Military Review

Nuclear-free Russia: In the 90s, this was possible

38

As you know, at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reserves of the most deadly in the world weapons ours and the United States of America were approximately equal. They were estimated at 10271 nuclear warheads for us and 10563 warheads for our enemy.


Together, these munitions accounted for 97% of the world's total nuclear arsenal.

Such parity fettered those who dreamed of finally erasing our Motherland from the political map of the world, hand and foot - instead of swift and decisive actions using the power component, they had to play the game for a long time.

Western architects of the destruction of the USSR had to build complex combinations and rely on local cadres, who sometimes kicked up and behaved far from what their puppeteers would like.

In particular, there is information that the invitation of Mikhail Gorbachev to the Group of Seven summit in London and the very attractive aid program proposed by US President George W. Bush were caused by the West's fear of the uncontrolled collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result of this, according to American analysts, chaos would inevitably reign on 1/6 of the land. And a series of large-scale military conflicts would flare up, during which tactical nuclear weapons could be used.

The main condition for the generous proposals made by the heads of state of the West to the first and last president of the USSR, who was in power in recent months, was the concentration of all Soviet nuclear weapons on Russian territory and their subsequent destruction.

Complete destruction?


It is possible that as conceived by Mikhail Sergeevich, at that time already quite successfully surrendering to the Americans the military-strategic interests of the USSR, this is how it all had to end.

Let me remind you that it was Gorbachev who signed the treaty with the United States on medium and short-range missiles, as well as START-1.

START I and the Lisbon Protocol to it consolidated the nuclear-free status of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, on whose territory there were a significant number of strategic nuclear charges. Tactical ammunition was prudently removed from there well in advance - even before the collapse of the USSR.

From now on, Russia became a nuclear monopoly in the entire post-Soviet space.

This suited the West much more than a far from peaceful atom in the hands of poorly predictable independent states. However, this was not enough to achieve full control over the countries of the former USSR.

The arms reduction agreements themselves were not bad. However, the catch, as you know, is hidden in the details.

Gorbachev's agreements

about "access to utilization complexes",

in fact, they opened a direct road for the American military to the heart of the Soviet and then Russian military-industrial complex.

Nunn-Lugar deal


However, Yeltsin, rightly called by many the destroyer of Russia's military power, continued the undertakings of his forerunner in full measure.

Few people today remember the Agreement concluded between Russia and the United States on July 17, 1992, regarding the provision of conditions for reliable and safe transportation, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and their storage and destruction.

It is also called the "Nunn-Lugar deal" - after the names of two US senators who participated in the Geneva talks on the reduction of strategic offensive arms.

It was there that these two statesmen, according to the official legend accompanying this agreement, allegedly had a conversation with two representatives of the Soviet delegation, whose names, of course, are shrouded in deep secrecy. Representatives of the USSR almost fell at the feet of the Americans, begging them to help with the remaining

"In the conditions of the most severe crisis of the USSR"

almost ownerless

"Thousands of weapons of mass destruction."

According to them,

"Without outside help"

it was impossible to solve this problem.

The good Samaritans from Capitol Hill immediately after returning home brought the issue to the discussion of the US Congress.

The gentlemen there, usually hosting heated and lengthy debates on far less important issues, immediately agreed to provide more than serious funding. And it went!

Looking ahead, I will mention that between 1992 and 2013, the Nunn-Lugar program was allocated approximately $ 9 billion. But this, again, is a dry figure. The point is in the details.

First, 7 out of 9 billion dollars ended up in the pockets of American corporations, which somehow imperceptibly took all the places of general contractors in this program.

In addition, about a thousand intercontinental ballistic missiles, the same number of air-to-surface missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, seven hundred ballistic missiles for strategic submarines, 33 nuclear submarines and 150 strategic bombers were destroyed as part of this event.

Also, half a thousand silo-type launchers and two hundred mobile launchers for missiles with nuclear warheads were dismantled, destroyed or otherwise deactivated.

How do you like the scale of disarmament?

It was worth it. For the USA.

Chernomyrdin-Gora Agreement


Let's add to this one more agreement - "Chernomyrdin-Gora", concluded somewhat later, on February 18, 1993.

In accordance with it, the United States received 12 tons of highly enriched Russian weapons-grade uranium for about $ 500 billion.

