Is it a mistake to extend START-3?

Source: mil.ru

I don’t remember, but one of the greats said:

"It's worse than a crime — it's a mistake."

So with the START-3 treaty, which suddenly, literally a few weeks before its end, the United States suddenly expressed a desire to extend it, it may so happen that it will be a mistake, which is worse than a crime.

The world has changed

What is the contract about?

It is about reducing the strategic offensive arms of Russia and the United States.

It seems to be a good thing. But here's the thing - the time and situation in the world have changed since 2009, when this agreement was signed.

Then, at the time of signing, the treaty on the limitation of medium and short-range missiles was still in force. And now it doesn't work.

Pershing in Britain

That is, it turns out that the United States may well deploy its IRBMs on the territory of its allies (like Britain)?

And Russia simply does not have such an opportunity for well-known reasons.

But the same Pershing in Britain - in relation to Russia, the most real strategic offensive weapons.

Actually, the position becomes an exact copy of the eighties. When the Union and the United States tried to agree on the first START. The Americans then refused to consider their medium-range missiles strategic. And ours insisted that they are the most strategic ones.

This means one.

And what about hundreds of European warheads?

And here are two.

France and Britain's own arsenals are again outside the scope of this treaty.

But when the Union and the United States each had 36 warheads, the presence of a few hundred more in these countries really did little to impact.

Now it is a completely different matter.

European countries have hundreds of speakers.

And they are not included in the agreement again?

Haste Bonus

Three is about the deal.

If the Americans really want to extend the treaty, then let them offer at least something for it. It always happens in any negotiations?

But I didn’t hear that the United States offered anything to Russia for this haste.

I don’t want to think that in such a hasty manner such and such an aspect can be raised in this pushed agreement. But I think it's worth mentioning this.

Lobbyist officials

In addition, there are four.

We must not forget that working as a treaty inspector in the United States is a rather pleasant and highly paid position.

Therefore, there is a considerable layer of military officials who are vitally interested in its extension.

I believe that this aspect should also be carefully studied.

Hack and predictor Aviator

Thus, the extension of the START-3 treaty in modern conditions is unprofitable for Russia.

First of all, due to the fact that the balance of power in the world has changed a lot since its signing in 2009.

In general, the situation today looks quite ambiguous. And it requires, at least, the elimination of haste.

Especially when making such a serious decision for Russia.

Comments

[dorz]

- this is mistake?

It is rather a delay / delay of time ...

[Maki maki]

Quote: dorz

It is rather a delay / delay of time

Right. During this time, the parties will think about how to asymmetrically bypass each other.

[210ox]

This is a typical solution. At the entry of a new prezik from zashtatniki. A bunch of peace initiatives that come to a standstill in a year.

[Civil]

After the failure of the Trump agent, there is no choice - the arms race is too expensive for Russia. It was urgently needed to conclude an agreement with the United States and speak at the forum in Davos.
The internal political situation does not allow getting under the sanctions.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Civil

After the failure of the Trump agent, there is no choice - the arms race is too expensive for Russia. It was urgently needed to conclude an agreement with the United States and speak at the forum in Davos.
The internal political situation does not allow getting under the sanctions.

Is this sarcasm now, or are you serious?

[Civil]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Civil

After the failure of the Trump agent, there is no choice - the arms race is too expensive for Russia. It was urgently needed to conclude an agreement with the United States and speak at the forum in Davos.
The internal political situation does not allow getting under the sanctions.

Is this sarcasm now, or are you serious?

Objectively, everything is so. If the rallies of the dissatisfied are dispersed harshly, this will split society even more. If you go under the sanctions, the standard of living will fall even more. This means that the rallies will be even fiercer and more numerous. Therefore, the "Brest Peace" and try to win the internal political gambit. If, of course, older players have enough skill and skill.

[military_cat]

It is precisely for the non-extension of strategic offensive arms that no sanctions can be imposed, even theoretically. Renewing it is an opportunity, not an obligation. Completion upon expiration is a normal development of the situation, provided in its very text, and not a violation of anything.

[Flooding]

Quote: Civil

If you go under the sanctions, the standard of living will fall even more

How? I am interested in the mechanism of the impact of sanctions on the standard of living.
Banned from importing used cars?

[nsm1]

Do you live in a parallel world ?!
Have you heard anything about Nord Stream 2?
The US can interfere with exports in various ways.
There will be simply nothing to buy used ones ...

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

Do you live in a parallel world ?!

Depends on what realities you live in.
For me, my world is very natural, but in relation to yours, it may be perpendicular. How do you know?

Quote: nsm1

Have you heard anything about Nord Stream 2?
The US can interfere with exports in various ways.

They are already doing it with all their might. What other ideas do you have?

[nsm1]

Of all?
I doubt extremely, there is much to strive for - Iran is an example of this.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

Of all?
I doubt extremely, there is much to strive for - Iran is an example of this.

Stop writing in riddles. Post everything you know.
Or was that all?

[nsm1]

Doubt that the Americans can and are capable of making shit can only be that a person is so naive that I even find it difficult to characterize such a person.
They can and have a desire.
Examples to fig and more.
Russia is not a self-sufficient country in any way and is vulnerable.
So far, the sanctions are only at the very beginning, targeted.
This is due to the fact that Russia is not an enemy of the United States at all, a pro-Western clique is in power, even on this site there was news that Chubais would be the representative for international affairs.
Because has huge connections in the United States and with the Democratic Party.
And such ridiculous shapkozakidatelskie shouts, such as "so what can they ..." never brought to any good.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

Doubt that the Americans can and are capable of making shit can only be that a person is so naive that I even find it difficult to characterize such a person.
They can and have a desire.

Moreover, they are already shitting as soon as they can.
As well as Britain and Poland, but you never know who else.
What should follow from this?
You think that you shouldn't go under the sanctions.
Teach you how to do this, while keeping in mind your own public interest.
You will not get off with general phrases about the hostility of the Americans and my naivety.
Do you continue to argue that the sanctions will affect the living standards of Russian citizens? If so, how?
As you can see, I am not asking for much. Just a little specifics instead of a lot of general phrases.

[nsm1]

No, no, NO again!
Not how they can!
Dotted, lightly, tingly ...
And I don't think that you shouldn't climb.
On the contrary, the sanctions will move us towards greater self-sufficiency and independence.
But you need to be ready for them, and not indulge in the beautiful-hearted chatter "so what can they?"
They can, a lot ...
How many times do you need to repeat about Iran?

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

And I don't think that you shouldn't climb.

Then go up the branch and check the correspondence.
What are you arguing with me about?

[nsm1]

That your cry "Will it be forbidden to import used cars?" just the cry of a couch "warrior" who is too lazy to read the news.
He already has his own imaginary world, where everything is fine and the enemies are not capable of anything.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

That your cry "Will it be forbidden to import used cars?" just the cry of a couch "warrior" who is too lazy to read the news.
He already has his own imaginary world, where everything is fine and the enemies are not capable of anything.

And here you are close to rudeness.
Do you know me that well?
Or decided to judge by the circle of their acquaintances?
Apologize for your behavior, and I will pretend not to notice above

Quote: nsm1

the cry of the couch warrior

You should learn courtesy and manners.
After all, not only your peers come here.
I'm not waiting long.

[nsm1]

I agree, I was too rude.
I beg your pardon.

[Flooding]

On this peaceful note, we will end our dispute.
All the best.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

I fully understand the concern of the author of the article, Oleg Rico, who believes that he is the smartest of the clever and the most patriotic of the patriots.
Only, I believe that people will deal with the discussion and signing of the contract much more knowledgeable and better versed than all of us here. And they will certainly take into account all nuances and subtleties, so as not to be trapped like Humpbacked with the company and not to put Russia in a difficult position.

[sniperino]

Quote: Vladimir Mashkov

I fully understand the concern of the author of the article

The Internet was originally an army combat control system. Then it was introduced into civilian circulation, where it is used as a system for collecting information and managing information warfare. Therefore, there will always be much more concern than joy and hope. Give up hope everyone who enters here.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

There will be simply nothing to buy used ones ...

Do I understand you correctly that if the United States lifts all of its sanctions tomorrow, the standard of living of Russian citizens will begin to grow rapidly? Do you understand correctly?

[nsm1]

No, wrong.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

No, wrong.

What you are, however, laconic.
This is where your idea should be clarified.

[nsm1]

The sanctions are targeted, the population is hardly affected.
Counter-sanctions are much more tangible - the cost of the food rises.

[Flooding]

Quote: nsm1

The sanctions are targeted, the population is hardly affected.
Counter-sanctions are much more tangible - the cost of the food rises.

Great, I was just asking about the mechanism of the sanctions.
Having pounced on me at first, you have now decided to admit that the sanctions do not affect the standard of living.
This is progress.

[nsm1]

Do not touch now, yet.
But there is room to move.
The mechanism is simple - it is declared a sponsor of terrorism, the oil tap is closed.

[Vadim_888]

Even very much affect, especially the sanctions of Russia against the West, we have lost normal products, cheeses were imitated 2,5 times, butter without a palm tree is a rarity, meat is completely hormonal, vegetables are full of rubbish, food prices are scrap steel, in fact the counter-sanctions were a shot in step, and cars have risen in price from scratch due to the reduction in the presence of foreign manufacturers, alas ...

[Flooding]

1. It was about the sanctions applied against Russia, and not vice versa. To understand otherwise, you have to contrive a lot.
2. There are poor quality products everywhere. How is hormonal meat related to sanctions?

[Vadim_888]

... There are poor quality products everywhere. How is hormonal meat related to sanctions?

Look at the organization of animal husbandry in neighboring Finland, to inject antibiotics all the time, as is done in Russia, there they will roll out such a fine for this, which will not seem like a little, a pig normally grows a year, in Russia 3 months, how do you think how?
The bird, even worse, in addition to antibiotics and growth accelerators, is pumped with brine before being sold to increase weight,
Rabu - the same thing, import-substituted vegetables have no taste for entirely hydroponics

[Flooding]

Quote: Vadim_888

Look at the organization of animal husbandry in neighboring Finland

Now I will look out of the window.

Quote: Vadim_888

to inject antibiotics all the time, as in Russia it is done, there they will roll out such a fine for this that it will not seem a little, normally the pig grows a year, in Russia 3 months, what do you think due to what?

Will you decide on antibiotics or hormones?
Antibiotics for diseases, hormones for growth.
You seem to be a knowledgeable person.

[Vadim_888]

... Will you decide on antibiotics or hormones?

I am determined - the feed has growth hormones, antibiotics are also added to the feed to avoid mortality
Therefore, the effectiveness of antibiotics for a disease in humans decreases, any competent physician will confirm this to you, growth hormones lead to an increase in overweight in the population
I myself have to go on a diet and exclude a sea of ​​products, on the recommendation of my nutritionist, in fact, from where infa
And yes, I haven't eaten poultry for a year now, so I have never been sick in a year.

[Flooding]

Vadim, I'm glad for you.
But this is nothing new to me.
Also switched to beef.
But the quality of the products has nothing to do with sanctions.
Food prices are only marginally dependent on sanctions.
The main problem is the lack of proper control and regulation at all stages of production and sale, the corruption of the bureaucracy.

