The United States declared its readiness to continue constructive cooperation with the Russian Federation under START-3

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the United States and Russia entered into force on February 5, 2011. Earlier, the agreement was signed in Prague Castle on April 8, 2010 by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the head of the White House, Barack Obama.

The purpose of the agreement was the mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals by both countries to such a level that in seven years and thereafter the total number of weapons would not exceed 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers, as well as 1550 warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers.

In early February 2021, Moscow and Washington exchanged notes on the completion of the internal procedures necessary for the entry into force of the agreement to extend the START for another five years.

Later, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia complies with all the provisions of the Treaty, continuing the information exchange with the Pentagon and observing all the established quantitative and qualitative restrictions. At the same time, the diplomat noted that Washington, by carrying out a frontal containment of Moscow, violates the main preamble of the START, which refers to the indivisibility of security. In turn, the US State Department accused the Russian Federation of blocking the work of American inspectors at Russian nuclear facilities, which is allegedly a violation of the terms of the Treaty.

Nevertheless, the White House declared its readiness to continue constructive cooperation with the Russian Federation within the framework of START-3. This was announced today by Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States and Coordinator for Defense Policy and Arms Control of the National Security Council of the Presidential Administration Cara Abercrombie.

The United States remains ready to work constructively with Russia to fully implement START-3

Abercrombie said during the Arms Control Association's "Problems and Prospects for Further Russian-American Nuclear Arms Control" event.

Comments

[voice of reason]

Yeah, when it’s beneficial for them, they will cooperate, and at the same time supply tanks to Ukraine and weapons and shells and incite Europe with leopards. Yes, such contracts. If they need it, then we definitely don’t! Then they leak this data obtained under the contract to urkorazvedka, like the location of strategists in Engels.

[Myths]

They cooperate where it is beneficial for them and dumb to get an answer. As soon as they are sure that they are able to adequately protect themselves, the agreement will be khan. The photograph speaks for itself, by the way. And we were deceived again. And what kind of agreements can there be with what is happening now to ignore as the United States did.

Similarly, according to Reuters, the United States plans to announce a new military aid package to Kyiv worth more than $2 billion this week, which will include longer-range missiles than those previously delivered to Ukraine.

[Alien From]

If you drink with thieves, beware of your wallet! Send them far away!

[bayard]

Quote: Alien From

If you drink with thieves, beware of your wallet! Send them far away!

In the light of what is happening (statements by the leaders, defense ministers and foreign ministries of NATO countries that they are at war with Russia), all agreements, especially on arms reduction, must be frozen (at least). Just stop all contacts and exchange of information until the conflict is completely exhausted, all sanctions and mutual accusations are lifted. Such treaties and agreements cannot be valid in the light of the unreliability of the United States and its evil intentions and actions.
The US has problems with nuclear weapons and we have no right not to take advantage of this. Any of our advantages should be developed and used as a lever and tool.
Just make a statement from the Foreign Ministry that all framework arms control treaties with the United States are FROZEN indefinitely.
And let them think what it means.

[ramzay21]

The Americans withdrew from all agreements with our country that were not beneficial for them, with the exception of START-3, and only because this treaty restrains our nuclear strike capabilities and this is in the interests of the United States.
For us, this treaty is a threat to national security and its further observance is a betrayal and sabotage.
Our country needs to withdraw from this treaty, deploy additional warheads on existing carriers, stop the withdrawal of old carriers and resume the production of weapons-grade plutonium. It is also urgent to create and start production of a mobile universal launcher for Zircons and Calibers, as well as to recreate the Barguzin missile railway system. You can also start building large numbers of mine installations with false and real rockets, following the example of China.

[Luka Nord]

The Izuite agreements concluded with the Anglo-Saxons are all aside .. Break everything and not sparing! We will deal with the ocarina, and if the sanctions are lifted, then we will begin to conclude everything on a new basis on an equal footing ..
On OUR terms..
Russia has "Zircons" and "Poseidons", well, and all sorts of surprises, which have not been particularly disclosed yet .. We need Kiev! And then maybe we'll talk, if it's with someone

[Machito]

With the United States, contracts are signed only by mentally retarded or corrupt people. The price of this contract is not worth the paper on which it is written. The only treaty worth signing is a treaty of unconditional surrender, complete demilitarization, economic colonization, and liquidation of the United States.

