Military Review

The US put forward a number of conditions for the extension of START-3

115

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump may renew the strategic offensive arms treaty with the Russian Federation. But in response, it requires the fulfillment of three conditions.


About this writes the Wall Street Journal.

According to them, US President Donald Trump will re-sign this agreement if the Russian side agrees to certain conditions. The American leader proposes to include new stringent verification measures in the agreement. In addition, the parties must take into account absolutely all of their nuclear warheads. And, probably, the most important condition is the accession to the treaty of a third party - the People’s Republic of China.

After listing all this, the source of the publication added that the conditions put forward are quite possibly not final, and Trump may require something else.

Consultations between the US and Russia on the extension of the START-3 agreement took place on June 22 in Vienna. At the meeting, many issues were discussed, including guarantees of stability and predictability of the parties' actions after the United States withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.

START-3 was concluded by Russia and the United States in 2010 and entered into force in 2011. In February 2021, it will expire.

The reaction of the Chinese side to the conditions of trump has not yet been reported.
Photos used:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/
115 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Gaubvaxta
    Gaubvaxta 24 June 2020 10: 11 New
    20
    Could instead of this article the Victory Parade be included on-line .. Or is the site no longer Russian?
    Oh you .. negative
    Everything is beautiful .. The soul rejoices! Mother Russia is alive!
    1. janin
      janin 24 June 2020 10: 15 New
      37
      watching the Victory Parade! I am proud of the victory of our fathers and grandfathers. But on Trump’s demand. I want to ask .. and the United States may still require something from Russia? EBN era is over.
      1. Valery Valery
        Valery Valery 24 June 2020 10: 28 New
        29
        Parade!!!! Victory!!! Glory to Russia!!!
        Glory to the SOVIET PEOPLE !!!





        And Trump, with his terms, is in ..... !!!
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 24 June 2020 10: 46 New
        14
        Quote: janin
        and can the USA still demand something from Russia?

        Probably the fairest claim to take Alaska back
        1. janin
          janin 24 June 2020 10: 51 New
          +7
          Quote: Tusv

          Probably the fairest claim to take Alaska back

          it would be necessary to hold a referendum. in order to give "Alaskans" to express their will)
        2. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 11: 02 New
          -33
          And will you pay at the current rate for Alaska? Let me remind you that Catherine did not give. but sold Alaska.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 24 June 2020 11: 03 New
            19
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            Let me remind you that Catherine did not give. but sold Alaska.

            Let me remind you that Lube was mistaken with Catherine
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 11: 04 New
              -23
              Let me remind you that Lube was mistaken with Catherine

              Well, if it’s a mistake, then you need to return the money, right? We are not bandits, right?
              1. Oyo Sarkazmi
                Oyo Sarkazmi 24 June 2020 13: 00 New
                +6
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                then you need to return the money, right?

                Three million dollars to return? Yes Easy. Moreover, the Americans have not paid 10 thousand dollars for Fort Ross so far. The court may recognize the deal fraudulent - and give back to the United States.
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 24 June 2020 11: 22 New
            22
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            And will you pay at the current rate for Alaska? Let me remind you that Catherine did not give. but sold Alaska.

            Jack O'Neill, did you personally count what Russia was supposed to get for Alaska? As far as I remember, the ship that was carrying gold to Alaska, as V.V. Putin would put it ... "He drowned" ....
            P.S. Alaska was not sold by Catherine II, but by Alexander II in 1867. Manual update however ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. sabakina
                sabakina 24 June 2020 12: 03 New
                +6
                Suppose, and where does Catherine II?
                1. Jack O'Neill
                  Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 12: 05 New
                  -13
                  Suppose, and where does Catherine II?