[Vadim_888]

... Food prices are only marginally dependent on sanctions.

not only, after the introduction of retaliatory sanctions, there was a drop in import positions, which led to a sharp rise in the price of products, through the price increase they limited demand
If it is interesting, I will drop in a personal the name of an interesting product, environmentally friendly

[Flooding]

Quote: Vadim_888

after the introduction of retaliatory sanctions, there was a drop in import positions, which led to a sharp rise in the price of products, through the price increase they limited demand

Not this way. For example, imported cheeses are mostly in a more expensive segment than domestic ones. Due to what there was a rise in price.
I believe that the rise in prices was due to the lack of control of the business.

[nsm1]

Quote: Vadim_888

cheeses imitated 2,5 times

Its from countersanctions.

[Witness 45]

Eh, you would be in besieged Leningrad. They ate wallpaper glue, but did not give up, factories worked, even theaters and schools did not whine, and now the butter is not like that, the cheeses are not like that, watch, it's time to give up and lick the ass to the “partners”. If now in Russia the majority of such people, then to hell with him, I don’t feel sorry for such people, they are already a different people, geeks.

[Flooding]

Quote: Svidetel 45

Eh, you would be in besieged Leningrad. They ate wallpaper glue, but did not give up, factories worked, even theaters and schools did not whine, and now the butter is not like that, the cheeses are not like that, watch, it's time to give up and lick the ass to the “partners”. If now in Russia the majority of such people, then to hell with him, I don’t feel sorry for such people, they are already a different people, geeks.

You are unnecessarily harsh. But on the whole I agree with you.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: nsm1

The sanctions are targeted, the population is hardly affected.
Counter-sanctions are much more tangible - the cost of the food rises.

Zhrachka rises in price from an increase in VAT, gasoline prices, an increase in excise duties and taxes, the introduction of mandatory labeling and chipping of products, the introduction of recycling fees, etc., which is compensated by manufacturers and retail chains at the expense of buyers, that is, by an increase in prices. So the rise in prices is largely a response to the government's actions. The government and the banking sector are jealous of the fact that the "irresponsible" population has under the mattress (not an American) a rainy day stash that remains inaccessible to voracious bankers, and are taking steps to help the population get rid of "excess" cash , in order to put everyone without exception on loans and mortgages and get an almost inexhaustible source of interest and finance to fill the budget and the banking sector. After sterilization (seizure) of the money supply, the Central Bank and the state will relieve themselves of the need to spend a bunch of babos on minting coins and making banknotes, and the population will be forcibly driven into the era of non-cash and plastic, where every ruble earned and spent will be tracked by the fiscal service. This will obviously return mankind to the formula of tacit barter settlements and natural exchange, if these operations are not brought under the article of the law for illegal circulation outside state control. The GULAG was not under Stalin, it will be ahead and is approaching along with digitalization.

[sniperino]

Quote: Nyrobsky

will be driven into the era of non-cash and plastic, where every ruble earned and spent will be tracked by the fiscal service. ... The GULAG was not under Stalin, it will be ahead and is approaching along with digitalization.

Do you call the citizens' execution of the laws of their country a "GULAG"? Businessmen with large shadow turnover have something to fear.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: sniperino

Quote: Nyrobsky

will be driven into the era of non-cash and plastic, where every ruble earned and spent will be tracked by the fiscal service. ... The GULAG was not under Stalin, it will be ahead and is approaching along with digitalization.

Do you call the citizens' execution of the laws of their country a "GULAG"? Businessmen with a huge shadow turnover have something to fear.

No, this is not how you interpret the meaning of the upcoming "GULAG", which I had in mind. It will not have physical perimeters of the fence, which is observed in the zone, but has the ultimate goal of establishing total control over the population, over its incomes, expenses, movements, hobbies and personal contacts. This prospect, somehow, does not inspire much and will soon be just right to envy Agafya Lykova, who is probably the only one who will remain outside the sovereign's eye. This awaits not only Russia and will be implemented everywhere, with the only difference that somewhere is faster, and somewhere slower

[sniperino]

Quote: Nyrobsky

No, this is not how you interpret the meaning of the upcoming "GULAG", which I had in mind. It will not have physical fence perimeters

Does this have anything to do with my question?

Quote: Nyrobsky

has the ultimate goal of establishing total control over the population, its income, expenses, movements, hobbies and personal contacts

If you have a smartphone and your salary / pension goes to plastic, then you already practically have all these charms of the "gulag". I do not feel bad at all in the "gulag". It turns out that the gulag is not so terrible as it is painted. If every seller has a terminal in the market, I do not foresee any changes. Although, I envy Agafya Lykova a little. Was in Altai in three days of walking to her house. Beauty ... And no cellular connection. But your interpretation becomes clear to me only if I want to do something illegal or immoral. Otherwise, it smacks of fear of persecution.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: sniperino

Does this have anything to do with my question?

Directly. Your question contradicted the meaning that I put into the definition of the coming Gulag. That GULAG (of the time of Stalin), with which the liberot tirelessly frightens us, did not touch the majority, and the coming one (by the way, this is a consequence of the liberota's activities) will put everyone under control without exception.

Quote: sniperino

If you have a smartphone and your salary / pension goes to plastic, then you already practically have all these charms of the "gulag". I do not feel bad at all in the "gulag". It turns out that the gulag is not so terrible as it is painted.

A person gets used to everything. At first with difficulty, and then accepting reality and the imposed rules, after a while he already believes that it has always been so.

Quote: sniperino

But your interpretation is clear to me only if I want to do something illegal or immoral. Otherwise, it smacks of fear of persecution.

Not at all. Just understanding that "big brother" is watching you 24 hours a day and 365 days a year is not inspiring.

[sniperino]

Quote: Nyrobsky

Just understanding that "big brother" is watching you 24 hours a day and 365 days a year is not inspiring.

I understood. It all depends on our relationship to "big brother". For a believer, this is God, who, as every believer believes, sees not only his income and expenses, but also his thoughts and feelings. Think about it, this is a much more "transparent" existence. And the fear of God arises from feelings, thoughts and desires that are contrary to his faith. But try to take this faith away from him. Atheists in Germany foster openness by the absence of curtains on the windows in many houses and apartments. It surprised me, but they do it without coercion, because they feel their closeness as a problem of alienation and try to overcome it in this way. Sorry, this is too subjective to evoke an association with the Gulag, because alienation is like solitary confinement.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: sniperino

I understood. It all depends on our attitude towards "big brother". For a believer, this is God, who, as every believer believes, sees not only his income and expenses, but also his thoughts and feelings. Think about it, this is a much more "transparent" existence. And the fear of God arises from feelings, thoughts and desires that are contrary to his faith. But try to take this faith away from him.

Faith and power are slightly different concepts, but power seeks to equate itself with God, and therefore more and more often it turns out that not power is the servant of the people, but the people are the servant of power, despite the fact that it is universally declared that the source of power is the people.

Quote: sniperino

in Germany, openness is fostered by the absence of curtains on the windows in many houses and apartments. It surprised me, but they do it without coercion, because they feel their closeness as a problem of alienation and try to overcome it in this way. Sorry, this is too subjective to call the association with the Gulag, for alienation is like solitary confinement.

The fact of the matter is that right now alienation is being cultivated. People, having buried themselves in gadgets and plunged into the Internet, stop communicating live, and virtual communication breaks at the click of the fingers of power. Even presidents are no exception. Trump was disconnected from Twitter for two times, not giving a damn about the fact that more than 70 million people were subscribed to him. Gradually, the "big brother" will teach everyone to walk in one formation and breathe "correctly." Those who are born in the new conditions will take it for granted, and those who remember how it was before will eventually die out.

[sniperino]

Quote: Nyrobsky

a Virtual communication breaks at the snap of the fingers of power

Here I completely agree with you. The threat of "solitary confinement" in this case does not disappear, but it constantly hangs in the background, and this is the second most severe punishment after the death penalty.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: sniperino

Quote: Nyrobsky

a Virtual communication breaks at the snap of the fingers of power

Here I completely agree with you. The threat of "solitary confinement" in this case does not disappear, but it constantly hangs in the background, and this is the second most severe punishment after the death penalty.

Well, then for consensus

[sniperino]

For him, here with this case strained.

[Petro_tut]

This awaits not only Russia and will be implemented everywhere with the only difference that somewhere is faster, and somewhere slower

Basically only Russia, abroad the prices of both food and industrial goods have remained unchanged for already 10 years

[Witness 45]

Do not lie, there are acquaintances in the United States, over the past decade prices have grown significantly there, now we do not live in the USSR, we have more information.

[Vadim_888]

I'm not lying, if you're interested, download the lidl app, compare prices, I won't tell you for the USA, sometimes I go to Europe, I didn't notice price changes in manufactured goods at all, food - as I took cherries 6 years ago, and a year ago, the price was the same, bread the same
The only thing has grown in price is transport, as this year is not good, damn crown

[gsev]

Quote: nsm1

Counter-sanctions are much more tangible - the cost of the food rises.

Dollar food prices in Russia fell sharply.

[nsm1]

But the dollar rose.
The overall result is a rise in price.

[gsev]

Quote: nsm1

The overall result is a rise in price.

But the rise in price is not at such a pace, and in ruble prices, when Yeltsin was passionate about the United States. For example, frequency converters in rubles practically fell in price. When Europe disappeared from problems with the Russian government, the daily wage was slightly more than a dollar. And the ruble often fell in price per day more than during the entire period of sanctions from 2014 to 2021. Even the daughter of diplomat M. Zakharov sometimes recalls at briefings very emotionally and sincerely her hungry and impoverished youth during the times of Yeltsin and Gaidar. And if businessmen-alarmists would not rush to buy up euros at each price increase, then the rate would be 20 percent lower than now.

[Vadim_888]

... But the rise in price is not at such a pace, and in ruble prices, when Yeltsin was passionate about the United States. For example, frequency converters in rubles practically fell in price

Under Yeltsin, a significant increase in prices was initiated by the annual rise in gasoline prices, as a rule, it took place in February-March just for seasonal work, I remember this very well

[gsev]

Quote: nsm1

Have you heard anything about Nord Stream 2?

The cessation of energy supplies from Russia to the West could be the beginning of the degradation of Europe. We'll have to drive the Germans and the British into the coal mines again. In Russia, the sphere of entertainment and services suffers, real production becomes more in demand from sanctions.

[Petro_tut]

The cessation of energy supplies from Russia to the West could be the beginning of the degradation of Europe.

Have you heard anything about the scientific and technical process?
In Europe, alternative energy is developing with giant steps, in Germany they began to build trains on hydrogen, in Moscow there are already a lot of people moving on electric scooters, so as not to pay for the bus, oil prices are falling precisely because of technological progress, if interested, find the speech of the prime minister Minister of India in Vladivostok where he talks about the transition of India in my opinion until 2035 in household electricity consumption by 100% to solar energy, now all efforts are thrown into the cheapening of batteries, therefore, panic in the Kremlin began, they laughed at the green revolution that began at the beginning 2000, they laughed, Gazprom will soon forcibly connect consumers to its gas, so that at least some one can sell it

[gsev]

Quote: Petro_tut

in Germany began to build trains on hydrogen,

And where is hydrogen obtained from? And you don't have to spend energy to get it? And when distilling pure hydrogen from natural gas, all rubbish from carbon monoxide to phosgene is not side-released? It is not a very publicized fact that the combustion of coal releases into the atmosphere the amount of radioactivity commensurate with the operation of a nuclear power plant to obtain an equal amount of electricity.

