In the United States called the conditions for signing a new arms control agreement

In the United States called the conditions for signing a new arms control agreement

The United States is ready to conclude new agreements with Russia in the field of arms control only with the participation of China. This statement was made by the Permanent Representative of the United States to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison.


During a telephone press conference in Brussels ahead of the meeting of the Alliance’s Foreign Ministers, she said that Washington was ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Moscow, but would sign them only with the participation of Beijing, since China “has missiles capable of reach the territory of both Russia and the United States. " According to her, Russia and China are the main countries capable of "potentially threatening" the security of the United States and NATO countries, so a new treaty must be signed with the participation of three countries.

We are definitely open to new arms control agreements. After the collapse of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty), we need to look for new treaties with the participation of China, which has systems capable of reaching each of us. We are looking for other agreements that could include Russia and China.

- said Hutchison.

Representatives of the Chinese Foreign Ministry have repeatedly stated that China will not participate in the signing of any new arms control treaties, despite statements by the United States. Beijing emphasized their readiness to reduce their own nuclear weapons, provided that the US and Russian nuclear arsenals are equated with the Chinese.

Earlier, the Chinese representative said that behind the desire of the United States to involve China in trilateral arms reduction talks, Washington’s intention is to distract from the real goals of the United States. In his opinion, this is just "an occasion for the United States to withdraw from some other important international agreement."

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, medium-range Chinese missiles do not pose a threat to the United States if American ships do not come close to China.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Theodore 19 November 2019 18: 29 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Blah blah blah blah! I do not believe ......
    1. ltc35 19 November 2019 18: 40 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      Nothing but blah blah. I ride participation in any agreements and don’t get expensive, and don’t pay for money either.
      1. Vladimir16 19 November 2019 19: 17 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Russia and China are the main countries capable of "potentially threatening" the security of the United States and NATO countries,

        But what about the threat of Iran? request
        After all, in Romania and Poland built a missile defense system from Iranian missiles laughing
        How many groans were from NATO, and then bam, and this aunt says that the threat is from Russia and China.

        Wrong? Will demolish objects in Romania and Poland? laughing
        Excuses to Iran? wassat
        1. Spambox 19 November 2019 22: 51 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          So afraid of Iran’s missiles that in Florida they drag our missile to the base in the Everglades, apparently gathered to shoot) I almost choked.
    2. APES 19 November 2019 19: 00 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Blah blah blah

      And I think that the time to set the conditions has passed ....
      1. Sky strike fighter 19 November 2019 19: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Why is Peru possible, but not for us? What kind of wiring?
        Everything falls into place as soon as we recall that a similar unusual launcher is found in the North Korean missile Nodong-I (Rodong I), which is the development and modernization of the Soviet missile with a flight range of already 1000-1500 (according to various sources) kilometers at a KVO in kilometer (without GPS - and 50m with GPS), which according to unconfirmed data * it was in 1995 that was supplied in an unknown quantity from the DPRK to Peru! Now these data can be considered 100% confirmed - in South America there is a country with ballistic missiles that can cover almost the entire mainland - except for the east of Brazil and the south of Chile and Argentina.

        If these missiles at parades in Pakistan and Iran no longer surprise anyone, then their appearance in South America is quite unexpected, and I would say it is frightening. Missile technology is spreading around the world in a completely uncontrollable way.

        https://strangernn.livejournal.com/374809.html
    3. Svarog 19 November 2019 19: 14 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, medium-range Chinese missiles do not pose a threat to the United States if American ships do not come close to China.

      The Chinese, as usual .. my hut from the edge ....
      1. rich 19 November 2019 20: 32 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, medium-range Chinese missiles do not pose a threat to the United States if American ships do not come close to China.