                  I always thought that Catherine had sold, and it was already heard. Wrong, it happens. Sold by Alexander II. But this does not change the essence. We sold the land and got the money.
                  Those. It turns out how, first to sell, and then, how to squeeze a gopat?
                  If you bought for example shavuha, i.e. they received a product for their rubles, and after they’ll squeeze it out at the exit, how will it be?
              2. Stealight
                Stealight 24 June 2020 12: 10 New
                0
                "written by an unknown employee"
                Feel free to ask, what is this?
        3. antivirus
          antivirus 24 June 2020 17: 55 New
          0
          if China joins - then negotiations and signing in Singapore (or TOKYO)
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 24 June 2020 11: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Gaubvaxta
      Could instead of this article the Victory Parade in the online include.

      Well, why, here I am on my computer and look at the victory parade, and the site is also open.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. Motorist
        Motorist 24 June 2020 19: 28 New
        0
        Quote: ApJlekuHo
        they train us with parasite words

        Parasite words sort of like ... well, sort of ... that ... in (!) - for a second I’d say a little others. yes
  2. newcomer
    newcomer 24 June 2020 10: 14 New
    10
    No certainty. Everything in the framework of "Highly Likeley". And let them pull the Chinese to the table themselves, while not forgetting their vassals who own nuclear weapons.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 36 New
      +6
      The appearance of violent activity is created, which would then blame us and China.
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 24 June 2020 12: 59 New
        +2
        I agree. In any case, they have accusations and accusations in store: they didn’t bring that, they couldn’t bring it, they couldn’t keep the Chinese in the framework of the agreement. This is called throwing your problem / wishlist onto our shoulders. And the initial question: what? What are we, messengers ?!
        1. cniza
          cniza 24 June 2020 14: 54 New
          +4
          That's just the point, such contracts are signed / extended without preliminary Wishlist, since everyone is interested.
  3. Poetry
    Poetry 24 June 2020 10: 14 New
    +2
    "Katz invites everyone to surrender."
  4. To be or not to be
    To be or not to be 24 June 2020 10: 14 New
    +4
    Trump bluffs and bargains as always
    What can be the conditions of the lagging party (USA) in the development and creation of modern delivery systems based on new physical principles. Conditions. Seems. Dictates strong? China directly sent the United States with a treaty.
  5. Doccor18
    Doccor18 24 June 2020 10: 16 New
    12
    The United States understands why a treaty is needed. But why is he to Russia, and even more so to China? The Americans lagged behind and now, as in the distant 1922, they want to use tricks and pressure to reduce the successes of others to nothing.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 34 New
      +5
      That's right, they need more than us, so let them strain.
  6. Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 24 June 2020 10: 16 New
    +2
    Th for a military cowboy in the photo.
    1. Poetry
      Poetry 24 June 2020 10: 47 New
      +4
      There the horse is still tied, it has not fit into the frame. Cowboy troops.
  7. alma
    alma 24 June 2020 10: 16 New
    +5
    Due to China’s position, these conditions are not feasible in advance. Let others.
  8. zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 24 June 2020 10: 16 New
    11
    Then let Israel join with France and England.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 24 June 2020 10: 21 New
      +8
      Arsenals of France, England and Israel are the trump ace of the United States in the sleeve. If you need to apply - apply. But they will never agree to a treaty to limit the arsenals of their allies.
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 24 June 2020 10: 29 New
        +8
        Good Aleksakndr. France and England do not hide the number, but the Jews still do not recognize. According to him, only assumptions (almost divination on maps)
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 24 June 2020 10: 52 New
        +8
        Quote: Doccor18
        Arsenals of France, England and Israel are the trump ace of the United States in the sleeve.

