Military Review

New weapons acquired by Russia and the United States will be the topic of discussion within the START Treaty

45

Moscow and Washington have already exchanged proposals providing for the development of a dialogue between the two countries on the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty. Now new weapon, which has recently appeared in service with Russia and the United States, will be the topic of discussion in the framework of the START Treaty.


According to the Duma TV channel, this statement was made by a member of the Defense Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Bogodukhov.

The MP called the extension of the agreement "a landmark event." He said that the updated treaty contains quantitative indicators that determine restrictions on strategic types of weapons. In particular, the number of carriers is limited to 700 units, and each signatory should not have more than 1550 nuclear warheads.

Each side will appoint 300 people who will inspect military facilities in the territories of both states in order to monitor the implementation of the agreements.

Bogodukhov hopes that the dialogue between the United States and Russia on this issue will continue.

This treaty is not perfect, new types of weapons have entered service. This will be the topic for further negotiations between the countries.

- the deputy considers.

According to the newspaper "News", the possible inclusion of new types of weapons in the agreement was announced by the chairman of the Duma Defense Committee Vladimir Shamanov.

As a result of negotiations between Russia and the United States, a decision was made to extend the Strategic Arms Treaty until February 5, 2026.
Photos used:
State Duma of the Russian Federation
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 27 January 2021 14: 58
    +6
    The Yankees use this time to the maximum, to modernize their nuclear weapons, and create a new generation of hypersonic missiles, which will then be massively placed on our borders. ..
    1. Maki maki
      Maki maki 27 January 2021 15: 00
      +29
      This means that we need to do the same.
    2. credo
      credo 27 January 2021 15: 11
      +16
      Quote: Thrifty
      The Yankees use this time to the maximum, to modernize their nuclear weapons, and create a new generation of hypersonic missiles, which will then be massively placed on our borders. ..

      That's right, you say, only one thing is not clear why England and France were not attached to this treaty, and Israel with Pakistan, India and China too.
      For Russia, in fact, the countries not participating in the signing of the treaty pose the same danger as the United States, and therefore there should not be parity with the United States.
      1. WIKI
        WIKI 27 January 2021 15: 38
        0
        Quote: credo
        only one thing is not clear why England and France were not attached to this treaty,

        I repeat myself. "Antonov noted that Russia remains interested in Britain and France joining the nuclear disarmament process.

        "After the extension of the START Treaty, it would be possible to discuss the expansion of the membership of the arms control agreements," he said.

        "At the same time, Russia considers untenable attempts to exert international pressure on any country in order to involve it in this regime. Consultations and negotiations on arms control should be conducted on a free, voluntary basis, taking into account the legitimate interests of the parties," the ambassador said.
        1. dauria
          dauria 27 January 2021 18: 31
          +1
          "At the same time, Russia considers untenable attempts to exert international pressure on any country in order to involve it in the specified regime.

          That is, it would be ugly to "press" on medium-range nuclear ones in Poland. It turns out great. The Yankees are hammering Russia from Poland without counting the warheads, and we are in return without counting Poland from Russia. We rely on the States themselves "strictly according to the regulations" 700 pieces.

