 13: 58
        +8
        But will this not give occasion to the mattresses to once again point a finger at Russia: "You see, they are setting conditions for us! We will leave the contract !!!" . what
        He won’t give them, this treaty is more necessary than for us, in the light of their Wishlist for the disarming and unpunished strike from under the “umbrella” of the ABM
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 16 February 2018 14: 02
          +3
          God forbid, if so. I practically do not expect adequate actions from the “friends” of merit ...
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 16 February 2018 14: 05
            +6
            I practically do not expect adequate actions from the “friends” of merit ...
            And rightly so. Enemies must not be unexpected laughing
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 16 February 2018 14: 09
              +1
              Judging by your words, you think the same as I do. drinks
          2. Esoteric
            Esoteric 16 February 2018 14: 23
            +1
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            God forbid, if so. I practically do not expect adequate actions from the “friends” of merit ...

            And I expect from the Kremlin friends adequate action. It is time to look back at the path covered by the length of 33 years (from the time of the spotted HMS), raise your hand and with the words: “Ah, here you are, gentlemen, Americans, red, flaky stump”, to deal with the device of the Russian state. Not paying attention to the western op, but listening only to the dictates of the soul and heart. Start living like ancestors punished. And we will be happy. yes
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 16 February 2018 13: 48
    +2
    It makes sense to limit offensive weapons if one of the parties develops a missile defense system?
  4. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 16 February 2018 13: 49
    +6
    Behave in principle, do not engage in self-deception.
    1. Esoteric
      Esoteric 16 February 2018 14: 26
      +3
      Fundamentally, it is necessary to restore naval bases off the coast of the United States. Cuba and Latin America. This is the most fundamental answer.
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 16 February 2018 14: 35
        +1
        Quote: Esoteric
        Fundamentally, it is necessary to restore naval bases off the coast of the United States.

        What for?
        There was no spawn in the Navy base in Cuba .. Camran ... now for what? TF is not in that condition.
        The only valuable thing that happened in Cuba was RTR and communication with the square .., like a few years ago they were again put into operation ..
  5. engineer74
    engineer74 16 February 2018 14: 09
    +3
    But is it time to include England, France, and possibly Pakistan in the START treaty? And do not take into account the ABM system in the agreement on the theoretical probability of interception? THOSE. deployed N interceptors with N carriers and more charges. wink
  6. Herculesic
    Herculesic 16 February 2018 14: 11
    +2
    I would have canceled this contract, and I wouldn’t have played the cards from the United States anymore — they’re all stained!
    1. Esoteric
      Esoteric 16 February 2018 14: 28
      0
      Quote: Herkulesich
      I would have canceled this contract, and wouldn’t sit down to play cards from the USA anymore - they have all of them stained!

      And I would stop uploading weapons of arms (which are in the RF Armed Forces).
  7. askort154
    askort154 16 February 2018 14: 17
    +4
    Smooth, so smooth! wassat The number of aircraft carriers is also 1 to 1. am
  8. Prutkov
    Prutkov 16 February 2018 14: 18
    +8
    Probably the most important condition is the negotiability of the United States. There is not a single agreement that the Americans would fulfill in full, without reservations or withdraw from the agreement. As, for example, Americans can accuse Syrians of using chemical weapons if they have not destroyed their own under various pretexts.
  9. 75 hammer
    75 hammer 16 February 2018 15: 08
    +2
    Renewing a contract with a country that announced that we are a threat to national security is simply stupid! Ribbentrop Pact for example: only accelerated the attack on the USSR! And after all the “muzhlezhi” by the FSA with international law, agreements with them cost exactly as much as the paper on which they are printed!
  10. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2018 16: 15
    +1
    Quote: Vard
    They are holding us for fools ... Like it’s not us ... it just happened so ...

    Actually, Mr. Ulyanov from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who voiced this frenzy, holds for our fools. As the head of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, he suffered such nonsense that he was forced to remove him from his post, replacing him with another. And at the same time to clean up some documents, especially in social networks.
    Moreover, Mr. Ulyanov disavows the statements of his own foreign minister, Lavrov, who claimed that the Americans are fulfilling the agreement. Plus, judging by the statements of Mr. Ulyanov, he not only did not know the agreement that he was commenting on, but essentially accused him of betrayal (albeit not by rumor) of several dozen employees of a certain department who carried out inspections, thoroughly checked all the materials. For seven whole years, Mr. Ulyanov slept safely at his post. 14600 mutual notifications, 14 data exchanges, 256 checks, 14 impressions, as many (14) meetings of bilateral commissions - all this was safely ignored, but finally, Mr. Ulyanov gives out a pearl

    Russia has fulfilled its respective obligations. The United States also made a similar statement. Russia, in turn, noted that the United States announced the achievement of the indicators set by the Treaty not only due to real arms reductions, but also due to the re-equipment of part of the Trident-II ballistic missile launchers and the B-52N heavy bombers, such that the Russian side cannot confirm its results, as required by the Agreement, and also due to the arbitrary re-qualification of silo launchers intended for training into the category of “training mines” not stipulated by the Treaty.

