Pentagon wants inclusion of new developments of Russia in START

Pentagon wants inclusion of new developments of Russia in START

In the case of the conclusion of a new arms control treaty, the latest Russian developments must be included in it. This was stated by US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.


According to the head of the Pentagon, if a new arms control treaty is signed, it is necessary to introduce the tactical nuclear arsenals of the USA, Russia and China, as well as "the latest strategic developments in Russia." In addition, Moscow should introduce “non-strategic nuclear weapons” into the treaty.

Earlier, the US State Department said that the new Russian missile systems Sarmat and Vanguard are covered by the Treaty on Measures to Further Reduce and Limit Strategic Offensive Arms (START).

Esper expressed confidence that China, and not just the United States and Russia, should participate in the signing of the new arms control agreement.

China has already reacted to the US proposal on the possible participation of China in a future nuclear disarmament agreement and said that Beijing will not participate in it.

China sees no reason or conditions for participating in the discussion of a possible tripartite nuclear agreement arms with the USA and the Russian Federation

- says the official statement of the Foreign Ministry of the country.

The START-3 Treaty, signed in 2010, remains the only treaty in force between Russia and the United States on arms limitation. The agreement expires in the year 2021. Earlier it was reported that, following the withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the United States could withdraw from START-3 without renewing this agreement and concluding a new one.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hunter 2 21 February 2020 11: 13 New
    • 55
    • 1
    +54
    Something tells me that they will send ... The Pentagon, Esper and others - away ... along with the START treaty!
    Actually, China did just that!
    The Nuclear Club, consists not only of the USA, RUSSIA and China, as they constantly forget about it at the Pentagon ...
    1. ul_vitalii 21 February 2020 11: 25 New
      • 16
      • 1
      +15
      That's for sure, hi the hobby club is expanding, but not narrowing.
      1. Tatyana 21 February 2020 13: 33 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Hunter 2
        The Nuclear Club, consists not only of the USA, RUSSIA and China, as they constantly forget about it at the Pentagon ...

        Forget INTENTIONALLY!
        1. Tatyana 21 February 2020 13: 44 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          The START-3 Treaty, signed in 2010, remains the only treaty in force between Russia and the United States on arms limitation. The agreement expires in the year 2021. Earlier it was reported that, following the withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the United States could withdraw from START-3 without renewing this agreement and concluding a new one.

          The fact that, following the withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the United States can withdraw from START-3 without renewing this treaty and not concluding a new one.
          Honestly, I have no doubt about it! For Washington only needs FULL CAPITULATION of Moscow exclusively, and Putin is unlikely to do this!
          Still, Putin is not Gorbachev with Yeltsin!
          1. Alex777 21 February 2020 16: 13 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            The deployment of medium-range missiles - in any way, will kill START-3.
            And why did the Yankees leave the INF Treaty if these missiles were not deployed?
            So there can be no overstated expectations on START-3. hi
            And no one will read what they write about non-strategic nuclear weapons.
    2. Hagalaz 21 February 2020 11: 28 New
      • 22
      • 1
      +21
      Something I do not believe in the effectiveness of such agreements. Anyway, if it comes to the slaughter, then everyone will add everything from the zagashniks and they will hit him harder.
      In principle, a position that is convenient for everyone, like we don’t mind, but here is China! ...... And all with it.
      And the Americans, of course, are still cunning, they like to cut back on someone else's, which they themselves do not have. I hope that as with Gorbaty they will not work with them.
      1. vadson 21 February 2020 12: 16 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        if you sign it like that with the condition that, for example, the Yankees reduce 1 of their usual ones by 5 avant-garde ... they certainly can’t understand this, but you can control them again
        1. Hagalaz 21 February 2020 12: 37 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          That thought was also laughing
        2. alexmach 21 February 2020 13: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          by 1 vanguard, the Yankees reduce 5 pieces of their usual.