          No guys. Either together with the RIAC, or go for a walk, and tie it tightly. Withdrew from the contract on the average - the strategic ones are automatically canceled.
          1. Vladimir Mashkov
            Vladimir Mashkov 27 January 2021 20: 35
            0
            I believe that the discussion and signing will be dealt with by people who are more knowledgeable and better versed in the issue than all of us here. And they will certainly take into account all nuances and subtleties, so as not to be trapped like a Humpback with the company and not put Russia in a difficult position. smile
  2. halpat
    halpat 27 January 2021 14: 58
    +2
    Why run against a steam locomotive? I do not understand. This extension has not yet been signed, not ratified, but practically only announced.
    Let the Americans worry about new weapons.
  3. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 27 January 2021 15: 03
    +7
    But now we must not trust the Yankees, they have no trust, say "yeah" and develop further their technologies.
    And then they will deceive how to drink to give.
  4. Rose capone
    Rose capone 27 January 2021 15: 06
    +3
    ". In particular, the number of carriers is limited to 700 units, and each signatory should not have more than 1550 nuclear warheads." Our Duma "strategists" and our and our Foreign Ministry and leadership have forgotten that the United States is a NATO country, where both France and Britain have carriers and warheads. And Israel must not be forgotten either. And why, THEN, are only Russia and Baydenovka signed?
  5. Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 27 January 2021 15: 15
    -3
    Already engaged
  6. Quadro
    Quadro 27 January 2021 15: 17
    +4
    This already smacks of betrayal, now we will cut the daggers, and the Americans will do it on the sly? There is no faith in the mattress, the prezik will change - it will immediately start developing and will be released in a couple of years.
  7. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 15: 19
    0
    No contracts
  8. evgen1221
    evgen1221 27 January 2021 15: 23
    -14%
    Within the framework of goodwill and at the numerous requests of the overseas aunt and with the full approval of the interviewed friends, we are the amyrat of everything and everyone, we decide to take off combat duty and send these demonic, mean and vile things to the closet out of sight. You have read a summary of the upcoming coverage in our non-live media on upcoming events. Amen and do not forget three times in front of the icon in front of the forehead will shake)))))
  9. Izotovp
    Izotovp 27 January 2021 15: 40
    +7
    The West is ready to negotiate only when it loses.
  10. kieferandreas
    kieferandreas 27 January 2021 15: 44
    +7
    no agreements are needed, let them first remove the prohibitions, besides, whoever leaves the agreement ahead of time is obliged to all the parties to the agreement a huge payment of compensation and the confiscation of the specified weapons in the agreement.
    otherwise the Russians will be disarmed again and will remain without pants as in the 90s.
  11. keeper03
    keeper03 27 January 2021 15: 51
    +2
    Yankers though, so that it was like a hunchback! belay And figs you !!! am negative soldier
    1. Sergey Nikiforov
      Sergey Nikiforov 28 January 2021 09: 41
      0
      Read Ilf and Petrova Pike vests No association?
  12. askort154
    askort154 27 January 2021 15: 56
    +7
    The MP called the extension of the agreement "a landmark event"

    But this is in the style of the deputies - to promote themselves. It would be an "epoch-making event" if this treaty were signed by all countries with nuclear weapons.
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 16: 03
      +2
      This treaty was signed only in order to be able to control other countries together. There is no other cooperation in this area between the Russian Federation and the United States.
      1. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 27 January 2021 19: 14
        +1
        What does the control of other countries have to do with it?
        And how can you forgive me for seeing that?
        1. Andrey.AN
          Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 19: 16
          0
          I see it simply, the means free from mutual control, graze the rest.
  13. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 16: 19
    -1
    laughing “Maintaining 'good' or 'positive' relations with Russia is not a goal, either in essence or in itself. We need a relationship with Russia that will help our national interests, namely a relationship that will enhance the security and prosperity of the American people. We proceed from the premise that it will be easier for the United States to defend its interests through cooperation with Russia. However, when we have disagreements with the Russian leadership, as happened this year in the case of Syria, we made it clear that we are ready to act without the consent or support of Russia. " - Former US Ambassador Michael McFaul. laughing Fools law is not written. laughing
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 16: 30
      0
      Well, yes, under Trump they got out of the deal with Iran, the RIAC, although they started earlier, ruined a lot from the achievements of maintaining balance control. It seems they see an uncontested need to play back after all.
  14. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 16: 42
    0
    We look further "We strive to continue the cooperation we began several years ago on a wide range of security and economic issues, to find new mutually beneficial solutions and resolve differences in accordance with our interests and values." A positive postulate, nothing to say. Most of the readers will not notice a couple of words said at the very end, as if gasping for the phrase: "... by our interests and values." Some might think Russia laughing
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 16: 59
      -1
      This agreement also meets our values, although in the United States it is not fashionable to be normal and to acknowledge one's benefit to others not a dime. Strategic stability without this treaty, in some 30 years, may lose its actual meaning. If the Russian Federation and the United States start a strategic arms race, they will lose interest in novice "partners", too many will rush to catch up with the leaders of the movement to talk about equilibrium.
  15. Old26
    Old26 27 January 2021 16: 53
    +2
    Quote: credo
    That's right, you say, only one thing is not clear why England and France were not attached to this treaty, and Israel with Pakistan, India and China too.

    That is, in words, you seem to be FOR the contract, but on the proposal you offer conditions so that the contract would NEVER be concluded? Did I understand you correctly?

    Quote: Rosa Capone
    ". In particular, the number of carriers is limited to 700 units, and each signatory should not have more than 1550 nuclear warheads." Our Duma "strategists" and our and our Foreign Ministry and leadership have forgotten that the United States is a NATO country, where both France and Britain have carriers and warheads. And Israel must not be forgotten either. And why, THEN, are only Russia and Baydenovka signed?

    "Attaching" other countries to the treaty now means DO NOT SIGN A CONTRACT AT ALL..

