Pentagon wants inclusion of new developments of Russia in START

107
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.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    107 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +54
      21 February 2020 11: 13
      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. +15
        21 February 2020 11: 25
        That's for sure, hi the hobby club is expanding, but not narrowing.
        1. +5
          21 February 2020 13: 33
          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. +3
            21 February 2020 13: 44
            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. +3
              21 February 2020 16: 13
              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. +21
        21 February 2020 11: 28
        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. +6
          21 February 2020 12: 16
          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. +1
            21 February 2020 12: 37
            That thought was also laughing
          2. +2
            21 February 2020 13: 18
            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. +1
          21 February 2020 12: 51
          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.
          It is very, very expensive and ... long to make products in the store.
          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. +3
            21 February 2020 13: 05
            There is no need for unnecessary sarcasm. You should not take the word "zagashnik" literally. I somehow parted with Nikita in years, he did not have time to convince me of something. But the archive of my enterprise is within walking distance. If there is a desire and a necessity, we can resume the release of what we stopped 30 years ago. We have experience and competencies. Is the logic clear?
            1. 0
              22 February 2020 08: 47
              I am also a producer.
              And I know perfectly 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. 0
                22 February 2020 09: 28
                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. +17
        21 February 2020 11: 34
        How can I conclude a contract with non-contractual.
      4. -22
        21 February 2020 11: 49
        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. +9
        21 February 2020 11: 49
        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 would they need a treaty with the Russian Federation if China bothers them? Russia is not an economic enemy to them, but China is already asking them to move out of the markets. Reinforcing "requests" with a serious army.
        So let the PRC and the USA "grind", but we do not need treaties now. Neither the United States nor China.
        1. +4
          21 February 2020 12: 28
          They need Gorbachev-2.
        2. +10
          21 February 2020 14: 26
          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. +1
          21 February 2020 15: 38
          there is such a thing, I want everything at once :)
      6. +6
        21 February 2020 11: 50
        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. +7
        21 February 2020 12: 07
        "Bazaar" is reduced to ONE - we want to turn the gap into an advantage.
      8. +1
        21 February 2020 12: 32
        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. 0
        21 February 2020 12: 52
        Something tells me that they will send.

        And they achieve this.
      10. +1
        21 February 2020 16: 57
        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. 0
        21 February 2020 19: 05
        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. 0
        21 February 2020 22: 49
        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. 0
        23 February 2020 09: 58
        You badly think about our "talleyrans" ... "Our Russian liberal is first of all a lackey and only looks at how to clean someone's boots." (C) Ill-wisher
        The only thing worth negotiating is the non-deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territory.
    2. +5
      21 February 2020 11: 13
      Pro ... nuclear weapons France shaved ... etc ... the thought of a pro in space stuck in meager heads ...
    3. +19
      21 February 2020 11: 14
      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. +2
        21 February 2020 11: 57
        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. +11
          21 February 2020 12: 01
          Ugh on them.
          Very unpleasant art.
          1. 0
            21 February 2020 12: 20
            Quote: Livonetc
            Very unpleasant art.

            Do not bring me to dream at night.
    4. +9
      21 February 2020 11: 16
      The Chinese are wise in their policies. They do not make promises that they are not going to fulfill, as others do. what
    5. +11
      21 February 2020 11: 17
      In addition, Moscow should include "non-strategic nuclear weapons" in 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. +9
        21 February 2020 11: 25
        I see no reason not to put forward counterclaims to the Americans: to include aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, stealth planes, etc. into the agreement.
        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. +3
          21 February 2020 11: 49
          The question is that no one will renew / renegotiate the contract at such fraud arrivals.
          1. +2
            21 February 2020 11: 55
            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. -1
              21 February 2020 13: 05
              And you didn’t notice that since 91 it’s this right that is strong and is valid. And all the "civilized" people don't give a damn, especially after 2007, Voldemar's speech.
        2. 0
          21 February 2020 11: 51
          Quote: glory1974
          I see no reason not to put forward counterclaims to the Americans: to include aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, stealth planes, etc. into the agreement.
          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. +1
          21 February 2020 11: 51
          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
          -2
          21 February 2020 14: 07
          How do these things that are certainly useful in the economy affect the strategic security of the Russian Federation?
    6. +9
      21 February 2020 11: 19
      They want to "slow down" Russia in order to catch up with new developments ... Do they really consider everyone but themselves such idiots, or do they hope for a new "trump card" in the future?
    7. +3
      21 February 2020 11: 23
      as well as "the latest strategic developments in Russia." In addition, Moscow should include "non-strategic nuclear weapons" in the treaty.

