Putin: Serious negotiations on strategic offensive arms-3 could not be started


The President of the Russian Federation invited the permanent members of the country's Security Council to discuss what final position Russia will take after the US withdraws from the Open Skies Treaty (DON). In addition, it is urgent to decide what to do next with the strategic offensive arms agreement START-3.


Such an agenda was proposed today by Vladimir Putin during a meeting of permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

Putin noted that START-3 has expired, and so far no serious negotiations have been held with the United States on this issue. The President noted that the agreement is important not only for Russia or the United States, but also for the whole world:

START-3, in fact, will end soon, and serious negotiations on this topic, which is most important not only for us, but for the whole world, I think, could not be started.

Among other things, the meeting participants discussed other issues of internal security and foreign policy issues.

Shortly before, United States President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the Open Skies Agreement. According to him, this is due to violations of the treaty by the Russian Federation. It is stated that the Russian Federation does not allow monitoring over the territory of the Kaliningrad region. In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russia intends to continue to comply with the provisions of the Don as long as it acts.
Photos used:
Russian President's website
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SRC P-15 30 May 2020 19: 06 New
    • 19
    • 9
    +10
    Serious negotiations with the USA? - This is not serious!
    1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 19: 39 New
      • 7
      • 6
      +1
      Of course. They’re a cheater. Ask Kravchuk. He will confirm it to you.
      MOSCOW, May 29 - RIA Novosti. The first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, in an interview with the Gordon portal accused Washington of “deceiving” Kiev because of the signing of the Budapest memorandum.


      He noted that the United States was the first to push Ukraine to abandon nuclear weapons.
      "We were directly told:" You are obliged to remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine. Otherwise, there will be sanctions, and not only economic ones. ”That was literally said. There wasn’t“ want, don’t want, ”he recalled.

      https://ria.ru/20200529/1572193873.html
      1. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 21 New
        • 20
        • 2
        +18
        Not cheating.
        Trump does not see his benefit in maintaining the Treaty.
        His negotiator officially said: since the Russians so want to keep this agreement, let them explain - why do we need it?
        And rolled out the conditions:
        1) collapse and destroy all new developments.
        2) bring China to the negotiation table on the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
        Both conditions are unacceptable to us.
        Therefore, START-3 can be considered to have already died. hi
        1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 20: 25 New
          • 7
          • 5
          +2
          Unacceptable conditions are set in advance, which are simply impossible to fulfill, especially with regard to China, for sure to bury the START-3 treaty. In essence, there is nothing to talk about and no one with.
        2. Liam 30 May 2020 20: 29 New
          • 7
          • 16
          -9
          Quote: Alex777
          1) collapse and destroy all new developments.
          2) bring China to the negotiation table on the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
          Both conditions are unacceptable to us.

          And why are the restrictions on China’s strategic nuclear forces unacceptable to you?
          1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 20: 35 New
            • 14
            • 6
            +8
            And you try to force China to join it (START-3). Nobody will talk about it with you. And the Americans understand this very well and set an impossible condition in advance to bury START-3 for sure. We don’t want this they don’t want. The arrows translate and that’s it. As in the case of a rupture of the INF Treaty, where we were put on the edge. Is it really incomprehensible?
            1. Liam 30 May 2020 20: 38 New
              • 10
              • 24
              -14
              So Russia claims to be a world-wide role. Let it force it if it is. Otherwise, it’s just a show-off. In words, it claims, but in reality it cannot
              1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 20: 46 New
                • 6
                • 5
                +1
                Quote: Liam
                So Russia claims to be a world-wide role. Let it force it if it is. Otherwise, it’s just a show-off. In words, it claims, but in reality it cannot