        What does this remind me of?
    4. Alexander Petrov1 19 November 2019 22: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So what if China doesn’t sign that there will be no agreement at all, like do atomic bombs for how much money is enough?
  2. georggy 19 November 2019 18: 30 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Already signed and executed unilaterally.
    Enough.
  3. hydrox 19 November 2019 18: 31 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    They themselves suggested that they themselves wring China to participate in this circus, and we’ll throw some more lyuli for not "breaking"! laughing
    There is no faith for you! am
  4. newcomer 19 November 2019 18: 33 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    "After the collapse of the Treaty ...", Yes, not after you left it. How easily the Yankees replace concepts. Yes, and we know your mantra about Beijing. Are we invited to pull Beijing to the contract by the collar? Funny people.
  5. Sergey39 19 November 2019 18: 33 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Well, this is tantamount to failure. Now, if France and Britain are included there, then it will be possible to think.
  6. Dmitry Donskoy 19 November 2019 18: 36 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    I don’t understand why only China? And France, Germany, Britain and Japan do not possess weapons?
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 19 November 2019 18: 49 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      + Israel, India, Pakistan!
      1. Sky strike fighter 19 November 2019 18: 59 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        + Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, EU.
    2. Ross xnumx 19 November 2019 18: 57 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: Dmitry Donskoy
      I don’t understand why only China? France, Germany, Britain and Japan don't have a weapon?

      Possess. But, most likely, the USA either hopes to have a trump card up its sleeve, or these countries are not taken into account due to the scanty amount of nuclear warheads, a small territory and limited nuclear weapons production capabilities.
      request
    3. maidan.izrailovich 20 November 2019 02: 58 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I don’t understand why only China? And France, Germany, Britain and Japan do not possess weapons?

      ... and Israel, Pakistan, and India will take away nuclear weapons. And all this within the framework of one global treaty.
      1. Gerneton 20 November 2019 03: 42 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: maidan.izrailovich
        .a Israel, Pakistan and India take away nuclear weapons

        the bleeding has not grown yet, how are you going to take from the same India? Fighting for peace is vigorous with long loaves?
    4. abc_alex 20 November 2019 10: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Dmitry Donskoy
      I don’t understand why only China? And France, Germany, Britain and Japan do not possess weapons?

      You just do not understand. Thus, the US is trying to embroil us with China. Indeed, given the existing difference in military budgets, it is we who are interested in the new treaty. This is interesting to us. And the United States expects that by proposing a trilateral agreement, they will force us to put pressure on China. This will cause objections in Beijing and cool the relationship.
  7. Masha 19 November 2019 18: 39 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    The United States is ready to conclude new agreements with Russia in the field of arms control only with the participation of China.

    and himself on himself? What are we? peredasty ???? repeat
  8. Mouse 19 November 2019 18: 45 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    We are looking for other agreements that could include Russia and China.

    I won’t say panic .... but ... a nervous condition is present .. yes .
    1. Gerneton 20 November 2019 03: 44 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Quote: Mouse
      I won’t say panic .... but ... there is a nervous condition ...

      in your fantasies, if there was a panic, they would not refuse treaties ... and what is wrong to include China in it?
      1. Mouse 20 November 2019 06: 07 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Gerneton
        if there was a panic, they would not refuse the contracts ...

        so that's why they come out, they want to fix their affairs ... storming to the fullest ... my fatazias come to life! laughing
  9. Alexga 19 November 2019 18: 51 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Now it’s impossible to create such an agreement, and it’s not necessary. It’s impossible to collect all the obvious owners of nuclear weapons. Even those who openly declared possession of nuclear weapons, and how many secret owners. So we will live in the new conditions of the world order.
  10. Ross xnumx 19 November 2019 18: 53 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Here it is the key:
    China will not participate in the signing of any new arms control treaties, despite statements by the United States.

    And it is time for us to declare that Russia will not participate in the signing of any control treaties with the United States until they fulfill the conditions of the previous ones, and also close the bases outside the United States with the possibility of developing bacteriological weapons.
  11. Mountain shooter 19 November 2019 18: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In short, there will be no contract! When they want to agree, they do not set unacceptable conditions ... Well, God bless you, minke whales ... You won’t be able to win, one hell ... Just because you are AFRAID! You are afraid of answers. Bluff on. When it sounds - Cards on the table! What present?
  12. Lelek 19 November 2019 18: 56 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    (The United States is ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Russia only if China joins them. This statement was made by US Permanent Representative to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison.)

