US Permanent Representative for Disarmament: Extension of START is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia

January 27 2021

The re-conclusion of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) between the United States and the Russian Federation on the initiative of Joe Biden is in the state interests of the United States. The START extension is just the beginning of America's cooperation with Russia.

The statement was made by the Permanent Representative of the United States for Disarmament Affairs, Robert Wood, at a virtual meeting in Geneva on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

President Biden has made it clear that New START is in the United States' national security interests. This extension makes even more sense when relations with Russia are not at their best.

Wood said.

During the Geneva disarmament meeting, he also described the renewed agreement as the beginning, not the end, of efforts by the United States and its allies to strengthen engagement with Russia.

The draft law on the renewed START treaty has already been submitted by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, to the State Duma of the Russian Federation for ratification. The agreement was extended for the maximum possible five-year period without any additional conditions.

Photos used:: https://www.facebook.com/joebiden/

We are

Military Reviewin Yandex News

Military Reviewin Google News

military_cat 27 January 2021 09: 27
-3

6

9
Isn't this an agreement originally concluded by the traitor and Judas Mishka the Marked? Not a contract with a party that does not fulfill their contracts? Doesn't destroy warheads, but stores them in warehouses?
1. cniza 27 January 2021 09: 30
  
  +7
  
  7
  
  0
  
  It was concluded in 2010 by Medvedev and Obama ...
  1. military_cat 27 January 2021 09: 32
    
    -3
    
    3
    
    6
    
    It was renewed as it expired, and the original START Treaty was concluded in 1991.
    1. cniza 27 January 2021 10: 03
      
      +4
      
      4
      
      0
      
      It was a new contract, the seventh in a row since 1972 ...
      1. military_cat 27 January 2021 10: 10
        
        -3
        
        2
        
        5
        
        SALT were limitation treaties, strategic offensive arms - on reduction.
        
        Alex777 27 January 2021 12: 13
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        We have fewer warheads than START III.
        
        bayard 27 January 2021 23: 02
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        There is no need to rush into enthusiasm for American statements; no extensions of the contract for 5 years can be accepted.
        Did the head of state say - 1 (one) year?
        Here is one year, and no more.
        And a year later - only new negotiations on a possible (!) NEW treaty, taking into account the unreliability of the United States as a contracting party - a party that does not keep its word and break the treaty at its discretion.
        Today we really have less warheads on strategic carriers than is allowed by the treaty, but objectively this number is not enough for us. Even in case of war with the United States.
        FEW !
        And if we take into account the US allies in NATO and not only (the same Japan), then the figure for our needs is at least halved.
        And no dreams of "conventional containment" in our case can be considered sane and sane. This is the inflamed delirium of foreign agents or insane.
        So - 1 year and ... that's it.
        And they will have to fix a lot this year.
        
        Well, if not , we are not to blame.
        
        only in this vein should there be a conversation on this topic.
        
        OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 23: 08
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Quote: bayard
        There is no need to rush into enthusiasm for American statements; no extensions of the contract for 5 years can be accepted.
        Did the head of state say - 1 (one) year?
        Here is one year, and no more.
        
        Already adopted and ratified for 5 years. In the US, it is not clear when it will be ratified and whether it will be done. In the current situation, they dictate the terms.
        
        bayard 27 January 2021 23: 38
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        I haven't watched the news for two days, and that's it, the betrayal has taken place.
        
        OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 23: 44
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        In this case, we were lucky that Biden was interested in extending START, but they still need to ratify it, which is not a fact.
        
        nsm1 28 January 2021 06: 52
        
        -3
        
        0
        
        3
        
        Did you really hope for otherwise?
        It's not funny how ...
  2. Temples 27 January 2021 09: 33
    
    +5
    
    8
    
    3
    
    this is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia
    
    It's not even alarming.
    It scares.
    
    Is it possible that the Kremlin wants to step on the rake of the "world brotherhood" again?
    1. Doccor18 27 January 2021 09: 40
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: Temples
      this is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia
      
      It's not even alarming.
      It scares.
      