          There is some trick in the wording. Vanguard and Sarmat, by any means, fall under START, even the old one, even if they are not registered there — these are strategic carriers.
          Nobody will reduce them, they will be increased and replaced by those removed from combat duty.
          But to enter everything you want into this agreement - for example, tactical ammunition is just a scam.
      2. U-58 21 February 2020 12: 51 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        From zashnikov ????
        That is, even Nikita Skrgeevich convinced you that we make rockets, like oven pies?
        No, dear, so no one has yet come out.
        Making products in a zashashnik is very, very expensive and ... long.
        Do we have our own Fort Knox in stock?
        And are manpower, material resources with the 4th and 5th work shifts stored in it?
        1. Hagalaz 21 February 2020 13: 05 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          There is no need for excessive sarcasm. Do not take the word "zagashnik" literally. I somehow parted with Nikita in years, before he managed to convince me of something. But the archive of my company is located within walking distance. There would be a desire and a need, we can resume the release of what we stopped 30 years ago. There are achievements and competencies. Is the logic clear?
          1. U-58 22 February 2020 08: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I am also a producer.
            And I know very well how to “pull out” the old for reincarnation.
            There are no personnel with good training, production secrets (in the sense of the nuances that are in the minds and hands of artisans) are lost. It's easier to make new than forgotten old.
            Example: Energy-Buran system.
            Try to make (recreate) the Voronezh RD-0120 engine ...
            Whether you are wealthy as the Sultan of Brunei or Bill Gates is one hell, you will be able to resume the production of this very difficult motor in about 15 years, and even then, having spent billiards to recreate ...
            1. Hagalaz 22 February 2020 09: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I agree only partially. You described a situation when competencies are lost. With the same Buran, for which the whole Union worked. But the supposed situation is different.
              And again, what is more difficult to renew than to create new? When the technical documentation is worked out and new people learn. When lays, everything can be done. Probably read the history of the emergence of the Iskander complex?
    3. 4ekist 21 February 2020 11: 34 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      How can I conclude a contract with non-contractual.
    4. Karaul14 21 February 2020 11: 49 New
      • 1
      • 23
      -22
      Quote: Hunter 2
      Something tells me that they will send ... The Pentagon, Esper and others - away ... along with the START treaty!
      Grew up. The media has already managed to turn everything upside down. It was the United States that set the conditions and did not want to extend the strategic offensive arms without China, Russia offered to extend the treaty, and now it is only pretending that it controls the world agenda.
    5. dauria 21 February 2020 11: 49 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Something tells me that they will send ... The Pentagon, Esper and others - away ... along with the START treaty!


      Actually, the Americans are counting on this. Why do they need an agreement with the Russian Federation, if China annoys them? Russia is not their opponent in the economy, but China is already asking them to move out of the markets. Reinforcing the “requests” with a serious army.
      So let China "grind" the PRC with the USA, and treaties do not need us now. Neither with the USA, nor with China.
      1. 4ekist 21 February 2020 12: 28 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        They need Gorbachev-2.
      2. Vita vko 21 February 2020 14: 26 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        How can you agree on anything with a country that, contrary to promises, expands NATO, unilaterally withdraws from the agreements of the previous administration? Especially now any, even the most profitable agreement will be 100% turned against the Trump administration and the Republicans. In any case, a political mess will grow into an economic one and no financial power will save. What is the point of dealing with the descendants of thieves and prostitutes, who can only profit from wars and robberies?
        In the context of the termination of START-3, the most logical way out is Russia's cooperation in nuclear and missile technologies with China and other countries seeking to pursue a policy independent of the United States. Only creating a global threat to the United States will be able to get their network to the negotiating table.
      3. Voltsky 21 February 2020 15: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        there is such a thing, I want everything at once :)
    6. Ural resident 21 February 2020 11: 50 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Hunter 2
      Something tells me that they will send ... The Pentagon, Esper and others - away ... along with the START treaty!
      Actually, China did just that!
      The Nuclear Club, consists not only of the USA, RUSSIA and China, as they constantly forget about it at the Pentagon ...

      They themselves put forward such impossible demands that it is not possible not to send them. It would be very strange if someone agreed to this
    7. knn54 21 February 2020 12: 07 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      "Bazaar" boils down to ONE - we want to turn the backlog into an advantage.
    8. Sergey39 21 February 2020 12: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In any case, it does not make sense to discuss all these international treaties before the US elections, and after that there will be too little time to create a new treaty. So now you can already consider yourself not limited by any agreements.
    9. alexmach 21 February 2020 12: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Something tells me that they will send.

      And they achieve this.
    10. Russobel 21 February 2020 16: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I would like to be sent.
      The signing of a trilateral treaty will not limit America’s NATO allies.
      And the nuclear potential of England, France, etc., can increase without restrictions, but also in close proximity to our border.
    11. ficus2003 21 February 2020 19: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The reason for China is that it has 10 times less nuclear weapons than Russia or the United States, therefore it reasonably refuses to reduce nuclear weapons until it is acc. level.
    12. sharp-lad 21 February 2020 22: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Nuclear Club, consists not only of the USA, RUSSIA and China, as they constantly forget about it at the Pentagon ...
      That's what they never forgot about and always included in their plans to destroy the USSR / Russia. hi
    13. lelik613 23 February 2020 09: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You think badly about our "Talleyrands" ... "Our Russian liberal is, first and foremost, a footman and only watches how someone can clean his boots." (C)
      The only thing worth negotiating is the non-deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territory.
  2. Pup1 21 February 2020 11: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Pro ... nuclear weapons France shaved ... etc ... the thought of a pro in space stuck in meager heads ...
  3. Livonetc 21 February 2020 11: 14 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    Let all their troops withdraw from the Eurasian continent, then we can talk.
    In the meantime, let Kuzkina’s mother, Kuzkina’s aunt, Kuzkina’s grandmother and other members of the Kuzkina family constantly hang over them.
    1. maidan.izrailovich 21 February 2020 11: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Let all their troops withdraw from the Eurasian continent, then we can talk.