    And what, according to the contract, re-equipment and thereby reduction is prohibited? If 24 out of 4 mines on the Ohio are dismantled, all systems that allow you to throw a rocket out of the mine are removed, all this fittings are removed, and the manhole covers are welded - is that considered a "combat" mine ??? Yes, they went in this case along this path. Do not cheat THREE boats, and reduce the number of missiles in boats. This was accepted at all levels and until the last statement by Mr. Ulyanov, everyone was happy.

    Heavy bombers. I wonder what did not suit Mr. Ulyanov in their re-equipment? That some of the B-52 bombers were transferred to the non-nuclear category by extracting a rotary launcher from the bomb bay? Or what about the number of nuclear warheads on airplanes is 1 plane - 1 warhead, although in reality each of them can raise a significantly larger number of cruise missiles. so sorry, and on our TU-95 and TU-160 there is exactly the same offset. Each of these our bombers carries according to the agreement ONE HEARCH

    And now, Mr. Ulyanov, in order not to do much harm, has been appointed Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to international organizations in Vienna. That is, his "presence" at all events, tomorrow, dinners, meetings - now his main task

    Quote: demiurg
    It makes sense to limit offensive weapons if one of the parties develops a missile defense system?

    Well, missile defense in one way or another develop both sides. The question is, what is the American ABO capable of intercepting?
  11. APASUS
    APASUS 16 February 2018 17: 20
    +1
    It recalls the story of the destruction by the Americans of stockpiles of chemical weapons. As much as we do not refuse to fulfill the treaty, but so far we cannot, but you must
  12. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2018 20: 39
    +1
    Quote: engineer74
    But is it time to include England, France, and possibly Pakistan in the START treaty? And do not take into account the ABM system in the agreement on the theoretical probability of interception? THOSE. deployed N interceptors with N carriers and more charges. wink

    Well then, you must also include India, China, North Korea. And will they agree to a voluntary reduction of their strategic nuclear forces? I'm afraid not

    And in the contract, the probability of the work of PRO is probably taken into account. For in the preamble of the treaty there are words that if the missile defense turns into a serious problem, then Russia will simply withdraw from the START treaty ...

    Quote: Herkulesich
    I would have canceled this contract, and I wouldn’t have played the cards from the United States anymore — they’re all stained!

    And in six months, American medium-range ballistic missiles would appear at our borders, a couple of hundred kilometers from Leningrad. And we are losing in the speed of production of missiles. The joint industrial potentials of NATO countries "stamp" much faster than we do.

    Quote: Esoteric
    And I would stop uploading weapons of arms (which are in the RF Armed Forces).

    Are we laying out? Then I beg you, plz, write the data to "Boundary", to "Barguzin", to "Sarmat". Only real ones, not the ones that say “talking heads”

    Quote: Hammer 75
    Renewing a contract with a country that announced that we are a threat to national security is simply stupid! Ribbentrop Pact for example: only accelerated the attack on the USSR! And after all the “muzhlezhi” by the FSA with international law, agreements with them cost exactly as much as the paper on which they are printed!

    We have always been enemies No. 1 for each other. And always talked about it. That did not stop us from concluding agreements with them for almost 50 years. So what about paper - this is Masha’s personal and unreasonable opinion ...

    Quote: APASUS
    It recalls the story of the destruction by the Americans of stockpiles of chemical weapons. As much as we do not refuse to fulfill the treaty, but so far we cannot, but you must

    In this case, we are in worse condition than the Americans. it is for us now that it is beneficial to extend the contract for another 5 years. We would be able to especially without straining, without much cash infusion to fulfill this agreement. Now the situation is approximately the following.

    The United States has 400 deployed land-based ICBMs. (more precisely 399). The number of deployed and not deployed ground complexes is 454. Moreover, 50 silos are officially considered not deployed and related to the hot reserve, i.e. for the future, missiles can be placed in them, they are not dismantled. Now they have extra silos for ICBMs FOUR MINES

    The number of SLBMs deployed is now 212 (the remaining 68 are missiles on boats under repair, missiles on other boats undergoing maintenance). The number of silos deployed and not deployed in boats is 280 (14 boats of 20 missiles each).

    The number of deployed bombers - 11 type V-2 and 38 V-52. The number of non-deployed - 9 V-2 and 8V-52. The total number of strategists is 66. If we summarize all this, we will get - 800, how much is required by the contract. At best, they will have to deactivate 4 ICBM mines.

    What do we have. 779 deployed and non-deployed units. deployed- 527. The difference is 252. That is, not deployed 252. And it should be 100. That is, we will have to write off 150 units. True, we have an accumulation reserve of 173. But in any case, we will have to not only increase what is possible, but also destroy what is surplus. So it really turns out that the Americans are in a better position. All other conversations are exclusively for the crowd.
  13. Charik
    Charik 16 February 2018 22: 19
    0
    On the territory of the Flight Research Institute (LII) them. M.M. Gromov’s NATO military base is gradually being created in Zhukovsky near Moscow, the honored test pilot of Russia, Russian hero Magomed Tolboev stated in a video interview with Arguments of the Week on Youtube channel .-------- what ???