      This makes no sense. That is, according to Esper, all that we will develop will automatically be prohibited ???
      1. 0
        21 February 2020 11: 38
        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. +2
      21 February 2020 11: 24
      Yeah, now, fled.
    9. +4
      21 February 2020 11: 29
      But the priest will not crack?
    10. +7
      21 February 2020 11: 30
      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. +2
      21 February 2020 11: 31
      Everyone wants good deals there, it’s contagious, it seems .... they’ll have to deal with these, possibly for a long time.
    12. +4
      21 February 2020 11: 32
      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. The comment was deleted.
      1. +2
        21 February 2020 12: 37
        Quote from rudolf
        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. +3
      21 February 2020 11: 36
      Times have changed, and they are showing ambition. They say Moscow should, pah on you, Moscow doesn't owe you anything, "Sarmat" is not an addition to the existing weapons, but an update, and the extension of the START treaty is currently beneficial for the Americans themselves, and they are all posing as forces to talk, act stereotyped and clumsy, I would not be surprised if SDI also reanimate and try to cheat as always, but this time it is unlikely that they will succeed. PS I wonder what those who shouted that this is all "cartoons" laughing It turns out that Soyuzmultfilm is a formidable force, and the Americans want to include it even in the START Treaty.
    15. +5
      21 February 2020 11: 37
      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. -3
      21 February 2020 11: 41
      Soon we will comment on patients from the madhouse?
    17. 0
      21 February 2020 11: 42
      Well, let England and France give up on nuclear weapons. Israel too.
    18. 0
      21 February 2020 11: 45
      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, Cherokee Chief and Secretary of State for the Department of Defense of the Allied States of America laughing
    19. 0
      21 February 2020 11: 46
      Is it possible through the economy to force China to sign such an agreement?
    20. +3
      21 February 2020 11: 55
      I think you shouldn’t conclude any agreements with the Yankees
    21. +5
      21 February 2020 11: 56
      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. 0
      21 February 2020 12: 01
      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. +7
      21 February 2020 12: 05
      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. +1
      21 February 2020 12: 07
      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?
      Against Indian bows - a colt and a rifle, against a katana - "black ships", against a kamikaze - a nuclear bomb, against the Vietnamese partisans - "orange" and other difoliants.
      So do not wait, the previous Treaty broke us a lot, now it's your turn. Yes angry
    25. Ham
      +4
      21 February 2020 12: 10
      as practice shows, any contracts with American thimbles are not worth the paper on which they are written
    26. +3
      21 February 2020 12: 13
      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 are," laughed Donald Kendall (CEO of Pepsi) in a conversation 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. 0
        21 February 2020 12: 23
        A bottle of Pepsi? We sold the union for a bottle of Pepsi? Sorry, but this was done without me.
    27. +2
      21 February 2020 12: 19
      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. +6
        21 February 2020 12: 24
        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. +2
          21 February 2020 12: 26
          You are not saying that, I read it. And I completely agree with him.
      2. 0
        21 February 2020 12: 27
        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. 0
          21 February 2020 12: 30
          Probably, they cannot deal with us as with Libya.
          1. +1
            21 February 2020 12: 31
            A worm then nibbles !!!! It generally surprises me how Russia was not taken to pieces in the 90s.
            1. 0
              21 February 2020 12: 54
              Well, yes ... Nibbles. And how they didn’t pull it off ... it's just that the USSR was still in a hurry.
            2. -3
              21 February 2020 13: 04
              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. 0