      Support. good
      But, if this happens, then the dollar will collapse immediately. And the hegemon is no longer the hegemon.
      1. Livonetc 21 February 2020 12: 01 New
        • 12
        • 1
        +11
        Ugh on them.
        Very unpleasant art.
        1. tihonmarine 21 February 2020 12: 20 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Livonetc
          Very unpleasant art.

          Do not bring me to dream at night.
  4. bessmertniy 21 February 2020 11: 16 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The Chinese are wise in their policies. They do not make promises that they are not going to fulfill, as others do. what
  5. helmi8 21 February 2020 11: 17 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    In addition, Moscow should introduce “non-strategic nuclear weapons” into the treaty.

    And again we are something have... Even if this happens, what will prevent the USA from leaving it, as from the INF Treaty? The gentleman gave the floor - the gentleman took it. No one can believe them anymore ...
    1. Glory1974 21 February 2020 11: 25 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      I see no reason not to put forward counter-demands to the Americans: to introduce aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, invisible planes, etc.
      We have a crowd of Foreign Ministry employees, what are they doing? Let them put forward conditions and conduct consultations. What are they taught there in MIMO?
      1. K-612-O 21 February 2020 11: 49 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The question is that no one will renew / renegotiate the contract at such fraud arrivals.
        1. Glory1974 21 February 2020 11: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          This is not fraud. This is the principle of reciprocity, fundamental in diplomatic relations. If you make conditions, be prepared that you are put forward. Otherwise, this is not international law, but the law of the strong, like thousands of years ago.
          1. K-612-O 21 February 2020 13: 05 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            But you have not noticed that since the age of 91 it is this right that is strong and valid. And all the "civilized" spit, especially after 2007, the speech of Voldemar.
      2. Ural resident 21 February 2020 11: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: glory1974
        I see no reason not to put forward counter-demands to the Americans: to introduce aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, invisible planes, etc.
        We have a crowd of Foreign Ministry employees, what are they doing? Let them put forward conditions and conduct consultations. What are they taught there in MIMO?

        no, also future developments should automatically fall into it
      3. Tank jacket 21 February 2020 11: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Drones would also be nice to add. But this is all the lyrics ... In 2021-2022, a similarity is planned for the new Yalta agreements on the division of spheres of influence and responsibility in the world between the Russian Federation, China and the United States. They will agree there.
      4. 5-9
        5-9 21 February 2020 14: 07 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        How do these things that are certainly useful in the economy affect the strategic security of the Russian Federation?
  6. taiga2018 21 February 2020 11: 19 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    They want to "slow down" Russia in order to catch up on new developments themselves ... Do they really consider everyone but themselves such idiots, or do they hope in the future for a new "trump card?"
  7. Igor Borisov_2 21 February 2020 11: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    as well as "the latest strategic developments in Russia." In addition, Moscow should introduce “non-strategic nuclear weapons” into the treaty.