    Simultaneously with the statement of this old whistle, the statement of another American "parrot" - General D. Dunford was made:

    Should it also be understood as a desire to control nuclear weapons or as a direct call to war with Russia?
  13. knn54 19 November 2019 19: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Able to "potentially threaten" the security of the United States and NATO countries.
    HOW can tactical missiles threaten the US and NATO?
    1. Igorpl 19 November 2019 19: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      It prevents the aircraft carriers from riding wherever they want and as they wish.
  14. K-50 19 November 2019 19: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Washington is ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Moscow, but will only sign them with the participation of Beijing, since China "has missiles capable of reaching the territory of both Russia and the United States"

    Little shaved with frogs and many others also have such opportunities, but for some reason, Fashington does not consider their participation in the new Agreement.
    I wonder why? Maybe the allies of phishington have no place there? lol
    Or are they arrogantly pushing them outside to get an advantage with their help?
    Well, after all, which ones are cunning. fellow lol
  15. rocket757 19 November 2019 19: 11 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The sharpie demands that they would sit at the table to play with him!
    It’s also cool that the others know that he is a sharpie.
    1. Lelek 19 November 2019 20: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      It’s also cool that the others know that he is a sharpie.

      hi Victor.
      You are right in the words of Assange. By the way, Sweden withdrew charges from him, but whether it will be issued to staff members.
      1. rocket757 20 November 2019 06: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Hi lion soldier
        Quote: Lelek
        You are right in the words of Assange.

        It must be completely ... not from this world, so as not to see the obvious.
    2. However, dear 19 November 2019 23: 18 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In fact, an arms limitation treaty is always beneficial for an economically weaker partner. The agreement was good when all its participants were equally capable of "riveting" a cloud of missiles, warheads, etc. In the absence of restrictions, a stronger economic partner can achieve strategic military superiority ... Such a squiggle.
      1. rocket757 20 November 2019 06: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: However, dear
        In fact, an arms limitation treaty is always more profitable for a weaker

        Beneficial, because ....! Not profitable because ....!
        No agreement can be considered only on one criterion. We simply proceed from the fact that there is no difference how many times opponents can destroy our planet, 10 or 20. Enough for us and ONE!
  16. Igorpl 19 November 2019 19: 45 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    But China simply will not.
    1. Sky strike fighter 19 November 2019 19: 52 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Yes, everyone will not, not only China. But we are the only ones ready for everything. It’s just that someone is afraid of acquired property for overwork. repeat In short, you can’t spoil relations. And you are always ready as pioneers to cooperate. Therefore, such a humpty dumpty since the 90s of the 20th century.
  17. 7,62h54 19 November 2019 20: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And we are ready, but we will take into account the armaments of the United States and its sympathizers in the aggregate.
  18. tuts 19 November 2019 20: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    But England, France and Germany should not be involved in the agreement?
  19. Brturin 19 November 2019 20: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "As far as I know, neither China, nor France, nor Great Britain consider it possible to join real multilateral efforts for nuclear disarmament ... Great Britain and France once made certain unilateral reductions, but they are not going to continue this process on a contractual basis." Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov. Everyone is well aware of the positions of each side and why such conditions ... that again the pre-election is in shats - the Democrats are in favor of extending the START III treaty, Trump - we are not to blame, but the Russians did not persuade the Chinese ....
  20. _Ugene_ 19 November 2019 20: 35 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The United States is ready to conclude new agreements with Russia in the field of arms control only with the participation of China.
    I think it’s worth agreeing on the condition that all NATO countries, and not just the USA, that is, participate in the agreement NATO - Russia - China, that would be fair
  21. Old26 19 November 2019 21: 20 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Vladimir16
    After all, in Romania and Poland built a missile defense system from Iranian missiles

    In principle, they are designed only against them. “Standards” cannot intercept ICBMs, especially at the booster stage, and Russia did not have a ballistic missile system at the time of laying these bases. Yes, and now, too, no
    But the interceptor missiles located in Devessela hold an “umbrella” and the south of Europe (Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Turkey). The range and reach of these missiles is such that they are capable of intercepting all Iran’s current infantry infantry regiments.
    Alas, this is so. Although we have argued for a decade. And then they said that they could not intercept our missiles. Then who were they against? Maybe in reality against Iran ???