                21 February 2020 13: 13
                And how the USSR was pulled away, and remember the fermentation in Tatarstan, Bashkiria, the Urals, and Chechnya, the Krasnodar Territory stirred.
                1. 0
                  21 February 2020 13: 57
                  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. 0
                    21 February 2020 16: 06
                    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. 0
      21 February 2020 12: 19
      it should include the tactical nuclear arsenals of the United States, Russia and China, as well as "the latest strategic developments of Russia."
      And the face will not crack? Russia should introduce new developments, but the USA should not. Insolence of the highest measure.
    29. +1
      21 February 2020 12: 29
      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. 0
      21 February 2020 12: 33
      The dear leader once said that he was ready to discuss new weapons at the conclusion of treaties. Therefore, time will tell.
    31. +1
      21 February 2020 12: 35
      The United States also intends to withdraw from this treaty, and therefore they propose unacceptable conditions in advance.
      1. -1
        21 February 2020 12: 59
        No conditions are required to withdraw from the contract. He was held for a limited time. It can simply not be extended.
    32. +4
      21 February 2020 12: 38
      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. -1
      21 February 2020 12: 41
      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 counterclaims to the Americans: to include aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, URO ships, stealth planes, etc. into the agreement.
      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 also include in the list the Abrams, M-16, Bradleys and everything else. You shouldn't go to the point of insanity and demand the inclusion in the list of things that are not included in the nomenclature of strategic nuclear weapons. do not demand from the "partners" what 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 from rudolf
      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 then, if only the Mig will be the carrier) automatically fall under the provisions of the treaty on strategic weapons - it goes without saying.
      The possibility of attaching other nuclear countries to the START Treaty is vanishingly small. ... You are correct, Rudolph, you wrote that China will be tied to India. India, of course, Pakistan and China. France and Britain - they generally can say that they have national strategic nuclear forces and they agree to such conditions that ... that will be disadvantageous for Russia. Where to "sew" the DPRK and Israel? What about the "threshold" countries such as Iran? Which can receive nuclear weapons in the next year or two, if there is no nuclear agreement with them ... Here, even to prepare an agreement between the two countries, it sometimes takes 5-10 years. What can we say about such a "holobal" agreement? He's just 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 Stakhanov way", decided to be ahead of the rest of the planet. Nobody stopped us from doing what had to be done. But we withdrew units and formations from the GSVG into an open field, although according to the contract the Germans had to build towns for us 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. The comment was deleted.
    34. 0
      21 February 2020 12: 47
      Just like the Chinese from the joke trying to hack the Pentagon server with the password "Mao Zedong"
    35. +3
      21 February 2020 12: 56
      I hope that our leadership and negotiators will not step on the same rake that they have already stepped on more than once, while getting painfully on the "trusting forehead", because they believed our potential enemies, led by the United States and their fables: - in contracts - "on conventional weapons", on "INF Treaty", on "Strategic and offensive weapons", etc., etc. We sawed off our best missiles at that time
