Military Review

The Pentagon expects to destroy stocks of chemical weapons to 2024 year

37
The American command expects to complete the process of liquidation of stockpiles of chemical weapons at the end of 2023, transmits TASS a message from a Pentagon representative Michel Baldanza.




On Wednesday, Igor Kirillov, head of the RCB defense forces of the Russian Armed Forces, at a briefing for foreign ambassadors in Moscow dedicated to the ex-Colonel of the GRU Sergey Skrypal and his daughter Yulia poisoned in Salisbury, “the US’s accusations that Currently, they have not destroyed their arsenal of chemical weapons, citing a shortage of funds. ”

As Baldanza said, "The United States continues to move forward systematically towards the complete destruction of its stockpiles of chemical weapons."

We still consider it our duty to complete the process of disposing of chemical weapons with safe methods as quickly as possible. Works are scheduled to complete this process, as planned, in December 2023 of the year
she said.

Regarding the case of Skrypal, the representative of the military department repeated the position already set forth by the White House: "The United States agrees with the version voiced by London."

We are following the UK investigation, and we are in close contact with our British colleagues. Although we do not know what further steps the United Kingdom can take, we will consult with them on this issue. We support their right to respond,
she added.

Recall that the Russian Federation and the United States destroy chemical weapons in accordance with the signed Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical weaponswhich came into force in 1997 year. The largest countries in terms of declared chemical weapons were Russia (about 40 thousand tons) and the United States (31,5 thousand tons). In Russia, the last chemical weapons ammunition was destroyed 27 September 2017 of the year.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 23 March 2018 10: 54
    +3
    Freshly giving but hard to believe or rather not at all No. , something like this sad .
    1. Alex-a832
      Alex-a832 23 March 2018 10: 58
      +3
      This tradition, I would say, already with a sweetheart ... lol and believe in him, indeed, with great difficulty. Everyone pulls the moment: maybe it’s useful ...
      1. Hunter 2
        Hunter 2 23 March 2018 11: 07
        +4
        Just need to help them! For each barrel of BOV - send on the Skripal! Let them use it! yes
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 23 March 2018 11: 52
          +1
          Kirillov said very correctly that "the USA looks particularly VALUABLE, which until now have NOT destroyed their arsenal of chemical weapons, citing a shortage of funds."

          Ha! The Americans knew that they would be “put up” with a “face” in Russia for the presence of chemical weapons in the United States — and they themselves refused to attend a briefing in Moscow!
          Otherwise they would have asked the Americans at the briefing: “Were they not made“ poisons ”for the Skripals in the USA?” And they would have nothing to cover!
          1. Orionvit
            Orionvit 23 March 2018 13: 54
            +2
            Quote: Tatiana
            And they would have nothing to cover!

            And what are they to cover? Everything is simple with them. We are good, Russia is bad. We are for "democracy", they are for "totalitarianism." Conclusion, Russia is to blame for everything. And working. And Russia can make excuses for how long.
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 23 March 2018 14: 13
              0
              Orionvit
              And what are they to cover? Everything is simple with them. We are “good”, Russia is “bad”.
              ----------------
              With a confrontation on viewers, this usually does not work. That is why Britain and the United States convene their conferences without inviting Russia to them, or do not come to the Russian conferences themselves when they invite the United States.
              1. Orionvit
                Orionvit 23 March 2018 14: 24
                +1
                Quote: Tatiana
                With a confrontation on viewers, this usually does not work.

                Oh, I beg you. At the UN this is being sculpted before the whole world and nothing. If the viewer and opponents are engaged, then no arguments will not work. One conclusion, you need to be strong. "A strong whisper will say, everyone will hear, but a weak cry, maybe only the hare will be scared."
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 23 March 2018 14: 32
                  0
                  Quote: Orionvit
                  Quote: Tatiana
                  With a confrontation on viewers, this usually does not work.
                  Oh, I beg you. At the UN this is being sculpted in front of the whole world and nothing. If the viewer and opponents are engaged, then no arguments will not work.
                  The UN makes decisions. There are officials paid on salaries, not journalists. That is why in the USA they are again crying out about control over the media, especially to counter the propaganda of the Russian Federation, China and Iran.
                  One conclusion, you need to be strong. "A strong whisper will say, everyone will hear, but a weak cry, maybe only the hare will be scared."
                  You are very right in this! hi
        2. Orionvit
          Orionvit 23 March 2018 13: 56
          0
          Quote: Hunter 2
          For each barrel of BOV - send on the Skripal!

          On the contrary, to each Skripal, send a barrel of BOV.
      2. dog breeder
        dog breeder 23 March 2018 11: 08
        +1
        Alex-a832 (Alexey)
        ... maybe useful ...