[ivan1979nkl]

a precondition for discussions to put the implementation by the United States of the treaty on the destruction of chemical weapons, the elimination of the states of all biolaboratories around the world + the achievement of parity for conventional weapons

[Dilettante grandfather]

achieving parity in conventional weapons

- Will not work. They will not simply destroy their aircraft carriers, and we are not able to build so many, purely because there are not enough shipyards, and we do not need them. And we will still have more tanks. In order to catch up with us in terms of the number of tanks, they will need to increase the defense budget: they have a very modest one ...

[your1970]

Quote: Bearded

Only mentally retarded or corrupt people sign contracts with the United States

That is, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev - since they signed treaties between the USSR and the USA in your opinion - were they either mentally retarded or corrupt people ?????
"Original!!" (c)

[alexoff]

They had something to back up their Soviet signature and something to ask for the American one, they were afraid of their red lines. In 1971, the Indians sank an American transport ship that was carrying lend-lease weapons to Pakistan from Saigon, and a British ship in Karachi, and they didn’t have anything, since the Soviet fleet was spinning somewhere nearby. And just hoping from under the table that the Americans will follow the agreements is not worth it.

[Dilettante grandfather]

The USSR was a country equal, at least, in terms of the power of the Armed Forces to America. And in some ways he excelled. Russia, according to the Americans, is much weaker.
In addition, it is not worth comparing the situations in 1970, say, and now: people are different, the technical potential is different, the time is different.

[Horon]

To sign such agreements now is to harm the state. Even talking about them in the current situation is treason.

[mongolian9999]

A very correct decision. It is necessary to sign this agreement with the inclusion of a location in Mexico and Brazil of Russian ballistic missiles.

[Luka Nord]

Quote: mongol9999

A very correct decision. It is necessary to sign this agreement with the inclusion of a location in Mexico and Brazil of Russian ballistic missiles.

This is no longer relevant (the capabilities of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces close deployment of missiles are no longer required), but Mexico’s claims to the United States, here you can ignite the topic of territories and indemnities Mexicans are a fighting people, you just need to support it with weapons hehe

[blackGRAIL]

But neither Mexico nor Brazil needs our missiles for free or for money, like a nightmare. Mexicans look at the United States as Soviet citizens looked before the collapse of the Union - jeans, the American dream and lifestyle, a fairy tale country. It is only with us that individual citizens live in fantasies that someone in the world is waiting for our missiles (for example, Cuba) or weapons (for example, the IRA). With the collapse of the Union, the world has become strongly American / Western-centric and no one needs a direct open confrontation there.

[alexoff]

Well, the world would be happy if such a center appeared, everyone is tired of American-centricity, but that the Russian Federation, that the PRC can’t and / or don’t want to offer anything other than “let’s do it like in 2007”.

[Horon]

First of all, you need to rely on yourself and defend your interests. In reality, if you stop thinking that someone is interested in interfering in Russian-American showdowns, then neither Mexico, nor even Cuba, will want to get involved with Russia in the current conditions, since Russia is far away, and the United States is nearby, besides, Russia has not yet demonstrated any one quality inherent in a really strong state. "Red lines", regroupings and a mess do not command respect from others.

[evgen1221]

Yep, you've heard it already. They like we want to walk like at home, and we only wear muzzles with a zak in our nose and from afar under the supervision of an exceptional tchetlanin.

[K-50]

The United States declared its readiness to continue constructive cooperation with the Russian Federation under START-3

The very meaning of the Treaty is not clear.
what is the reason to negotiate between Russia and pin dossi, not taking into account the arsenals of other countries of NATO? After all, there are not very small reserves of vigorous loaf.
And what about the "neutrals" like the Jews and who else?
So you need to collect the whole shobla and then decide, but such a cabal does not make much sense.

[blackGRAIL]

The costs of the legacy of the Union - the Americans talk with us and agree, which means they are afraid and respected, this is status and conceit. Again, this can be flaunted on TV for internal use. The idea that the West will stop talking to us and go into hard ignore (ala North Korea) for the current leadership (and the oligarchy) is a nightmare and the end of the world.

