Russian Ambassador to the USA in an interview with the American press spoke about his readiness to extend the START-3 treaty

The American journal ACT (Arms Control Today) published an interview with Anatoly Antonov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States. In the course of the interview, the talk was about Russian-American arms control treaties. One such treaty is START-3, which is about to expire.

According to the Russian diplomat, Moscow is ready to extend the bilateral agreement with the United States, but "Moscow’s will is not enough for this."

Anatoly Antonov noted that this also requires the will of the American side, the consent of the US authorities. “But such consent has not yet been obtained.”

From the material:

But as soon as such agreement appears, our side will immediately begin to implement all the necessary domestic measures.

The Russian ambassador noted that he hoped for a prudent US approach and that the US side would soon decide on its unambiguous approach to such an important treaty.

START-3 was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague. The presidents of the USA and the Russian Federation Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev put their signatures on the document. The agreement entered into force in February 2011, and on February 5, 2021, it expires.

Earlier, US President Donald Trump said that Washington may not extend START-3.

Comments

[Gene84]

States want too much. Include promising Russian weapons in the START treaty plus annex China to the treaty. China most likely will not agree to sign the treaty, with the one-sided approach of the United States to the treaty, the Russian side will be forced to insist on the inclusion of modern American weapons. States will refuse to extend the strategic offensive arms treaty. Dead end.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Gene84

China most likely will not go to sign the treaty

It won’t go under any mayonnaise!
The leadership of the PRC immediately and categorically rejected the very possibility, even of preliminary discussions, of such agreements.

[Slavutich]

The same problem: as with other owners of nuclear weapons: wisely: we need an international conference: include all of them

[Insurgent]

Quote: Slavutich

wisely: need an international conference: include all all

You won't be able to drive anyone to the "International Conference" you are proposing with a stick.
Yes and no such "stick" now ...

[Slavutich]

Unfortunately, yes: since the threat potential for our country is not small on the part of countries without an agreement.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Slavutich

International Conference: Include All All

Do you think Korea will do this?
Siiiilno doubt that they will want to leave themselves from real protection from the Yankers

[Avior]

Not only
Trump demands that tactical nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles be included in the treaty - in short, virtually all nuclear weapons of the United States, China and Russia should be taken into account

[Hartakolo12]

Russia needs to completely abandon nuclear weapons. In this case, all sanctions will be lifted.

[Vladimir_6]

Quote: Hartakolo12

Russia needs to completely abandon nuclear weapons. In this case, all sanctions will be lifted.

If Russia completely abandons nuclear weapons, then not the sanctions, but the last "shirt" will be removed from it.

[helmi8]

Quote: Gene84

... States will refuse to extend the strategic offensive arms treaty. Dead end.

Life has shown that the United States is absolutely not a negotiable country. For them, signing a contract does not mean that it is binding. The gentleman is the master of his word - he gave it today, tomorrow he took it.

[KVU-NSVD]

It would be worthwhile to extend it under the previous conditions, but we’ll no longer be able to make reductions .. Nata is literally rude and vomiting right at their side, their generals directly call us the enemy, etc., exercises, troops, staff, reconnaissance, bacteriological and logistic there are constantly more centers, flights along the borders — all the signs of either military pressure or unhurried preparations for war — whoever played chess will understand that the enemy is squeezing, encircling, taking up space, and then the bang starts, but in chess you can at least to make an exchange or a holding back counterattack at an early stage, but in politics it’s more and more difficult, decision-making factors and responsibility are immeasurably greater ..

[Lipchanin]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

exercises, troops, staff, reconnaissance, bacteriological and logistics centers, flights along the borders are constantly becoming more

Recalls the behavior of Germany before the start of the Second World War. Provocation for provocation.
The Japanese, too, then constantly provoked us

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

It will be difficult for the Americans to draw up a contract, according to their "needs." Gorbachev already, no (in power)

[Amateur]

According to the Russian diplomat, Moscow is ready to extend the bilateral agreement with the United States, but "Moscow’s will is not enough for this."

The Russian ambassador should say that until the United States lifts the sanctions, returns real estate, etc. , Russia will not discuss anything. And stand with outstretched hand:

A piece of bread only he asked for
And the gaze was living flour,
And someone put a stone
In his outstretched hand.
(M.Yu. Lermontov)

[rotmistr60]

... hopes for a prudent US approach

I understand diplomats, but hoping for the prudence of the United States is obviously futile. With a selfish-aggressive approach in US politics, it is necessary to speak with them only from a position of strength. They do not understand the other and do not want to understand.

[jonht]

They do not want and do not. They have problems with nuclear warheads, not ours. Let him continue to remake strategic into tactical. They have already been told that no matter what charge they use, the answer will be maximized.

[Sova]

Whence comes the prudent approach of the United States, they only understand when something is really threatening them and then they go to sign agreements from which they easily unilaterally exit and even blame the opposite side. Over the past decade, we have seen this many times.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: sova

Where does the prudent US approach come from, they only understand when something is really threatening them and then they go to sign the treaties,

The most striking recent example is when they sent the AUG to Korea. As soon as they realized that they could get an answer, they immediately won back

[askort154]

In the 20th century there were two opposing camps - the USA - the USSR (Russia). In the 21st century, a third force appeared - China. It is not logical to conclude a contract only for two. Moreover, China is far from the United States, but close to Russia. Therefore, my position surprises me - the United States requires the inclusion of China, and we are shy.