    This makes no sense. That is, according to Esper, all that we will develop will automatically be prohibited ???
    1. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 11: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it is not possible to ban something under an unsigned contract
      I think that under START-3 there will be no dopniks and the Americans will not extend it either
  8. Aliken 21 February 2020 11: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yeah, now, fled.
  9. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 11: 29 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    But the priest will not crack?
  10. Pacifist 21 February 2020 11: 30 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Discussing something is possible only in the variant of block accounting. Those. the counted number of armaments should be taken into account by all countries participating in NATO. From this point of view, it makes sense to speak. If this is not so ... send them all. They forever burn their ass, they are eager to conclude agreements, and then, without looking back, they lay on them with parting. Given the background to the relationship, any contract with them is meaningless.
  11. rocket757 21 February 2020 11: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Everyone wants good deals there, it’s contagious, it seems .... they’ll have to deal with these, possibly for a long time.
  12. rotmistr60 21 February 2020 11: 32 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    it is necessary to include in it the latest developments of Russia.
    Stop cunning! Now Russia will run to forbid itself what the Americans do not have for their peace and the joy of Europe. It’s not Gorbachev’s and Yeltsin’s times when one destroyed rockets and mines, while the other unfolded them somewhere from the west (?) And how the clown made the American president laugh.
  13. rudolff 21 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The fact that the Americans want to include Poseidon and the Petrel in the contract is, as it were, obvious and quite reasonable on their part. Vanguard and Sarmatian fall automatically.
    China will not be bound by a treaty without India, and India without China and Pakistan. And if China and Pakistan and India become signatories, why Britain and France should stay overboard. Britons should generally automatically ply for the Americans.
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 21 February 2020 12: 37 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      The fact that the Americans want to include Poseidon and the Petrel in the contract is, as it were, obvious and quite reasonable on their part. Vanguard and Sarmatian fall automatically.
      It's like that. And the news feed suggests that no one, apparently, is counting on extending the contract, and we must finally have time to at least accuse the United States of anything.
  14. Air force 21 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Times have changed, but they show all the ambition. Moscow supposedly owes ugh, Moscow doesn’t owe you anything, Sarmat is not an addition to the existing armaments, but updating, and extending the START treaty is currently beneficial for the Americans themselves, and they are all upset, trying from a position they have the power to talk, they act in a stereotyped and clumsy manner, I won’t be surprised if the SOI also reanimate and try to deceive as always, but this time it is unlikely that they will succeed. PS I wonder what the shouting people say that it’s all “cartoons”. laughing It turns out that Soyuzmultfilm is a formidable force; Americans even want to include it in the START treaty.
  15. 1536 21 February 2020 11: 37 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Always all agreements with the Americans on arms limitation were not in favor of the USSR and Russia. We cut, destroyed, reduced, converted, produced pots and pans at tank, weapon and space plants, and the United States only expanded production, improved R&D, and switched to new technologies.
    Today, NATO is still an aggressive organization, which includes 29 (!) States, among which a dozen have territorial claims against Russia. Why, then, conclude any arms control treaties if, in addition to the United States, another 28 countries threaten us?
    Treaties with the United States will become possible only with the liquidation of the NATO bloc.
  16. SanSanych Gusev 21 February 2020 11: 41 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Soon we will comment on patients from the madhouse?
  17. Lamata 21 February 2020 11: 42 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    Well, let England and France give up on nuclear weapons. Israel too.
  18. Operator 21 February 2020 11: 45 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    In the field of innovations in strategic and hypersonic weapons, as well as in medium-range missiles, the United States shines brightly with its bare ass.

    "Then let's talk about tactical nuclear weapons," - Mark Esper, leader of the Cherokee tribe and part-time Secretary of State for the Department of Defense of the Allied States of America laughing
  19. Pavel57 21 February 2020 11: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Is it possible through the economy to force China to sign such an agreement?
  20. Graz 21 February 2020 11: 55 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I think you shouldn’t conclude any agreements with the Yankees
  21. Sapsan136 21 February 2020 11: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Signing some kind of agreement with the United States to the failure and dismantling of the United States of its missile defense systems is pointless and not profitable for the Russian Federation !!!
  22. CBR600 21 February 2020 12: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It sounded anecdotal. China smiled the same. Fun for everyone. You give complete and unconditional US nuclear disarmament !!! Put all the nuclear weapons at the feet of Russia! Everything ! And then there will be contracts and negotiations.
    ps I laugh nimaga. Why aren’t ours so kidding? A sense of humor or not?
  23. avdkrd 21 February 2020 12: 05 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Sarmat and Vanguard were developed as a response to missile defense. The dismantling of these systems without the complete dismantling of the missile defense system (including the sea component) will be a betrayal in the style of Gorbachev. At the same time, the treaty itself is meaningless without the participation of all participants in the nuclear club. There are three nuclear powers in NATO, in addition, we have an order of magnitude less sea carriers. By and large, we do not need a new agreement. Guaranteed mutual destruction was the best guarantor of the world in the XX century.
  24. K-50 21 February 2020 12: 07 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In the case of the conclusion of a new arms control treaty, the latest Russian developments must be included in it. This was stated by US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