        Exactly for sure. On English submarines, unaccounted for rented American Tridents stand. Must be cut by a new treaty
  9. Pacifist
    Pacifist 24 June 2020 10: 24 New
    13
    Generally meaningless action. They are non-negotiable. Any paper signed by the USA is no more valuable than used toilet paper. He demands ... demand from your wife. In response, we could demand that all NATO countries with nuclear weapons be included in the treaty and consider them one arsenal. In general, at this stage, there is not a single argument in favor of any agreements with them.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 33 New
      +4
      So we need to do so, since they want to set conditions, let them receive conditions from us.
  10. evgen1221
    evgen1221 24 June 2020 10: 30 New
    0
    Too long to be the hegemon and dominant harmful brains swim. They really believe that we can order something from China? Once the Chinese are trying to fasten the agreement through us. This is more likely for us both China and the states to send orders than we can do there. In general, it will not be rolled for reasons beyond our control.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 32 New
      +3
      Now, let them agree with China themselves ...
  11. Igor Polovodov
    Igor Polovodov 24 June 2020 10: 36 New
    +1
    The company with the cowboy and the blackmailer of all the land is bad in essence ... we make promises ourselves, we take them ourselves ...
    Communication is purely diplomatic picks ...
    there can be no real contracts with cheaters ...
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 31 New
      +3
      They really want to humiliate us, but quite ...
  12. Russ
    Russ 24 June 2020 10: 36 New
    0
    China will stopudovo refuse ... so that their Wishlist will remain Wishlist .... yes
  13. codetalker
    codetalker 24 June 2020 10: 40 New
    +3
    This should be understood as a rejection of the START Treaty?) Well, is this usually done “diplomatically”? Impossible conditions ... China seems not to be our colony or some kind of protectorate.
  14. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 24 June 2020 10: 47 New
    +6
    It sounds something like this - hey, give up, give up again, and these, from a neighboring yard, give up!
    A logical question - WHY? In response, we hear something like - well, we are a hegemon! And EVERYTHING owes to us!
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 30 New
      +3
      How do they convey this meaning, or do they really not understand?
  15. knn54
    knn54 24 June 2020 10: 54 New
    0
    -and Trump may require something else.
    The Yankees have ALL decided, because they are baked ONLY about their own benefit. It remains to label the Russian Federation and China.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 29 New
      +3
      But they will do so and blame us with the Chinese ...
  16. Graz
    Graz 24 June 2020 10: 54 New
    +1
    we absolutely do not need this agreement at any cost, the agreement is a concession on both sides and takes into account the interests of both parties (well, or several parties to the parties to the agreement), and not just one American
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 28 New
      +3
      I also think that the US needs it more ...
  17. Talgarets
    Talgarets 24 June 2020 11: 02 New
    +2
    1. As practice has shown, Trump cannot be trusted.
    2. The agreement is prolonged subject to the accession of the PRC to it. Who and how will ensure the accession of China?
    3. Usually, any changes to the contract are made on the basis of joint agreements of the parties, otherwise the contract is unequal.
    Based on the foregoing, it follows that the statement made is another bunch in a puddle, the meaning of which is "We offered you, you yourself refused."
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 27 New
      +3
      They just don’t know what to do, but they are trying to portray rough work.
  18. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 11: 03 New
    -3
    And, probably, the most important condition is the accession to the treaty of a third party - the People’s Republic of China.

    Oddly enough, but this particular item should be the main one in START-4. And it will be strange if we and the Americans will reduce charges, and build up China. Meaning then in START-4? Yes, without China, it makes no sense.
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 24 June 2020 11: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      And, probably, the most important condition is the accession to the treaty of a third party - the People’s Republic of China.

      Oddly enough, but this particular item should be the main one in START-4. And it will be strange if we and the Americans will reduce charges, and build up China. Meaning then in START-4? Yes, without China, it makes no sense.

      And without Britain, France and Israel, would it make sense?
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 11: 47 New
        -5
        And without Britain, France and Israel, would it make sense?

        Yes, it will.
        And yes, officially, Israel has no nuclear weapons. Do Great Britain and France cut a lot then?
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 24 June 2020 11: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          And without Britain, France and Israel, would it make sense?

          Yes, it will.
          And yes, officially, Israel has no nuclear weapons. Do Great Britain and France cut a lot then?

          Uncle Petya, are you that? Britain, France and Israel are in the Warsaw Pact or NATO?
          1. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 12: 02 New
            -4
            Uncle Petya, are you that? Britain, France and Israel are in the Warsaw Pact or NATO?