Quote: Petro_tut

now all forces are thrown into the cheapening of batteries, and therefore panic in the Kremlin began,

The battery simply stores the stored energy and its lifespan is up to 5 years, subject to cyclic consumption and accumulation of energy .. In 3 months it will be discharged by itself. A tank car with gasoline will not lose its stored energy in three months and its body will not lose its qualities in 5 years. In addition, the metallurgy of batteries is a highly neocological and harmful production.

[Petro_tut]

And where is hydrogen obtained from?

Water + electricity = hydrogen
And no phosgene or carbon monoxide for you
When hydrogen is burned, the same water is formed,
Buying natural gas to produce hydrogen from it - you absolutely have to be a dunce
Now natural gas is used to reduce the calorific value of hydrogen to reduce the combustion temperature
During the day, at maximum sun production splitting water,
Windmills do not care at all

... A tank car with gasoline will not lose stored energy in three months

And why do you have a catalytic converter in your car? Think norms EURO1,2,3,4,5emerged from scratch?
Diesel exhaust is a separate topic altogether,

A not very advertised fact that burning coal releases into the atmosphere the amount of radioactivity comparable to that during operation

this is true for Russian CHP
In the west, soot traps are installed that absorb most of the exhaust
So read technical magazines, not manuals from fuel companies.

[Witness 45]

Take off your pink glasses, and you will see that the so-called alternative energy resources carry a lot of problems, so calm down for another fifty years Russia will not have problems with the sale of oil and gas. Although I am in favor of blocking flow-2, and others too, maybe then we will learn to live at the expense of real production.

[Vadim_888]

Renewable energy sources lead to the opening of new industries and job creation

[Konstantin Shevchenko]

I wonder how you propose to compete with other manufacturers? If you have nowhere to take and no one to sell? What to do with mass unemployment?

[Cron]

If you go under the sanctions, the standard of living will fall even more. This means that the meetings will be even more fierce and more numerous.

So, when you climb under the sanctions pursuing your independent policy, the falling standard of living leads to violent and numerous rallies.
But when you cave in under the Western world, the falling standard of living does not lead to fierce and numerous rallies.

Interesting information, however

[nsm1]

We have nowhere to bend further, and so we adopted all the worst features.
Okay - almost everything ...

[sniperino]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Is this sarcasm now, or are you serious?

What a sarcasm ... Katz offers to surrender.

[210ox]

And what is the political situation inside? Ten points dressed the situation more than once you look? What the hell is going on with us? I can't see it at close range.

[antivirus]

"everything is possible, everything can happen .. the bride may not give herself up" .. but so that START is not prolonged?
an attempt to climb the mountain "USSR" will lead to calluses on hands and opera.
it will take several years and several tens of billions of dollars to balance our interests in the world.
the treaty itself is just a confirmation of Russia's place in the UNSC and the right of veto
you are heavy, ..... Monomakh's hat ... is a baseball cap better?

[Deniska999]

It is still necessary to negotiate, no one will be able to sit behind the wall.

[paul3390]

ANY agreement with mattress toppers is a global mistake .. The past 30 years have proven this very clearly. The meaning of contracts with characters whose words are worthless? However - such are the liberals and crap in all countries, without exception.

[vladcub]

The alternative to the treaty is an arms race, and with the current leaders, this is death for Russia. I doubt that Rutenberg or Alikperov agreed to share part of their funds, which means from our wallet

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: vladcub

The alternative to the treaty is the arms race

but she even in principle, didn't stop (!), not for a minute !!!...

Quote: vladcub

I doubt that Rutenberg or Alikperov agreed to share part of their funds, which means from our wallet

of course (!)... An example of RusAl, squeezed from Deripaska and the Russian Federation, is very indicative (!). Only part of the loss personally Deripaska, the state compensated him from the treasury (i.e. taxes, read Your MONEY) ... But control over one of the largest strategic enterprises in the Russian Federation (once created by the whole country, but when it decays, - "privatized" in favor "individuals"), lost (!!!) ....
Wonderful are thy works, O Lord ?! It turned out how - "plunder the loot" ? !! ... And unfortunately, - Again, not in favor of the citizens of the country, who created all this, and their children? !!!.

[MstislavHrabr]

These are unilateral obligations, for the violation of which they will have nothing and we will receive sanctions, etc.

[Terran ghost]

Firstly, I would like to remind you that the current legislation of the Russian Federation prohibits publicly committed acts aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliating the dignity of a person or a group of persons based on gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to any social group.
Insulting fellow citizens who share liberal and social democratic convictions, in my opinion, is not permissible and contradicts the letter and spirit of the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.

PS: Also, I want to draw your attention to the following provisions of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1977
Quote: "Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people. The people exercise state power through the Soviets of People's Deputies, which constitute the political basis of the USSR."
Quote: "Article 3. The organization and activities of the Soviet state are built in accordance with the principle of democratic centralism: the election of all government bodies from top to bottom, accountability to their people."
According to the 1977 USSR Constitution, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a state with a democratic form of government, in which the state ensured the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens (Article 4, Chapter 7 of the 1977 USSR Constitution).

The meaning of contracts with characters whose words are worthless?

Now the question is - when exactly did the United States violate the agreements concluded with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation?
PS: We do not count the mythical, non-existent commitments about "NATO's non-expansion". Such provisions were not clothed in the form of an agreement binding on the parties to the agreement, nothing but wishful thinking about the alleged "obligations" of such a plan are not. From the point of view of international law, such obligations have never existed and never existed. Point.
You should also make a second reservation - there is a fundamental difference between "violate the agreement" and "in the prescribed manner to withdraw from this or that agreement"

[pytar]

Everything is accurate, reasoned, unambiguous! Respect!

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Insulting fellow citizens who share liberal and social democratic convictions, in my opinion, is not permissible and contradicts the letter and spirit of the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.

This is not 1937. And if a person considers liberal politicians to be enemies who robbed him, he has the right to express his opinion about them and call for their expulsion from power. And even before the law could not end the existence of the opposition.

Quote: Terran Ghost

and when exactly did the United States violate the agreements concluded with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation?

Why translate arrows? Life is easier in Russia when, in open confrontation with the West, it is not limited in its choice of means. Therefore, experience shows that it makes little sense to conclude political agreements with the West.

[Vadim_888]

... This is not 1937.

And the calendar completely coincided

[Witness 45]

It's a shame that only the calendars are the same.

[Terran ghost]

in open confrontation with the West is not limited in the choice of means

And what for is such a confrontation generally necessary? This is the first and main question.
More precisely, it is clear why such a confrontation took place during the Soviet Union. Its necessity stemmed from the very essence of the dominant in the USSR Marxist-Leninist ideology, which proclaimed a course for the transition from capitalism to building communism by methods of creating a totally state-controlled command-planned economy. And now why do we need it?

[Disant]

Now the question is - when exactly did the United States violate the agreements concluded with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation?

.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???.(surprise)
.
VIOLATIONS:
.
RIAC TREATY.
- USA - development of medium and shorter-range target missiles in order to test elements of the global US missile defense and European missile defense.
- USA - in fact, a medium-range missile was created on the basis of the Minuteman upper stages.
.
ABM Treaty.
- USA - transferred to Norway radar Globus-2
.
START TREATY.
- USA - sells Trident-8 SLBMs to the British strategic nuclear forces, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 2010, 2)
- USA - hid their participation in the program "Successor" ("Successor") to create a new British SSBN with a universal missile compartment (Common Missile Сompartment - CMC) for the SLBM "Trident-2"
- USA - Repeated violations and deviations from the requirements of the START Treaty and the Annex on Inspection Activities during inspections at US START facilities.
- own identification marks of the Trident-2 SLBM, which were kept assembled, turned out to be inaccessible for observation, since the number was applied inside the first stage. The numbers of the first stages of the missiles, which were kept undocked, did not match the numbers provided by the Americans in the notifications.
- the numbers of the ICBM were written on a sheet of paper that the Americans pasted onto the cover of the rocket engine nozzle.
AMERICANS IN THEIR MIND ????
- identification marks of ICBMs were applied to a tag suspended on a fence; it is unknown whether the number of the missile deployed in the mine corresponded to the duplicate on the tag.
.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT IT IS ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! EVEN IF - HAHA - REMOVE OTHER VIOLATIONS - THIS IS AN EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS ?? THE NUMBER IS NOT VISIBLE HERE, THE A4 LEAF HERE WAS STICKED -
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?! AND THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION, THIS IS A COMPLETE IGNORATION OF CONTRACTS

[Terran ghost]

Here, already some specifics. It's good.
Let's go point by point

USA - transferred to Norway radar Globus-2

But this radar station belongs to ... the Armed Forces of Norway and is controlled by them. Norway was not a party to the ABM Treaty. From the word "absolutely".

USA - development of medium and shorter-range target missiles in order to test elements of the US global missile defense and European missile defense.

The Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles Treaty only prohibited the production and deployment of ballistic missiles, which are a means of delivering weapons (Article II, subparagraph 1). A target missile is not such a means.

in fact, on the basis of the Minuteman upper stages, a medium-range missile was created

Was not. Target missiles are not weapons delivery vehicles.

USA - sells Trident-8 SLBMs to the British strategic nuclear forces, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 2010, 2)

Is such activity really prohibited by the START-3 treaty?

USA - hid their participation in the Successor program for the creation of a new British SSBN with a universal missile compartment (Common Missile Сompartment - CMC) for the Trident-2 SLBM

Is such activity prohibited by the START III Treaty, to which the UK was not and is not?

own identification marks of the Trident-2 SLBM, which were kept assembled

https://www.armscontrol.ru/start/rus/docs/start1/pril6.txt
Quote: "1. A proprietary identification mark is a non-repeating alphanumeric serial number or a copy thereof, affixed by the inspected Party using its own technology to ICBMs for mobile launchers of ICBMs, as provided in paragraph 3 or 4 of this Annex."
I don’t see anything at all, so far as it concerns ballistic missiles of submarines.

the ICBM numbers were written on a piece of paper that the Americans pasted onto the rocket engine nozzle cover.

Quote: "6. ... If your own identification mark applied to the launch container or the first
an ICBM stage for mobile launchers of ICBMs is not readable as provided for in paragraph 5 of this Annex, such an intrinsic identification mark is duplicated on that part of the surface of a launch canister or the first stage of an ICBM for mobile launchers of ICBMs that is readable from it by inspectors or observers during a visual inspection. "
That is, formally, this option is not prohibited if the designation mark is located on the missile so that it is not readable.

[Disant]

Quote: "1

Quote: "6.

oh yes you are a contract specialist! then why bring the points of the application for mobile launchers of ICBMs and you yourself are surprised

I don’t see anything at all, so far as it concerns ballistic missiles of submarines.

??
.
Moreover, even in these paragraphs, everything is clearly stated about the special marking that must be applied by the inspecting party.
.
Do I understand correctly that you no longer have any objections about the total violations revealed by the inspection?

[Terran ghost]

then why bring the points of the application for mobile launchers of ICBMs and you yourself are surprised

And then, that the requirements you are referring to relate to them and only them, and not ballistic missiles on submarines.

about total violations revealed by the inspection

And where are these "total violations"? All the fuss around identification marks does not pull more than a minor purely technical violation. If there was a violation at all. Here's the trick.