      (Pioneer), our strategic missile trains, our submarines and strategic aircraft, in which our scientists, engineers and workers have invested their mind, abilities and great work and many billions of people's money !!! And the starry-striped "mattress covers" hid their weapons and nuclear warheads in warehouses and, as always, now they are brazenly blackmailing Russia, China and the whole world with their strategic advantage !!! Amerikosov has a sobering effect - only the strength and power of the opponent! They respect and fear such people! Therefore, no more what their proposals, about peace and disarmament, no more reductions in armaments, especially modern, advanced, which they do not have - "to be conducted" - No need! They sleep and see how to destroy 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 there have been no wars in history, with foreign troops! They constantly have to pray to God that Russia would not be offended by their sometimes rash and rash steps and, in this regard, urinate from fear !!! USA - the devil of the "dark forces", their headquarters and stronghold! Therefore, the attitude of Russia must be like that of "George the Victorious"! - CRUSHING !!!
    36. +2
      21 February 2020 13: 06
      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. 0
      21 February 2020 13: 12
      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. +2
      21 February 2020 13: 41
      Why only the USA, China and Russia ??? then all NATO countries, and now medium-range missiles are riveting everyone and sundry
    39. +5
      21 February 2020 13: 52
      Again, this echo of matzah is broadcasting, it’s too late already to sign contracts there is no faith to these creatures
    40. -3
      21 February 2020 14: 09
      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. +2
      21 February 2020 14: 14
      And the US wishlist about the "Sarmatians" and "Vanguards" will not crack. "Sarmat" is going to replace old ICBMs
    42. 0
      21 February 2020 14: 15
      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. 0
      21 February 2020 14: 33
      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. +2
      21 February 2020 15: 05
      Quote: polk26l
      I hope that our leadership and negotiators will not step on the same rake that they have already stepped on more than once, while getting painfully on the "trusting forehead", because they believed our potential enemies, led by the United States and their fables: - in treaties - "on conventional weapons", 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, no questions asked. But the Americans were not sawing their old missiles. Of the old ones, they only had Pershing-1A. Everything else - "Tomahawks" and "Pershing-2" - are also new weapons.
      Strategic rocket trains, or rather "drank" them, has nothing to do with the START-1 and START-2 treaties. There were total ceilings without specification by type. Trains, however, "sawed off" due to the fact that the missiles for them were created in Ukraine and the guaranteed service life had expired by the time they were "drunk". And it is more expensive to exploit missiles that have not passed the resource extension.
      We sawed submarines again not only in accordance with the agreement, although a certain number and "got under distribution", but simply due to our banal indifference. At the time of the conclusion of the same SALT-2 treaty, we had 62 (sixty-two) missile boats against 41 or 42 American ones. Moreover, we kept in service several old diesel boats with 3 missiles with a range of 1500-1800 km. Among the nuclear-powered ones there were also several boats, each of which carried 3 missiles. While we already had in service not only boats of project 667A and 667AU, but also 667B and 667BR. But they didn't write it off, just in case. And as a result, in order to "enter the ceilings" it was necessary to write off the junk by almost dozens of buildings ... As, in principle, medium-range ground missiles. The toad choked to change 3 old ones to 1 new one (there would be parity in BG), but no, they changed three old ones to two new ones. As a result, more than 2 times more was written off than the "adversary".
      That, they were cutting planes - we must thank the "popularly elected president-drunk" and his accomplices in Belovezhia. They needed to instantly destroy the Union. And they were not interested in what would happen to the mass of strategic weapons. As a result, the former republics of the USSR, having declared themselves "nuclear-free" countries, had to get rid of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. But if Belarus and Kazakhstan gave the carriers and nuclear weapons deployed on their territory to Russia, then Ukraine was crushed by the toad to give the carriers. And of course they were destroyed under the watchful eye of the United States.

