Military Review

What does the prompt extension of the START III treaty mean: an explanation from the Russian Ambassador to the United States

19
What does the prompt extension of the START III treaty mean: an explanation from the Russian Ambassador to the United States

The Russian ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, is ready to arrive at the Donald Trump administration or the US State Department if they call him and continue negotiations on the extension of the Strategic Arms Treaty. He believes that this can be done quickly. The very prompt extension can ensure the validity of the contract for another 1 year - at least.


Information Agency TASS published an explanation from the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States about what, in his opinion, means a prompt extension of the START III treaty. It was made via videoconference hosted by the Brookings Institution in Washington DC.

Antonov also added that "a wonderful team in Moscow" is working on the issue of arms control.

And although the administration of Donald Trump in the White House should soon change, the Russian foreign policy mission in the United States does not stop discussing with it the extension of the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START-3). Antonov said that Russian diplomats are in close contact with Marshall Billingsley, who, according to the ambassador, is a "key negotiator."

A week earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that no arms control issues could be seriously resolved with the Donald Trump administration.

The START-3 treaty was signed by the Russian Federation and the United States at the end of 2010 for a period of ten years, and in early 2011 it entered into force. It ends in 2021. The agreement provides for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed extending the agreement for a year without additional conditions, so that during this time all controversial issues could be worked out and a common solution was reached. The United States rejected this proposal, demanding from Russia proof of the freeze of its nuclear potential falling under START III. Thus, the contract cannot be extended yet.

In fact, the existence of a treaty that would help curb the arms race is beneficial for the United States, as well as for Russia. The intransigence of the United States may have something to do with the fact that the absence of restrictions on increasing the nuclear arsenal is in the interests of arms manufacturers. In addition, the United States wants the treaty to include not only Russia and Russia, but also China.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. evgen1221
    evgen1221 3 December 2020 10: 41
    +2
    They just encapsulated the news. What is operational feeding was not explained in the note (like explain it yourself, or just call the ambassador to your personal mobile phone) so chtoli?
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 3 December 2020 11: 20
      +4
      What is operational feeding was not explained in the note (like explain it yourself as you like, or immediately to the ambassador to your personal mobile


      It is written ... Extension for a year without conditions.

      Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed extending the agreement for a year without additional conditions, so that during this time all controversial issues could be worked out and a common solution was reached.
  2. Hunter 2
    Hunter 2 3 December 2020 10: 43
    +3
    Is it Our Foreign Office that trolls the United States? request The statements contradict each other.
  3. Alexga
    Alexga 3 December 2020 10: 46
    +1
    The Americans directly say that China should be included in the agreement. But for the Chinese, this Treaty is up to the lilac star. So, it is unlikely to be extended.
    1. Rostislav
      Rostislav 3 December 2020 10: 58
      +3
      They do not need this agreement, China is here as an excuse to make a decent face on the face, set unacceptable conditions and shrug.
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 3 December 2020 11: 00
        0
        Absolutely agree with you.
      2. keeper03
        keeper03 3 December 2020 14: 40
        +1
        Everyone has long understood that with the Americans useless to agree on anything, as with terrorists ! request
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 3 December 2020 11: 24
      +5
      But for the Chinese, this Treaty is up to the lilac star.