            And what about the fact that France and Britain are in NATO?
            Israel is neither a NATO nor a Warsaw Pact.
            1. gsev
              gsev 24 June 2020 13: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              Israel is neither a NATO nor a Warsaw Pact.

              China is also not a member of any bloc. Therefore, demanding the inclusion of Israel, Pakistan, and India is just as legitimate as the PRC. I assume that the PRC and DPRK will agree to participate in such an agreement on the following conditions; the reduction of US warheads to their level and the transfer to them of uranium and plutonium from US stocks for parity in nuclear weapons (or rather, in raw materials for the production of such weapons).
              1. Jack O'Neill
                Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 14: 32 New
                -2
                So Israel doesn’t have nuclear weapons? What did Israel forget in START? And what offensive weapons should Israel reduce?
                Pakistan, India, North Korea, they also have nothing special to cut. For show, of course, it is possible, but in fact it will not work.
                1. gsev
                  gsev 24 June 2020 15: 57 New
                  0
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  So Israel doesn’t have nuclear weapons?

                  As far as I know, there are about 50 years.
                  1. Jack O'Neill
                    Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 17: 17 New
                    -1
                    As far as I know, there are about 50 years.

                    Unofficially.
                    But even if Israel has nuclear weapons, then it is also unlikely that there is any way to reduce it.
                    Another thing is a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Here it should be written and executed by everyone who has one.
                    1. gsev
                      gsev 24 June 2020 18: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      Unofficially.
                      But even if Israel has nuclear weapons,

                      But didn’t Israel explicitly warn all of its probable opponents about the presence of these weapons? In 1973, Israeli installations seemed to be openly made for firing on advancing Arabs with special warheads.
                      1. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 18: 12 New
                        -1
                        But didn’t Israel explicitly warn its probable opponents of the presence of these weapons? In 1973, Israeli installations seemed to be openly made for firing on advancing Arabs with special warheads.

                        This is called a bluff. Khrushchev, too, once bluffed ...
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 24 June 2020 18: 00 New
          +1
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Do Great Britain and France cut a lot then?

          Jackie, naive you are our Chukchi youth lol At the beginning of the zero, France had 384 strategic nuclear warheads, the UK - 215 pieces ... We will lower Israel - Jews are Jews ...
          But you propose not to take into account about 600 warheads of US allies and faithful vassals ??? Somehow not in patsaki negative
          For me, there are so few cons to you wink hi
          1. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 18: 20 New
            -1
            Jackie, naive you are our Chukchi youth lol At the beginning of the zero France had 384 strategic nuclear warheads, the UK - 215 pieces ...

            So what?..
            Then we will also have to reduce our warheads to the same level, so that it’s patsansky.
            Remind me how many warheads Russia has? Mmm ~ 1.5000, somewhere like that?

            But you propose not to take into account about 600 warheads of US allies and faithful vassals ??? Somehow not in patsaki negative

            Well, yes, that's what I wrote about.
            Who will reduce their charges, which the cat wept so much, just because one country does not like it, which has ~ 1.500 of these.
            Megalomania called!
            You are neither better nor worse than the French with the Britons, so why should they cut much more than us? I do not think that is better than others, and you?
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 24 June 2020 19: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              So what?