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Everything falls into place as soon as we recall that a similar unusual launcher is found in the North Korean missile Nodong-I (Rodong I), which is the development and modernization of the Soviet missile with a flight range of already 1000-1500 (according to various sources) kilometers at a KVO in kilometer (without GPS - and 50m with GPS), which according to unconfirmed data * it was in 1995 that was supplied in an unknown quantity from the DPRK to Peru!

    Yeah. But the Nodong-1 missile, in its first modification, was put into service in 2013. And in 1995 it was delivered to Peru ???

    Quote: george
    Already signed and executed unilaterally.
    Enough.

    Actually unfounded statement. The contracts were executed by both parties. And not one-sided execution by Russia.
    Poor Russia, how easy it is to fool you. They conclude a contract with you, they don’t fulfill it, but you do it. Do you think we’re completely idiots already?

    Quote: Sergey39
    Well, this is tantamount to failure. Now, if France and Britain are included there, then it will be possible to think.

    So far, this is not tantamount to a rejection of the START-3 treaty. There is a touchstone from the United States in the calculation, and suddenly a ride. The potentials of different countries are too different for everyone to come to a common denominator. For example, I do not see the "common ground" in the positions. What will be taken as a basis in such an agreement, what figures. China I may like them, we and the US do not. And vice versa...

    .
    Quote: ROSS 42
    And it is time for us to declare that Russia will not participate in the signing of any control treaties with the United States until they fulfill the conditions of the previous ones, and also close the bases outside the United States with the possibility of developing bacteriological weapons.

    And this was not part of the contract. Base, biolaboratory. We are talking about strategic nuclear weapons (in this case, so far, medium-range)
    And other countries will not connect everything to this either. Some do not have nuclear weapons, the second missiles of the required range. In particular, France and Britain "Do not drag by ears" into the new INF Treaty. Because they don’t have missiles of that range. Most others, too. The same South Korea has BR with a range of 800 km, but these are not medium-range missiles. And the stupidity of the previous INF Treaty lies entirely with Gorbi and his associates. Now no one will begin to insert missiles of "shorter" range, that is, up to 1000 km, into the text of the agreement. Too many countries have missiles (albeit non-nuclear) with a range of more than 500 km

    Quote: knn54
    Able to "potentially threaten" the security of the United States and NATO countries.
    HOW can tactical missiles threaten the US and NATO?

    And in the text there are no indications of tactical missiles.
    It says there
    Washington is ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Moscow, but will only sign them with the participation of Beijing, since China "possesses missiles capable of reaching the territory of both Russia and the United States." According to her, Russia and China are the main countries capable of "potentially threatening" the security of the United States and NATO countries.

    Although Russian tactical missiles can threaten NATO countries. The Chinese are only strategic. Tactical and operational tactical - only by US allies, such as Taiwan and South Korea (partially Japan)
  22. However, dear 19 November 2019 21: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It seems that there is a period of "arm yourself as best you can."
  23. Vkd dvk 19 November 2019 23: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And why not include England, France, Israel, S. Korea in the Treaty? Or are they white and fluffy, maybe the devil knows that, but those who the penguin wants to lasso cannot? So let them work hard, drag their allies in the lasso, and then we can talk about something further.
    1. However, dear 19 November 2019 23: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And why not include England, France, Israel, S. Korea in the Treaty? Or are they white and fluffy, maybe the devil knows that, but those who the penguin wants to lasso cannot? So let them work hard, drag their allies in the lasso, and then we can talk about something further.