                Russia does not pretend to be a hegemon. China claims to be a hegemon, the United States impedes this and at the same time tries to unobtrusively collide with China, which is why we put forward the condition of involving China in START-3. And we are not American lackeys to fulfill all wanted them. Let them agree with China themselves. After all, they will not agree. You can’t see the Chinese Gorbachev on the horizon.
                An interesting article about the US-China-Russia triangle.
                In contrast to the widespread opinion about the impending return of the confrontation between the two superpowers, our forecast suggests that the “strategic triangle” of the USA, China and Russia will dominate in the geostrategic picture of the coming decade. The United States will remain the dominant power, which will have less and less desire to intervene in the world because of the inability to achieve rapid military success and the desire to ensure the security of the allies. China officially seeks to circumvent the United States by the centenary of the coming to power of the Communist Party in 2049 and is forming means for this, including the military. As for Russia, it would be a mistake to consider it a supporting player in the coming decades. The rise of its military forces and the strategy inspired by the Byzantine legacy give it considerable opportunities in the field of jamming, which for many years provides it with an important role in international relations.

                At the same time, the military decline of the West entails the rejection of its values ​​and the international legal system, which has been under its influence for 70 years. Today, despite the undisputed naval power of the United States, the strategic partnership between China and Russia seems to be strong and stable, although it contains an imbalance and doubts about the long term. Russia will remain a poor power in connection with a fall in hydrocarbon prices undermining its raw materials economy, but it will retain strategic power due to the military capabilities by which it bypasses all except the American superpower.

                That is why, although dialogue is always necessary, including for a better understanding of the intentions of other parties, it would be an illusion to believe that Russia may be tempted to move closer to Europe to the detriment of China. Europeans, like the Chinese, are excellent customers, but unlike the latter, they have nothing to offer strategically. Moscow is well aware of its weaknesses in relation to the two main strategic rivals. That is, for the sake of stability, Russia is completely not interested in aggression against its European neighbors. At the same time, it takes advantage of their weaknesses, diligently maintains disorder in the “gray zones” and does not miss a chance to harm NATO unity. She does not risk anything with China as long as their actual alliance persists. At the same time, it can lose a lot on the day when Beijing calls for “lost provinces” in Siberia and the Far East. Thus, on the one hand - big losses, and on the other - a complete lack of benefits. Why should she get closer to Europe?

                https://inosmi.ru/politic/20200520/247465743.html
                1. Hydrogen 31 May 2020 16: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Forcing China to negotiate, first of all, we need it, and then Amer. These greyhounds, we will disarm, and vice versa. In general, in our time, START-3 should include many countries possessing nuclear weapons and rocket technology, and should be connected to this UN.
              2. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 48 New
                • 3
                • 8
                -5
                Colleague Sky strike fighter (Maxim) explained everything to you well.
                I'll try in another side:
                It is not beneficial for us to have China sit down at the negotiating table. bully
                It is obvious. Like in an old joke about a hare: "... and who is on me and Leva?"
                Confrontation with China destroys the States. hi
                1. Liam 30 May 2020 20: 57 New
                  • 12
                  • 20
                  -8
                  Understood. Another ingenious HPP).
                  The reality is much more prosaic. Nobody takes Russia seriously as a world power for a long time. They wanted to compete with NATO and in real life compete with third-rate Turkey. With varying success
                  1. Alex777 30 May 2020 21: 05 New
                    • 11
                    • 4
                    +7
                    Do you know anything about the military-industrial complex of Turkey? bully
                    He is first class. Therefore, the Turks participated in the creation of the F-35.
                    Although what's the difference?
                    Russian Crimea and we will not give it back. bully
                    1. Liam 30 May 2020 21: 09 New
                      • 4
                      • 14
                      -10
                      This is yes. CrimeaOur
                      1. Alex777 30 May 2020 21: 15 New
                        • 6
                        • 3
                        +3
                        Correct answer! drinks
                        As for the perception of Russia as a serious force, it is perceived.
                        Otherwise, we would not have fought with all available means and the whole crowd.
                        So they perceive that they are ready to change the NATO Charter and accept Ukrainians and Georgians, regardless of their territorial conflicts.
                        Only this will not help them. hi
                        And the United States will not stand the conflict with China. You will see.
                        And after the election, Trump will no longer have conflicts.
                  2. kot423 30 May 2020 22: 57 New
                    • 9
                    • 6
                    +3
                    No one seriously takes Russia as a world power for a long time.