              And the fact that when in total the USSR (and then Russia) had more warheads and carriers than the United States and its faithful NATO allies, such an agreement was beneficial to the Americans, such as to equalize (it turned out that we destroyed more than the USA. Then, when there was parity on carriers and warheads (700 carriers and 1550 warheads), it turned out that in the case of faq, the United States still has a trump card in the sleeve in the form of allied 600-hundred warheads of its vassals.
              Given that Article 5 of the NATO treaty implies an immediate response in the event of an attack on one of the members, we receive an automatic advantage against Russia of 600 warheads request
              Jackie, is it patsaki ??? wink
              Remember one small thing - Americans sign contracts when they are confident in their superiority. And they all know that they know how to unilaterally tear them up (Iran will not let me break it, and the Open Skies Treaty) ...
              Jack, America is a non-negotiable liar yes wink
              1. Jack O'Neill
                Jack O'Neill 24 June 2020 20: 09 New
                -1
                600 allied warheads won't make the weather. Moreover, if the allied nuclei fly, it means that both we and the Americans have already pulled into each other. That we have radioactive ashes, that they have.
                But one cannot perceive the entire bloc as one country. Today is in the block, but not tomorrow (France). And what should they do when they have 10-20 nuclear warheads and they will be outside the block?
                Not patsansky all the same.)
  19. krops777
    krops777 24 June 2020 11: 32 New
    +2
    The US put forward a number of conditions for the extension of START-3


    It does not even come to the star-striped that it is necessary to put forward no conditions, and you will be able to agree on proposals, you look at something, but pride does not allow it.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 25 New
      +2
      Rather, there are not enough brains, they have completely grown ...
  20. Yura
    Yura 24 June 2020 11: 40 New
    +2
    Yes, he went, this Trump blacks to set their conditions or accept their requirements, and I also went, look for my felt boot, but I stocked somewhere.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 24 New
      +3
      Trump would not be Trump if he had not been bargaining, but in this case they did not explain to him what was what.
      1. Yura
        Yura 24 June 2020 13: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: cniza
        but in this case they didn’t explain to him what was what.

        This is yes, because bargaining involves the promotion of conditions by both parties, for example, Russia in this case has the right to demand accession to the treaty besides China also Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and all other countries. These will be legitimate and fair demands, but obviously unenforceable at least in the next decade or two, hence the conclusion - the USA does not need an agreement, therefore they take it under its conditions, but snakes with mountain bears in a deliberately deadlock situation already preceded Russia and China, Russia has the need to do the same, we will wait for our response steps.
        1. cniza
          cniza 24 June 2020 14: 59 New
          +3
          But we have no choice but to put forward counterclaims, otherwise they will all be brought down on us.
        2. gsev
          gsev 24 June 2020 16: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: Jura
          Russia in this case has the right to demand accession to the treaty besides China also Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and all other countries.

          Russia and the United States can only ask these countries. The DPRK seems to be in talks with the United States, but so far Kim has not achieved anything tangible from Trump. Koreans successfully defend their interests with the United States from a position of strength than in diplomatic battles. At present, Russia sees the threat only from the US nuclear weapons and no action will be taken to change the policies of other nuclear countries for fear of deterioration in relations with these countries from the PRC to Israel as a result of hasty diplomatic steps.
          1. Yura
            Yura 24 June 2020 17: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: gsev
            Russia and the USA may

            I have no particular objections regarding your post, but there is a moment in this story - the existing agreement implies an automatic extension (prolongation) if the parties have no objections to it and they confirm this extension, Russia has never voiced its withdrawal from the agreement or about any special conditions. Here, everything is very simple, the contract is extended as it is, if this is not there, then there is no contract, if something else means this is another contract.
  21. u123uuu
    u123uuu 24 June 2020 11: 49 New
    0
    It was time to demand their time, six of them should be ours.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 23 New
      +3
      Such agreements are signed without preconditions, since all parties are interested in it, and Trump decided to bargain, this is his problem.
  22. lopvlad
    lopvlad 24 June 2020 11: 50 New
    +2
    put forward a number of conditions


    to cut all modern weapons and take the trash out of the Urals + to conclude a new analogue of the CFE Treaty? What else can they offer besides this, while being conveniently located right next to the state borders of Russia.
    So the extension of START-3 to go to the trash with a very high probability.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 21 New
      +2
      Nobody forbids them to dream ...
  23. rocket757
    rocket757 24 June 2020 12: 03 New
    0
    Collaborate with those who do not intend to do this .... empty chores.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      Collaborate with those who do not intend to do this .... empty chores.