        It will come in handy, there is still a bunch of violins, windsor of any such abomination.
    2. Chertt
      Chertt 23 March 2018 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Spartanez300
      Freshly giving but hard to believe or rather not at all

      That mattresses will destroy the chemical. weapons by 2023. Why? Do not learn bad from English women. Throw unfounded statements
  2. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 23 March 2018 10: 55
    +6
    Chemical weapons had to be eliminated yesterday. And today to look for who has it and who uses it.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 23 March 2018 11: 05
      0
      Quote: ul_vitalii
      And today to look for who has it

      And which organization, and most importantly, under whose leadership, will look for him? If Western experts are to “search”, it is not difficult to imagine what they will find. What the owner says, they will find
  3. Serge Gorely
    Serge Gorely 23 March 2018 10: 58
    +2
    Our overseas "partners" bite their elbows - with the chem. We managed to squeeze EBNa with a weapon, but with a nuclear one, no. And how many rotten statues were from five years ago that Russia has no enemies, a nuclear shield is a waste of money!
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 23 March 2018 12: 40
      +2
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      And how many rotten statues were from five years ago that Russia has no enemies, a nuclear shield is a waste of money!

      And now come across. yes Say, the whole world is afraid of us, yeah. And why are we so scary-vicious, we want to erase everyone? wassat Yes, even in VO come across, however, mostly runners, burping system. Everyone broadcasts that sin is a nightmare world. laughing Well, you can understand these - they were dumb in Russia (USSR) ... They rushed over the hill ... again twenty-five - and there it is dumb, and again the reason is Russia. Eh, creaky-violinist ... laughing
  4. cats
    cats 23 March 2018 11: 00
    +2
    May put a pig .. lol
    I watched this briefing .. Our tone in communication is changing,
    no longer make excuses. good
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 23 March 2018 11: 17
      0
      Quote: Kotovsky
      Our tone in communication is changing,
      no longer make excuses. good

      Cheers good Only 25 years have passed and we are no longer mumbling and blushing !!! Another twenty years and generally dare !!!
      1. cats
        cats 23 March 2018 11: 27
        +4
        Quote: Chertt
        Hurray. Only 25 years have passed and we are no longer mumbling and blushing !!! Another twenty years and generally dare !!!

        On the one hand, your irony is clear,
        but about 15 years ago we didn’t count on it .. hi
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 23 March 2018 11: 32
          +1
          Quote: Kotovsky
          but about 15 years ago we didn’t count on it

          That is yes. I want everything at once. Although I myself do not like when others grumble wink
  5. Vasya_Piterskiy
    Vasya_Piterskiy 23 March 2018 11: 00
    0
    The elimination of chemical weapons is one thing, and the laboratories that produce them also fall under liquidation? Or, if necessary, stamp again as much as necessary?
    1. Serge Gorely
      Serge Gorely 23 March 2018 12: 31
      0
      Quote: Vasya_Piterskiy
      The elimination of chemical weapons is one thing, and the laboratories that produce them also fall under liquidation? Or, if necessary, stamp again as much as necessary?

      Laboratories do not produce, they are DEVELOPED.
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 23 March 2018 11: 02
    +1
    complete the process of eliminating chemical weapons stockpiles in late 2023
    Previously, they complained that there was not enough money, and this was due to an increase in the military budget by another 80 billion greens.
    We still consider it our duty
    When did the United States consider it their duty to implement even ratified agreements? Never! And the small British run over to Russia pursues not only British interests, but also the interests of the United States, under the same treaty on the destruction of chemical weapons.
  7. pav-pon1972
    pav-pon1972 23 March 2018 11: 02
    0
    are we too early to destroy?
  8. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 23 March 2018 11: 14
    0
    Yeah ... and we believe you ... especially if she said ... Baldanza! laughing
  9. Masya masya
    Masya masya 23 March 2018 11: 15
    +3
    then we'll talk ...
  10. flicker
    flicker 23 March 2018 11: 20
    +2
    The Pentagon expects to destroy stocks of chemical weapons to 2024 year
    The main question: on whom will they destroy?
    1. Serge Gorely
      Serge Gorely 23 March 2018 13: 44
      +1
      Quote: flicker
      The Pentagon expects to destroy stocks of chemical weapons to 2024 year
      The main question: on whom will they destroy?

      What's question? And they started from Skripal - minus one pack.
  11. gippernano
    gippernano 23 March 2018 11: 35
    +1
    Yes, let another hundred years destroy, hobble, create new. If used, then such a prodigy will fly that the cheeks will burst
    1. cats
      cats 23 March 2018 11: 41
      +2
      Quote: gippernano
      that the cheeks will burst

      Great and mighty.. laughing
      Two words, but how many things come to mind .. laughing good
  12. Nyrobsky
    Nyrobsky 23 March 2018 12: 25
    +1
    The sense is that they are eliminating chemistry? Utilizing chemistry, they simultaneously encircle Russia with bacteriological laboratories around the entire perimeter, which is probably even worse than mustard gas, sarin and soman combined.
  13. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 23 March 2018 15: 27
    0
    Work is being carried out on schedule in order to complete this process, as planned, in December 2023 (Baldanza)

    Again, as always, they will deceive or find another reason sad
  14. Ingvar0401
    Ingvar0401 23 March 2018 15: 32
    +1
    We still consider it our duty
    This is where they came up with it? When did the states recall the word DEBT?
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 24 March 2018 18: 04
      0
      They, the States, always remember and honor this holy word Duty ...
      In their opinion, they all owe them, some money, some attention, some people ...
  15. tralmaster.
    tralmaster. 23 March 2018 15: 57
    0
    Skripal will probably postpone the destruction of chemistry. Weapons for an indefinite time.
  16. Old26
    Old26 23 March 2018 17: 54
    0
    US command expects to complete the process of eliminating stockpiles of chemical weapons at the end of 2023

    Nevertheless, the deadline was adjusted. The last thing I heard was 2025.