      How scary ...
      The agreement was extended for the maximum possible five-year period without any additional conditions.
    2. halpat 27 January 2021 12: 12
      
      +1
      
      1
      
      0
      
      Quote: Temples
      this is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia
      
      It's not even alarming.
      It scares.
      
      Is it possible that the Kremlin wants to step on the rake of the "world brotherhood" again?
      
      Most likely, I don't know much about "contracts", but my question is:
      Why were they in such a hurry to ratify?
      
      Russia ratifies, but the US does not. Biden will say: I’m for all the good, but Congress has questions ... and then the Senate has questions.
      And ... it got stuck, and Russia signed and ratified everything.
      What to do?
      1. skif8013 27 January 2021 17: 25
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        To the point, and also begs, like Volodin today said with undisguised pride that this is a victory of our Foreign Ministry and government. Question: what did they do for this to sing such songs of praise ?! Biden just steers a couple of days and made this decision. And ours have already opened the champagne and probably are going to hand out medals.
        
        Vladimir Mashkov 27 January 2021 19: 47
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        "Fear the Danes who bring gifts ..." Biden's sweet beginning does not mean at all that THEY have become Russophiles and supporters of an adequate policy. And they should always be feared.
        But it is necessary to conclude an agreement, of course. On equal basis.
    3. aybolyt678 27 January 2021 12: 58
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      this is just a SIGN ... or a hook, now the liberals will raise a cry for improving relations with the United States, something else, and then, as always ...................... it was not for nothing that Chingachgook spoke - the language of a white man is bifurcated like the tongue of a snake.
cniza 27 January 2021 09: 29
+7

7

0
President Biden has made it clear that New START is in the United States' national security interests. This extension makes even more sense when relations with Russia are not at their best.

All the same, the new weapon played a role, a big plus ...
askort154 27 January 2021 09: 30
+4

4

0
We know your "cooperation", which was in its "prime" in the 90s. Although our "pro-Westerners" will stand up again
for kissing.
1. halpat 27 January 2021 12: 15
  
  +1
  
  2
  
  1
  
  Quote: askort154
  We know your "cooperation", which was in its "prime" in the 90s. Although our "pro-Westerners" will stand up again
  for kissing.
  
  They already stand in a knee-elbow position, sticking out their tongues to lick the owner's hand.
  as before
Well done 27 January 2021 09: 35
+4

5

1
this is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia

I do not believe.
Egoza 27 January 2021 09: 52
+4

4

0
"The beginning of cooperation" Who means what by this! If the flexion is in front of the USA, then .... a figure of three fingers. On both hands.
1. Maki maki 27 January 2021 11: 05
  
  +18
  
  19
  
  1
  
  Quote: Egoza
  "The beginning of cooperation" Who means what by this! If the flexion is in front of the USA, then .... a figure of three fingers. On both hands.
  
  Unfortunately, if the signatories bend, they won't ask us.
BAI 27 January 2021 09: 53
+1

2

1
is in the public interest of the United States. START Extension Is Just The Beginning Of America's Cooperation With Russia

1. Exactly - corresponds to the US state interests. The US is lagging behind in this area and it needs to slow down Russia, otherwise the gap will widen.
2. There is no need for illusions - there will be no cooperation. Sanctions will only intensify - this is obvious: the United States is not spending a single cent, Russia is suffering multibillion losses.
Mykhalych 27 January 2021 09: 58
+1

3

2
While not seeing the agreement and starting to kick about the discrepancy is stupid. Well, by the way, from the liberals and pseudo communists, who supported the anti-state antics of the supporters of the Gulfführer and the enemies of Russia, this is the only thing to expect and have to.
tralflot1832 27 January 2021 10: 12
+2

2

0
A very bold statement, and he won't get anything for it? So Trump can't, look towards Russia, but Biden can, that's different.
1. Zoldat_A 27 January 2021 10: 26
  
  +2
  
  2
  
  0
  
  Quote: tralflot1832
  So Trump can't, look towards Russia, but Biden can, that's different.
  