      They do not have specialists, or rather they are not in power, who would clearly explain them to the President of today and the future, that the United States is more interested in this agreement than Russia, if they do not understand this, these are their problems. Greetings! hi
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 24 June 2020 13: 21 New
        +2
        Hi soldier
        It is useless to explain to them, they need to prove in real life, Schaub was sensitive, at the very most.
        1. cniza
          cniza 24 June 2020 14: 55 New
          +4
          Well, in real life, I really would not want to, but they can force it.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 24 June 2020 15: 10 New
            +2
            Yes, it’s impossible to bring to extreme. So you need to be more cunning, smarter than you need, more sophisticated ... wherever you go around the edge, but Schaub sensations were unforgettable.
            Everything is possible, if carefully.
            1. cniza
              cniza 24 June 2020 16: 35 New
              +3
              I agree, and we have people who can do this.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 24 June 2020 17: 33 New
                +1
                At least there is someone to teach! And we always have talented, purposeful youth!
                1. cniza
                  cniza 24 June 2020 18: 03 New
                  +3
                  And they continue to escalate the US and it looks like an army corps with all the infrastructure will be deployed in Poland.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 24 June 2020 19: 05 New
                    +1
                    Another cross on the map .... let them.
                    1. cniza
                      cniza 24 June 2020 21: 00 New
                      +3
                      They don’t understand this, and when their people find out, I think they will experience “happiness”.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 24 June 2020 22: 01 New
                        +1
                        There patriotic fervor, in half with stupidity .... however, they have sane! As elsewhere, they are in the minority.
  24. Tatyana Sementsova
    Tatyana Sementsova 24 June 2020 12: 06 New
    +2
    Well, the United States is already at a different level to dictate the conditions .... These phantom memories of past power make it difficult to go down to earth ...... But they bring your acquaintance with Poseidon and the Dagger very close ...
    And the parade is really gorgeous !!! All a happy holiday !!!! love
  25. Stealight
    Stealight 24 June 2020 12: 08 New
    0
    "But in response, she requires three conditions."
    Seriously ? Have you already set off? You need it just like us. Nothing to build a girl from.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 18 New
      +3
      These are trump methods, he thinks that he is still doing business ...
      1. Stealight
        Stealight 24 June 2020 12: 20 New
        0
        Well, there are two options. Or he just doesn’t want to extend it and set unacceptable conditions, so that later he would throw the blame on us, they say, I suggested to the Russians, and they refused such bad ones. Or, he went quite a cuckoo. Something like this :)
        1. cniza
          cniza 24 June 2020 12: 42 New
          +2
          It is not clear there who advises him and what, but everything goes to the point of blaming us and China.
          1. Stealight
            Stealight 24 June 2020 12: 44 New
            0
            So it’s as clear as God's day :)
            1. cniza
              cniza 24 June 2020 14: 50 New
              +3
              Someone apparently is not clear if they put the minuses.
  26. kriten
    kriten 24 June 2020 12: 12 New
    0
    What conditions? They now need to fulfill the conditions of blacks and quickly ruin the country for black fun. And in general - there is no need to talk with whites there yet.
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 12: 17 New
      +1
      God forbid they fall apart and what to do with their I.O.? and who will it have?
  27. cniza
    cniza 24 June 2020 12: 16 New
    +2
    After listing all this, the source of the publication added that the conditions put forward are quite possibly not final, and Trump may require something else.


    As the saying goes, let his wife require ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 24 June 2020 13: 30 New
      +1
      No, no, Milania is not interfering in such dirty games. Gorgeous first ... lady, I have to admit it.
      Let his advisers require the non-possible. This is their game!
      1. cniza
        cniza 24 June 2020 14: 57 New
        +3
        Okay, we won’t, especially as she is a Slav, and their games are not right at all, the world is barely holding on ...
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 24 June 2020 15: 13 New
          +1
          This is the world, they pretty much closed themselves! It will be difficult to fall off, but if you want, everything is possible.
          1. cniza
            cniza 24 June 2020 16: 37 New
            +3
            Just not just that, it can break a lot of things.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 24 June 2020 17: 36 New
              +1
              Want and then be smart! Although, you can Tycho, Tycho, where you need to steer. There is a choice of options.
  28. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 24 June 2020 12: 26 New
    0
    laughing What are the conditions? Penance should be imposed on the sinner. In case of relapse, kissing the feet also - three times, crosswise laughing
  29. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 24 June 2020 12: 32 New
    -1
    Quote: cniza
    God forbid they fall apart and what to do with their I.O.? and who will it have?