    Like we can’t repeat, so at least ban?
    And when did the piners limit themselves to perfecting and using weapons that the other side did not possess?
    Colt and rifle against Indian bows, black ships against Katanas, nuclear bombs against kamikazes, Orange and other dipoles against Vietnamese partisans.
    So do not wait, the previous Treaty broke us a lot, now it's your turn. yes angry
  25. Ham
    Ham 21 February 2020 12: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    as practice shows, any contracts with American thimbles are not worth the paper on which they are written
  26. Baloo 21 February 2020 12: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And I would very much like the Pentagon as last time:
    In the absence of competition, Pepsi's sales were growing rapidly and vodka was already not enough to pay for the Soviet man who liked the black water with sugar. In the late 1980s, the contract came to an end and the company decided to review the terms.
    By the beginning of negotiations in the USSR, 21 plants were operating at Pepsi and they planned to open 26 more.
    “I would like to make a promise to everyone in the Soviet Union to be able to buy a bottle of Pepsi within 10 minutes from his home by 2000,” said Anatoly Mikhailovich Belichenko, First Deputy Head of the Food and Procurement Commission.
    A new agreement was signed, which included 17 submarines, a frigate, a destroyer and a cruiser in exchange for black soda. The whole fleet would have been sold to Pepsi for $ 3 billion, and the deal was the largest agreement in history between the USSR and American firms.
    “We are disarming the Soviet Union faster than you,” laughed Donald Kendall (Pepsi CEO), speaking with President Bush’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft
    All this made Pepsi the owner of the 6th largest navy in the world for several days. So far, the American company has not sold all of these Russian ships and boats to a Swedish scrap processing company.
    1. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 12: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      A bottle of Pepsi? We sold the union for a bottle of Pepsi? Sorry, but this was done without me.
  27. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 12: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Pentagon ... The Pentagon is an enemy a priori. While I do not understand why, if earlier we were ideological opponents, then now why? I'm at a dead end.
    1. Baloo 21 February 2020 12: 24 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      The Pentagon ... The Pentagon is an enemy a priori. While I do not understand why, if earlier we were ideological opponents, then now why? I'm at a dead end.

      Start with Marx Capital
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 12: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You are not saying that, I read it. And I completely agree with him.
    2. Lamata 21 February 2020 12: 27 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Because we are. And we occupy the land where there are a lot of all sorts of goodies, and because the USSR has suppressed amer for many years.
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 12: 30 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Probably, they cannot deal with us as with Libya.
        1. Lamata 21 February 2020 12: 31 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          A worm then nibbles !!!! It generally surprises me how Russia was not taken to pieces in the 90s.
          1. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 12: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, yes ... Nibbles. And how they didn’t pull it off ... it's just that the USSR was still in a hurry.
          2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 21 February 2020 13: 04 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Quote: Lamata
            It generally surprises me how Russia was not taken to pieces in the 90s.
            Maybe because you didn’t really want it that much, as you imagine?
            1. Lamata 21 February 2020 13: 13 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              And how the USSR was pulled away, and remember the fermentation in Tatarstan, Bashkiria, the Urals, and Chechnya, the Krasnodar Territory stirred.
              1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 21 February 2020 13: 57 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                That's how the USSR was pulled, so for some reason Russia was not pulled. Although she was in every way thinner than the USSR.
                1. Lamata 21 February 2020 16: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Maybe there were still generals who could hit the table with their fist, or maybe they thought they would fall apart from the inside.
  28. tihonmarine 21 February 2020 12: 19 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    it is necessary to introduce the tactical nuclear arsenals of the United States, Russia and China, as well as "the latest strategic developments in Russia."
    And the face will not crack? Russia should introduce new developments, but the USA should not. Insolence of the highest measure.
  29. Ratmir_Ryazan 21 February 2020 12: 29 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    No contracts with the United States need to be signed, they are not worth the papers they are written on.

    At any moment favorable to the USA, they will withdraw from any agreement and accuse us of violating it.
  30. 7,62h54 21 February 2020 12: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The dear leader once said that he was ready to discuss new weapons at the conclusion of treaties. Therefore, time will tell.
  31. Ru_Na 21 February 2020 12: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The United States also intends to withdraw from this treaty, and therefore they propose unacceptable conditions in advance.
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 21 February 2020 12: 59 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      No conditions are required to withdraw from the contract. He was held for a limited time. It can simply not be extended.
  32. primaala 21 February 2020 12: 38 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In no case can not repeat the 90s. Stupid. Remember how the submarines sawed, and how the American boot wore around to his home within our defense. Everything was destroyed. Thanks to GDP, I raised the Army of the Russian Federation and weapons with a quiet glanders.
  33. Old26 21 February 2020 12: 41 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: Hunter 2
    The Nuclear Club, consists not only of the USA, RUSSIA and China, as they constantly forget about it at the Pentagon ...

    Just the rest, except for the USA and Russia, is a trifle

    Quote: glory1974
    I see no reason not to put forward counter-demands to the Americans: to introduce aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, invisible planes, etc.
    We have a crowd of Foreign Ministry employees, what are they doing? Let them put forward conditions and conduct consultations. What are they taught there in MIMO?

    And the Americans should add “Abrams, M-16, Bradley” and everything else to the list. You shouldn’t go as far as insanity and demand inclusion in the list of what is not included in the nomenclature of strategic nuclear weapons. And the crowd of Foreign Ministry workers aren’t insane, and they don’t demand from the “partners” that they can then hit us with a “return” ...

    Quote: Pacifist
    Discussing something is possible only in the variant of block accounting. Those. the counted number of armaments should be taken into account by all countries participating in NATO. From this point of view, it makes sense to speak. If this is not so ... send them all. They forever burn their ass, they are eager to conclude agreements, and then, without looking back, they lay on them with parting. Given the background to the relationship, any contract with them is meaningless.