      Quote: polk26l
      And the starry-striped "mattress covers" hid their weapons and nuclear warheads in warehouses and, as always, now they are brazenly blackmailing 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. +2
      21 February 2020 16: 54
      Quote: rusich
      And the US wishlist about the "Sarmatians" and "Vanguards" will not crack. "Sarmat" is going to replace old ICBMs

      And the old ones did not fall under the contract? In general, all missiles with a range of more than 5500 km fall under the agreement. It's just that if they were not listed in the protocols, then a joint control feed is going to and the documents are 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, if the START-3 treaty is prolonged, they will immediately have a question in relation to us. And not "will our Wishlist crack" about the fact that the missile also falls under the START-3 treaty ...
      PS And the carrier of "Vanguard" in general and now "under the contract." None of the BO contracts stipulates ...

      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! I certainly understand. To "lower" the enemy below the plinth is not to feed us with bread. But here's about the incapacity of the United States. Would you be so kind as to voice the list of strategic treaties (and we only have such treaties with them) that the United States has NOT FULFILLED AND REGULARLY VIOLATED over the years. I would be very grateful to you. And then everyone says that the United States is not negotiable, but for some reason they do not give examples. Do you happen to know why ???
    46. 0
      21 February 2020 17: 05
      "Moscow must add to the treaty ..." Moscow does not owe anyone or anything, except ... its citizens.
    47. 0
      21 February 2020 17: 36
      Esper, forest and forest only.
    48. 0
      21 February 2020 18: 23
      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. 0
      21 February 2020 18: 33
      I hope we have enough brains to subscribe to these agreements
    50. 0
      21 February 2020 18: 47
      But what about England, France, India, Pakistan, and most importantly, Israel? Without them, it makes no sense to extend the contract ..
    51. 0
      22 February 2020 01: 36
      The issue with the Pentagon undoubtedly requires attention. And solutions. And not just a solution, but a constructive solution, well-researched and prepared. A decision that will once and for all make everyone decide how they want to live the 21st century....
      For example, the Pentagon, .... of all the countries in the world, “for some reason” is very concerned about Russia. That is, not even the RF Ministry of Defense - but ALL...Russia at once. This is a clear inconsistency and uncertainty. For the sake of peace on Earth, let's make a decision, pay attention to the important and discard the unimportant!.. And this is what comes out:
      1. To us, the whole country, i.e. the elderly and children, including... as we see, the Pentagon does not waste time on trifles,... they have given the title “aggressive and dangerous” and want to point out to us that our state-building plans are also “aggressive and dangerous”;
      2. The Pentagon itself considers itself “kind and fair,” which it tirelessly reminds:
      - their statements addressed to other countries, containing solely instructions and definitions;
      - military actions and permanent presence in any territory, regardless of the presence or absence of cooperation and diplomatic agreements;
      - by its, overwhelmingly, “defensive” developments in the military field; with their concepts, technologies and, most importantly, plans and even plans for bringing the entire world community to “harmony and peace.” Many of them have already been revealed for the general study of what the Pentagon is and its contribution to the “cause of peace”;
      3. You must also understand that the Pentagon is one of the main “fighters for peace”, being the direct conductor of the policy of a country like the United States, whose long-suffering people have “suffered” so many hardships and deprivations. After all, we all remember from history lessons how the forefathers of the American “nation” arrived on the newly discovered continent with a mission of “goodness and mercy”, and how the “wild, evil, having no culture” tribes of future non-indigenous inhabitants of America did not appreciate and understood this. Instead, the “savages” rebelled and declared war on “culture and enlightenment.” They, the Non-Americans, tortured and killed “peace-loving, self-sacrificing, enlighteners of the Old World” for so long that getting rid of “their savage yoke” was called the conquest of the New World... “the light of goodness, love and justice.” It’s simply amazing with what “good, correct” example of the victory of “good over evil” ... “the light of truth over the darkness of ignorance” the history of such a wonderful country as the USA began ... and the Pentagon, of course, too. Because the Pentagon is, undoubtedly, the crown of creation of goodness and justice, which should have long been obvious to every “educated” person and all people all over the Earth - after all, the Pentagon has in fact proven its commitment to its course, not being afraid to speak out “completely disinterestedly and openly” against many aggressive regimes around the world. Let's remember Syria, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Chile, Cambodia and other countries... whose lives the Pentagon was able to irrevocably change “for the better”... there is no longer a misunderstanding of what “world peace” is....
      I could continue the list. But, it seems, everything is already clear - we here, all people in Russia, young and old, are “mistaken”, so we “have become aggressive and dangerous.” And our statements are that:
      1. The naked countries of the West no longer have anything to live on, that their way of life is fake and bondage, and their income is theft, blackmail, coercion and banditry;
      2 That the destabilization of their social system, and then of all other systems associated with it, is a matter of the coming years;