According to the conclusions of a special commission created later by the State Duma of Russia to investigate this flagrant and predatory transaction, thus our country has lost at least 90% of the strategic uranium reserve for the production of nuclear weapons.

Here the price level is not even so important (prohibitively low), as a matter of national security.

In essence, it was a crime against the state - one of many committed in those years.

After all that has been mentioned, the option with the complete deprivation of the USSR (and subsequently Russia) of its nuclear status does not at all look like such an unscientific fantasy.

Under Gorbachev, this was real.

Under Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich's fear of losing power overnight and being ousted at the direct orders of his Western partners prevented the process from being brought to its final logical conclusion.

It is not for nothing that at one time he loudly

"Reminded friend Bill that Russia is a nuclear power",

calling not to interfere in her (or rather, his) affairs.

Fortunately, the West did not have enough weighty arguments (neither in the form of a stick, nor in the format of a carrot) that would outweigh Yeltsin's lust for power and suspiciousness.

Otherwise ...

I don't even want to think about the consequences.
Author:
Photos used:
Photo from Wikipedia Reagan and Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty at the White House
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 8 January 2021 05: 57
    -5
    Nuclear-free rf? And what does it change. Even having yabu. Can the rf use it? For what purposes? So as not to harm the interests of hucksters? Rf is an integral part of the western world. In a certain capacity. And the Russians' own policy. more.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 8 January 2021 06: 06
      -1
      Quote: apro
      Nuclear-free rf? And what does it change. Even having yabu. Can the rf use it? For what purposes? So as not to harm the interests of hucksters? Rf is an integral part of the western world. In a certain capacity. And the Russians' own policy. more.

      it seems that the world is so coiled into this global spring that it will burst soon ...
      1. apro
        apro 8 January 2021 06: 08
        -5
        Quote: Aerodrome
        it seems that the world is so coiled into this global spring that it will burst soon

        Why ??? everyone is own there and they play by the rules.
        1. Machito
          Machito 8 January 2021 06: 32
          +6
          It is foolish to shoot a vigorous loaf at your dacha in London.
    2. Boris55
      Boris55 8 January 2021 07: 36
      +4
      Quote: apro
      for what purposes? so as not to harm the interests of the hucksters?
      Quote: Bearded
      It's foolish to shoot a vigorous loaf at your dacha in London
      .
      The hucksters do not sit at the control panels and they have no dachas in London.

      Quote: apro
      ... own policy Russian - this is how to please the west even more.

      And that's why they impose more and more sanctions on us?

      Under Yeltsin, there were no sanctions - only love, jeans, chewing gum.
      Would you like us to return to those days?
      1. apro
        apro 8 January 2021 07: 44
        +7
        Quote: Boris55
        The hucksters do not sit at the control panels and they have no dachas in London.

        And who are their commanders ??? and who makes decisions ???

        Quote: Boris55
        And that's why they impose more and more sanctions on us?

        They do not buy Russian raw materials? Refuse to place funds in Western banks?
        Quote: Boris55
        Under Yeltsin, there were no sanctions - only love, jeans, chewing gum.
        Do you want to go back to those days?

        I wish to return to the times of the USSR.
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 8 January 2021 07: 47
          -3
          Quote: apro
          And who are their commanders?

          The Commander-in-Chief is the President of Russia, who has neither attendants nor dachas in London.

          Quote: apro
          I wish to return to the times of the USSR.

          Good wish, but I have two questions for you.
          - Why are you, wishing to return to the USSR, destroy Russia?
          - In what period of the USSR do you want to return (Lenin-Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky?
          1. apro
            apro 8 January 2021 07: 50
            +4
            Quote: Boris55
            Why are you, wishing to return to the USSR, are you destroying Russia?

            Then the Russian Federation is destroying the USSR.
            At any...
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 8 January 2021 07: 57
              -4
              Quote: apro
              Then the Russian Federation is destroying the USSR.

              The USSR has long been gone - Russia has nothing to destroy, but the creation of a new union state is proceeding on new principles, on the principles of not dependence, but equality.

              Quote: apro
              At any.

              It was during the period of Lenin-Trotsky, when the genocide of the Russian people was taking place?
              Is this during the period of Khrushchev's slush and Brezhnev's degradation?
              Was it during the Gorbachev shootout?
              Do you want to take us back there?
              1. apro
                apro 8 January 2021 08: 09
                +2
                Quote: Boris55
                The USSR is long gone - Russia has nothing to destroy

                The Soviet legacy is diligently destroying ...
                Quote: Boris55
                It was during the period of Lenin-Trotsky, when the genocide of the Russian people was taking place?