                    Bravo, cheered up. smile You write this a few more times, and not only in Russian, preferably in European and mattresses. Here they will be glad - they were shaking and shuddering from fear of nuclear weapons, new developments, weapons of Kaliningrad and Sevastopol, but it turns out that some kind of Liam (Liam) noun has long been known and calls not to be afraid ... laughing
              3. Interlocutor 30 May 2020 22: 11 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                So Russia claims to have a global role.

                And what does the global role mean. Russian government officials have never said that. Journalists can use this phrase, but this is usually journalists like bloggers.
            2. sergo1914 31 May 2020 00: 11 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Sky Strike fighter
              As in the case of a rupture of the INF Treaty, where they put us on the edge.


              Well, we seemed to be in the pros in this case.
        3. Civil 30 May 2020 22: 57 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          They do not agree with the weak, but set them the conditions, alas
          1. Alex777 30 May 2020 23: 01 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            They do not agree with the weak, but set them the conditions

            They are trying. But they will not break off. Judo. bully
    2. Greg Miller 30 May 2020 19: 55 New
      • 8
      • 24
      -16
      The United States is negotiating only with those whom it fears ... And next year Russia, due to the expiration of its expiration date, begins to withdraw from the armament the basis of its strategic nuclear forces - heavy silo-based ICBMs, there is nothing to replace them with. Over the past 6 (!) Years, Russia only yesterday was able to accept only one (!) New nuclear submarine, Prince Vladimir. Why should the United States agree on something with Russia? They always agree only with the strong, and for the wimps the USA has a set of sanctions, for example, by their sanctions they made Deripaska give the entire aluminum industry to Russia into the hands of the Americans ... and Putin, in this regard, did not even pick up ...
      1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 20: 13 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        And next year, Russia itself, due to the expiration of the expiration date, begins to withdraw from the armament the basis of its strategic nuclear forces - heavy silo-based ICBMs, there is nothing to replace them with.

        Something I did not hear that the Americans made a replacement for their heavy Peacekeeper ICBMs. They have long been removed from service, there is no replacement, but no one in the United States considers it weak. request We have Sarmat’s ICBMs being prepared for testing. And the Americans have nothing in this class of ICBMs.
        The US is only negotiating with those it fears ..

        Are they afraid to see Kim Jong Il since Trump was negotiating with them? Although the DPRK is new to possessing ICBMs.
        Over the past 6 (!) Years, Russia only yesterday was able to accept only one (!) New nuclear submarine, Prince Vladimir.

        The Borey-A project is essentially new; hence the delays. And how many missile carriers have the Americans brought in at the same time? Colombia will not soon start building their own.
        Always agree only with the strong,

        And with adequate. So the United States is not threatened.
        for wimps, the US has a set of sanctions, such as they forced Deripaska through their sanctions

        Well, at least somewhere sanctions worked. The Americans were not so lucky with Iran and the DPRK. Everyone is lazy about their sanctions.
        1. Alex777 30 May 2020 23: 03 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Seriously, you approached the question. wink
          By the way, is this not the Greg that Vasil gave to the tambourine on TV? laughing
        2. Pavlik K. 1 June 2020 00: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, they "spit on sanctions" ... Iran is in the ass, Europeans pay penalties by clicking, even the Chinese caved in November 2019 ... should I talk about sp-2? Guys, without cheap money and technology, we are about five years old with strength, and with such prices for oil and tied to gas, we are two years before default (well, hyperinflation ..) Well, spend half an hour on a bloomberg ...
      2. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 24 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer. bully
        Sarmat (RS-28) will replace the world's heaviest strategic missile, the Voevoda (according to NATO classification - Satan, RS-20V). Development work on this project began in 2011. Sarmat will be able to attack targets both through the North Pole and through the South, overcoming missile defense systems.
        According to Deputy Minister of Defense Alexei Krivoruchko, the first production missiles will go into service in 2021. In December, the Strategic Missile Forces began preparations for the rearmament of the first regiment of the Uzhur missile compound to Sarmatians.

        https://ria.ru/20200521/1571764740.html
    3. Civil 31 May 2020 11: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: SRC P-15
      Serious negotiations with the USA? - This is not serious!