    That is, do not discuss anything at all. For block accounting cannot be on both sides. There is a bloc on one side only - NATO. Russia is not a member of any military blocs. Therefore, if we wish not to sign START-4, we must demand the impossible. Or block accounting, or accounting of all countries possessing nuclear weapons. Then the signing of the contract will be postponed by about 2050 a year.

    Quote: rudolff
    The fact that the Americans want to include Poseidon and the Petrel in the contract is, as it were, obvious and quite reasonable on their part. Vanguard and Sarmatian fall automatically.
    China will not be bound by a treaty without India, and India without China and Pakistan. And if China and Pakistan and India become signatories, why Britain and France should stay overboard. Britons should generally automatically ply for the Americans.

    The fact that all developments, except perhaps Peresvet and Dagger (and even if only Mig will be the carrier) automatically fall under the provisions of the strategic arms treaty - this goes without saying.
    The ability to “fasten” other nuclear nations to the START treaty is vanishingly small. . You are right, Rudolph, wrote that China will be tied to India. India, of course, to Pakistan and China. France and Britain - they can generally say that the strategic nuclear forces are national and they agree to such conditions that .... which will be unprofitable for Russia. Where to "sew" with the DPRK and Israel? What about the "threshold" countries, such as Iran? Which can get nuclear weapons in the next year or two, if there is no nuclear agreement with them ... It even takes 5-10 years to prepare an agreement between the two countries. What can we say about such a "holobal" treaty? He is simply unreal.

    Quote: 1536
    Always all agreements with the Americans on arms limitation were not in favor of the USSR and Russia. We cut, destroyed, reduced, converted, produced pots and pans at tank, weapon and space plants, and the United States only expanded production, improved R&D, and switched to new technologies.

    Are you absolutely sure about this? I personally do not. A contract (any) is a compromise. It cannot be beneficial for both parties at once, nor can it be beneficial for only one side. And the same START treaties were for the most part beneficial to us, and not to the Americans. It was the restrictions on these treaties that led to the fact that the United States did not gain advantages over Russia when we put into service 3-9 missiles per year, and wrote off dozens of them. If the Americans didn’t have these agreements, the number of carriers of strategic nuclear weapons would be twice as large. Plus, they would also not stand still and they would have new developments. We are with the collapse of the Union and would not be close able to maintain parity with them
    What we cut as a result of the conversion is, sorry, our cockroaches, in particular Gorbachev. No one forced us to stop the production of tanks or aircraft.
    It is we ourselves, we, "in a Stakhanovian way" decided to be ahead of the rest. Nobody stopped us from doing what we had to do. But we were withdrawing units and formations from the GSVG to a clean field, although under the agreement the Germans had to build towns and only after that the troops would be withdrawn.

    Quote: 1536
    Today, NATO is still an aggressive organization, which includes 29 (!) States, among which a dozen have territorial claims against Russia. Why, then, conclude any arms control treaties if, in addition to the United States, another 28 countries threaten us?
    Treaties with the United States will become possible only with the liquidation of the NATO bloc.

    So what? Territorial claims may be against Russia and from China. So, we don’t have to cooperate with him? And which of the 26 countries that, besides the USA, France and Britain are members of NATO, have nuclear weapons and are capable of threatening us? Really Estonia and Latvia threaten to reach the Urals? Or are the Bulgarians and Romanians going to reach the same Urals or Baikal?
    So for almost 50 years they have been concluding an agreement with NATO, moreover, 30 of them when the Warsaw Treaty was no longer there, and now it has become an insurmountable obstacle? Oh well.