                Today the genocide of the Russians has surpassed the activities of all enemies of the USSR.
                Quote: Boris55
                Do you want to take us back there?

                Can you ???
              2. bk0010
                bk0010 8 January 2021 17: 36
                +6
                Quote: Boris55
                It was during the period of Lenin-Trotsky, when the genocide of the Russian people was taking place?
                Is this during the period of Khrushchev's slush and Brezhnev's degradation?
                Was it during the Gorbachev shootout?
                Do you want to take us back there?

                Eh, a couple of five-year plans would degrade now the way they degraded during the Brezhnev era, if only 20 years of Putin's stability the country could endure.
              3. VORON538
                VORON538 9 January 2021 14: 25
                0
                She, this apro would be between the 30th and 37th, so that he would answer in full for his words about Russia and his disdainful attitude towards the Russian state, the Russian people !!! hi
          2. Starover_Z
            Starover_Z 8 January 2021 12: 29
            +4
            Quote: Boris55
            - In what period of the USSR do you want to return (Lenin-Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky?

            Stalin! So that Khrushchev does not get on the throne, having removed the power bonds from the top (control of the MGB)!
          3. prapor55
            prapor55 8 January 2021 16: 57
            +1
            Boris, the order to remove from B.D. complex 15P961 signed in 2002, who was then Supreme? soldier
        2. Deniska999
          Deniska999 8 January 2021 13: 09
          -3
          We need to look ahead and create a new project, and not stupidly copy the past and cry over it.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 8 January 2021 13: 10
      +3
      Quote: apro
      Nuclear-free Russia? And what does it change.

      Все.
      Quote: apro
      ..рф part of the already western world. in a certain quality. and its own policy russkikh. this is how to please the West even more.

      There would not have been any "constituent part" or any RF ... already 10 years ago ...
      It is not so much the choice of target and the number of missiles with b / g that is important, but the very possibility of using them ...
  2. Machito
    Machito 8 January 2021 05: 58
    +15
    The criminal policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are still awaiting public condemnation. A crime demands punishment. The people despise these traitors.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 8 January 2021 06: 04
      +4
      Quote: Bearded
      The criminal policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are still awaiting public condemnation. A crime demands punishment.

      Really ? let the power change first.
      1. Machito
        Machito 8 January 2021 06: 24
        +8
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Quote: Bearded
        The criminal policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are still awaiting public condemnation. A crime demands punishment.

        Really ? let the power change first.

        Is she going to change? After the Washington fake Maidan, it is just right to talk about a democratic dictatorship in the United States with a leading and directing direction. And we have? We have stability, 4 ruling parties and marginals, and ministers jumping from one chair to another.
    2. NDR-791
      NDR-791 8 January 2021 06: 13
      +12
      The criminal policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are still awaiting public condemnation.
      I guess we won't wait. The Gorbachev Foundation and the Yeltsin Center are direct evidence of this. And not the fact that the next "king" will not be the same as these two samples. Unfortunately, we did not have a system of educating the elite aimed at the good of the POWER, and the time has already been lost.
      1. Crowe
        Crowe 8 January 2021 07: 37
        +18
        Unfortunately, I have to agree ... Gorbachev was awarded not only by the Americans "for victory in the Cold War," but was also awarded the highest Russian Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. The Russian leader congratulates the first president of the USSR every year.
        “It is gratifying that even today you do not stay on the sidelines, are actively involved in expert discussions on key issues of the international agenda, make a significant contribution to building an open, constructive dialogue on the most important problems of our time”
        But he does not see any reason to condemn the Jew in any way
        “As for the legal assessment, there are actions by Gorbachev or someone else, well, I don’t know what it will give. I don’t understand what it will give, from the point of view of territorial integrity - all issues have been resolved there, all documents have been signed. a legal assessment of their actions will help, I don't really understand "
        And the attitude towards EBN is very indicative
        "Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, together with the new Russia, went through the path of the most difficult, but necessary transformations. He headed the process of cardinal changes that brought Russia out of the impasse. History and our descendants have yet to fully appreciate the scale of Yeltsin's personality."
  3. Crowe
    Crowe 8 January 2021 06: 06
    +18
    it was a crime against the state