  Was the FSB and Biden recruited?
  
  Well, America has new entertainment. Neo-Maccartism - Drive Trump's Supporters. They have no time for Biden now. And what to take from him? You can't stick a sex scandal to him - not up to grandpa, corruption too - he really doesn't rule anything. Senile dementia remains - whatever you want can be attributed to it ...
  1. halpat 27 January 2021 12: 21
    
    +3
    
    3
    
    0
    
    Quote: Zoldat_A
    Quote: tralflot1832
    So Trump can't, look towards Russia, but Biden can, that's different.
    
    Was the FSB and Biden recruited? ..
    
    Not the FSB, but the KGB and even under Kosygin and Gromyko.
    1. Zoldat_A 27 January 2021 14: 19
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: Halpat
      Quote: Zoldat_A
      Quote: tralflot1832
      So Trump can't, look towards Russia, but Biden can, that's different.
      
      Was the FSB and Biden recruited? ..
      
      Not the FSB, but the KGB and even under Kosygin and Gromyko.
      
      Damn, well, our people are everywhere ...
      1. halpat 27 January 2021 14: 47
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Quote: Halpat
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Quote: tralflot1832
        So Trump can't, look towards Russia, but Biden can, that's different.
        
        Was the FSB and Biden recruited? ..
        
        Not the FSB, but the KGB and even under Kosygin and Gromyko.
        
        Damn, well, our people are everywhere ...
        
        Well, Biden is definitely ours. He was offered to extend the hectare for 1 year, and he is initiative - immediately by 5
        The next will be: to complete the SP-2 to Spain via France and to the UK with a lapel.
rotmistr60 27 January 2021 10: 16
+1

1

0
The START extension is just the beginning of America's cooperation with Russia.
It seems like good and correct words, but they absolutely do not inspire confidence. Against the background of the media hype about the extension of the agreement without conditions, active work is underway to introduce new sanctions, demands to release Navalny (there are no problems in the United States), and Europe, led by German provocateurs, is actively promoting this. The contract will be extended and all "cooperation" will stop there.
bratchanin3 27 January 2021 10: 23
+1

2

1
Anglo-Saxons softly lay, but hard to sleep! The "facade" of amer's politics will purr, and arch its back in front of the Russian establishment, load up and promise (as it was under Brezhnev-Gorbachev-Yeltsin) and their intelligence community with NGOs and the Greens will reprogram the Russian population. Funding is already open!
Boromir1941 27 January 2021 10: 35
+1

1

0
the treaty only imposes all this crap and ties our hands. to build a powerful nuclear missile shield and hell who would stick it. even conventional weapons could then be reduced
engineer74 27 January 2021 10: 46
0

1

1
At this stage, the agreement of Russia is beneficial: it allows you to deal with quality without being too carried away with quantity. And then we will see
IMHO, of course
evgen1221 27 January 2021 10: 54
0

1

1
The states only hinted about the possibility of continuing, and we already have an extension order the next day.
Mr.dimadroll 27 January 2021 11: 16
0

0

0
this is just the beginning of America's cooperation with Russia
on Nord Stream 2 they are already "cooperating" with might and main, and before that there are many examples of "cooperation with partners"
fif21 27 January 2021 12: 34
0

0

0
The United States will do everything to avoid a retaliatory strike by Russia. The situation in the world is far from normal. And in this situation, sign an agreement? Is it in Russia's interests? Something doesn't add up here.
fif21 27 January 2021 12: 38
0

0

0
It's time to do something with the reptiles.
Lord of the Sith 27 January 2021 13: 08
+1

1

0
Do we need this START? Dubious deal.
The sight, when strategic bombers are destroyed and missile silos are blown up, causes only vomit in a normal officer.
Alien From 27 January 2021 13: 41
0

0

0
You can't trust these guys!
Old26 27 January 2021 13: 57
+2

2

0
Quote: military_cat
Isn't this an agreement originally concluded by the traitor and Judas Mishka the Marked? Not a contract with a party that does not fulfill their contracts? Doesn't destroy warheads, but stores them in warehouses?