[ivan1979nkl]

they look askance at the Sarmatians, they dream of cutting them down in exchange for promises

[Tusv]

B-61 and Tridents-2 nafik from the beach from Europe. Denazify Ukraine. We will jointly organize its sovereignty, but without Novorossiya and a pen in the ass to agree on START-3. And without this sign of goodwill from the Yankees, I don’t see the point in this tool

[d1975]

What sovereignty are you talking about? What Ukraine? No need for these experiments! Enough, everything should be uniform, but not ugly. Yes, we lost Nenko. Do not want to ask who will answer for this, answered and will answer? And I know a Russian soldier, don't steal a victory. It will be and many believe in it. You can’t leave anything to the West, because there will be a government in exile. Do we need it?

[Pavel57]

Do we need control over strategic weapons by a country with which we are in a state of hybrid war? And access to the control of Poseidons?

[Leonid67]

We already have few nuclear weapons. They are low-powered up to 1 MT and will not be able to destroy a civilization except to inflict unacceptable damage that forces the collective west to act in a hybrid way. I believe that the number of nuclear charges and carriers should be increased. They will destroy us anyway, but we must guarantee them too

[Boris Ivanov]

do we need it? especially now? when they need .. you can wait, the end of CBO!

[Alexey Baibanov]

America is an enemy of Russia, no agreements with enemies, the Sarmatians cry for them.

[withoutreverse]

non-negotiable state. negotiate with her, deceive yourself.

[Horon]

The United States declared its readiness to continue constructive cooperation with the Russian Federation under START-3

In other words, in the light of recent events, it can be understood as follows:

We will hang you on a rope that you will weave yourself, with your own hands.

[Skeptic3]

If I were the United States, I would withdraw from all agreements with the Russian Federation on arms restrictions.
Today, these agreements are a throwback to the Cold War. They can only be used to blackmail the United States by the Russian Federation. I see no other meaning in them.

[Beregovic_1]

They call for negotiations, which means they have their own interest.

[Skeptic3]

They call for negotiations, which means they have their own interest.

Or amuse themselves with illusions from old memory.

[Horon]

They have already withdrawn from most of the treaties, so now there are hostilities in Ukraine, it remains to bury the latter in order to start testing the strength of each other's nuclear sword.

[Skeptic3]

to start testing the strength of each other's nuclear sword.

Nuclear deterrence is based not on treaties, but on the possibility of mutually assured destruction.

[DO]

Negotiations on the topics of nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States, of course, should by no means be stopped for a minute, all the more so that the Russian-US hotline should work continuously. For in the context of today's military escalation, these issues may affect the life and death of many millions of Russians.
But even unilaterally letting American inspectors into their nuclear facilities in the current situation of Russia's military-political confrontation with the West, and in general taking steps that weaken the military potential of the Russian Federation, is also not quite adequate.

[Skeptic3]

You have a contradiction in the text. Inspections are part of the terms of the contract.
You will decide - it is necessary to comply with the agreements or not?

[DO]

Skeptik3, I do not see a contradiction in my text. I wrote about NEGOTIATIONS and a direct "hot line", meaning constant contacts between the parties and the ability to quickly agree in the event of a nuclear crisis, and not about the START-3 treaty.
And START-3 is not fully observed by anyone, because inspections are not carried out by any of the parties. And in the current situation of the military conflict in Ukraine (a proxy from the United States), the blowing up of the Russian gas pipeline in the Baltic (the economic benefit from this sabotage objectively belongs to the United States), freezing half of the Russian gold reserves at the initiative of the United States, this is quite natural.

[Arzoo]

So that START-3 does not turn out to be the same fraud as the INF Treaty (as a result of which we are negotiating with Iran on the purchase of missiles).

[faterdom]

It is necessary to pass a law that treaties with unfriendly countries are suspended until this epithet is removed from them. And there 100 years, so 100, what is the meaning of such agreements, I do not understand.

[lelik613]

We have nothing to talk about with them, except about the non-finding of atomic weapons outside national borders. All your inspections are espionage, the data will be leaked to the Sumerians.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Supply Hymars and Abrams, push through the supply of fighters, blow up strategic (don't care what !!!) pipelines ... and are "ready to continue constructive cooperation" ???
Am I sleeping?
And what, Russia will go to agreements with a bandit country that kills its citizens and does everything to destroy it???

The recall of all American combatants from Ukraine, the complete cessation of arms supplies to the Chewbachs, an apology for the blown up pipelines and the restoration of them at their own expense ... I think these will be normal conditions for the resumption of negotiations and cooperation.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

The price of any "agreements" with the Anglo-Saxons is equivalent to the cost of last year's buffalo litter on the prairie

[Artur homoastricus]

Let the formation go on a hiking erotic journey.