      The United States firmly does not want to agree on anything with Russia. Well, you need to count the victory for Russia, the United States got scared and did not go to negotiations. Victory for failure to appear))))
  2. Break through 30 May 2020 19: 08 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    Yankees withdraw from contracts unilaterally always. So there is no need to have any contracts with them.
  3. Doccor18 30 May 2020 19: 14 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The US is willing to negotiate when they see that they have jumped and will not be able to win back.
    Now they don’t need START4, while they don’t need ...
    1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 19: 56 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      They don’t need anything anymore. They break all the agreements in a row. The barn (their hegemony) burned and the hut (the whole world) burned down.
      “Why do they need to withdraw from the contract? The problem is that in the USA there is completely no capacity to enrich uranium to a level that allows its use in nuclear weapons. Yes, this is a phenomenon, this is a strange thing. But this is so, ”Konstantin Sivkov said in a FAN commentary.
      Now the States are forced to do what they have: these are the warheads that the American side had to destroy in accordance with the requirement of the Treaty on Measures to Further Reduce and Limit Strategic Offensive Arms. According to Sivkov, Washington did not do this, but over the past 30 years, weapons could lose their combat effectiveness. In addition, the States are concerned about the production of a new type of warhead.

      “This is forcing Americans to withdraw from the nuclear test limitation treaty. The fact that they are unleashing a nuclear arms race is a purely political decision, and it is not dictated by any necessity. The United States, in accordance with the desire to gain nuclear superiority over the whole world and dictate its will, is going to withdraw from all treaties, ”the expert said.


      Sivkov predicted the US catastrophe in the event of the resumption of nuclear tests
      If Washington’s ambitions leave the stage of ideas for implementation, Moscow will not stand behind the answer. The resumption of nuclear tests in the United States in the future could turn into a disaster for the Americans. Sivkov spoke about the "super-warhead" that can be created in Russia and which, if applied, will destroy the American continent.
      “There is a trump card, which would be nice to remember. Russia may now begin production of super-warheads of the multi-megaton class - 100 or even 200 megatons - which could become a warhead of missiles such as Poseidon and Sarmat. Their use across the US will have critical consequences. The continent will be destroyed. Not all, of course, but faults, monstrous earthquakes, explosions of volcanoes will occur. If we put this trump card into action, the United States will have to tighten its tail, ”predicted Konstantin Sivkov.

      https://riafan.ru/1280481-sivkov-predrek-ssha-katastrofu-v-sluchae-vozobnovleniya-yadernykh-ispytanii
      1. Sergey39 30 May 2020 20: 46 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        They no longer need anything for the campaign.

        They just know that the United States has outlived its current format and are preparing to move to a new format. Which - besides them, no one knows. At the expense of "burn and hut (the whole world)" is unlikely.
  4. KVU-NSVD 30 May 2020 19: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Almost official recognition of the fact that START-3 will not be extended
    1. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 14 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      The DON treaty was associated with START-3.
      This is one way to monitor compliance.
      Therefore, since Trump left DON, he will also leave START-3.
      1. KVU-NSVD 30 May 2020 20: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Alex777
        Therefore, since Trump left DON, he will also leave START-3.