Also, you did not answer the questions asked to you.

[Disant]

And then, that the requirements you are referring to relate to them and only them, and not ballistic missiles on submarines.

why are you leading the cat by the tail - the inspectors could not identify the blocks that they counted the previous time!

All the fuss around identification marks does not pull more than a minor purely technical violation.

The entire Agreement is based on this work - accounting. This technical violation does not "pull"
a IS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT.
THERE IS NO ACCOUNT, what is already installed inside - maybe modernization, maybe unaccounted for, but the accounted one sold-donated to someone, and not one.
.

Also, you did not answer the questions asked to you.

Why borscht here - NO ACCOUNTING. Of course, I am ready to answer these already insignificant questions after your arguments that ACCOUNTING is "insignificant" and the glued A4 leaflet on the fencing of the ICBM mine gives you the right to talk about compliance with the agreement with the side gluing this leaflet.

[Terran ghost]

The entire Agreement is based on this work - accounting. This technical violation does not "pull"

The entire START I treaty was based on limiting the total number of strategic missile weapons of the parties involved. Inspections are just one of the mechanisms for monitoring how the parties fulfill their obligations, but not an end in itself.

what is installed ALREADY inside - maybe modernization, maybe unaccounted for, but the accounted one sold-donated to someone, and not one.

First surprise - the bilateral (between the USSR and the United States) START-1 Treaty did not establish any prohibitions on military-technical cooperation between the United States and Great Britain.
The second surprise - all the more so in the agreement there were no clauses that would prohibit any modernization of the ICBMs and SLBMs in service.
In general ... based on your words, then I will ask you two questions.
1) Can you name the source of information about the alleged violations during the inspection procedure?
2) Which clause of the START I Treaty was violated in this case?

Now I will remind you of your recent statements and my questions in connection with them ...

USA - sells Trident-8 SLBMs to the British strategic nuclear forces, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 2010, 2)

Is such activity really prohibited by the START-3 treaty?

USA - hid their participation in the Successor program for the creation of a new British SSBN with a universal missile compartment (Common Missile Сompartment - CMC) for the Trident-2 SLBM

Is such activity prohibited by the START III Treaty, to which the UK was not and is not?

I am also waiting for your answer to these questions.

[Disant]

you ask me new questions and already rewrite old ones.
then I will repeat it again so that you do not get confused - your objections, the answer to the violations revealed by the inspection -

All the fuss around identification marks does not pull more than a minor purely technical violation.

- it's all?

[Terran ghost]

it's all?

Not all, in fact. Based on the materials (the text of the contract directly) that I managed to look at, I'm not at all sure that even a formal violation took place.
Therefore, I am asking you two quite logical questions ...
1) Can you name the source of information about the alleged violations during the inspection procedure that you are referring to?
2) Which clause of the START I Treaty was violated in this case?

In addition, I repeat again the questions asked earlier, to which you have not given an answer.

USA - sells Trident-8 SLBMs to the British strategic nuclear forces, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 2010, 2)

Is such activity really prohibited by the START-3 treaty?

USA - hid their participation in the Successor program for the creation of a new British SSBN with a universal missile compartment (Common Missile Сompartment - CMC) for the Trident-2 SLBM

Is such activity prohibited by the START III Treaty, to which the UK was not and is not?

[ccsr]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Is such activity really prohibited by the START-3 treaty?

Interestingly, the girls are dancing ... And if we supply the DPRK and China with our Sineva and Bulava missiles to equip their submarines outside the framework of the START-3 Treaty, the Americans will not even be outraged? Something I do not strongly believe in this, so we do not need to push the idea that the new American missiles on British submarines are less dangerous to us than the same missiles on American nuclear submarines. The approach for these weapons must be integrated once the Americans are in command of NATO. And they must understand that our opinion must be taken into account, at least in this weaponry.

[Terran ghost]

DPRK and China

Armament supplies to the North. Korea is banned by UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions in connection with the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
What's the point of transferring technology to China in the field of strategic missile weapons? To strengthen their weapons, among the potential targets of which we ourselves are?

The approach for these weapons must be integrated

opinion must be taken into account, at least in this weapon

What do you mean "should be"? And why the US and British governments should "take into account someone's opinion" on this issue, if formally their actions do not violate any international treaties.
Moreover, it should be noted that military-technical cooperation between the United States and Great Britain in terms of ballistic missiles of submarines has a long history. It has been going on since about the end of the 1960s.

[ccsr]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Armament supplies to the North. Korea is banned by UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions in connection with the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

It is our voluntary commitment to comply with such decisions. In the event of a threat to our security in the form of the growth of American ballistic missiles on the nuclear submarines of their allies, we will simply send the UN with all its resolutions, as Israel or the United States does on a number of issues.

Quote: Terran Ghost

What's the point of transferring technology to China in the field of strategic missile weapons?

And we will supply them with old missiles.

Quote: Terran Ghost

To strengthen their weapons, among the potential targets of which we ourselves are?

There is such a principle of self-destruction for some weapons, so believe our people are not made with a finger and everything is thought out.

Quote: Terran Ghost

And why the US and British governments should "take into account someone's opinion" on this issue, if formally their actions do not violate any international treaties.

So we will spit on their opinion and hand over our missiles to the DPRK - they are not spelled out in the treaty, which means we are not violating anything.

Quote: Terran Ghost

Moreover, it should be noted that military-technical cooperation between the United States and Great Britain in terms of ballistic missiles of submarines has a long history. It has been going on since about the end of the 1960s.

So what - they were still at war with each other two hundred years ago, but now the world has changed and they are friends. We simply proceed from reality, not from your idea of ​​the world you invented.

[Disant]

Based on the materials (the text of the contract directly) that I managed to look at, I'm not at all sure that even a formal violation took place.

what based on? NO ACCOUNTING - NO PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.
THE ACCOUNT IS NOT PERFORMED, THE HEADS CANNOT BE COUNTED, THE LOCATION IS UNKNOWN, THE QUANTITY IS UNKNOWN. I don't know how else to write to you.
.
Why would the Americans honor the treaty if they are hegemonic? They didn't care.
.

1) Can you name the source of information about the alleged violations during the inspection procedure that you are referring to?

Yes, right now, just write - they'll rub everything right away, and you won't find the ends. Give proofs to everyone at once, and that with a seal and notarized.
These are the words of the General of the Strategic Missile Forces, who participated in the talks on the reduction of strategic offensive arms. I think you will find.
.
all that you are asking for answers for the third time is body movements that are secondary and are a derivative and consequence of the existing unequal relations that were and are between the countries - signatories to the Treaty, and for every violation there is a clear article of the Treaty

[Disant]

USA - sells Trident-8 SLBMs to the British strategic nuclear forces, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 2010, 2)

Is such activity really prohibited by the START-3 treaty?

.
of course prohibited - Article 13 of the Treaty
The Parties shall not transfer strategic offensive weapons covered by this Treaty to third parties..

[Disant]

The Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles Treaty only prohibited the production and deployment of ballistic missiles, which are a means of delivering weapons (Article II, subparagraph 1). A target rocket by such a means is not.

of course is.
Article 1. Each of the parties will eliminate its medium-range and shorter-range missiles and will not have such means in the future.
Article 6 Neither party: a) produces any intermediate-range missiles, does not conduct flight tests of such missiles, and does not manufacture any stages of such missiles and any launchers of such missiles "
Article 12 Accelerators are used only for research and development purposes for testing objectsbut not the accelerators themselves.
.
Simply, rudely and unpretentiously, the Americans called the medium-range missile a target missile and began testing their tactical missile defense system against the missile, not the payload (objects).
After all, you can take and test on target missiles with a range of up to 500 km, no, give them an average one.
They tested the missile defense system, there are medium missiles, and the booster blocks and other offal that were allegedly destroyed were put into action. In positive territory everywhere. Handsome men.
.
Well, in return, they got what they have now - new weapons systems in service with the Russians.

[Knell wardenheart]

Definitely a plus. A rare voice of reason and expediency on this site.

[Rufat]

Of course a mistake. It is necessary to increase the military budget so that it is at least 50%, so that no country would even dream of attacking RUSSIA

[bar]

Quote: Rufat

Of course a mistake. It is necessary to increase the military budget so that it is at least 50%, so that no country would even dream of attacking RUSSIA

So that the citizens of Russia are poor, hungry and angry, so that they have nothing to lose, and so that they become afraid to attack. An example is the DPRK.

[Cowbra]

Only if Britain, France, Israel are included in the treaty and the launchers for cruise missiles are removed, then one can think.
Now START is not in our interests, let me remind you that the Americans have completely lost the technology for producing weapons-grade plutonium, they cannot make warheads. We don't need this contract

[210ox]

What makes you think that they have lost technology? You cannot consider the enemy a fool, otherwise we ourselves will remain a fool.

[Cowbra]

However, this is a fact. They have lost not only the technology for producing plutonium, but also for enriching uranium, and for 20 years now. This is also the reason for the transition to nuclear weapons of "reduced power" or the purchase of uranium from the Russian Federation, did not you know that they have not been producing enriched uranium for a long time? They don't even extract it at home - Rosatom produces everything for them in the USA. daughter - Juranium Van company. Rosatom owns 100% of the shares. And the waste is cleaned by the French Areva. again technologies are lost. What for themselves to mess with when "friend Boris" sells how much you need? They did not take into account only that with the closure of such a production, specialists also die out, and this is an irreplaceable resource. Not to mention the fact that promising developments are not funded at all - and they are not. As a result, they have documentation on the diffusion enrichment of uranium, which is expensive and inefficient, but there are no specialists. And in the Russian Federation, gas centrifugal extractors ... Well, I know that in 2012 there was already the 5th generation. now, come on, 7th or 8th.
But mattresses have molecules of freedom in LNG running

[user1212]

Quote: Cowbra

Well, I know that in 2012 it was already the 5th generation. now, come on, 7th or 8th.

In 2012, the introduction of the ninth generation began (there are already 9+), and the fifth is the development of 70xx

Quote: Cowbra

They have lost not only the plutonium production technology, but also uranium enrichment, and for 20 years now

Not everything is so hopeless with them. There is URENCO, which is increasing its volumes. and in the United States. It is certainly not American, and only produces low-enrichment, but what difference does that make? We are gaining experience, training personnel, and the Americans will bend them when and how they want, unfortunately. Although with the new "green" policy ... xs where it will lead them

[2 Level Advisor]

then, according to your logic, it turns out, it is necessary, stop giving them uranium, wait 20 years and that's it .. nuclear weapons will disappear from minke whales .. right? and on the machine we are many times stronger .. interesting plan ..

[Cowbra]

What's the point? We sell uranium to them for nuclear power plants, it is very profitable for us. And they do not know how to make a nichert out of it, so yes - if they don’t stop playing, they have a big risk of being left without nuclear weapons - they are now cutting old full-weight warheads into "tactical"

[2 Level Advisor]

and besides Russia, is there nowhere to get it enriched uranium? We then produce half of it, but do you really think it will not be sold to them by fellow NATO members? even if they have lost their skills .. this does not mean anything at all .. since they can buy from those who have not lost, even if not in the Russian Federation .. and with their machine tool, in a few years, together with engineers, the factories will buy and run. . I think they just sit for today - suits ..