    Quote: Quadro
    This already smacks of betrayal, now we will cut the daggers, and the Americans will do it on the sly? There is no faith in the mattress, the prezik will change - it will immediately start developing and will be released in a couple of years.

    And what side is "Daggers", do not tell me. "Especially in terms of the fact that they need to be" cut "???

    Quote: kieferandreas
    no agreements are needed, let them first remove the prohibitions, besides, whoever leaves the agreement ahead of time is obliged to all the parties to the agreement a huge payment of compensation and the confiscation of the specified weapons in the agreement.
    otherwise the Russians will be disarmed again and will remain without pants as in the 90s.

    What the Nonsense YOU CARE, dear? Or do you want to earn plus signs on your urya-patriotic post? LEARN MATCH (that is, read the Agreement) and then broadcast about compensation due to early withdrawal from the agreement. Only ENEMY our country, enemy RUSSIA may say that these agreements are not needed, they are harmful, etc. For someone who knows at least a little bit what ... sorry, we could find ourselves in a pit without this agreement WILL NEVER SPEAK about the harmfulness and uselessness of this agreement
  16. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 17: 27
    0
    Biden is Putin's agent whatever one may say. laughing
    1. keeper03
      keeper03 27 January 2021 22: 13
      -1
      Biden is ours? !! wassat laughing good
  17. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 17: 32
    -1
    It seems that there was a presidential race in the states between two agents of Putin. The one who offered more favorable terms won. Biden has already taken two steps: he decided to limit oil and gas production and the second - he signed the START Treaty. How to live on where not throw a wedge everywhere laughingwe don't fucking need additional missiles, the next five years for sure. And all sorts of daggers with Poseidons are not included in the agreement laughing
  18. lucul
    lucul 27 January 2021 18: 08
    0
    According to the Izvestia newspaper, Vladimir Shamanov, chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, also announced the possible inclusion of new types of weapons in the agreement.

    Now what? All new hypersonic weapons to merge under this agreement, to the delight of the Americans, for the sake of what the Americans will praise? Are you normal there? Are you going to step on the Gorbachev rake? They promised him a lot too ...
  19. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 18: 14
    0
    I even suspect that the Americans led to the re-signing (moral) on purpose, so that we are not as copyright holders, heirs and debt residents, in short, everything related to legal inheritance. To update. Well, not all of them are there, but some led to that, though they had to lead more from the States.
  20. Old26
    Old26 27 January 2021 19: 15
    +1
    Quote: dauria
    "At the same time, Russia considers untenable attempts to exert international pressure on any country in order to involve it in the specified regime.

    That is, it would be ugly to "press" on medium-range nuclear ones in Poland. It turns out great. The Yankees are hammering Russia from Poland without counting the warheads, and we are in return without counting Poland from Russia. We rely on the States themselves "strictly according to the regulations" 700 pieces.

    No guys. Either together with the RIAC, or go for a walk, and tie it tightly. Withdrew from the contract on the average - the strategic ones are automatically canceled.

    Alexei! When it comes to "pressure", it is about an attempt to "tie" under this treaty either part of the nuclear countries, or all of them in general .. That is exactly what. And the RIAC - there is no agreement now. In the near future, France and Britain will not have them from the word AT ALL. That is, if the INF Treaty appears in Europe, it will be purely American. With the Americans, it was said about this: "Put yours - we will also."
    To link the INF treaty with the START treaty means put an end to such agreements... And doom yourself in advance to defeat in this regard. For even with a bilateral agreement with the United States, if we do not conclude this agreement, we may find ourselves in a situation where we simply lose in terms of the number of carriers. On the bombers - definitely. On rockets - if the race starts - we will lose too. For the United States still has rocket factories, both specialized and as part of such companies as Boeing and others. We have one. Which is now producing ICBMs, SLBMs, and Iskander-type complexes.
    "700 pieces", as you say, is the number of deployed STRATEGIC MEDIA... Namely - ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers. In addition, the United States currently has the minimum number of warheads that it can deploy on medium-range carriers. Moreover, these BGs have long been divided between the Air Force and the US Navy. For ground-based - they do not yet have "free" warheads. So in the near future the Americans will not be able to simply place them anywhere. And putting conventional BGs on MRBMs is "down the drain"

    Quote: lucul
    All new hypersonic weapons to merge under this agreement, to the delight of the Americans, for the sake of what the Americans will praise?