        And not only from it, the United States is consistently withdrawing from all deterrent treaties in the military sphere. Peaceful space is also in line. The ban on nuclear testing is just around the corner.
        1. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 35 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          The Americans began a complete re-equipment of soya nuclear triad.
          For 30 years, while various treaties on restriction were in force and technologies have changed greatly, and some have already been lost.
          People who created the current weapons at one time died down, and recordings of important details were in their heads, as it became clear now. bully
          Therefore, they really need to carry out tests and create weapons at a qualitatively new level. Here it is.
          The question is how it is with us.
          As far as I know, it’s much better than in the USA.
          Including Kiriyenko thanks for this. hi
          1. Sergey39 30 May 2020 20: 52 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Late in their life they realized that they had refitted the triad.
            1. Alex777 30 May 2020 20: 56 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              There are unverified rumors that buying cheap uranium from us for decades (which made me pretty angry at the time), they forgot how to enrich it. bully
              With re-equipment, they strain and cope.
              But how much after this their public debt will increase - this is a mystery covered in darkness.
              And then there are problems with China and the coronavirus. Bad luck. hi
  5. Mouse 30 May 2020 19: 39 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    We tried .... but the states are not negotiable ... with them, and demand ... yes
    1. Terenin 30 May 2020 22: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mouse
      We tried .... but the states are not negotiable ... with them, and demand ... yes

      Well, if you don’t seriously ask them, then ... compose a ditty on them winked
      1. Mouse 30 May 2020 22: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And we are to them and so and so ...
        With words and without words ...
        Only the face was wrapped ...
        An exception without a bottle ...
        you understand horseradish ...
        1. Terenin 30 May 2020 22: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Mouse
          Only the face was wrapped ...
          An exception without a bottle ...
          you understand horseradish ...

          Basil, this is more like a speech by Trump - Donald yes
          1. Mouse 30 May 2020 22: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I’m sorry for the guy - he expected a fright, a run-in, a message on ..., hostility - but not a massive rzhachka ... wassat
  6. Pvi1206 30 May 2020 19: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The United States sits at the negotiating table only when it is somewhat inferior in some way ... and they want to buy time ... then to withdraw from the treaty ... should they condone this? ...
  7. Raven 95 30 May 2020 19: 55 New
    • 10
    • 6
    +4
    Putin noted that START-3 has expired, and so far no serious negotiations have been held with the United States on this issue.

    But this is an occasion to think about why they do not want to negotiate? Probably no longer afraid.
    Hence the second question - why did they stop being afraid? So sure of yourself?
    1. military_cat 30 May 2020 20: 20 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Raven-95
      So sure of yourself?
      There is a second option: sure enough that there is nothing to fear. (The point, of course, is not that the missiles are rusted, but that the probability of a global war is zero from their point of view.)
    2. dauria 31 May 2020 00: 02 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Hence the second question - why did they stop being afraid? So sure of yourself?


      They are afraid ... for the first time after the collapse of the USSR, they are afraid. Not Russia ... They are afraid of China. And not in vain. China has the world's first industry, population, is not bound by treaties (neither strategic offensive arms, nor medium-sized, nor open-air). His leadership is undeniable now. But to put together a military bloc against China is real only by harnessing Russia. So they think striped. Their position is akin to that of England after the surrender of France to Hitler.
  8. Knell wardenheart 30 May 2020 20: 19 New
    • 6
    • 11
    -5
    Camooon, well, what negotiations)) The West sees perfectly the state of our economy and the problems of power, because there are no fools there. Their analysts understand that we can’t stand the arms race in any way, that's all, the era is gone when we could play some kind of deterrence ..
    Of course, it is also unprofitable for the Americans, and monitoring, attached to restrictive treaties — they then increase satellite intelligence and, for the same reason, leave DON — they have enough information. They are pretty good at what our budget is capable of under the current government, and unlike our population, they do not experience any illusions about our abilities / capabilities.
    On the other hand, the breakdown of such agreements puts an end to our ability to monitor and evaluate the state of overseas arsenals.
    What can I say - of course we will once again rumble and make a good face with a bad game, but all these agreements have outlived their epoch - the era of relative parity has passed ..
    1. Break through 30 May 2020 20: 27 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      Agree with you. We will put Sarmatian with Poseidon and let them go to the bathhouse laughing и
  9. svp67 30 May 2020 20: 20 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    The United States will not conduct any negotiations with us right now, it is not in their interests now. Russia is not the USSR, alas.
    1. Sky strike fighter 30 May 2020 20: 29 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      The current USA, I’ll tell you so, is also not a couple of the USA 30 years ago. Compare at least the current American fleet, especially submarines, and the US fleet 30 years ago. Many have been reduced.
    2. Liam 30 May 2020 20: 32 New
      • 3
      • 9
      -6
      Quote: svp67
      The United States will not conduct any negotiations with us right now, it is not in their interests now. Russia is not the USSR, alas.