[Cowbra]

I don't think the NATO allies will sell them. For the same France, an increase in the arsenal of nuclear weapons in France and its decrease in the United States means that the United States of France is not a decree, and such chips as an attempt to put pressure on France to buy F-35 curves are simply unimaginable. And what about "buy and with a machine" - if it were so simple. They bought the documentation for the RD 30 years ago, and to repeat - what a hell it happened. And yet, specialists of such a level that they can arrange for the receipt of weapons-grade plutonium - they are not allowed to travel abroad and around under subscriptions, they cannot be physically bought

[2 Level Advisor]

Well .. maybe you are right .. URENCO may have started - to restore the possibilities - production is increasing every year .. I wonder, but in France, etc. there is a concept under a subscription, etc., do not you know? On the other hand, we do not refuse to sell them, either with the signing of an agreement or without ...

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: Cowbra

Only if Britain, France, Israel are included in the treaty and the launchers for cruise missiles are removed, then one can think.

I would and China added here (!)it cannot be ignored or underestimated !!! and Germany too ...

[Daniil Konovalenko]

The LC, and not the article, will be read by the Russian leadership and will listen to the opinion of the author. START-3, the continuation of the START-1 and START-2 treaties, and it was always a question of reducing nuclear weapons between the USSR-Russia and the United States, and none of the agreements took into account nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. The extension of the treaty by the United States is a PR that Russia will not renew this agreement.

[smaug78]

Yes, the author is not in the subject ..

[place]

The signing of any agreements with the West for Russia has always ended badly. Exactly the same as for the leaders of Indian tribes. They also wanted to be "like white people."
The agreement with the Entente generally led to the disintegration of RI and to the intervention of the Entente against the RSFSR. Brezhnev's "detente" and "convergence" - to the collapse of the USSR.
First of all, because of the Kholui psychology of the "elite", which is the only way to break into the ranks of the "elite", because any agreements with the strong always end in the fact that after several preparatory chess moves the strong one simply hits the head with a chessboard his "kind of partner". And how can a hot-tsa look like a solid partner who is "negotiated"!
Even "rising from its knees" Russia has an annual GDP 2 times less than France, with a population 2 times more. And who will behave with us "on equal terms"?

[meandr51]

There will be. As well as North Korea. For some reason they do not care that the DPRK has "less GDP than France."

[Terran ghost]

There will be. As well as North Korea. For some reason they do not care that the DPRK has "less GDP than France."

Boo-ha-ha. From North. Only South Korea (Republic of Korea) behaves "on equal terms" with the industrialized countries of Korea. For obvious reasons.
Is that the current North Korean despot Kim Jong-un seems to have mastered the art of selling (literally) his media image of "a maniac beaten off and crazy." When it is easier for larger players to "buy off". Fortunately, the "price" from the government of North. Korea is usually quite short.
And the most important thing. North. Korea essentially exists solely by the grace of its Chinese "older brothers". Start China to REALLY implement the international sanctions imposed on the DPRK (by the way, the use of the PRC's veto against resolutions on the introduction of such sanctions is not actually accidental), the North Korean economy will quickly come to a specific Karachun ...

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Start China to REALLY implement the international sanctions imposed against the DPRK (by the way, the use of the PRC's veto against the resolutions on the introduction of such sanctions is not actually accidental), the North Korean economy will quickly come to a specific Karachun ...

Any NATO country finds itself under sanctions similar to those that were adopted against the DPRK and degrades without oil and gas. China does not need a nuclear-armed neighbor, which has fought most of its wars with China, for further expansion. In my opinion, Russia's support for these sanctions is V. Putin's greatest foolishness.

[Terran ghost]

who spent most of the wars with China

Mmm .. but do not tell me when it is North. Korea was at war with China?

seem to be under sanctions similar to those adopted against the DPRK

In general, the regime of tough economic sanctions against North Korea was introduced only in 2006. In view of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
That did not prevent the North Korean economy from collapsing and widespread famine already a decade earlier. To counteract which, the same North Korean government had to request international humanitarian assistance. (according to the principle "Uncle Sam, let me devour, otherwise there is nothing to put a bunch under the door" (c))

do not need a neighbor with nuclear weapons

the biggest nonsense

And why does Russia need such a neighbor, moreover, a neighbor depending on the whims, whims and banal state of mental health of another despot from the North Korean Kim dynasty?

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Mmm .. but do not tell me when it is North. Korea was at war with China?

Did you mean this quote: "China does not need a nuclear-armed neighbor, which has fought most of its wars with China, for further expansion." It meant that the Korean state, which was from 3000 to 5000 years old, arose in the crucible of wars with China. Read the medieval history of Korea. The Kim Il Sung dynasty is a fleeting moment in Korean history. Now we are witnessing practically a revolution in the DPRK, where the military began to cede power and influence to scientists and intellectuals.

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Which did not prevent the North Korean economy from collapsing and widespread famine a decade earlier.

Quote: Terran Ghost

And why does Russia need such a neighbor, moreover, a neighbor depending on the whims, whims and banal state of mental health of another despot from the North Korean Kim dynasty?

To better imagine the causes of hunger in the DPRK, I recommend this source. Https://koryo-saram.ru/pochemu-sluchilsya-golod-v-severnoj-koree-intervyu-s-konstantinom-asmolovym/ That is, according to him, the main reason for hunger - sanctions imposed by Boris N. Yeltsin and the Russian Foreign Ministry. South Korea inadequately decided to take advantage of the stupidity of Russian diplomats and pushed through a ban on the supply of food to the DPRK after the start of the famine and the provision of loans to this country. In general, during the years of Yeltsin's rule, it was Russia that was an inadequate partner, whose actions depended on the whim of a president who abused drunkenness or on thieving officials. At the same time, Russia imposed an embargo on aviation fuel supplies to Afghanistan, which led to the fall of the Najibullah government. Few people know that for the first time sanctions against Yugoslavia were introduced much earlier than their official introduction, Pavel Borodin, the mayor of Yakutsk, when he had to exclude a Yugoslav and Russian company from participation in a tender for the construction of sewage treatment plants in favor of a company affiliated with him from Europe. The head of the thrown Yugoslav firm was on friendly terms with the prosecutor Carla del Ponta. Perhaps this forced P. Borodin to make a trip to Switzerland and there to abandon some of the money acquired during the construction of treatment facilities in Yakutsk.

[Terran ghost]

always ended badly

Always when exactly?
And oh yes, one little detail. Before the well-known events of October 1917, the Russian Empire was considered a part of this very "West". And the Russian emperors are equal members of a kind of super-elite club of European monarchs.

The treaty with the Entente generally led to the collapse of Ingushetia and to the intervention of the Entente.

Actually, no. The collapse of the Russian Empire was led by the stubborn desire of the authorities of the Russian Empire to hold on to a reactionary form of government in the form of an absolute monarchy and remnants of feudalism. The interests of the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary (the first and most loyal ally of Germany in that historical period) were directly opposite - it was essentially a struggle between the pan-Slavic and German-centric projects for the organization of Eastern Europe.
The intervention of the troops of the Entente countries was carried out purely in support of the White Guard troops and governments. Which were actually considered the Entente countries at that time the closest successors to the legitimate authorities of Russia. As the White Guards they supported were defeated in the Civil War of 1918-1922, the interventionists left the country virtually without a fight.

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Always when exactly?

For example, the participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution in the 19th century in accordance with the decisions of the Vienna Congress. And the Helsinki Pact only contributed to the collapse of the USSR. The current literal adherence to agreements on gas supplies to Europe in the face of European support for sanctions against these supplies, which resulted in useless investments in the construction of a pipeline to Bulgaria and Nord Stream. It was necessary to immediately stop these supplies, as Lenin did with the tsarist debts.

[zenion]

Russia - the United States - good, but what about the NATO alliance? They can and they will. And Russia no longer has what it was in the USSR. Russia is the heir to the empire, not the USSR.

[nikvic46]

This is just an extension of the Treaty. If we demand the inclusion of European countries possessing nuclear weapons, the US will demand the inclusion of China, the DPRK. And it will not be possible to extend the Treaty. Moreover, the continuation of this Treaty is carried out on our terms. This Treaty does not deny the possibility of creating new weapons.

[Vladimir_2U]

I agree with the author of the article, Russia does not need a thoughtless extension of nafig.

[UA3QHP]

Is an arms race needed now and immediately?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ua3qhp

Is an arms race needed now and immediately?

No need to equate refusal to extend the treaty with an immediate arms race, what kind of demagoguery?

[meandr51]

Of course you do. Russia has always won it. Tales that the USSR "lost the arms race" are for Navalny's shkoloty. The USSR lost its elite - that's a fact. Moreover, the worse the relations with the West, the better Russia lives due to the self-purification of the elite. Remembering the 90s and "Bill's friend" ...
But America will definitely not stand this race and confrontation. She is already on the brink of civil war and disintegration. Just give it a little push ...

[Avior]

I won the race.
Country- lost: ((

[meandr51]

This is how lucky. Often not connected at all.

[Terran ghost]

always won it

Is it always when?
For example, the Russian Empire (1721-1917) purchased weapons from Western Europe for approximately ALL the time of its existence.

Moreover, the worse the relations with the West, the better Russia lives.

Where did you get this heresy from? Third quarter 1998 - 2008. Sharp growth of gross domestic product and (approximately since 2002) - real disposable income of the population. 2010-2012 years. Moreover, the real disposable income of the population has been growing all this time, even despite the 2009 crisis. The drivers of economic growth are in many ways affordable and cheap credit capital from Western countries.
It should also be noted that there is nothing exceptional in this dynamics - similar phenomena (a deep, severe crisis in the 1990s, followed by economic growth in 2000-2008) are characteristic of almost all countries of the former USSR. Yes, including Latvia and Lithuania. Moreover, SUDDENLY, the economic crisis of 1991-1999 in Ukraine was significantly more severe than the economic crisis of 1991-1998 in Russia (the then government of Ukraine did not have it with the "second France", yes).
The exceptions to this rule are Estonia and partly Belarus (the crisis ended in 1996). Each for its own reasons.

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

Where did you get this heresy from? Third quarter 1998 - 2008.

In general, it was at the peak of friendship with the West from 1989 to 1998 that the impoverishment of Russians and the collapse of production fell. The revival began with the inauguration of Prime Minister E. Primakov, or figuratively speaking on March 24, 1999, when he ordered to cancel negotiations with the United States on the defeat of Yugoslavia (turning over the Atlantic). Probably this is more correct and more objective than your references ..

[nonsense]

the arms race has nothing to do with treaties. It will still continue regardless of this particular contract. And Russia needs to have as many of these strategic offensive weapons as it needs to guarantee the defeat of any adversaries to a state of radioactive wasteland. With threefold redundancy.

[gsev]

Quote: Ua3qhp

Is an arms race needed now and immediately?

The treaty cannot stop the arms race. But the development of technology makes war without definite restrictions suicidal at some level. Some tribes in America and Southeast Asia gained access to firearms and exterminated their peoples in hopeless wars with competitors. Trying to translate economic competition into political, diplomatic or military conflict, the United States risks getting involved in a nuclear war or degrading as a result of the conflict. At one time, Great Britain and France, mutually competing, received a more dangerous enemy, Germany. So now, perhaps the Spanish-speaking, Indian, Muslim or Chinese worlds will become stronger than the Anglo-Saxon. It seems that now the danger of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia is much higher than during the Cuban missile crisis. Unlike those times, Russia is capable of inflicting more damage. US medicine has shown its lesser ability, compared to Chinese medicine, to survive in conditions of epidemics and biological warfare. Surely the opponents of the United States draw conclusions from this.