    Is it difficult to turn on the brain? What hypersonic weapons will be merged under this treaty? Come on, do not hesitate, tell us the poor and the poor, which of the things that are will fall under the provisions of this treaty ???
  21. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 27 January 2021 19: 30
    +3
    here the deputies would shut up now ... Russia has a strong position ... and inspections are also not needed at our facilities ... again, the Americans are making full use of the strategic pause to build up forces and then they will withdraw from the next agreement ...
  22. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 27 January 2021 19: 31
    +1
    US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is confident that other countries hope for the leading role of the United States, and assured that Washington will cope with this, he said on his first working day as Secretary of State, speaking to the department staff.
     "America's leadership is needed around the world, and we will provide it because solving the world's problems is much more possible when the United States is involved. America at its best still has a greater ability to mobilize other nations for better goals than any other. Or another country in the world, "Blinken told his subordinates, local TV channels were broadcasting live. ..The universe has already learned to manage? (without attracting the attention of the orderlies). laughing
     
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 21: 13
      0
      Let them hope for the US leadership. Iran, for example, without the Russian Federation, they cannot slow down. By the way, at the expense of Iran, our president also admitted, very possibly. And on the day of the strike on American bases in Iraq, an underground earthquake sounded near nuclear facilities in Iran, with a probability of coincidence with the events of 1 in several million. Everything is more complicated than favorable forecasts.
  23. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 21: 29
    0
    https://ok.ru/video/1742849577359 Почему-то во сне, не могу найти дорогу домой.
  24. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 27 January 2021 22: 25
    0
    Almost absolutely sure. The new weapon of the Russian Federation will compensate for the missile defense violation by the Americans. From the contract, the further, the less likely it will be abandoned. Outsiders are recruiting opportunities. Anyway, China is already being led to control, at least so as not to harm.
  25. Alexeevich0010
    Alexeevich0010 28 January 2021 00: 13
    +1
    "As a result of negotiations between Russia and the United States, it was decided to extend the Strategic Arms Treaty until February 5, 2026." (c)
    "P" - betrayal. IMHO
  26. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 28 January 2021 01: 45
    0
    No contracts! This will only weaken the power of Russia! The Americans will demand the reduction or prohibition of those types of weapons to which they have no answer!
  27. Yves762
    Yves762 28 January 2021 04: 05
    -2
    what
    From the other end, but still ...
    I remember the States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, and the Russian Federation continues to comply. Why is it so - the same garbage will be here.
    The Russian leadership is doing badly. fool
  28. tank64rus
    tank64rus 28 January 2021 09: 35
    +2
    Amers need time to catch up with Russia in hypersound. Yes, the term is set for 5 years. and during this time EVERYTHING will be done to slow down the development of the Russian military-industrial complex. And the 5th column and traitors of all stripes and youth, where instead of a head an iPhone is all in one basket.
  29. JonnyT
    JonnyT 28 January 2021 11: 53
    0
    America has no weapons-grade plutonium and uranium, the current state of the silos is poor and is degrading. Why doesn't the canister sign an agreement to, he doesn't lose anything, on the contrary, it fetters us and slows down. SchA they will begin to put their systems in order and introduce new systems to develop, and then withdraw from the treaty in leading positions and instantly deploy new missiles to our borders.
    Also, do not forget that as long as the treaty is in effect, the can and co will spoil the Russian Federation in full, through Ukraine and Moldova, Syria, etc., again, the sanctions will strengthen and undermine the situation in our country
  30. Old26
    Old26 28 January 2021 19: 34
    +2
    Quote: Yves762
    I remember the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, and the Russian Federation continues to comply.

    Why do you suddenly think that Russia continues to abide by the ABM Treaty? At one time, due to violation of the ABM Treaty, we were forced to destroy the one built not far from the settlement. Yeniseysk-15 Shapkinsky radar. Now, 90 km from this place, the Voronezh-DM station has been built in Ust-Kem. And now it is not a violation. Why? And because after the US withdrew from this treaty, we also ceased to comply with its provisions

    Quote: JonnyT
    America has no weapons-grade plutonium and uranium

    Exactly. Dumb. about 60 tons of weapons-grade plutonium and about 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium - this, as I understand it, is considered HEMA ...
  31. Keer
    Keer 28 January 2021 22: 34
    0
    Why should Russia participate in the START treaties if the agreements on intermediate-range missiles and on missile defense are no longer valid? There is no clear answer.
  32. Old26
    Old26 28 January 2021 23: 29
    0
    Quote: Keer
    Why should Russia participate in the START treaties if the agreements on intermediate-range missiles and on missile defense are no longer valid? There is no clear answer.

    In order to limit strategic weapons. Without this agreement, we would simply have been earlier and will now be in flight ...