      Because "an agreement is a product of mutual non-resistance of the parties." lol And if the parties do not want to?
  24. Vkd dvk 20 November 2019 00: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: However, dear
    And why not include England, France, Israel, S. Korea in the Treaty? Or are they white and fluffy, maybe the devil knows that, but those who the penguin wants to lasso cannot? So let them work hard, drag their allies in the lasso, and then we can talk about something further.


    Because "an agreement is a product of mutual non-resistance of the parties." lol And if the parties do not want to?

    Say it in English and to Trump. Let the foolishness not wrinkle, and do not make the signing by the two parties dependent on the desire of the third. My provocation with other countries was not understood by you.
    1. However, dear 21 November 2019 05: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: wkd dvk
      Say it in English and to Trump. Let the foolishness not wrinkle, and do not make the signing by the two parties dependent on the desire of the third. My provocation with other countries was not understood by you.


      Trump guy is not stupid and prudent. He understands that Russia is more interested in restrictive agreements due to the weakness of its economy, and therefore is in no hurry to offer Russia anything. But China can really "rivet" a lot of things, because the rich and do not want any contracts. That is where the problem is.
  25. Karaul14 20 November 2019 04: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is most likely a START treaty, the START-3 treaty expires in 2021 and the US says it will not conclude a new one / extend the old one until the PRC joins it. This is quite logical, since China has most likely surpassed Russia in military power and the treaty simply loses its meaning if it does not exist in it.
    Other nuclear powers are not yet particularly needed in this treaty, since the number of their nuclear warheads is still not close to the level of this troika. Why limit France’s arsenal to, say, 1000 warheads if it has 100 of them and is not going to increase its number?
    1. Tzar 20 November 2019 06: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Karaul14
      Why limit France’s arsenal to, say, 1000 warheads if it has 100 of them and is not going to increase its number?

      This is not going to, but in the future at any time may change his mind. And a START type treaty is concluded for decades. So if you agree, then the whole "nuclear club" + Israel and the DPRK, which will never agree to this and find a million reasons to disrupt all agreements.
      1. Karaul14 21 November 2019 06: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So for 5 years they will conclude an agreement, or secure the possibility of withdrawal for one reason or another. For some reason, everyone is happy about the RF’s exit from the INF Treaty, which is now possible from START, but I don’t understand this joy. For example, the United States has a place to place medium- and short-range missiles, so that the territory of the Russian Federation is within their reach, and Russia does not have such places, unless in Chukotka sparsely populated Alaska is to be taken under the gun. Now here’s a possible way out of START, what’s the joy? An arms race with a country whose economy is 17 times yours? The Americans will now stamp more warheads and their delivery vehicles and keep up with them.
        1. Tzar 21 November 2019 08: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Karaul14
          So for 5 years they will conclude an agreement, or secure the possibility of withdrawal for one reason or another.

          And why is such a contract needed? All participants over these 5 years will secretly prepare to start the conveyor at the end, otherwise you never know ... The contract should ideally be unlimited.
          Quote: Karaul14
          For some reason, everyone is happy about the RF’s exit from the INF Treaty, which is now possible from START, but I don’t understand this joy. For example, the United States has a place to place medium- and short-range missiles, so that the territory of the Russian Federation is within their reach, and Russia does not have such places, unless in Chukotka sparsely populated Alaska is to be taken under the gun.

          Alaska, of course, is also an interesting target, but the range of medium-range missiles is 5500 km. This is enough to reach California, which boasts an advantage over Russia in terms of GDP smile And you can cover small US objects in Europe. So the joy is justified.
          Quote: Karaul14
          An arms race with a country whose economy is 17 times yours? The Americans will now stamp more warheads and their delivery vehicles and keep up with them.

          Alas, during the entire period of the arms race their economy was stronger. By the way, there is an opinion that the arms race never ended. So the weakness of the economy in matters of survival should not be decisive. And we do not need to stamp a lot, just create a set for Europe and the western coast of the United States in addition to ICBMs. And do not forget about China, that’s where the main benefit in breaking the INF Treaty.
          1. Karaul14 22 November 2019 06: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Tzar
            And why is such a contract needed? All participants over these 5 years will secretly prepare to start the conveyor at the end, otherwise you never know ... The contract should ideally be unlimited.
            They will be preparing to extend, monitor the situation, as now.