    What alone should not be the subject of a new treaty is tactical and non-strategic nuclear weapons. Under this should be either a separate contract, or it should not be at all. But tactics doesn’t have a place in one treaty with strategic offensive arms
    1. rudolff 21 February 2020 13: 23 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Yes you are right. The likelihood of an agreement between all members of the nuclear club is extremely small. And of course, nuclear weapons must be put into a separate agreement or not accounted for at all. TNW is impossible to control.
  34. Hermit21 21 February 2020 12: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Just like the Chinese from the joke trying to crack the Pentagon server with the password "Mao Zedong"
  35. polk26l 21 February 2020 12: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I hope that our leadership and negotiators will not step on the same rake that they have already stepped on repeatedly, while receiving painfully on the "gullible forehead", because they trusted our potential enemies, led by the United States and their fables: - in the agreements - “on conventional armaments”, on “INF Treaty”, on “Strategic and offensive weapons”, etc., etc. Our best missiles were sawed at that time
    (Pioneer), our strategic missile trains, our submarines and strategic planes, in which our scientists, engineers and workers put their minds, abilities and great labor and many billions of national money !!! And the star-striped "mattresses" hid their weapons and nuclear warheads, in warehouses and, as always, now brazenly blackmail Russia, China and the whole world with their strategic advantage !!! Sobering effect on Americans - only the strength and power of the opponent! They respect and be afraid of such! Therefore, no longer any proposals for them, about peace and disarmament, not any reductions in armaments, especially modern, advanced ones that they don’t have, “be carried on,” “No! They sleep and see how to ruin Russia both from the inside and from the outside, and not with their own hands !!! They must be constantly kept in fear, about their complete destruction, at any time and around the world, wherever they "rock the boat!" Including, on their own territory, where in the entire history there have been no wars, with foreign troops! They must constantly pray to God that Russia would not be offended by their, sometimes rash and rash steps, and in this regard, urinate from fear !!! The USA is a fiend of "dark forces", its headquarters and stronghold! Therefore, the attitude of Russia should be like that of "George the Victorious"! - AWESOME !!!
  36. Amateur 21 February 2020 13: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to the head of the Pentagon, if a new arms control treaty is signed, it is necessary to introduce the tactical nuclear arsenals of the USA, Russia and China, as well as "the latest strategic developments in Russia." In addition, Moscow should introduce “non-strategic nuclear weapons” into the treaty.

    And as a gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of peacefulness, the Americans are forcing Israel to destroy its nuclear weapons and allow IAEA inspectors to objects in the Negev desert. bully
  37. Vladimir Mashkov 21 February 2020 13: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So that's why they stopped (just announced?) The development of hypersonic weapons! They brazenly hope that Russia will agree! And why are they trying to attract only China? And why not their allies? In general, I think it is futile.
  38. loki565 21 February 2020 13: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Why only the USA, China and Russia ??? then all NATO countries, and now medium-range missiles are riveting everyone and sundry
  39. Astartes 21 February 2020 13: 52 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Again, this echo of matzah is broadcasting, it’s too late already to sign contracts there is no faith to these creatures
  40. Jeremiah 21 February 2020 14: 09 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    These words and statements are not worth the air that they spoiled when they were published ... The time has come for rearmament. There is a crisis on the street. The production of weapons has always helped out .. And there has always been a bunch of crazy people who want to use it .... They will split the Earth .... But then, this civilization did not deserve the best.
  41. rusich 21 February 2020 14: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A Wishlist in the United States about the "Sarmatians" and "Vanguards" will not crack. Sarmat is replacing old ICBMs
  42. sleeve 21 February 2020 14: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    So the whole point of the unfolding discussion is the legitimization of the incompatibility of Saskh as a subject of international reality. We and the PRC do not care now, and a little later, completely on the potential of the overshot Pentagon dough. The situation now is simply beautiful in the field of strategic confrontation, where there is a fork in a fork. We have to chase after us qualitatively, and the Chinese comrades are running out of numbers. And in this situation, we don’t really need money, we mean. Brains just to move and the military-industrial complex could realize in reasonable sufficiency. Why then is this window dress with contracts?
  43. Vasyan1971 21 February 2020 14: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    According to the head of the Pentagon, if a new arms control treaty is signed, the tactical nuclear arsenals of the United States, Russia and China must be added to it,

    You can chat anything, because
    China sees no basis or conditions for participation in the discussion of a possible tripartite treaty on nuclear weapons with the United States and the Russian Federation

    So the caravan goes on.
  44. Old26 21 February 2020 15: 05 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: polk26l
    I hope that our leadership and negotiators will not step on the same rake that they have already stepped on repeatedly, while receiving painfully on the "gullible forehead", because they trusted our potential enemies, led by the United States and their fables: - in the agreements - “on conventional armaments”, on “INF Treaty”, on “Strategic and offensive weapons”, etc., etc.

    We stepped on a rake only once. When the INF Treaty was signed. And even this rake should be thanked not by negotiators and not by the military, but by the country's political leadership in the person of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the whole environment of Gorbi, and Gorbachev himself. Although, if we consider all aspects, the contract played a positive role. In any case, we wouldn’t get America’s medium-range missiles, but missiles in Europe could almost reach Moscow.

    Quote: polk26l
    We sawed our best rockets at that time (Pioneer), our strategic missile trains, our submarines and strategic aircraft, in which our scientists, engineers and workers put their minds, abilities and great labor and many billions of national money !!!