      But hasn't Russia wanted for so long a multiplayer peace and confrontation with the hegemon? So create your own pole now and compete in the arms race.
      1. svp67 30 May 2020 20: 41 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: Liam
        But didn’t Russia want for so long a multiplayer peace and confrontation with the hegemonic

        Well, firstly, no one canceled the multipolar world, just as the United States did not try.
        Quote: Liam
        confrontation with the hegemon

        Least of all we dreamed about it ... We don’t want to be his sixes, I think that this will also bother your Motherland, sooner or later.
        Quote: Liam
        So now create your own pole and compete in an arms race.

        Think straight ... like your hegemon
        Quote: Liam
        All adult
        For an adult, for an adult, then just do not regret it, Russia never refused a good fight.
        1. Liam 30 May 2020 20: 47 New
          • 3
          • 11
          -8
          Quote: svp67
          We don’t want to be his sixes

          You have a camp psychology. Sixes, bend down, etc. .. Do not confuse a normal world with a zone, people with prisoners, and the law with concepts)
          1. svp67 30 May 2020 20: 50 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Quote: Liam
            You have a camp psychology.

            Milman, this is some kind of clouding of your mind. You do not want and do not know how to listen to others. And who told you that your “happiness” can be mine? And I'm not trained in politics. As it is, I say so.
            Quote: Liam
            Do not confuse the normal world with the zone, people with prisoners, and the law with concepts)

            You know, a world where love for a woman becomes something forbidden, and all sorts of biblical sins cannot be called “normal”.
            1. Liam 30 May 2020 21: 05 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              They also hang blacks. A dangerous world. And without spiritual bonds
              1. svp67 30 May 2020 21: 08 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                Quote: Liam
                There are also blacks hanging.

                Yes? Yes, you are also a supporter of the KKK ... No wonder
                Quote: Liam
                Dangerous world.

                Ordinary. He had never been otherwise ...
                Quote: Liam
                And without spiritual bonds

                And in your case, even crazy ... And the world somehow did not turn upside down ...
      2. Interlocutor 30 May 2020 22: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So now create your own pole and compete in an arms race.

        Yes, he was, is and will be. Do not worry. He is in everything. From thinking to understanding values.
  10. Gardamir 30 May 2020 20: 53 New
    • 5
    • 11
    -6

    If he doesn’t want to. so that Russia is a superpower, then where it climbs, then where it climbs. Stalin turned the USSR into a super-power, and he spoke with all on equal terms, even down. And now? First-grader, something offers the first-grader.
  11. nobody111body 30 May 2020 21: 29 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    worthless to all negotiations and treaties with a handful of American Jews — this handful steers America by appointing fake presidents and unleashing wars and coups; when Gaddafi signed many different treaties, so what? let the young ones take an interest in his fate
  12. iouris 30 May 2020 22: 15 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    They themselves did everything for this: they agree only with equals. If we stop living "anyhow", we will live "how it goes." "There has never been such a thing, but it never happened!" (Schweik)
  13. Inspector 30 May 2020 22: 40 New
    • 0
    • 7
    -7
    To prohibit negotiations with the United States in the constitution.
    1. iouris 31 May 2020 12: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But this number will not work: to work in the USA for years, to actually live there, is a valuable resource.
  14. barin 30 May 2020 23: 17 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    I apologize for the offtopic: the Americans launched Dragon. Our congratulations!
    1. iouris 31 May 2020 12: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Congratulations to you.
  15. APASUS 30 May 2020 23: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The United States headed for the destruction of treaties restricting Americans! The reason is the same everywhere - the second side is to blame, the Russians are with Russia, the Chinese are with China, and WHO is to blame with the WHO.
    In this case, you should not humiliate yourself at all (this usually leads to the opposite effect), you need to change the doctrine of defense and economic development, according to the changed conditions!
    1. iouris 31 May 2020 00: 31 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: APASUS
      don't be humbled