Expert!!!! Was the contract concluded in 2010? When did Bear Marked leave the political arena?
Further, do you really think that if the Americans had not destroyed their warheads, they would have entered into a treaty? Precisely because they destroyed their BGs, they found themselves in a situation that they could not do new BGs yet, and the old ones practically did not remain. Now they are not able, for example, to deploy 6 new ICBMs instead of Minutemans, especially if they have 400-4 battlegrounds. They JUST have no BG on them. And this happened because they OBSERVE strategic agreements ...

Quote: military_cat
It was renewed as it expired, and the original START Treaty was concluded in 1991.

Ishldzhny contract, Connoisseur, was concluded in 1979 and was called OSV-1, since you write such nonsense about the re-conclusion ...

Quote: military_cat
SALT were limitation treaties, strategic offensive arms - on reduction.

And under the SALT contract there were reductions. For example, the Temp-2S complex ...

Quote: Alex777
We have fewer warheads than START III.

They do too.

Quote: BAI
is in the public interest of the United States. START Extension Is Just The Beginning Of America's Cooperation With Russia

1. Exactly - corresponds to the US state interests. The US is lagging behind in this area and it needs to slow down Russia, otherwise the gap will widen.
2. There is no need for illusions - there will be no cooperation. Sanctions will only intensify - this is obvious: the United States is not spending a single cent, Russia is suffering multibillion losses.

1. Of course it is in our interests, as well as in our interests. A contract is a compromise.
2. Cooperation between the USA and Russia - this means cooperation in the field of strategic weapons. Everything else is as it was.

Quote: Mykhalych
While not seeing the agreement and starting to kick about the discrepancy is stupid.

This agreement will be 10 years old in February (from the date of entry into force). And on April 8 - 11 years from the date of imprisonment. If desired, during these 10-11 years it could be learned by heart ...

Quote: engineer74
At this stage, the agreement of Russia is beneficial: it allows you to deal with quality without being too carried away with quantity. And then we will see
IMHO, of course

And the quantity too, Dmitry. We have 190 units deployed. less allowed. The Americans have - by 25. so it is also necessary to "tighten" the number to the permitted
Alexander Galaktionov 27 January 2021 14: 44
0

0

0
Officials started to cooperate normally
Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 15: 23
-3

0

3
Once again, no treaties are agreements. The pro-Russian "Trump pedaled this and other agreements with Russia, but the" hawk "Biden suddenly wanted to extend them.

Interesting girls are dancing.
Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 15: 25
-3

0

3
No. This trick will not work. You can extend the current contract within the time frame specified in it. The USA withdrew from it. And now "Itself, girl, come on yourself."
Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 15: 32
-3

0

3
They will not be able to make up for it in 5 years. the competence for the production of new modern nuclear warheads has been completely lost and it is necessary to start almost from scratch. And for the next 5 years, the current restrictions on the number do not interfere with us and will allow us to carry out the rearmament to the end with modern complexes, incl. Sarmat and Vanguard, well, Poseidon will go into series by this time, and maybe we will also see Barguzin in the ranks. incl. if the US does not blunt, trying to add something else there, the agreement will be extended. Bidet will go to celebrate the peremog, and we will go further to rearm the Strategic Missile Forces.
Old26 27 January 2021 15: 45
+1

1

0
Quote: Gennady Fomkin
No. This trick will not work. You can extend the current contract within the time frame specified in it. The USA withdrew from it. And now "Itself, girl, come on yourself."

There is such a common expression - LEARN MATCH... This also applies to you. The contract ends 5 FEBRUARY 2021. Today 27th of January 2021 With logic you seem to be full of seams. If 10 days before the expiration date of the contract, it is no longer valid for you. It even turns out that the Americans got out of it ...
Jaromir 27 January 2021 17: 09
+5

5

0
US Permanent Representative for Disarmament: Extension of START is just the beginning of cooperation with Russia

START is needed both by us and by the United States, and by the whole world. And about the beginning of cooperation, I think that the permanent representative of the United States ~~hangs noodles on the ears~~ hurried