    On Wednesday, Igor Kirillov, head of the RCB defense forces of the Russian Armed Forces, at a briefing for foreign ambassadors in Moscow dedicated to the ex-Colonel of the GRU Sergey Skrypal and his daughter Yulia poisoned in Salisbury, “the US’s accusations that Currently, they have not destroyed their arsenal of chemical weapons, citing a shortage of funds. ”

    And what are the accusations about the US address of Russia? Can someone voice it? Everyone is talking about the accusations from England. Then, the statements of Kirillov are not entirely logical. Cynical, because they did not completely destroy their chemical weapons ??? And who forced us to fulfill this agreement ahead of schedule ??? What is called "Five-year-old in four years"??

    Quote: Tatiana
    Kirillov said very correctly that "the USA looks particularly VALUABLE, which until now have NOT destroyed their arsenal of chemical weapons, citing a shortage of funds."

    In principle, this is so. Having decided to show off to all the worlds in terms of supertechnologies, they came up with their own, which turned out to be almost an order of magnitude more expensive than the classical one that we used. With small amounts of chemical weapons, such as Syria, for example, such a technology was advantageous. With large volumes - a lot of money. We agreed on the extension of the deadlines for the destruction of the US CW. We agreed with this, but decided nevertheless, as usual, to report on early destruction. To blame the United States for the fact that they have not yet completely destroyed their chemical weapons is silly. They act in accordance with the provisions of the contract.

    Quote: Tatiana
    Ha! The Americans knew that they would be “put up” with a “face” in Russia for the presence of chemical weapons in the United States — and they themselves refused to attend a briefing in Moscow!

    If Kirillov would have done this at a briefing, then the first thing that would have happened would have been to sign his own incompetence as the head of the troops of the Russian Chemical Forces. If it were as you say, then this would mean only one thing. He, just like you, probably never heard of the Wyoming memorandum as part of a chemical weapons ban treaty

    Quote: Tatiana
    Otherwise they would have asked the Americans at the briefing: “Were they not made“ poisons ”for the Skripals in the USA?” And they would have nothing to cover!

    The poison, like all chemistry, has become international. If you have equipment and most importantly brains (intelligence and quick wits), then any chemical connection can be done "on the knee". Many toxic substances are now an intermediate step in the petrochemical industry. To say where this or that OM is created is extremely difficult. There must be some impurities indicating authorship of one or another country. But since the creation of organic matter is ultrapure production, the probability of identification by country is zero. So it is now. The British accused us of using poison or OM. an investigation will show what the connection is. But neither they nor we can prove that this OM was synthesized in England, Russia or Japan.
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 25 March 2018 09: 29
      0
      Old26
      There must be some impurities indicating authorship of one or another country. But since the creation OM - this ultra-pure production the probability of identification by country is zero. So it is now. The British accused us of using poison or OM. an investigation will show what the connection is. But neither they nor we can prove that this OM was synthesized in England, Russia or Japan.
      I can not agree with you and that's why! Namely.

      The accusation of May of Russia in the poisoning of the Skripals is full of inconsistencies.
      1. Replacing the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt. Those. prove your charge before blaming. And Britain not only did not do this, but even prevented this from the very beginning! Britain not only did not allow Russia to participate in the investigation, thereby violating international treaties on such matters, but also in its obstruction went beyond the necessary time limits that allow determining which country owns the production of this poisonous substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skrials, after the moment of use whose “markers” of the OM producer simply disappear for good. This period is 10 days. Poisoned the Skripals on 4 March. (If they were really poisoned, which I doubt very much.)
      Thus, this was done not out of May’s thoughtlessness, but namely deliberately.
      TOTAL May is an accomplice in the poisoning of the Skripals.
      2. Leonid Rink, the direct developer of the chemical weapons of an entire group of the “Novichok” type, and not Mirzayanov, will further explain to you better than me - and under the impostor-elect Mirzayanov; and about the Novice himself; and about countries that have access to the production of OM Novichok group and why.
      See the article “The developer of chemical weapons: If we get a sample of the poison, the version of London will completely fall apart”
      т01:092018-03-21T01:09:27+03:00 https://www.kp.ru/daily/26808/3844061/
      SUBTITLE of article
      The immediate creator of the gas told why all the current versions of the Salisbury poisoning are nonsense.
      ANTON FOKIN
  17. razved
    razved 23 March 2018 19: 40
    0
    The tone of the statement is that they are not sure about the deadlines ...