      Not worth it, of course, because they will now constantly humiliate. And it does not depend on who will "win" in the "election" in the United States. In general, one should constantly ask them, "what are our national interests?" They will always give advice.
    2. Sling cutter 31 May 2020 00: 53 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: APASUS
      In this case, you should not humiliate yourself at all (this usually leads to the opposite effect), you need to change the doctrine of defense and economic development, according to the changed conditions!

      Are you sure that exactly tomorrow, the chief bunker will order that the cartoon union change its doctrine?
      1. APASUS 31 May 2020 07: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Stroporez
        Are you sure that exactly tomorrow, the chief bunker will order that the cartoon union change its doctrine?

        Judging by the analysis of the situation, available excerpts from the media about the deaths of people, some samples are more than real. Yes, and no one canceled the secrecy
  16. Old26 30 May 2020 23: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Greg Miller
    The United States is negotiating only with those whom it fears ... And next year Russia, due to the expiration of its expiration date, begins to withdraw from the armament the basis of its strategic nuclear forces - heavy silo-based ICBMs, there is nothing to replace them with.

    We have been taking them out of service for at least 5-7 years. Now they are left in service with an extremely small number, not more than 2 dozen, which does not weather in the total amount of YBG

    Quote: Greg Miller
    Over the past 6 (!) Years, Russia only yesterday was able to accept only one (!) New nuclear submarine, Prince Vladimir.

    And why did you take exactly 6 years as a basis, and not 7? In addition, even if you take 6 years as your basis, then there are two boats - “Vladimir Monomakh” and “Prince Vladimir”. If you take a time period of 7 years - you get not 1 or 2, but 4 boats. "Yuri Dolgoruky" and "Alexander Nevsky" came into operation in 2013

    Quote: Greg Miller
    Why should the United States agree on something with Russia?

    That is, at the time of signing, we were strong, but now we have become weak? An interesting option ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Something I did not hear that the Americans made a replacement for their heavy Peacekeeper ICBMs. They have long been removed from service, there is no replacement, but no one in the United States considers it weak. request We have Sarmat’s ICBMs being prepared for testing. And the Americans have nothing in this class of ICBMs.

    Maxim! Piskipper never was heavy ICBMs. A missile with a launch weight of 106 tons is considered heavy. Piskiper has an EMNIP of 88 tons. It is easy. The last heavy they had in the 70s, "Titan-2"

    Quote: Alex777
    The DON treaty was associated with START-3.
    This is one way to monitor compliance.
    Therefore, since Trump left DON, he will also leave START-3.

    No. This is a completely different contract. Separate and unrelated to START-3. I wonder how you can conduct inspections on a rocket using an airplane .... Very interesting.

    Quote: Alex777
    The Americans began a complete re-equipment of soya nuclear triad.

    Not yet. Now the first steps only in the aviation component are the creation of a B-3 bomber (aka B-21). They are only planning to start developing missiles to replace the Trident D-5 in the middle of the decade. As in principle, the development of a rocket to replace the Minuteman-3. Now all work with the nuclear triad takes place as part of the modernization of existing samples.

    Quote: Alex777
    For 30 years, various restriction treaties have been in force and technologies have changed greatly, and some have already been lost. People who created the current weapons at one time died down, and the recordings of important details were in their heads, as it became clear now. bully

    Technology is of course changing. They leave, some have become irrelevant, others come. 30 years ago, the Americans did not know how to replace bonded charges on an industrial scale. Now they can. 30-40 years ago, the technology of step winding was not so widely developed - now it is a very real working technology. And about the fact that something was in the minds of scientists and is now lost - bullshit. Only promising plans could be in their heads. And all the details of weapons in the same rocket are documented. No one will start releasing any part if it is exclusively in the head of the developer.

