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.

Comments

[Theodore]

Blah blah blah blah! I do not believe ......

[ltc35]

Nothing but blah blah. I ride participation in any agreements and don’t get expensive, and don’t pay for money either.

[Vladimir16]

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?
After all, in Romania and Poland built a missile defense system from Iranian missiles
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?
Excuses to Iran?

[Spambox]

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.

[APES]

Blah blah blah

And I think that the time to set the conditions has passed ....

[Sky strike fighter]

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

[Svarog]

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 ....

[cost]

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?

[Alexander Petrov1]

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?

[georggy]

Already signed and executed unilaterally.
Enough.

[hydrox]

Themselves suggested that you yourself and wring China to participate in this circus, and we will give you a kick for not "persuading"!
There is no faith for you!

[newcomer]

"After the disintegration of the Treaty ...", No, after you left it. How easy it is for the Yankees to substitute concepts. And we know your mantra about Beijing. Are we invited to pull Beijing to the treaty by the collar? Funny people.

[Sergey39]

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

[Dmitry Donskoy]

I don’t understand why only China? And France, Germany, Britain and Japan do not possess weapons?

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

+ Israel, India, Pakistan!

[Sky strike fighter]

+ Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, EU.

[Ross xnumx]

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.

[maidan.izrailovich]

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.

[Gerneton]

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?

[abc_alex]

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.

[Masha]

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 ????

[Mouse]

We are looking for other agreements that could include Russia and China.

I won’t say panic .... but ... a nervous condition is present .. .

[Gerneton]

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?

[Mouse]

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!

[Alexga]

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.

[Ross xnumx]

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.

[Mountain shooter]

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?

[Lelek]

(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:

Should it also be understood as a desire to control nuclear weapons or as a direct call to war with Russia?

[knn54]

Capable of "potentially threatening" the security of the United States and NATO countries.
HOW can tactical missiles threaten the US and NATO?

[Igorpl]

It prevents the aircraft carriers from riding wherever they want and as they wish.

[K-50]

Washington is ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Moscow, but will only sign them with Beijing's participation, since China "has missiles capable of reaching 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?
Or are they arrogantly pushing them outside to get an advantage with their help?
Well, after all, which ones are cunning.

[rocket757]

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.

[Lelek]

Quote: rocket757

It’s also cool that the others know that he is a sharpie.

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.

[rocket757]

Hi lion

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.

[However, dear]

In general, an arms limitation treaty is always more profitable for an economically weaker partner. The treaty was good when all of its participants were equally capable of riveting a cloud of missiles, warheads, etc. In the absence of restrictions, an economically stronger partner can achieve strategic military superiority ... Such a squiggle.

[rocket757]

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!

[Igorpl]

But China simply will not.

[Sky strike fighter]

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. 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.

[7,62x54]

And we are ready, but we will take into account the armaments of the United States and its sympathizers in the aggregate.

[tuts]

But England, France and Germany should not be involved in the agreement?

[Brturin]

"As far as I know, neither China, nor France, nor the United Kingdom consider it possible to join real multilateral efforts for nuclear disarmament ... Great Britain and France at one time made certain unilateral reductions, but on a contractual basis they are not going to continue this process at all" - 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 election campaign is in the shats - the Democrats are in favor of the extension of the START III treaty, Trump - we are not to blame, and the Russians did not persuade the Chinese ...

[_Ugene_]

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

[Old26]

Quote: Vladimir16

After all, in Romania and Poland built a missile defense system from Iranian missiles

In principle, they are calculated only against them. "Standards" cannot intercept ICBMs, especially at the acceleration stage, and Russia did not have IRBMs at the time of laying these bases. And now, too, not yet
But the interceptor missiles located in Deveselu hold the "ood under 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 currently existing Iranian MRBMs.
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!

Uh-huh. Only the Nodong-1 rocket in its first modification was put into service in 2013. And in 1995 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 abandoning the START III treaty. There is a touchstone on the part of the United States in the calculation, and suddenly it works. The potentials of different countries are too different for everyone to come to a common denominator. For example, I do not see "points of contact" in the positions. What will be taken as a basis in such an agreement, what are the numbers. China may like them, we don't even have the USA. 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 you can't connect all other countries to this either. Some do not have nuclear weapons, while the other missiles have the required range. In particular, France and Britain are "not to be pulled by the ears" into the new treaty on the INF Treaty. Because they don't have missiles of that range. Most others do the same. The same South Korea has a ballistic missile with a range of 800 km, but these are not medium-range missiles. And the stupidity of the previous INF Treaty lies entirely with Gorby and his associates. Now no one will insert "shorter"-range missiles, that is, up to 1000 km, into the text of the treaty. Too many countries have missiles (albeit non-nuclear) with a range of more than 500 km

Quote: knn54

Capable of "potentially threatening" 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 it will only sign them with Beijing's participation in them, since China "has missiles capable of reaching both Russia and the United States." According to her, Russia and China are the main countries that can "potentially threaten" 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)

[However, dear]

It looks like a period of "arm yourself as you can" is coming.

[Vkd dvk]

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.

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

[Vkd dvk]

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 "the agreement is a product of mutual non-resistance of the parties." 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.

[However, dear]

Quote: Vkd 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 is not a stupid or calculating guy. He understands that Russia is more interested in restrictive treaties 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 do not want to enter into any contracts. This is where the problem lies.

[Karaul14]

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?

[Tzar]

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?

It is not going to be done now, but in the future it may change its mind at any moment. A START-type treaty is concluded for decades. So if there is an agreement, then to all the "nuclear club" + Israel and the DPRK, which will never agree to this and will find a million reasons to disrupt all agreements.

[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.

[Tzar]

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 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.

[Karaul14]

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.

[Tzar]

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

[Karaul14]

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 for several decades and so much faster than existing missiles, which are now called hypersonic, even ballistic missiles 40 years ago will already be much faster than the same "Zircons" ", 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,

[Tzar]

Quote: Karaul14

even ballistic missiles 40 years ago 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. And it would be even better not to try to build platforms for launching small missiles around the United States, but to multiply the number of ICBMs so that in case of aggression it would be guaranteed that "the whole world is in dust."

[Karaul14]

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. And it would be even better not to try to build platforms for launching small missiles around the United States, but to multiply the number of ICBMs so that in case of aggression it would be guaranteed that "the whole world is in dust."

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.

[Tzar]

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.

[Karaul14]

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.

[Tzar]

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]

China will agree, they will demand the inclusion of Martians in the composition of representatives.

[Wolf]

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!

[Operator]

"The United States is ready to conclude new arms control agreements with Russia only if China participates in them.", - which in translation into Russian means never.

[7 poplar]

how not so, with one blow they immediately wanted to fill up two birds with one stone .......

[NF68]

An original approach to solving problems. This is more like ordinary blackmail.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: However, dear

Quote: Vkd 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 is not a stupid or calculating guy. He understands that Russia is more interested in restrictive treaties 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 do not want to enter into any contracts. This is where the problem lies.

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?

[However, dear]

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]

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.