[Sasha from Uralmash]

The arms race is not profitable for us! The price of Kuzi and the yachts of the oliga frens is incomparable! We will be ruined by their own people! Always! Russia perished because of internal problems! Traitors on the bridge! Smile to the apitan!

[Zaurbek]

Error. It is necessary to withdraw from the non-proliferation agreement

[HAM]

There is one oddity: for a long time the states refused to sign, but suddenly they caught fire in two weeks ... (just don’t think about Trump, he almost didn’t solve anything), it seems to me that the calculation was made for a limited time, i.e. in a hurry, the states want to stir up their conditions ... rush is only needed to catch fleas on a dog ...

[t-12]

What if the contract was not renewed? What then? Would you start riveting 36000 warheads again?

[Avior]

Interestingly, the author speaks from the position of Trump.
It was he who proposed to take into account in the treaty not only strategic charges of all types, but also tactical ones, because of which the new treaty stalled.

[ximkim]

Since 2009, the world has changed, the leaders of the countries have changed / are elected, but the President of the Russian Federation and the foreign course have not changed. So, START 3 is beneficial because the treaty will allow to write off mistakes and losses on it.

[Jaromir]

Is it a mistake to extend START-3?

No, this is not a mistake. It would be a mistake not to involve third countries in this agreement.

[Oleksandr Morozov]

It does not follow from the text of the note why this contract is not beneficial. There are only emotions that he is signing quickly with the Americans. The more important questions are how many strategic warheads are needed to guarantee the destruction of any possible adversaries and how many, respectively, we need. And the most important thing is whether the leadership has the ability and political will to apply it at the right time.

[tolancop]

Material even for a light analysis of the reasons why the extension of the Treaty is not profitable for Russia.

[ccsr]

Quote: tolancop

Material even for a light analysis of the reasons why the extension of the Treaty is not profitable for Russia.

I agree with this assessment, and in my opinion the author is not at all in the subject of why this agreement is beneficial to us.
The main thing is that he somehow captures the Americans' STRATEGIC charges, and especially those that are on their missiles. Another important achievement of the treaty is that they undertake to place them on their territory - this is a very important point.
As for OTR and other carriers up to 1000 km, they do not threaten us much from France and Great Britain - China is much more dangerous to us in this respect. Demanding to register these three countries in our treaty is on the verge of absurdity - they will never agree to this.
And still no less important, which some forget about - the question is not so much in the charges themselves, but in the invulnerability of their delivery vehicles, especially if this happens at hypersonic speed along flat trajectories with maneuvering. So, no matter how they speculate about the INF, we must always remember that the Americans are only afraid of our heavy missiles, and everything else worries them less. That is why, realizing that they are losing to us in new media without showing off, they extended the Agreement, hoping that in five years they will find some way to neutralize our superiority. In which directions they will go is anyone's guess. But they will deal with it very seriously - for fear of being in a situation where their missile defense system will not play any role at all.

[gsev]

Quote: ccsr

China is much more dangerous to us in this respect. Demanding to register these three countries in our treaty is on the verge of absurdity - they will never agree to this.

Our entire population and industry is farther from China and its missiles than from Ukraine and American tomohawks and drones with ammunition. China, unlike the United States, does not provoke persecution and discrimination of Russians for preserving their native language and culture. That is, the United States positions itself as an enemy of the entire Russian people, which seeks to destroy not only the state, but also the people themselves and their culture. Therefore, the struggle of the Russians with the United States turns into an uncompromising protracted conflict. And any force capable of harming the United States and its allies is not useful in it.

[ccsr]

Quote: gsev

Our entire population and industry is farther from China and its missiles than from Ukraine and American tomohawks and drones with ammunition.

China has nuclear weapons and means of delivery, unlike Ukraine. And if a new "Mao" appears there with territorial or other claims to us, then we will have to be very bad.

Quote: gsev

China, unlike the United States, does not provoke persecution and discrimination of Russians for preserving their native language and culture.

They did not spare themselves during the Cultural Revolution, and of course they will take care of you if there is a conflict over territories.

Quote: gsev

Therefore, the struggle of the Russians with the United States turns into an uncompromising protracted conflict. And any force capable of harming the United States and its allies is not useful in it.

Nobody argues with this. Only now we have no allies in the world - this is still our tsar understood in the 19th century, the winged expression of which we know.

[gsev]

Quote: ccsr

China has nuclear weapons and means of delivery, unlike Ukraine.

The problem is not in Ukraine and not in the presence of nuclear weapons in the armament of its army, but in the fact that this state positions itself as an enemy of the Russian people, the Russian state, Russian culture and Russian language and is ready to provide its territory, people and army to any hostile forces opposing Russia. At any time, tactical and operational missiles may appear on Russia's western borders. It is the existence of a powerful China that saves Russia from this. Indeed, in the event of a war with NATO, the territory east of the Urals will be occupied by the Chinese with unlimited resources in the infantry, while Europe will recover from the effects of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, for a war with Russia, the United States must develop weapons with a specific bias: frost resistance, bases in Europe, protection of Europe from biological and chemical weapons. Moreover, the United States may, by prolonging the confrontation with Russia, get China, which it will already be impossible for them to contain. On the territory of the PRC, it is still impossible to imagine the appearance of American bases and troops that could attack Russia through this territory. In addition, China has not been seen in the preparation of saboteurs for organizing speeches such as "support for Navalny" and "overthrow of Lukashenka."

[ccsr]

Quote: gsev

The problem is not in Ukraine and not in the presence of nuclear weapons in the armament of its army, but in the fact that this state positions itself as an enemy of the Russian people, the Russian state, Russian culture and Russian language and is ready to provide its territory, people and army to any hostile forces opposing Russia.

The Baltics are a NATO member and can do it without Ukraine. We have enough enemies even without Ukraine. What is your fear?

Quote: gsev

It is the existence of a powerful China that saves Russia from this.

How is it? So that we will have to keep part of our nuclear weapons for them?

Quote: gsev

Indeed, in the event of a war with NATO, the territory east of the Urals will be occupied by the Chinese with unlimited resources in the infantry, while Europe will recover from the effects of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, for a war with Russia, the United States must develop weapons with a specific bias: frost resistance, bases in Europe, protection of Europe from biological and chemical weapons.

I don’t know where you got such fantasies, but I know that in the event of a nuclear war with the United States and NATO, our territory will be simply lifeless for many years, something like Chernobyl.

Quote: gsev

Moreover, the United States may, by prolonging the confrontation with Russia, get China, which it will already be impossible for them to contain.

Who inspires you all this - name the source for scooping your thoughts.

Quote: gsev

On the territory of the PRC, it is still impossible to imagine the appearance of American bases and troops that could attack Russia through this territory.

The further into the forest, the more terrifying ...

Quote: gsev

In addition, China has not been seen in the preparation of saboteurs for organizing speeches such as "support for Navalny" and "overthrow of Lukashenko."

Yes, they generally do not give a damn about these territories, they consider them only as a source of raw materials, and what kind of power they will not care about - the main thing is that there is an uninterrupted supply of raw materials.
The preparation by the Chinese of saboteurs to overthrow the regimes in Europe - I have never come across such pearls anywhere. Original, you will not say anything.

[Terran ghost]

The United States positions itself as an enemy of the entire Russian people

And again, another morally filthy anti-American hysteria. And in this case, it is also completely false. The predictable truth, unfortunately.
The United States of America is home to a Russian diaspora of over 2 million people. Local (targeting the audience in the United States) Russian-language mass media operate freely, as well as local dioceses and church structures of the Russian Orthodox Church (abroad).

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

And again, another morally filthy anti-American hysteria.

Why should the United States foment interethnic conflict with the Russians on its territory? If the Russians are crushed as they are crushed in Moldova, Ukraine or the Baltics, then Microsoft, for example, may be left without subroutines for power management and battery operation in the Windows operating system, which is made by a Russian-speaking programmer. Or the development of film diamond coatings for American missiles in early 2000 would have to be entrusted only to US citizens. For the United States, Ukraine is as much a competitor as Russia. If after the Maidan there was no squeezing of the Russian language, in Ukraine there would be no loss of Crimea, no war in Donbass, no flight of the developer of microdat controllers to Russia. But the United States is actively provoking oppression of Russians with all the ensuing consequences.

[gsev]

Quote: Terran Ghost

And again, another morally filthy anti-American hysteria.

You just don't know that the United States is holding back the development of not only Russia, but also its allies, for example South Korea. For example, the US intelligence agencies organized the kidnapping and murder of a group of Korean women in Afghanistan to show that it is dangerous for South Korea to trade directly with Afghanistan. South Korea, unlike Russia, does not kick too much and runs its business at full capacity only where it is protected by the presence of Russia, for example, in Uzbekistan.
For example, the United States, controlling the Afghan leadership, prohibits the recruitment of Afghans who graduated from Russian universities to work in Afghanistan. Your ignorance of these facts or your conclusions not based on these facts is a lie, in contrast to my rather verified conclusions about the danger of political concessions to the United States ...

[Odysseus]

The author's logic is clear and, at first glance, correct. NATO has absolute superiority in the number of people, economic power, conventional weapons, air force, navy. And now, with the withdrawal from the INF Treaty, it can also deploy medium-range missiles in Europe.
In this context, it makes sense to use a single asymmetric lever to create balance.
However, there are two mistakes, more precisely one - the author takes the authorities' propaganda aimed at the internal electorate for reality. Because of this, he has illusions about both the intentions of the authorities and the real possibilities of the Russian Federation.
1) Concerning intentions. The authorities of the Russian Federation do not want to quarrel with the West in any way, this is for them the alpha and omega, the homeland of their soul and money. Literally today speaking to the powerful of this world, our main "patriot" Mr Putin said - "Russia and Europe are one civilization, they must be together," President Vladimir Putin said during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. That is, if the West is at least ready to agree on something, the Russian authorities always go to the meeting.
2) About the possibilities. The Russian Federation is de-industrialized, and extremely dependent on foreign goods, capital and components. Any conflict with the West, while maintaining a market economy, is an even greater sinking of the Russian Federation into them along the capitalist food chain. Even within the framework of missiles, where Soviet competence is still preserved, and even to maintain 1500 warheads, we are forced to keep Voevods with long expired use. It would seem that the Americans have problems with the fact that they relaxed and lost their plutonium capabilities. But the Russian Federation cannot take advantage of this. It cannot produce and maintain 5000 warheads within the framework of a real economy.

[faterdom]

This is an interesting question.
Time does not stand still, and while maintaining an equal number of carriers, we now have this Avangard, and I hope soon - "Sarmat", Kh-102 on bombers.
In addition, the S-400, the S-500 are coming out soon, and the Nudol, as well as new over-the-horizon detection equipment, and soon, China's connection to the early warning system. Electronic warfare systems, laser "Peresvet" and so on.
So, the situation has become worse for the Americans, and qualitatively worse.
And a new arms race, especially in those areas where they are critically behind us - it will no longer be so easy for them to bear.
Something like that. It was Trump impudently trying to force China into this treaty, but in fact, he did not have much trump cards. Wanting is not harmful, but there is nothing to cover.
Therefore, Biden almost in fire mode saves the contract, at least in the form as it is, leaving the Wishlist for later.