    Quote: Alex777
    Therefore, they really need to carry out tests and create weapons at a qualitatively new level. Here it is.
    The question is how it is with us.
    As far as I know, it’s much better than in the USA.
    Including Kiriyenko thanks for this.

    The situation is exactly the same with us. Any new product is a test, and in a large enough quantity.
    1. Sling cutter 31 May 2020 01: 53 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      The situation is exactly the same with us. Any new product is a test, and in a large enough quantity.

      Are you talking about the northern training ground? When irradiated irradiated irradiated and vice versa? Hammer in, there is nothing !!! there is only one .....
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Revival 31 May 2020 01: 33 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Yes, nothing good could be started at all, but this is already quite familiar.
    1. iouris 31 May 2020 12: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Revival
      failed to start anything good at all

      Have you finished badly?
  19. Graz 31 May 2020 02: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    no negotiations needed
  20. Gennady Fomkin 31 May 2020 03: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    laughing Our western opponents like to part water in reasoning. They would simply say that we want to control you and get energy resources for free, and everything would be much quicker to decide with the direction of their movement there.
  21. Gennady Fomkin 31 May 2020 03: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    maybe we’ll give a fuck? At the same time, global warming will be defeated. laughing
    1. iouris 31 May 2020 12: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Be sure to bang, Private Fomkin. Mandatory.
  22. Old26 31 May 2020 12: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Civil
    The United States firmly does not want to agree on anything with Russia. Well, you need to count the victory for Russia, the United States got scared and did not go to negotiations. Victory for failure to appear))))

    using the sporting principle and sporting terminology in such an area as strategic weapons is very creative .... But it’s stupid in essence. Any agreement is a compromise. Any withdrawal from the contract is a defeat for both parties, for they agree to compensate for something and somehow ...
    Well, here’s the closest option to “win after no show”

    In Russia, about 76 strategists TU-160 and TU-95MS of various modifications are currently in operation. Let 3-4 more cars be under repair and modernization. Total for an even account 80.
    In the United States, 49 B-2A and B-52N bombers are currently deployed. Another 17 are under repair and in the process of modernization. Total 66 cars. Their 41 bomber is classified as “non-nuclear,” that is, it currently does not carry strategic missile launchers and nuclear weapons. Upgrading them to nuclear is only time. In total, our enemy will already have 107 bombers against our 80. In stock, he still has about 66 B-1B bombers. Which to modernize into nuclear strategists and bring to a state of airworthiness - only time is needed. We add another 107 to 66 - it turns out a little more than 170. And besides this, on the basis of long-term storage, they have about a dozen B-52H and about 20-30 B-52G, which they can put into operation within a few months. As a result, the adversary will receive, instead of the current 66 (deployed and not deployed), as a result of the “Victory for the Absenteeism” 2 hundreds of strategists versus 80 with us? Is this a victory for no show?
    Continue? I can carry out the same analysis on ICBM boats on ICBMs ... The simplest thing is to lay down ...

    Quote: Stroporez
    Quote: Old26
    The situation is exactly the same with us. Any new product is a test, and in a large enough quantity.

    Are you talking about the northern training ground? When irradiated irradiated irradiated and vice versa? Hammer in, there is nothing !!! there is only one .....

    Yeah, a masterpiece of excuses. It is absurd and important to understand nothing. But self-esteem raises ...

    Quote: Graz
    no negotiations needed

    Of course not. At the adversary, the old missiles went through a modernization cycle and will be in service until 2035-2042, and we are writing off. At the same time, unlike the times of the Union, we put into service not 3-5 regiments per year, but a regiment, a couple of regiments in 2 years ... It was the agreement that allowed us to maintain parity, but to “collapse” our strategic nuclear forces - but he didn’t needy. Sofa strategists think so. NOT NECESSARY
  23. Nitarius 1 June 2020 07: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    they put a gun to their temple .. they don’t understand otherwise! maybe so they put him at the negotiating table