    It was a betrayal, let's call things by their proper names. START-2 (1993) can also be attributed to this, as a result of which the BZHRK was put under the knife, and much more can be remembered. The most insulting is that no one has suffered any punishment. for all this.
    1. apro
      apro 8 January 2021 06: 10
      +7
      Quote: Crowe
      It was a betrayal

      On the fly to change the shoes. This is art. The more. Who did it remained in a clear financial win. And the Russian Federation lives today according to the precepts of the overshoes.
  4. Olgovich
    Olgovich 8 January 2021 08: 31
    +6
    START I and the Lisbon Protocol to it consolidated the nuclear-free status of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, on whose territory there were a significant number of strategic nuclear charges. Tactical ammunition was prudently removed from there well in advance - even before the collapse of the USSR.

    START 1 has nothing to do with the nuclear-free status of Ukraine, only the Lisbon Protocol did it. And Tactical nuclear weapons were taken out AFTER the collapse of the USSR - in the spring of 1992 - they thought about it in Belovezhie 91
    Few today remember the Agreement between Russia and the United States on July 17 1992 thyes
    It is also called the "Nunn-Lugar deal" -

    USSR representatives almost fell at the feet of the Americans, begging them to help with the remaining

    What are the "Soviet" representatives in 1992?

    The program began work in 1991.

    The program, in fact, compensated for all the costs of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan to get rid of them from nuclear weapons.

    Chernomyrdin-Gora Agreement

    Let's add to this one more agreement - “Chernomyrdin- Mountain ", concluded a little later, on February 18, 1993.

    In accordance with it, the United States received 12 tons of highly enriched Russian weapons-grade uranium for about $ 500 billion.

    An absolute betrayal of Russia's interests.
  5. bober1982
    bober1982 8 January 2021 09: 01
    +1
    At the July meeting (1991) of the Big Seven with the participation of Gorbachev, Bush Sr. did not offer any attractive assistance to the USSR, the author of the article embellished it.
    The deed was done and there was no need for such help.
    In the USSR, by July 1991, a law was adopted on the basic principles of privatization, speculative commodity exchanges were opened, strong inflation began, the official registration of the unemployed began, and much more.
    By July, the Warsaw Pact was officially dissolved, Yeltsin was inaugurated as President of the RSFSR, it was published Word to the people in the newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya, calling for the salvation of the Motherland, which (this is the Word itself) no one read, since the people themselves were in an inadequate state, like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the KGB, the Army, and the national outskirts.
    1. Moskovit
      Moskovit 8 January 2021 09: 51
      +5
      That's it. Forgot the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s. We will destroy the whole world, to the ground, and then ... Then it turned out as it is. If the destruction of the USSR and the institutions of Soviet power were not necessary for the people, nothing would have gone so easily. A sluggish putsch that no one supported. No demonstrations or actions in defense of the Soviet system. So the people are to blame, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin expressed their interests. They were on the crest of the wave. And now it has gone - they are traitors, we wanted it differently. Why then did they walk in thousands to the White House? Why did they go with the Russian flag? Why did no one really say anything against it?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 8 January 2021 12: 59
        +3
        Quote: Moskovit
        And now it has gone - they are traitors, we wanted it differently. Why then did they walk in thousands to the White House? Why did they go with the Russian flag? Why did no one really say anything against it?