            Quote: Tzar
            Alaska, of course, is also an interesting target, but the range of medium-range missiles is 5500 km. This is enough to reach California, which boasts an advantage over Russia in terms of GDP. And you can cover small US facilities in Europe. So the joy is justified.
            Small ones cannot be reached, and 5000 km - these are more and more expensive missiles + you can detect and react, but what about missiles that are located less than 1000 km from Moscow? There will be no time for reaction here and the United States now has the opportunity to place them.


            Quote: Tzar
            Alas, during the entire period of the arms race their economy was stronger. By the way, there is an opinion that the arms race never ended. So the weakness of the economy in matters of survival should not be decisive. And we do not need to stamp a lot, just create a set for Europe and the western coast of the United States in addition to ICBMs. And do not forget about China, that’s where the main benefit in breaking the INF Treaty.
            If we compare the USSR, the economy of the USSR was only 2 times less than the American one, given the lower costs and wages, given that the people will tolerate, yes, it is possible to race, and then fall apart.
            1. Tzar 24 November 2019 15: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Karaul14
              Small ones cannot be reached, and 5000 km - these are more and more expensive missiles + you can detect and react, but what about missiles that are located less than 1000 km from Moscow? There will be no time for reaction here and the United States now has the opportunity to place them.

              If the SD rocket is hypersound, it is unlikely that they will be able to somehow react, at least in the coming years. If MD missiles are located 1000 km from Moscow, you have to react, and Russia has options here. So there is nothing to fear wink
              1. Karaul14 25 November 2019 10: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Tzar
                If the SD rocket is hypersound, it is unlikely that they will be able to somehow react, at least in the coming years.
                Ballistic missiles are not called hypersonic, because they usually fly already in airless space, but in principle they are already several decades old and so much faster than existing missiles, which are now called hypersonic, even ballistic missiles 40 years old will already be much faster than the same "Zircons "by developing speeds that are measured in kilometers per second.


                Quote: Tzar
                If MD missiles are located 1000 km from Moscow, you have to react, and Russia has options here.
                No options are seen, in the event of an aggravation of relations, the missiles can be deployed in Poland and the Baltic states, from there the nuclear warhead will reach Moscow in a matter of minutes, which means that there is no time for a senior leadership meeting, making a decision and evacuating the same leadership to the bunkers, which means talking it is already possible in a completely different way. But Russia does not have the opportunity to take Washington, or at least large metropolitan areas of the United States, for this, so I say that withdrawing from the INF Treaty can do much more harm to Russia than the United States,
                1. Tzar 25 November 2019 12: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Karaul14
                  even 40-year-old ballistic missiles will already be much faster than the same Zircons, developing speeds that are measured in kilometers per second.

                  Moreover, this means that the new generation of missiles will be an even more difficult target for missile defense.
                  Quote: Karaul14
                  No options are seen

                  One sees: for example, a dialogue with Europe in the sense of whether they want to die for the United States, there should not be many who want to. Especially zealous jackals in the form of the Baltic states and Poland can help restrain the rest of the EU countries.
                  There is an option to return to the Caribbean. Better still, it’s not going to try to build small missile launch sites around the United States, but to multiply the number of ICBMs so that in the event of aggression it is guaranteed that “the whole world is in ruin”.
                  1. Karaul14 26 November 2019 11: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Tzar
                    Moreover, this means that the new generation of missiles will be an even more difficult target for missile defense.
                    I don’t know, I don’t know, air defense and missile defense went a long way, before it was impossible to defend oneself, the Powers all flew and couldn’t get them, and now, for example, the American missile defense system does not even require warheads, it uses a kinetic interceptor, that is, they confident in the accuracy of the rocket.