[2 Level Advisor]

So, the situation has become worse for the Americans, and qualitatively worse.
your logic is iron .. they feel bad now because we will soon! will be armed with a new weapon .. but they feel bad now ... and it will only be soon .. why did the situation become worse? from the fact that we are trying to catch up with those who are completely lagging behind and maybe catch up if they do not accelerate? well, in this format, yes, it got worse for them .. by the way .. where are they from us critically lagged behind?

[Ryaruav]

WE DO NOT NEED THIS AGREEMENT, it's just that we have an advantage in the field of nuclear weapons, they are already against us half the world

[pyc.arpeccop tornado 150]

We must not forget that working as a treaty inspector in the United States is a rather pleasant and highly paid position.

Yes, everyone who is in the subject and the contractors themselves are among them. And especially with us. Otherwise, it would have been Mona to pull Tolik out with a tractor. And now, look, the file itself flew off, then file it. Warhead - voucher. With a voucher auction on the London Stock Exchange, of course. Two Volgas for a voucher. No, two Maybachs.
https://topwar.ru/179328-jekspert-spasat-mir-ot-ugrozy-jadernoj-vojny-budet-chubajs.html#comment-id-11168411

[Old26]

It seems to be a good thing. But here's the thing - the time and situation in the world have changed since 2009, when this agreement was signed.

Dear author Oleg Riko. Before writing anything about the contract, you should at least find out when it was concluded. Then they would have learned that it was concluded on April 8, 2010, and entered into force on February 5, 2011. And for you, as an author, it was signed in 2009. How then can you believe in something else, if even in such trifles you distort ...

Then, at the time of signing, the treaty on the limitation of medium and short-range missiles was still in force. And now it doesn't work.

AND??? How is the INF Treaty related to the START Treaty ???

That is, it turns out that the United States may well deploy its IRBMs on the territory of its allies (like Britain)?

In theory, they can. True, now they do not have warheads for medium-range missiles. Especially ballistic ...

But the same Pershing in Britain - in relation to Russia, the most real strategic offensive weapons.

Pershing? Now. So remember even more ancient "Jupiters" or "Torah", do not hesitate.

Actually, the position becomes an exact copy of the eighties. When the Union and the United States tried to agree on the first START. The Americans then refused to consider their medium-range missiles strategic. And ours insisted that they are the most strategic ones.

Yeah. Even then, our people called them "Euro-strategic". But answer the question, for Europe, our medium-range missiles, which were deployed almost one and a half times more than the American ones, were strategic? You don't have to mix everything in one bottle. We have NEVER mixed strategic and medium-range weapons. Flies separately, cutlets - separately

If the Americans really want to extend the treaty, then let them offer at least something for it. It always happens in any negotiations?

Yeah. So when they offered to freeze weapons at the current level, we were against it. And now you suggest that they suggest something? What? The current agreement is being extended. What other suggestions do you need? So that the Americans would unilaterally agree to reduce their entire submarine missile fleet to zero ?? Which Proposition?

But I didn’t hear that the United States offered anything to Russia for this haste.

In fact, Russia has offered to extend the treaty. Americans have "resisted", especially under Trump. Now, 10 days before the termination of the contract, they agree. And in your opinion, they should offer something else for "haste"? Do you think they are suckers ???

We must not forget that working as a treaty inspector in the United States is a rather pleasant and highly paid position.

Therefore, there is a considerable layer of military officials who are vitally interested in its extension.

And what is the minimum and maximum rank for these inspectors? Their professional level? What can a military official know? Actually, this service is by no means so pleasant as to rush to it. There it will be necessary and, if necessary, to climb under the car, and to stain the handles in oil, if that. so this is by no means a resting place

Thus, the extension of the START-3 treaty in modern conditions is unprofitable for Russia.

Yes? The conclusion in your note is absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, there is no way to put a minus for such an article. And she deserves not one, but at least a dozen minuses.

Quote: paul3390

ANY agreement with mattress toppers is a global mistake .. The past 30 years have proven this very clearly.

Announce the entire list of strategic treaty violations by the United States. You are actually aware of how many major violations have occurred since 1972 (the conclusion of the first SALT-1 treaty), and from whose side?
Everyone says that "mattress makers" do not fulfill contracts, but at least ONE I would take and give examples.

Quote: vladcub

The alternative to the treaty is an arms race, and with the current leaders, this is death for Russia. I doubt that Rutenberg or Alikperov agreed to share part of their funds, which means from our wallet

For Russia, this is death under any leadership. Do not forget that Russia is not the USSR. In fact, we now have one operating plant for the START race. How and at what speed the KMZ will operate is still unknown ...

Quote: Terran Ghost

Now the question is - when exactly did the United States violate the agreements concluded with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation?
PS: We do not count the mythical, non-existent commitments about "NATO's non-expansion". Such provisions were not clothed in the form of an agreement binding on the parties to the agreement, nothing but wishful thinking about the alleged "obligations" of such a plan are not. From the point of view of international law, such obligations have never existed and never existed. Point.
You should also make a second reservation - there is a fundamental difference between "violate the agreement" and "in the prescribed manner to withdraw from this or that agreement"

Respected. To your question you NEVER GET AN ANSWER... This question, which is like a sickle in one place for those who always write about the inability of the United States to negotiate with regard to strategic treaties

[Old26]

Quote: Rufat

Of course a mistake. It is necessary to increase the military budget so that it is at least 50%, so that no country would even dream of attacking RUSSIA

Better to make the military budget at least 90-95%. population in camps at factories. Everyone will be afraid ... Unfortunately, you can put one minus. So get for the stupidest post

Quote: Cowbra

Only if Britain, France, Israel are included in the treaty and the launchers for cruise missiles are removed, then one can think.
Now START is not in our interests, let me remind you that the Americans have completely lost the technology for producing weapons-grade plutonium, they cannot make warheads. We don't need this contract

Weighs a washcloth - start over. Again, all in one agreement - so that it was never concluded. The Americans, as always, have lost their competence - the fact that they have about 60 tons of weapons-grade plutonium - you should not pay attention to this. So, trash. Maybe you should delve deeper into this topic to know why and how ...

Quote: Cowbra

However, this is a fact. They have lost not only the technology for producing plutonium, but also for enriching uranium, and for 20 years now. This also caused the transition to nuclear weapons of "reduced power"

What nonsense? This is a way to lower the threshold for the premium of nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess a large nuclear arsenal or do not possess it at all. In addition, only 50 warheads were converted from a total stock of approximately 3870 units.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Ua3qhp

Is an arms race needed now and immediately?

No need to equate refusal to extend the treaty with an immediate arms race, what kind of demagoguery?

And it will begin. Moreover, such that we will regret it. The Americans will deploy what they were forced to withdraw from service. And this is half a hundred B-1B bombers, plus a couple of dozen B-52s from long-term storage. Of the non-deployed, they have a fairly large number of SLBMs and ICBMs. And what will we oppose to this? A plant that produces half a hundred ICBMs and SLBMs a year? And on the nose is the decommissioning of at least 36 Topol PGRK, next in line are a couple of dozen Voevods, in the coming years to be at the level we will have to write off another 78 Topol-Ms and replace them with Yars. This will take at least 4-5 years. There is no need to talk about an increase in the number of bombers. Fleet - for the same 5 years. However, for these 5 ribbons, the decommissioning of boats of the 667BDRM project will also begin. And this means another 4-5 years are needed to replace the "Sineva" with the "Bulava" on boats, if, of course, there will be opportunities to replace the 667 BDRM with the Borei

Quote: nespich

the arms race has nothing to do with treaties. It will still continue regardless of this particular contract. And Russia needs to have as many of these strategic offensive weapons as it needs to guarantee the defeat of any adversaries to a state of radioactive wasteland. With threefold redundancy.

Now, because the treaty exists, there is no strategic arms race. There will be no treaty - there will be a strategic arms race

[evgen1221]

The fourth point clearly demonstrates distrust of state officials and, consequently, of the state as such.

[faterdom]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

your logic is iron .. they feel bad now due to the fact that we will soon! new weapons will be in service ... but they feel bad now ...

With such a nickname it is inconvenient to somehow advise ... Study the question.
What's "coming soon"? Vanguard is already in service (not being tested!). "Peresvet" is already there. Electronic warfare systems and over-the-horizon radars - there are, the capabilities of the first are not precisely spelled out, but are evaluated very seriously, the second - the capabilities are higher than the design ones. Sarmat - passes tests. Tu-160 - modernization. "Nudol" - like the A-235 was recently tested. "Petrel" and "Poseidon" - generally little is known, maybe there is, maybe not, but the Americans think that they are not a little rash.
About air defense / missile defense systems - I don't know if you need to explain something, if not laziness - look for yourself what they have and what we have. While their Aegis sometimes intercepts something there only in laboratory conditions, the Patriots and THAAD have not yet proven themselves on the good side. The "Iron Kumpol" also does not dance against strategic hypersonic units.

[SVD68]

Benefits of Russia from the extension of START-3:
1. As far as I know, Russia has fewer strategic carriers than the United States. The extension of the treaty will allow bringing the SNF quantitatively to one base.
2. Russia has new weapons systems: Avangard, Sarmat, Tu-160m2. Those. There are opportunities to strengthen our strategic nuclear forces qualitatively by replacing old systems with new ones. The United States does not see such an opportunity.
3. The limitation in the number of charges, slightly more than 2 per carrier, seriously limits the possibilities of the first disarming strike.

[lopvlad]

Is it a mistake to extend START-3?

In the current realities, the extension of the START-3 treaty means that, in fact, everyone stayed with their own people, no one lost or gained anything.

Thus, the extension of the START-3 treaty in modern conditions is unprofitable for Russia.

deeply wrong conclusion, since the prolongation of the treaty "as is" allows Russia to finish off and supply weapons to the troops on new physical principles. That in fact would have been impossible when a new treaty was concluded, in which the Americans would inevitably have demanded that it be introduced and brought under control, as happened at one time with BZHRK.

[pyc.arpeccop tornado 150]

There are no more two equal contracting parties, as it was more than 30 years ago. But, there are agreements according to which they ask us as from equal partners, but then out of habit they will be thrown as an "equal", what the Soviet Union was. Only giving away Poland and the Baltic States will no longer work.

[av58]

I also think that the haste to extend START-3 is a mistake. Anyway, they will deal with medium-range missiles, as well as with NATO contingents, which have come close to our borders, but what will they do with hypersonic weapons, including Daggers, Petrel, Poseidons, the promising Barguzin air-launched missile-launching complex, etc. - unclear. Putin did not say anything intelligibly. Will they be put under the knife again, like Judas Gorbachev?

[aszzz888]

Hack and predictor Aviator

Thus, the extension of the START-3 treaty in modern conditions is unprofitable for Russia.

I really hope that this is the personal opinion of the author. But the author is not an expert, and therefore you can treat what has been written in different ways - whoever wants to let him believe that "the truncated is gone!" But there are also opinions of truly real experts: in politics, military experts with ten years of experience ... I believe that their opinion will be a more constructive assessment of the current event.