        You are asking too uncomfortable questions to those who are now shouting "Give us the fair capitalism we dreamed of in 1991! Down with Putin!"
        As if Putin didn't give them the most natural capitalism in its wild form. They simply cannot understand that their personal illusions do not justify their own stupidity about the concept of capitalism.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 8 January 2021 17: 43
        +3
        Quote: Moskovit
        If the destruction of the USSR and the institutions of Soviet power were not necessary for the people, nothing would have gone so easily.
        No one took seriously the fact that the USSR could collapse, so no one twitched. But the stupidity of the Soviet government got the people sick. So they thought how to get rid of Gorbachev-Ryzhkov-Ligachev, etc., to assemble the country without them. And then it turned out that those who disassembled were not in a hurry to put them back together (the CIS does not and does not become a Union). These are my impressions.
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 8 January 2021 10: 59
    +3
    In particular, there is information that the invitation of Mikhail Gorbachev to the London summit of the GXNUMX (Group of Seven) and the very attractive assistance program proposed by US President George W. Bush were due to the West's fear of the uncontrolled collapse of the Soviet Union
    Another agitation from Kharaluzhny, as always replete with events sucked from the finger.
    The West was not afraid of the collapse of the USSR, the West was afraid for their hard-earned money. In 1991, this external debt of the USSR was estimated at $ 65,3 billion. In terms of debt, the USSR was in second place in the world after Brazil. Western creditors well remembered how the story with the external debt of the Russian Empire in 1917 ended, therefore the Treaty on Succession in relation to the external public debt and assets of the USSR, concluded in December 1991, in accordance with which the republics pledged to participate in the repayment and bear the costs on servicing the Soviet debt in "agreed shares", the West was categorically not satisfied with it, and there it was simply not recognized and simply stopped providing new loans.
    Ultimately, the Russian leadership, Western creditors, and the IMF and the World Bank, concerned about their interests, agreed to accept the "zero option": Russia fully assumes obligations on the external debts of the former USSR, but at the same time declares its right to all its financial and material assets.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 8 January 2021 11: 18
      +1
      Let's add to this one more agreement - "Chernomyrdin-Gora", concluded somewhat later, on February 18, 1993.
      In accordance with it, the United States received 12 tons of highly enriched Russian weapons-grade uranium for about $ 500 billion.
      According to the conclusions of a special commission created later by the State Duma of Russia to investigate this flagrant and predatory transaction, thus our country has lost at least 90% of the strategic uranium reserve for the production of nuclear weapons.

      Again, the author, to put it mildly, sculpts the hunchback against the wall. Under the HEU-LEU agreement, no one exported strategic stocks; weapons-grade uranium was processed into depleted uranium from warheads removed from service under the START-1 and START-2 treaties and exported from Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, which simply had nowhere to store.
      And the agreement that led to the degradation of technologies for the separation of uranium isotopes cannot be called a predatory agreement.
      Among other things, the term of the agreement ended not at all under Yeltsin, but in 2013.
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 8 January 2021 13: 13
      +1
      Judging by the recollections of Bush Sr. and someone else from American officials, the likelihood of anarchy and the lack of control over nuclear weapons really scared the United States. They certainly could not calculate how the collapse of the USSR would end.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 8 January 2021 13: 37
        +1
        Couldn't calculate exactly, but the author's maxim "The main condition for the generous offers made by the heads of state of the West to the first and last president of the USSR, who was in power in recent months, was the concentration of all Soviet nuclear weapons on Russian territory and their subsequent destruction." has nothing to do with reality.
        Nobody solved this issue with Gorbachev.
        On December 21, 1991, in Almaty, all four countries that inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union signed a joint control agreement. Nine days later, representatives of the four countries met again in Minsk and signed another agreement, this time on the creation of a unified command of "strategic forces."
        On December 25, between the two meetings, Mikhail Gorbachev, who had just stepped down from the post of leader of the USSR, handed over the so-called nuclear briefcase. Boris Yeltsin. That is, neither Kazakhstan, nor Ukraine, nor Belarus could use nuclear weapons located on their territory.
        Then everything was decided with Yeltsin.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 8 January 2021 14: 53
          -1
          Judging by the disadvantages, the process of forming flocks of wandering haters on the site continues.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 8 January 2021 18: 44
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      The West was not afraid of the collapse of the USSR, the West was afraid for their hard-earned money. In 1991, this external debt of the USSR was estimated at $ 65,3 billion. In terms of the amount of debt, the USSR was in second place in the world after Brazil.

      You, as that propagandist, hide the figures of the debt of foreign countries to the Soviet Union, and which could easily be resold for 40% of the nominal - this practice exists in the world. And even some people tried to cash in on this after the collapse of the USSR, but this affected only a small part of the total debt. I'm not saying that the FRG was obliged to return us a lot of money for the sale of the property we left in Germany, but the money has not yet arrived, and our drunk has forgiven them, too, intoxicated. Here are just the debts of twelve countries, which, if resold, could easily pay off half of our debts to the West at that time:


      But here the Cuban debt is not indicated, as well as the debts of the former CMEA countries, and these were also not small figures. So the version that Russia will not be able to repay debts in that situation was certainly not decisive - you just need to look at the entire balance objectively.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 8 January 2021 18: 51
        -1
        Have you read my comment carefully? If not, read it again.
  7. Old26
    Old26 8 January 2021 20: 23
    +4
    Quote: Boris55
    - In what period of the USSR do you want to return (Lenin-Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky?