    Puschay at the "world community" headache laughing
    1. cniza
      cniza 24 June 2020 16: 38 New
      +1
      And we that live on another planet?
  30. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 24 June 2020 12: 50 New
    0
    It is not in our interests to “bend” under this deal. Behind the backs of the USA there are arsenals of Britain and France - ours is ours only. So let the collapse of this treaty be on the conscience of the Americans.
  31. Wolf
    Wolf 24 June 2020 12: 55 New
    +1
    Agreements with the western "partners" are not worth the paper on which they are written!
  32. doubovitski
    doubovitski 24 June 2020 13: 00 New
    +1
    Well, and what the hell is an EXTENSION if NEW conditions are set? This is a NEW contract. Then they are simply obliged to listen to OUR demands. Otherwise, let them go to Hell ..
  33. colotun
    colotun 24 June 2020 13: 03 New
    -1
    "RUS, GIVE UP !!!" = told us = Russia, once again, the US and NATO
  34. 123456789
    123456789 24 June 2020 13: 06 New
    +1
    The American leader proposes to include new stringent verification measures in the agreement. In addition, the parties must take into account absolutely all of their nuclear warheads. .

    The dissolution of NATO and the withdrawal of all American troops from the continent and the Japanese islands should be a counter condition.
    About the return of Alaska has already been written.
    And, probably, the most important condition is the accession to the treaty of a third party - the People’s Republic of China

    Join - the Russian Federation does not mind.
  35. rocket757
    rocket757 24 June 2020 13: 27 New
    +1
    On the other hand, a sharpie whose sleeve is already empty ....
    He can still play, play tricks, shuffle, but since he’s just in the banks, he may very well fail. Under lost all trump cards and get them not from kudova.
    In general, you need to look carefully, Schaub did not pull from the deck, then he really needs a sho!
  36. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 24 June 2020 13: 33 New
    +2
    Let the pindos go forest in a known direction
  37. ANB
    ANB 24 June 2020 14: 43 New
    +1
    New conditions are discussed at the conclusion of a new contract.
    Extension means the extension of the contract on the original terms. Changes are allowed if they were again specified in the initial contract (for example, the deposit rate is maintained, but no more than the current one at the time of renewal).
    Something in the United States, even with terminology is not very.
  38. steelmaker
    steelmaker 24 June 2020 15: 36 New
    +1
    Having weapons is enough to destroy not only the state, but the planet several times. Why then produce and increase nuclear charges? When having can be upgraded! If the United States also wants to attract China to the signing of the treaty, then England and France must be involved! It’s just that the United States shows who is in charge with their show off! And who needs to obey. Send them !! And more often. And say that let them choke on their nuclear charges! And we just upgrade our own, and it’s enough for them to die several times !!
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 24 June 2020 20: 55 New
    +1
    Billingsliv let his sexual partner sets conditions) They do not want to - do not. Let them walk in the forest, breathe freedom molecules. Nerusi, what to take from them ... laughing They will behave well - we will give them a specially trained interpreter wassat
  41. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 24 June 2020 20: 59 New
    +1
    The United States is not negotiable, can only put forward demands to other states, and in the country itself a mess, they can lose the country, as happened with the USSR.
  42. APASUS
    APASUS 24 June 2020 22: 39 New
    +1
    To put forward a demand for Russia to include China in the treaty? May ask Ukrainians to bury the Black Sea back ...............
    Where is world politics moving, why are foolish people governing the world while solving global problems!