[steelmaker]

I agree completely. Finally, at least someone dared to write about it. And then one squeal "approved". Information has passed that the Poseidons want to be included in this treaty. It remains to be hoped that after 2024 they can remember the interests of Russia, not the United States!

[Old26]

Quote: av58

I also think that the haste to extend START-3 is a mistake. Anyway, they will deal with medium-range missiles, as well as with NATO contingents, which have come close to our borders, but what will they do with hypersonic weapons, including Daggers, Petrel, Poseidons, the promising Barguzin air-launched missile-launching complex, etc. - unclear. Putin did not say anything intelligibly. Will they be put under the knife again, like Judas Gorbachev?

And you definitely need the president to say. It is very difficult to read the contracts yourself and understand what and how?
And most likely nothing will be a "Dagger". For its carrier is not a strategic bomber. "Petrel" and "Poseidon" - such weapons are not yet available, not even on experimental combat duty. There were no tests that confirmed something there. According to open sources, "Petrel" flew a very short distance, followed by an accident.
But in principle, after putting these weapons ("Petrel", "Poseidon") into service, the Americans will most likely try to take all measures to ensure that these weapons systems either fall under the treaty, or they may try to do everything to make these weapons "prohibited" ... For the ranges of these systems will be INTERCONTINENTAL

BZHRK "Barguzin" - if it is created, it will fall under the restrictions of the START treaty, most likely START-4.
"Avangard" is clearly already falling into the scope of the START-3 treaty, "Sarmat" - also when it is created

00

[Xscorpion]

Quote: steel maker

I agree completely. Finally, at least someone dared to write about it. And then one squeal "approved". Information has passed that the Poseidons want to be included in this treaty. It remains to be hoped that after 2024 they can remember the interests of Russia, not the United States!

Nothing new will be included there. The old agreement is being extended for 5 years. And that's all. And during these 5 years a new agreement will be developed, and no one knows yet what will be included or not included. During this time, the US President will change again.

[Old26]

Quote: Xscorpion

Nothing new will be included there. The old agreement is being extended for 5 years. And that's all. And during these 5 years a new agreement will be developed, and no one knows yet what will be included or not included. During this time, the US President will change again.

The "Vanguard" is already on, after the adoption into service the "Sarmat" will definitely be included. "Petrel" and "Poseidon" will most likely also fall under the terms of the treaty when they are accepted into service (if adopted)

[Old26]

Quote: faterdom

What's "coming soon"? Vanguard is already in service (not being tested!). "Peresvet" is already there. Electronic warfare systems and over-the-horizon radars - there are, the capabilities of the first are not precisely spelled out, but are evaluated very seriously, the second - the capabilities are higher than the design ones. Sarmat - passes tests. Tu-160 - modernization. "Nudol" - like the A-235 was recently tested. "Petrel" and "Poseidon" - generally little is known, maybe there is, maybe not, but the Americans think that they are not a little rash.

You understand, Andrey! You seem to have written everything correctly, only here is one detail. Treaty then STRATEGIC, and much of what you have written to strategic weapons can not be attributed even with a very strong desire. For example, electronic warfare systems. Over-the-horizon radars - here we are, by and large, going head-to-head with the Americans.
Besides, in some positions, you, Andrei, run "ahead of the locomotive." "Sarmat" did not even reach the stage of flight tests. The Tu TU-60 is still in the version of the truncated modernization, but not in the version of the TU-160M2. And when such a bomber will appear is unknown.
"Nudol" 0 is a missile defense system. Although there was once an ABM treaty, it is not a strategic weapon. They also test their products under this program.
"Petrel" and "Poseidon" are so far only declared weapons, which have not yet been tested and it is not even known whether they will come out or not. So to say that they are critically behind us is impossible. Lagging, if there is something, is by no means critical

[Rufat]

It's high time to smash all our nudols, petrels and Poseidons on the amerikos

[certero]

Quote: Vladimir Mashkov

Only, I believe that the discussion and signing of the agreement will be dealt with by people who are much more knowledgeable and better versed in the issue than we are all here.

Then why don't we see arguments from these much better versed people why the contract should be signed? and how does it take into account the change in the geopolitical situation after the disappearance of the treaty on medium-range missiles? as I have already written, this is exactly what served as the main stumbling block for the signing of the treaty during the Soviet Union. Do you think the then generals and politicians were less literate and knowledgeable?

[certero]

Quote: Old26

Here is the answer to the question, for Europe, our medium-range missiles, which were deployed almost one and a half times more than the American were strategic? You don't have to mix everything in one bottle. We have NEVER mixed strategic and medium-range weapons. Flies separately, cutlets - separately

You are disingenuous here.
in relation to the Soviet Union, medium-range missiles in Europe were the most strategic, since they finished off almost to any point in the European part of the USSR. In addition, the flight time of the same pershing was only 6 minutes, which left almost no time for an answer.
Yes, ours according to the Western classification ss-20 also turned out to be strategic in relation to Europe. But not in relation to the United States.
By the way, a very good analogue with the open-skies agreement. When the Americans banned our flying, and the Europeans continue to fly over Russia.
However, it is enough to raise the newspapers of the early eighties and the Soviet Union, where these issues were very carefully described.

[certero]

Quote: Old26

Then they would have learned that it was concluded on April 8, 2010, and entered into force on February 5, 2011. And for you, as an author, it was signed in 2009. How then can you believe in something else, if even in such trifles you distort ...

I didn't even think to juggle anything. I just put the date incorrectly. However, does this change something in the main message of my post?
Changes absolutely nothing. The world has really changed.
And even the simple non-inclusion of the arsenals of France and Great Britain into this agreement already makes it unprofitable and dishonest in relation to Russia.

[Old26]

Quote: ccsr

Interestingly, the girls are dancing ... And if we supply North Korea and China with our Sineva and Bulava missiles to equip their submarines outside the framework of the START-3 Treaty, the Americans will not even be outraged?

If we just put it, they will surely be indignant. But if the PRC or the DPRK (as an example) will financially participate in the creation of, for example, the Bulava-2 or Sineva-4 SLBMs, then alas ... These will be US problems. In addition, EMNIP in the START-1 / START-2 and START-3 treaties does not formally prohibit the sale of such weapons. And if this is a joint development (albeit formal) - even more so

Quote: certero

Then why do we not see arguments from these much better versed people why the contract should be signed?

And he is already signed. Now there is only an extension for 5 years according to the article of the agreement. Why discuss what was signed 10 years ago. Moreover, no changes have been made to the contract

Quote: certero

and how does it take into account the change in the geopolitical situation after the disappearance of the treaty on medium-range missiles?

None. It's two NOT RELATED BETWEEN contract. Although both can be attributed to the strategic arms treaty. And with whom exactly should this agreement be linked?
1. The United States does not have medium-range ballistic missiles and medium-range land-based cruise missiles.
2. Britain does not have medium-range ballistic missiles and medium-range land-based cruise missiles.
3. France does not have medium-range ballistic missiles and medium-range land-based cruise missiles.

Who else have you forgotten? Israel? Yes, Israel has medium-range ballistic missiles, but not land-based cruise missiles. Moreover, Israel is not a member of NATO.

Who has medium-range missiles?
1. The DPRK
2. The PRC
3. Pakistan
4. India
And how can we connect the presence of an MRBM, for example, India (and Saudi Arabia and Iran also have nuclear MRBMs) with an agreement on STRATEGIC weapons between the US and Russia

Quote: certero

as I have already written, this is exactly what served as the main stumbling block for signing the treaty during the Soviet Union. Do you think the then generals and politicians were less literate and knowledgeable?

This never served as a stumbling block for the signing of the treaty during the Soviet Union. Strategic agreements were signed quite systematically. There was a problem in signing the INF treaty, but even then it was initially politically motivated, like we want to sign - we don’t want to sign, and subsequently the long-term development and signing of this treaty rested mainly on technical reasons. In particular, the locations of basing (whether to allow the basing of MRBMs on the territory of the United States and in the Asian part of the USSR or not. option ".
At the same time, problems with the INF Treaty were in no way associated with the SALT-START Treaties.

Quote: certero

You are disingenuous here.
in relation to the Soviet Union, medium-range missiles in Europe were the most strategic, since they finished off almost to any point in the European part of the USSR. In addition, the flight time of the same pershing was only 6 minutes, which left almost no time for an answer.
Yes, ours according to the Western classification ss-20 also turned out to be strategic in relation to Europe. But not in relation to the United States.

At first. We NEVER considered these missiles strategic. The maximum term used then in propaganda was "euro-strategic". In addition, they DIDN'T REACH to any point in the European part of the USSR. Cruise missiles located in Britain finished off the maximum to Ryazan. Located in Italy and Germany - up to the level of Saratov. "Pershing" located in Germany - up to the level of Bryansk.

Again, our "Pioneers" were, at least from a political point of view, "Eurostrategic". For if they were "strategic", they would fall under the limitations of the SALT-START strategic treaties.

Quote: certero

By the way, a very good analogue with the open-skies agreement. When the Americans banned our flying, and the Europeans continue to fly over Russia.

Yah? It's strange. Russia has already withdrawn from this open-skies treaty. Putin made this clear at his annual press conference

Quote: certero

However, it is enough to raise the newspapers of the early eighties and the Soviet Union, where these issues were very carefully described.

Yes. Soviet newspapers described. Only that which corresponded to the "highest interests of the party." And the propaganda was then at the level. The truth was not always true. By the way, are you aware that Pershing-2 did not “finish off” to Moscow from the BG that was on it? Moreover, MIT conducted studies that confirmed the reliability of the range provided by the Americans - namely, 1800 km. However, for the sake of higher interests, they went for a blatant deception, saying that Pershing could strike Moscow

Quote: certero

I just put the date incorrectly. However, does this change something in the main message of my post?

This makes your article very careful. When the author at the very beginning, sorry is lying about the date, I do not think that everything else will be more credible.

Quote: certero

And even the simple non-inclusion of the arsenals of France and Great Britain into this agreement already makes it unprofitable and dishonest in relation to Russia.

Frankly speaking, I'm tired of repeating the same thing. If you want the agreement not to be concluded - demand to involve other countries in the agreement. You propose France and Britain, the Americans - China. You can reach complete insanity. Demand the participation of all those with medium-range and nuclear weapons. That is, the DPRK, Israel, Pakistan, India. And what will this result in? The fact that the contract will never be concluded. For in this situation, the probability of finding points of contact and a "common denominator" is practically zero.
Just imagine the participation of all these countries or even those you mentioned. What "ceilings" would you suggest? Keep in mind that the contract should be a compromise and please everyone. How many missiles or warheads would you suggest Britain have? How many do they have? Will they agree that at the same time Russia will have about 15 times more delivery vehicles than they have, and the number of deployed strategic warheads is 14 times more than theirs?
And in this situation, will France agree to such a ratio? And China? And all the rest
Therefore, all proposals to "fasten" someone or something to the agreement (for example, tactical nuclear weapons) are doomed to fail in advance.

[Old26]

Quote: Rufat

It's high time to smash all our nudols, petrels and Poseidons on the amerikos

Do you think you will get a plus sign for such an urya-patriotic post? For nonsense? For the offer to fuck with non-existent types of weapons or weapons that are not intended for this ??
Oh well. Shit further