    Why did you combine the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period into one? For example, I distinguish between the Khrushchev period (I was a preschooler, but I remember some things well), the Brezhnev period (which was not so bad for people in comparison with the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period) and the Gorbachev period (which everyone remembers as "kindly quiet word ")
    Quote: Boris55
    It was during the period of Lenin-Trotsky, when the genocide of the Russian people was taking place?
    Is this during the period of Khrushchev's slush and Brezhnev's degradation?
    Was it during the Gorbachev shootout?

    Why don't you remember the period of I.V. Stalin, in which there were pluses (industrialization) and minuses (the period of repression in the mid-late 30s)

    Quote: prapor55
    Boris, the order to remove from B.D. complex 15P961 signed in 2002, who was then Supreme? soldier

    Something for a long time, you, Alexander, were not on V.O. With the past
    And when there was an order to withdraw 961, they do not like to remember. They do not like to remember that of those numbers of decommissioned ICBMs and SLBMs, a huge number were outdated complexes with UR-100, RT-2 missiles, with SLBMs with a flight range of 2000-3500 km.
    Even the figures for YABZ in the article, although close, do not reflect everything by far. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union - this is when? In addition, the author suddenly remembers exclusively strategic battlegrounds and does not mention TNW. But then the numbers will be completely different. For example, in 1992, the United States had 13731 nuclear warheads for strategic and tactical purposes, and the USSR had 25155.
    The author assesses the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement not from the position of 2020, but at the time of its conclusion. But the consequences for the United States as a result of this deal were by no means favorable. And we sold to the United States not 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium, but uranium obtained from these 500 tons by "unleashing it to the level of 3,5-4%. At the same time, putting the US nuclear power on such a uranium needle that even now they cannot get rid of the consequences of this, as the author of the "treacherous" transaction writes
  8. Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 11 January 2021 16: 29
    +1
    Another anti-American hysteria ... predictable.
    Perhaps it's worth starting with the fact that the whole article is largely built on simply unproven assumptions.
    In addition, about a thousand intercontinental ballistic missiles, the same number of air-to-surface missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, seven hundred ballistic missiles for strategic submarines, 33 nuclear submarines and 150 strategic bombers were destroyed as part of this event.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I#Implementation
    As of 1990, the Soviet Union had approximately 2500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers. The United States has 2246 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.
    As of July 1, 2009, Russia had 809 ICBMs, submarine ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. The United States has 1188 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.
    The reduction of nuclear weapons was by no means unilateral, and was roughly equal.
    The US has been decommissioned and disposed of, among others:
    - the newest heavy ICBM type LGM-118 "Peacekeeper" (each with 10 warheads with individual guidance)
    - 362 (three hundred sixty two) B-52 strategic bombers
    - 26 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (1 - Project Aten Allen, 5 - Project Lafayette, 8 - Project James Madison, 12 - Project Benjamin Franklin) along with the missiles they carried
    (plus 4 submarines of the "Ohio" project were converted into cruise missile carriers)
    In accordance with it, the United States received 12 tons of highly enriched Russian weapons-grade uranium for about $ 500 billion.

    But the very same HEU-LEU agreement kept the domestic (Russian) nuclear industry afloat in an extremely difficult period from an economic point of view for it.
    the West did not have enough weighty arguments (neither in the form of a stick, nor in the format of a carrot)

    It was not found because such arguments were not looked for, and they were not going to look.
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 15 January 2021 18: 02
      +1
      A couple more seemingly small, but in fact very important points.
      The START-1 Treaty, among other things, banned any cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead carried by ships or submarines.
      As part of this treaty, the United States, in particular, decommissioned the nuclear version of the Tomahawk. The one with a target range of up to 2500 kilometers and which could be based on a very wide range of ships and submarines of the US Navy.
      Now about the INF Treaty. Tommy.
      The fact is that the medium and shorter-range missiles of the USSR Armed Forces deployed in the Warsaw Pact countries could not, in principle, achieve their targets on US territory. But for the US Armed Forces, the situation was very different. "Pershing-2" had a range that allowed them to "finish off" to Minsk and Kharkov (with a very short flight time), "Griffins" (a ground version of the Tomahawk missiles) had a range that allowed them to "finish off" to Moscow ... Thus, for the US Armed Forces at that time, medium-range missiles were in the full sense of the word a strategic weapon.