    "Pioneers" we drank, here without question. But the Americans were not sawing their old missiles at all. Of the old ones, they only had Pershing 1A. Everything else - the Tomahawks and Pershing 2 - is also a new weapon.
    Strategic missile trains, or rather drank them, has nothing to do with START-1 and START-2. There were total ceilings without specifying by type. The trains were “sawed” due to the fact that the missiles for them were created in Ukraine and the guaranteed life time expired by the time they “drank”. And to exploit missiles that have not passed the extension of the resource is more expensive for themselves.
    We sawed the submarines again, not only according to the agreement, although a certain amount of it “fell under the distribution”, but simply because of our banal indifference. At the time of the conclusion of the same OSV-2 treaty, we had 62 (sixty-two) missile boats against 41 or 42 American. And we kept in service several old diesel boats with 3 missiles with a range of 1500-1800 km. Among the nuclear ones there were also several boats, each of which carried 3 missiles. At that time, we had not only boats of project 667А and 667АУ already in operation, but also 667B and 667BR. But they did not write off, just in case. And as a result, in order to "enter the ceilings" I had to write off junk by almost dozens of buildings ... As in principle, medium-range ground-based missiles. The toad strangled changing 3 old ones to 1 new (BG parity would have been), so no, they exchanged three old ones for two new ones. As a result, they wrote off more than 2 times more than the “adversary”.
    What, the planes cut - we must thank the "popularly elected president-drunk" and his accomplices in Bialowieza. They needed to instantly destroy the Union. And what would happen to the mass of strategic weapons was not of interest to them. As a result, declaring themselves "nuclear-free" countries, the former Soviet republics had to get rid of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. But while Belarus and Kazakhstan gave away the carriers and nuclear weapons deployed on their territory to Russia, Ukraine was crushed by a toad to give up the carriers. And of course they were destroyed under the gaze of the United States.

    Quote: polk26l
    And the star-striped "mattresses" hid their weapons and nuclear warheads, in warehouses and, as always, now brazenly blackmail Russia, China and the whole world with their strategic advantage !!!

    Do not repeat the nonsense circulated by our media. Weapons were destroyed in the presence of inspectors from the other side. Media was destroyed in several ways:
    1. Undermining
    2. Start on the landfill
    3. Burning the engine and then crushing the housing
    4. Cutting along cruise missile hulls and crushing warhead hulls.
    So no one hid anything. Everything was under control. Physical packages (the charges themselves) were neither destroyed by us, nor right after the conclusion of the contract. They went to the warehouse (in storage) and were there in a disassembled condition. In the future, they could be put on new media or completely dismantled, if necessary.
    The United States is physically unable to blackmail Russia and China with its strategic advantage. We have about the same number of carriers and warheads with them. Look at least the latest START-3 data exchange material between us and the Americans

    Quote: Amateur
    And as a gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of peacefulness, the Americans are forcing Israel to destroy its nuclear weapons and allow IAEA inspectors to objects in the Negev desert

    Oh really??? And really forced ??? And this despite the Jewish lobby in the United States ???
  45. Old26 21 February 2020 16: 54 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: rusich
    A Wishlist in the United States about the "Sarmatians" and "Vanguards" will not crack. Sarmat is replacing old ICBMs

    And the old ones did not fall under the contract? All missiles with a range of over 5500 km fall under the contract. It’s just that if they weren’t listed in the protocols, then a joint control mission is going to be made and documents are being changed. And based on your logic, it means that now the Americans are starting work on a new SLBM to replace the Trident, and in the future, work on a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman-3, that is, they will immediately have a question in case of prolongation of the START-3 treaty towards us. But not whether the Wishlist will crack with us about the fact that missiles also fall under START-3 ...
    PS And the carrier of "Vanguard" in general and now "under the contract." None of the agreements does not stipulate BO ...

    Quote: sleeve
    So the whole point of the unfolding discussion is the legitimization of the incompatibility of Saskh as a subject of international reality.

    Maksim! Of course I understand. To “lower” the enemy below the baseboard is not to feed us with bread. But here is about the incompatibility of the United States. Could you be so kind as to voice the list of strategic agreements (and we only have such agreements with them) that the USA has NOT COMPLETED AND REGULATORY VIOLATED over the years. I would be very grateful to you. And then everyone says that the United States is incompatible, but for some reason they don’t give examples. Do you happen to know why ???
  46. gurzuf 21 February 2020 17: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Moscow must add to the contract ..." Moscow does not owe anything to anyone, except ... its citizens.
  47. NordUral 21 February 2020 17: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Esper, forest and forest only.
  48. Alexander Veresov 21 February 2020 18: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do you want the keys to the apartment? And we still have that no one knows WHAT !!! And SHO? Also include, so let their all super duper development put on the table, Very funny ...
  49. ljoha_d 21 February 2020 18: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I hope we have enough brains to subscribe to these agreements
  50. Dzafdet 21 February 2020 18: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But what about England, France, India, Pakistan, and most importantly, Israel? Without them, it makes no sense to extend the contract ..