                    Quote: Tzar
                    One sees: for example, a dialogue with Europe in the sense of whether they want to die for the United States, there should not be many who want to. Especially zealous jackals in the form of the Baltic states and Poland can help restrain the rest of the EU countries.
                    There is an option to return to the Caribbean. Better still, it’s not going to try to build small missile launch sites around the United States, but to multiply the number of ICBMs so that in the event of aggression it is guaranteed that “the whole world is in ruin”.
                    What are the rest? Germany, which already in its territory allows the Americans to be with nuclear weapons? The fact that there are some communists of 5 people in the Bundestag scolded the United States and here it was presented as the end of the American era is simply ridiculous.
                    Try to return to the Caribbean, if even the USSR could not stay there, because the pressure began to be very strong and almost threatened with war, what will happen to Russia?
                    Do more rockets? Once again, we return to my comment - to compete with a country whose economy will not work 17 times more, Russia is not the USSR, the USA will, in any case, make rockets and all that is needed many times more than Russia and without any special strains, the pleasure of nuclear weapons is very expensive not only in terms of production, but also in terms of maintenance, you have to raise the retirement age to 100 years))) There are no pluses in the output of INF and strategic offensive arms in Russia, the United States understands this very well, and therefore withdraws from the treaties, it makes sense for them to conclude with China, because he can pull up the competition with the US in economics and then they have to tighten their belts a little - they do not want this.
                    1. Tzar 26 November 2019 12: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Karaul14
                      American missile defense works so that warheads are not even required, a kinetic interceptor is used, that is, they are so sure of the accuracy of the missile

                      It is difficult to imagine how accurately this interceptor will work against the same 9M729 or Vanguard. In the Russian Federation they talk about guaranteed destruction of the target and the impossibility of interception, in the United States they do not agree with this, but they express concern. Further, manufacturing companies for which business is above all and who are ready to promise anything to get a bold contract from the military get into this correspondence dispute. Nobody knows if their business calculations will be justified in the event of a real war.
                      Quote: Karaul14
                      What are the rest? Germany, which already in its territory allows the Americans to be with nuclear weapons?

                      In Turkey, too, nuclear weapons, but this did not stop Erdogan from indulging in the Syrian issue and in some places else.
                      Quote: Karaul14
                      Try to return to the Caribbean, if even the USSR could not stay there, because the pressure began to be very strong and almost threatened with war, what will happen to Russia?

                      It’s also difficult to say, before and there, and there were stronger people, now thinner. Specialists came to Venezuela, there were rumors about a possible base, but, apart from statements by individual senators, nothing serious happened.
                      Quote: Karaul14
                      Do more rockets? Once again, we return to my comment - to compete with a country whose economy will not work 17 times more, Russia is not the USSR, the USA will, in any case, make rockets and all that is needed many times more than Russia and without any special strains, nuclear weapons pleasure is very expensive not only in terms of production, but also in terms of maintenance, you have to raise the retirement age to 100 years)))

                      More, but not to failure, but to the quantity necessary for guaranteed destruction of the enemy. Naturally, before that it would be good to solve the problem with long-term storage and maintenance a little. In the USA, by the way, there seem to be problems with the production of weapons-grade plutonium.
                      Quote: Karaul14
                      they make sense with China

                      Only within the framework of the regional security of their bases in South Asia, are they not dangerous for the United States. If China begins to rivet the INF troops in batches and aim them at bases in Korea and Japan, then it’s easier for amers to restrain them with strategists.
                      1. Karaul14 27 November 2019 17: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Tzar
                        More, but not to failure, but to the quantity necessary for guaranteed destruction of the enemy.
                        This enshrined the START treaty, but now there will be no campaign for it.


                        Quote: Tzar
                        Only within the framework of the regional security of their bases in South Asia, are they not dangerous for the United States.
                        No one will conclude the INF Treaty for sure, but strategic offensive arms are in doubt.
                      2. Tzar 27 November 2019 19: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Karaul14
                        This enshrined the START treaty, but now there will be no campaign for it.