      3. That the only country in the NATO bloc that has its own natural resources is the United States. But... If Russia can sell its gas and oil, and this is fair, then the United States cannot;
      4. That the huge foreign debt of the United States, which only increases over time, and the exorbitant ambitions in spending of both the United States and the Pentagon in particular, allows us to say that this country is inevitable international bankruptcy.
      5. That their oil and gas, and everything else no longer belongs to the United States, but to US creditors...
      All these are delusions of angry Russians who have taken the “wrong path of denial and aggression”...
      What should we, Russians, do? How can we honestly and openly convince such a highly spiritual, highly educated institution like the Pentagon not to judge us so harshly, but to try to understand?...
      I think, first of all, we need to change our foreign policy. Especially in the START-3 negotiations. The fact is that when they are led by techies and the military on our side, this is an inevitable failure, these people are too one-sided and fixated on security, technology and calculations. I think it must be other people. Those who can finally convey to such a “worthy” nation as the Americans that we, too, understand no worse than they do that “love and harmony” are the main thing in life, and aggressiveness and international terrorism are bad, .. very bad. And it will soon become clear why this is so...
      I think that for negotiations you need to choose people who are extraordinary, cheerful, resourceful, and, most importantly, brave and frank, and even if there are not five negotiators - let there be a whole street or at least thirty people - otherwise nothing will work out... We must not forget about Our ancient Russian tradition is to greet everyone with bread and salt. I think that’s what we should do - just meet, ... and in any case, regardless of whether we are at home or visiting. Best defense is attack. However, the fact is that there is one problem...bread and salt are not definitely suitable for such negotiations - this is not the situation, a different “symbol of hospitality” is needed.
      And he is! It simply must be used in this case! I think that I will not be mistaken if I say that those Americans who are inclined to think that Russia is a less “peace-loving” country than the United States have never tried RUSSIAN RIP BANANAS. Of course, we import a lot of things, but RUSSIAN RIP BANANAS are, one might say, ours, dear! It always grows in a specific place, but almost everyone has it and in great abundance! For example, almost all Russian men wear them in their pants - this is a very “ancient” Russian tradition! ...
    52. 0
      22 February 2020 01: 37
      Well, the negotiations should be carried out like this:
      1. As soon as the Americans enter, you need to stand up in your seats and, radiating genuine and frank joy or even jubilation, surround them with all kinds of attention and admiration, ... and at the same time close the perimeter, close the doors and open the windows in order to emotionally involve everyone who will not be able to attend the negotiations themselves directly, at least at first. The media should also be present, especially in those countries where American democracy has already arrived - let them broadcast live;
      2. And then... we need to start discussing love and harmony... and... the arms race;
      3. But the words “hungry stomach” don’t travel well, so you need to immediately... move on to treats;
      4. Every Russian man in a room with open windows should have a banana in his pants, which he wants to treat to the nearest Americans. There should simply not be greedy and stingy people there - there should only be uncontrollably generous, inevitably sensual employees capable of real high-quality intercultural contact in this situation, when in a fit of brotherly love you can even hug each other tightly;
      5. So, ... we take out bananas and ... treat, treat, treat. The place of the one who can no longer treat must be immediately taken by the next negotiator. Attention to the American delegation should not weaken for a second - the quality of the negotiation process is the key to its success. If anyone refuses a direct offer, we tactfully come from the other side and make it clear that the refusal was a mistake, but we no longer give concessions in the negotiation process...;
      6. So, let's treat and admire... America, its culture and everything that we have learned from it over the past 60 years. If the American delegation suddenly wants to leave and asks for it, this is not in our interests - therefore, we will not let go, ... we will not let go, we will not let go, we will not let go...
      7. When some agreement is reached in understanding the basic factors of the general process, without stopping the general meal, we simultaneously move on to discussing the START-3 treaty as a whole and each nuance separately, achieving an inevitable understanding on each of the points. It is quite possible that not all members of the American delegation will be ready for such an emotional and... multilateral meeting in the full sense of the word. Perhaps not all of them will be able to control themselves. For example, Mr. Pompeo, having realized the changes that have come in the paradigm of international negotiations, may well temporarily lose his balance: spiritual and mental. In this case, we add a classic rare chop to the bananas. This is a very common dish of American national cuisine. We don’t give vodka to anyone - with one glass they can pass out, then further negotiations will lose all meaning;
      8. If everything goes... normally, then all the necessary agreements will undoubtedly be reached. Once this happens, the doors can be opened for everyone else who wants to take a direct part in the negotiation process or those who want to capture its apotheosis for history, as well as all the other diplomats and politicians with their ideas of how things should be... for on the American side... it definitely won’t be superfluous...