[Avior]

Apparently, someone is convinced that China is an ally of Russia and an adversary of the United States.
Only I strongly doubt such an ally
China is an ally only to itself

[Tusv]

According to the Russian diplomat, Moscow is ready to extend the bilateral agreement with the United States, but "Moscow’s will is not enough for this."

I remember that a "surprise check" with the transfer of 4 regiments to the Far East drove 2 AUG away from Our shores, and Eun became Trump's boyfriend. Why not hold the Victory Parade in the Sea of ​​Japan with dummies of Ha 102 on pylons with the inscription: "Do not extend the contract, we will fly like this all the time" - or - "If you are fooling around, we will not elect to the Senate"

[Peter Tverdokhlebov]

After the expiration of the START-3 treaty, will we immediately be able to increase the number of warheads on SLBMs, or will we have to wait for some time?
For example, the INF Treaty was terminated in February 2019, but the Americans began to test medium-range missiles only six months later in August 2019.
And it was in August 2019 that the INF Treaty finally ceased to operate.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Pyotr Tverdokhlebov

And it was in August 2019 that the INF Treaty finally ceased to operate.

quite right

Quote: Pyotr Tverdokhlebov

INF Treaty was terminated in February 2019

no, a little bit wrong. In February, one of the parties notified the second that is going to terminate the Agreement. He himself continued to have power. According to the same DRMSD, the termination of the Agreement is possible only after 6 months from the date of notification of one or both parties of the desire to terminate this agreement

In the case of START-3, the situation is slightly different. The contract ends. And whether it will be extended (and under what conditions) - that is the question. If not, the parties are discharged immediately upon expiration of the agreement

[Peter Tverdokhlebov]

That is, if I understand correctly at the end of February 2021, we can have ~ 2000 combat units?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Pyotr Tverdokhlebov

That is, if I understand correctly at the end of February 2021, we

that is, after that time we will have the right to deploy

Quote: Pyotr Tverdokhlebov

2000 warheads

[Avior]

And what will it give, besides the arguments for the American "hawks" to increase the US nuclear arsenal?

[Hartakolo12]

It is enough for us to keep the existing arsenal. And let the US increase as much as desired.

[Cowbra]

The meaning of the statement is to emphasize once again that it is the United States that is pushing the world toward a nuclear conflict. And in general to conflicts. And nothing changes, right?
Crocodile Magazine, No. 04, February 1979.

[Old partisan]

Well, the time has come to lie under partners. There is really nothing to oppose except the nuclear triad. There is no medicine for the industry. But "they will simply die and the Russians will go to paradise" Sadly.

[iouris]

Yes, I already agreed. 50% off.

[Karaul14]

You have already decided, then Russia is ready to extend, then "Russia said no to the States!" to the patriotic hooting, now she is again ready to extend. Can the leadership of the Russian Federation follow a logical chain for at least a few months? It is clear that the United States refused to renew with Russia, China is more important to them, without it there is no point in an agreement. For the United States and China theoretically have an arms race, the economy allows it, unlike Russia.

[Old26]

Quote: Gene84

States want too much. Include promising Russian weapons in the START treaty plus annex China to the treaty.

Everyone is trying to get the most out of the contract. Of course, to the detriment of the other side. But the main task of the negotiators is to get the most out of the contract. What everyone is trying to do.

Quote: helmi8

Life has shown that the United States is absolutely not a negotiable country. For them, signing a contract does not mean that it is binding. The gentleman is the master of his word - he gave it today, tomorrow he took it.

It’s interesting, Sergei, but can you cite an example of the US violation of strategic arms treaties in the context of the US “non-negotiability”? And at the same time, for a change, there are similar examples from our side.
I do not have any reverence for the United States and the policies that they pursue. But they comply with strategic arms agreements. It’s not strange. You are probably the twentieth or thirtieth, whom I ask to give an example of violations (incompatibility), but what is strange, except for la-la - no examples ...

Quote: KVU-NSVD

It would be worthwhile to extend it under the previous conditions, but now we are no longer to go for reductions ...

Renewal of the contract, Victor, implies only the extension of the terms of its validity. The parameters remain unchanged. This was the case with all contracts that were extended. ... If something is reduced, it is solely in the order of "goodwill". There are fewer legs of such cases on both sides than fingers on one hand

Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov

After the expiration of the START-3 treaty, will we immediately be able to increase the number of warheads on SLBMs, or will we have to wait for some time?
For example, the INF Treaty was terminated in February 2019, but the Americans began to test medium-range missiles only six months later in August 2019.
And it was in August 2019 that the INF Treaty finally ceased to operate.

We can increase the number of BGs on media immediately after the end of the contract. The only question is, where to put them. Except for the R-29RMU and nowhere. On the "Bulava", apparently, the maximum is involved.
With the RIAC, the situation is somewhat different. "Withdrawal" from the agreement of one party was postponed by six months. It was both under the ABM Treaty and under the INF Treaty ... If the treaty ends "normally", then there are no 6 months

Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov

That is, if I understand correctly at the end of February 2021, we can have ~ 2000 combat units?

Theoretically - yes, almost everything depends on how many BGs are now installed on the R-29RMU and on the Yars.