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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Gene84 April 1 2020 06: 41 New
    • 22
    • 1
    +21
    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.
    1. Insurgent April 1 2020 06: 44 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      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.
      1. Slavutich April 1 2020 08: 03 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        The same problem: as with other owners of nuclear weapons: wisely: we need an international conference: include all of them
        1. Insurgent April 1 2020 08: 08 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Slavutich
          wisely: need an international conference: include all all

          With a stick, to drive to the "International Conference" proposed by you, nobody will succeed.
          Yes and no now such a "stick" ...
          1. Slavutich April 1 2020 08: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Unfortunately, yes: since the threat potential for our country is not small on the part of countries without an agreement.
        2. Lipchanin April 1 2020 08: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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
    2. Avior April 1 2020 07: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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
      1. Hartakolo12 April 1 2020 11: 04 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Russia needs to completely abandon nuclear weapons. In this case, all sanctions will be lifted.
        1. Vladimir_6 April 1 2020 11: 36 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Hartakolo12
          Russia needs to completely abandon nuclear weapons. In this case, all sanctions will be lifted.

          If Russia completely abandons nuclear weapons, then it will not be lifted from sanctions, but the last “shirt”.
    3. helmi8 April 1 2020 11: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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.
  2. KVU-NSVD April 1 2020 06: 42 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    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 ..
    1. Lipchanin April 1 2020 08: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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
  3. Andrei Nikolaevich April 1 2020 06: 51 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It will be difficult for the Americans to draw up a contract for their "needs." Gorbachev already, no (in power)
  4. Amateur April 1 2020 06: 56 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    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)
  5. rotmistr60 April 1 2020 07: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    ... 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.
  6. jonht April 1 2020 07: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    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. hi
  7. Sova April 1 2020 07: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.
    1. Lipchanin April 1 2020 08: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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
  8. askort154 April 1 2020 07: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
    1. Avior April 1 2020 07: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      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
  9. Tusv April 1 2020 07: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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 recall that the “sudden check” with the transfer of 4 air regiments to the Far East drove 2 AUGs away from Our shores, and Eun became Trump's sculpted friendship. Why not hold the Victory Parade in the Sea of ​​Japan with dummies Ha 102 on pylons with the inscription: "Do not renew the contract, so we will fly all the time" - or - "You will fool, we will not choose to the Senate"
  10. Peter Tverdokhlebov April 1 2020 08: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
    1. Grigory_45 April 1 2020 08: 41 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov
      And it was in August 2019 that the INF Treaty finally ceased to operate.

      quite right
      Quote: Peter 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
      1. Peter Tverdokhlebov April 1 2020 11: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That is, if I understand correctly at the end of February 2021, we can have ~ 2000 combat units?
        1. Grigory_45 April 1 2020 11: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Peter 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: Peter Tverdokhlebov
          2000 warheads
    2. Avior April 1 2020 09: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what will it give, besides the arguments for the American "hawks" to increase the US nuclear arsenal?
      1. Hartakolo12 April 1 2020 11: 11 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        It is enough for us to keep the existing arsenal. And let the US increase as much as desired.
  11. Cowbra April 1 2020 08: 24 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    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.
  12. Old partisan April 1 2020 08: 49 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Well, the time has come to lie under the partners. There is really nothing to oppose apart from the nuclear triad. Industry there is no medicine really no. But "they will just die and the Russians will go to paradise" Sadly.
  13. iouris April 1 2020 11: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, I already agreed. 50% off.
  14. Karaul14 April 1 2020 15: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You already decide, Russia is ready to extend, then "Russia said no to the States!" under patriotic hooting, now she is again ready to extend. Can the leadership of the Russian Federation at least a few months follow the logical chain? It is clear that the United States refused to renew with Russia, China is more important to them, without it there is no sense in the agreement. For the USA and China may theoretically have an arms race, the economy allows it, unlike Russia.
  15. Old26 April 2 2020 13: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.

    Interestingly, Sergey, can you give an example of a violation by the US of strategic arms treaties in the context of the US "lack of maturity"? And at the same time, for a change, we have similar examples.
    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 ...

    An extension of a contract, Victor, implies only an extension of its validity. Parameters remain unchanged. So it was with all the contracts, which were extended. . If something is declining, it is exclusively in good faith. The legs of such cases on both sides are smaller than the 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 BG on carriers immediately after the completion of the contract. Only here is the question, but where to put them. Except for the R-29RMU and nowhere to go. On the “Mace”, apparently, a maximum is involved.
    The situation with the INF is somewhat different. The "exit" from the contract of one party is shifted by six months. It was both under the ABM agreement and under the INF Treaty ... If the agreement is completed “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 currently installed on the R-29RMU and on the Yars