      China asked to clarify whether they are included in the treaty implies that the United States will reduce its arsenal to the size of China, or it wants Beijing to increase the number of warheads to the size of the RF / US. In general, they laughed at them.
    3. opuonmed
      opuonmed 3 December 2020 11: 25
      +2
      and the Russian Federation says, if China, then let's bring other countries with nuclear weapons to this treaty)
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 3 December 2020 10: 50
    +4
    The United States refused this proposal, demanding evidence from Russia
    Why break into a closed gate if not only do they not want to let you in, but they also require proof that you are you. It is clear that we are "for peace and friendship," but not to the same extent.
    1. Tzar
      Tzar 3 December 2020 12: 15
      +2
      Also got this line of behavior "we are white, fluffy and ready for anything", it looks a pity. The states will still blame the Russian Federation for everything, and the European vassals will assent. It is time to do what they did with the INF Treaty: until adequate proposals from the United States are received, no unilateral appeals.
  5. newcomer
    newcomer 3 December 2020 10: 54
    +3
    The Yankees wanted to cram our latest systems into the contract, plus what would we have dragged the Chinese there. But the option of extending the outgoing contract for a year is quite a reasonable thing_ for a year, different things can happen.
  6. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 3 December 2020 11: 04
    +1
    Yes, at least somewhere infa would be what our offer. With the Americans, everything is clear, only Russia should unload.
  7. opuonmed
    opuonmed 3 December 2020 11: 23
    +3
    The United States wants China and the Russian Federation wants everyone who has a vigorous weapon, that is, the United States wants the Russian Federation, China and itself, and the US allies who have nuclear weapons on their free bread, while the Russian Federation does not want to sign a failed treaty for itself.! that's all the usa wants to sit on 2 chairs!
  8. Old26
    Old26 3 December 2020 15: 48
    +1
    Quote: tralflot1832
    Yes, at least somewhere infa would be what our offer. With the Americans, everything is clear, only Russia should unload.

    Ours offer not to change anything yet and to leave the agreement in the existing format. At least 1 year. The proposals from the American side are quite diverse and impracticable for us in principle

    But as for the next contract, it will certainly take several years of work and compromises on both sides. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to develop common criteria for a multilateral treaty ...

    Quote: opuonmed
    The United States wants China and the Russian Federation wants everyone who has a vigorous weapon, that is, the United States wants the Russian Federation, China and itself, and the US allies who have nuclear weapons on their free bread, while the Russian Federation does not want to sign a failed treaty for itself.! that's all the usa wants to sit on 2 chairs!

    On our part, all the countries of the nuclear club were discussed only in the context of the fact that the Americans want to tie up China to an agreement. Russia is not opposed to the treaty remaining bilateral (Russia-USA), because the potential of the rest is extremely small and has no particular tendencies to increase.
    The treaty is just as necessary for Russia as it is for the United States, because we are now on approximately equal terms with them in terms of new technology. We cannot do much or will have to extend the rearmament for decades.
    The Americans also have a plug, but already in the ability to produce new charges
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 3 December 2020 17: 01
      0
      The US behavior is somewhat illogical. We left the INF Treaty without having our own missiles. Signals about a plug in the production of new nuclear warheads were back in 2012. It is not clear why they should withdraw from START? Do they really have a secret trump card up their sleeve - have they defeated anti-gravity or have antimatter appeared in marketable quantities?
  9. iouris
    iouris 3 December 2020 16: 23
    0
    But this is already indecent. Although...
  10. Old26
    Old26 3 December 2020 17: 07
    +1
    Quote: newbie
    The Yankees wanted to cram our latest systems into the contract, plus what would we have dragged the Chinese there. But the option of extending the outgoing contract for a year is quite a reasonable thing_ for a year, different things can happen.

    Well, in principle, this is quite possible. There is a joint control committee that periodically reviews articles and makes changes to the minutes or to the agreed statements. For during the existence of the contract, changes can occur. In particular, among the list of systems falling under the START-3 Treaty there are, for example, missiles and aircraft that are currently not covered by the treaty. Among the Russian systems is the RSM-52 (R-39) SLBM. In the coming months, the RSM-50 (R-29R) SLBMs may be removed from action. Perhaps the Topol ICBMs can be removed from the treaty (if we manage to replace them in the remaining formations)

    The Americans have Minuteman II and Piskiper ICBMs, B-52G and B-1B heavy bombers.
    But these are the systems that have either been withdrawn or will be withdrawn in the near future. The same can apply to new weapons systems, if they meet the criteria of these treaties at the time of putting into service. In particular, the new systems that can be, as you say, "crammed" into the treaty are Avangard, the Petrel cruise missile (if adopted), Poseidon (if put into service) and, accordingly, Dagger. , if they try to "call" him under any of the bombers (TU-22M3M with a refueling system, if any, or on the same TU-95)
  11. Land defence
    Land defence 3 December 2020 23: 00
    +16
    A one-year extension would be convenient for both parties. In essence, this is postponing the problem. But during this time, everyone can calmly think about compromises.