                        Judging by the fact that the US is linking its extension again with China, yes, yes, it won’t. The main thing is that after this the Russian Federation does not begin to play a kind peacekeeper.
  • YOUR 20 November 2019 05: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    China will agree, they will demand the inclusion of Martians in the composition of representatives.
  • Wolf 20 November 2019 09: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Chinese RIGHT !!! Which trilateral agreement? Missiles of medium and greater range eat in the Evil of Britons, France, Israel, maybe the life of India and Pakistan. ALL THEY SHOULD SIGN ANY AGREEMENT !!! Since the US BLUCH offered only the DISARMAMENT of Russia and China, it shows that they think that in China and Russia the generals are monkeys or frightened or traitors to their people! The strings of one are NOT HERE in Russia and China. Dumb America, there are no frightened generals of monkeys and pretale here. But your insidious company must close and close for many summers! wink
  • Operator 20 November 2019 10: 43 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    "The United States is ready to conclude new agreements with Russia in the field of arms control only with the participation of China", - which in translation into Russian means never.
  • 7 poplar 20 November 2019 12: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    how not so, with one blow they immediately wanted to fill up two birds with one stone ....... fool
  • NF68 20 November 2019 16: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An original approach to solving problems. This is more like ordinary blackmail.
  • Vkd dvk 21 November 2019 09: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: However, dear
    Quote: wkd dvk
    Say it in English and to Trump. Let the foolishness not wrinkle, and do not make the signing by the two parties dependent on the desire of the third. My provocation with other countries was not understood by you.


    Trump guy is not stupid and prudent. He understands that Russia is more interested in restrictive agreements due to the weakness of its economy, and therefore is in no hurry to offer Russia anything. But China can really "rivet" a lot of things, because the rich and do not want any contracts. That is where the problem is.

    If he is so smart, then why talk about China with Russia? Doesn’t he understand that it’s advantageous for Russia, that China is competing with the United States independently (or perhaps in an alliance)? And does Trump have a very real second front? Why, one wonders, Russia pull the reins, keeping China in the emerging race?
    1. However, dear 23 November 2019 08: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If he is so smart, then why talk about China with Russia? Doesn’t he understand that it’s advantageous for Russia, that China is competing with the United States independently (or perhaps in an alliance)? And does Trump have a very real second front? Why, one wonders, Russia pull the reins, keeping China in the emerging race?


      I suppose Trump wants Russia to help drag China into the treaty, considering China the main danger. Trump also knows that Russia is the most interested party to this treaty, as it is economically weaker. I think that if China fails to enter the treaty, then there will be no treaty at all. It is true that other countries also have nuclear weapons, but their arsenals are not commensurate with the three superpowers. There will be no second front, but each will be for himself, arm yourself as you can. Russia’s direct sense is to try to draw China into the treaty, otherwise the nuclear arms race with China and the United States will be extremely difficult.
  • Vkd dvk 21 November 2019 10: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Karaul14
    So for 5 years they will conclude an agreement, or secure the possibility of withdrawal for one reason or another. For some reason, everyone is happy about the RF’s exit from the INF Treaty, which is now possible from START, but I don’t understand this joy. For example, the United States has a place to place medium- and short-range missiles, so that the territory of the Russian Federation is within their reach, and Russia does not have such places, unless in Chukotka sparsely populated Alaska is to be taken under the gun. Now here’s a possible way out of START, what’s the joy? An arms race with a country whose economy is 17 times yours? The Americans will now stamp more warheads and their delivery vehicles and keep up with them.

    Amers have a very bad situation with the manufacture of plutonium charges.
    And in the enrichment of uranium, they are far behind.
    Further. Compare the comparable. From the fact that I run faster, and you jump higher .... The military budget of the United States and Russia. 80% of the budget of the US budget is included in the content of military bases built around the world. Firstly, the territory of the base is not yet shooting. Shoots weapons and people. Look at the geography of the bases. Do they all threaten us? Bases in Europe are not a threat; they are victims. If you read about the structure of the military budgets of our countries, you will see that we are investing more in new weapons. And the results are visible. Further. The development is completely similar, and production at us is cheaper. Here and the game with the exchange rate, and wages, and the cost of fixed assets, and the tax system. Here, to understand, you need to be a specialist.