      As you may have guessed, dear readers, world peace after such ... innovations)) in the negotiation process may take a very long time, and the question of the need to revise the concluded agreements will not be raised at all ...)), at least least until several generations of American “diplomats” replace each other.
      In our country, as the events of the last 20 years have shown, there are enough people who want to... change the world for the better. They are very active. I remember once they even tried to organize parades in squares.
      Only now, after years, it becomes clear that they simply had nothing to do. At that time, no problem was identified that could really captivate them.
      Well, now it is absolutely clear what needed to be done)) even when it became clear which country is actually the best in the world)).

      P.S. ... the basis for this story was a trip to a modern youth hairdresser, a song about a normal hairdresser that no one needs ** ***, the word Pentagon, the beginning of the exodus of TURKS from Syria and the American way of communicating with people, well.. and this article about START-3. I really hope that everyone had fun)) However, I can’t say with confidence that I didn’t want to offend anyone))
      Happy holidays to everyone, no matter how they end))
    53. 0
      22 February 2020 03: 22
      How many times will we deceive us?
    54. +1
      22 February 2020 19: 56
      Quote: vadson
      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

      The worst thing that can happen is to consider your opponent a complete idiot. And they are by no means stupid. It is enough to read the agreement carefully. Therefore, if we want to make our negotiators a laughing stock and at the same time show that they are not professionals of the highest class, but complete suckers, then we can offer them conditions, as you are offering. But this will not lead to anything good...

      Quote: Sapsan136
      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 !!!

      This means we will not sign any agreements. Because the Americans will not dismantle their missile defense system. Moreover, the START Treaty was never linked by any provisions to the ABM Treaty. It's all the same TWO SEPARATE CONTRACTS.

      Quote: avdkrd
      Sarmat and Avangard were developed as a response to missile defense.

      Don't talk nonsense. work on the predecessor of Avangard began in the mid-80s. The predecessor was 15Y70. Work on which began in 1990, at least 10 years before the Americans withdrew from the ABM Treaty and began deploying their missile defense program. We started designing “Sarmat” after Ukraine refused to extend the warranty service contracts for “Voevod”.

      Quote: avdkrd
      Dismantling these complexes without completely dismantling the missile defense system (including the naval component) would be a Gorbachev-style betrayal.

      There is no talk of dismantling these complexes. And the fact that they are taken into account in the START-3 treaty, although the types are not directly spelled out and will be taken into account in the future. The Americans are not so stupid as to exchange a dozen Avangards and fifty Voevodes for more than a hundred of their missile defense missiles. We will never expect this from them. Therefore we must be realistic. If it is beneficial for us to conclude another START treaty with America, we need to offer real parameters for the agreements. If we want the contract not to be concluded, then we can offer made-up “wish lists” as conditions.

      Quote: avdkrd
      At the same time, the agreement itself is meaningless without the participation of all participants in the nuclear club.

      This means there will be no agreement. Because it is impossible to bring the interests of 9 nuclear states to a common denominator. Plus, something needs to be done with “threshold” countries, such as Iran. How can we bring under a single base, for example, Russia or the United States, which now have 1550 warheads and 700 deployed carriers, and, for example, North Korea or Great Britain, the first of which has about 12-20 warheads and zero intercontinental delivery vehicles, and the second has about half a hundred carriers and about 225 charges. To what amount will we reduce?

      Quote: avdkrd
      NATO consists of three nuclear powers, and besides, we have an order of magnitude fewer naval carriers.

      By order of magnitude? Strange, I never thought that an excess of 2,8 times is now called “An order of magnitude”...
    55. 0
      22 February 2020 21: 33
      Useless whining. The states will never be great again and no treaties will save them; they are figuratively dying out.
    56. 0x0
      0
      23 February 2020 11: 10
      Pentagon wants inclusion of new developments of Russia in START

      They shouted that these were 'Putin's cartoons'! Soyuzmultfilm as a party to the START Treaty?! fool
      Happy holiday people! drinks

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"