Strategic Stability in the 21st Century

41
Strategic Stability in the 21st CenturyAfter the victory of Barack Obama in the presidential election, there were reports that at the beginning of next year the United States would launch a new initiative on further reductions in nuclear weapons. It can be assumed that these proposals will to some extent reflect the latest developments of American scientific and political centers related to the Obama administration.

DISCUSSION ON FUTURE REDUCTIONS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

For example, Steve Peifer and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution consider it possible to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1000 units, and the total number of deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads to 2000 – 2500 units. Derek Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, proposed an even more radical reduction (up to 500 deployed nuclear warheads).

Special mention should be made of the report “Modernization of the nuclear strategy”, prepared by a group of eminent experts headed by the former Commander of STRATKO and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee of the General Assembly under the auspices of the Global Zero movement. Recently, the authors of the report came to Moscow, where they presented their proposals at an international conference. The report outlines a plan for unilateral reduction of US nuclear forces by a factor of five - to the level of 900 warheads (instead of 5 ths at present). Of these, half will be in a reduced state of readiness (use is possible in a few days, not hours), and the second half is in reserve. Deployed nuclear charges can be used in 24 – 72 hours, and reserve charges in 6 months. All US ICBMs, as well as tactical nuclear weapons, must be eliminated. Thus, the United States will have no more than 270 nuclear warheads on an SLBM for a pre-emptive strike, which is clearly not enough to defeat all strategic targets in Russia. In the event of the mobilization of all US nuclear potential, the following forces can be used to strike Russian targets: 325 warheads to destroy ICBM mines, 110 warheads to destroy command and control points, 136 warheads to destroy military-industrial facilities, and 80 warheads will be used to strike Moscow

The report of the Global Zero movement states that the radical reduction and reduction in the level of combat readiness of nuclear forces of the United States eliminates the technical threat of a sudden American first nuclear strike, the United States can no longer theoretically destroy the main strategic forces of Russia, therefore the prospect of clearing a small number of surviving Russian missiles using American missile defense. Thus, the approach proposed in the report to a certain extent recognizes the validity of the Russian concern over the threats to the Russian strategic nuclear forces by the US missile defense system. Thus, influential experts proceed from the possibility of concluding a new bilateral Russian-American treaty on the further reduction of nuclear arsenals. In our opinion, this requires taking into account Russia's concerns regarding the non-nuclear components of the military-strategic balance, where the US has significant advantages. This requires agreements between the two countries, which can be both legal and political in nature and be accompanied by confidence-building measures ensuring the necessary transparency.

Consider possible solutions.

MISSILE DEFENSE

In our opinion, the deployment of strategic missile defense should be frozen at about the current level (36 deployed GBI interceptors plus a small number of non-deployed interceptors in reserve) in Alaska and in California. The United States should not deploy the Third Strategic Missile Defense Position Area, either in Europe or on the east coast of the United States. In the event of increasing nuclear missile threat from other countries (North Korea, Iran), the United States may deploy an additional number of strategic interceptors, but their total number should be no more than 50 – 100 units, that is, the level established by the Protocol 1974 of the year to the ABM Treaty . Naturally, this implies a rejection of attempts to deploy a space echelon of missile defense.

The American side should regularly (at least twice a year) inform Russia about the ABM cash and plans for possible additional deployment of ABM assets. In addition, the American proposal to invite Russian experts to test SM-3 interceptor missiles and other advanced missile defense systems should be implemented.

As for the European missile defense, the fourth phase of the EPAA with the deployment of SM-3 Block 2B interceptor missiles should be frozen, since the deployment of the third phase of the EPAA 48 of the SM-3 Block 2A interceptor in Romania and Poland is more than enough to protect against existing and prospective Iranian medium-range missiles.

The number of permanently based in Europe, American ships equipped with SM-3 interceptors of various modifications, it is advisable to limit the current level (four units). At the same time, American ships are not based in the Black, Baltic and Barents Seas. It appears that in the event of a crisis, the grouping of American ships with SM-3 interceptors in the Mediterranean and North Sea could be increased to eight units, about which the Russian Federation should be informed in advance.

At the same time, we are convinced that Russia and the US / NATO should agree on the operational interaction and compatibility of their missile defense systems designed to protect against short-range and medium-range missiles. For this purpose, two centers can be created, as was suggested earlier, for the exchange and integration of data on rocket attacks and the distribution of tasks for intercepting third-party missiles. This may require an appropriate Executive Agreement between the United States or Russia, as well as an agreement between Russia and NATO. The problem of missile defense is analyzed in detail in a report devoted to the issue of missile defense in relations between Russia and the United States, excerpts from which were published in the Independent Military Review. At the same time, the United States and Russia strictly comply with their obligations under the INF Treaty, that is, they do not have ballistic missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km.

In the future, if reliable information appears on the creation of intercontinental ballistic missiles by Iran, the parties should agree on the adoption of additional measures to ensure missile defense.

Non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons

In the case of the creation by the American side of the Global Fast Strike means using ballistic and nonballistic trajectories of their flight, the number of such means should not exceed 12 – 20 units, as suggested by the authors of the Global Zero report. In our opinion, these funds should be taken into account in the total number of deployed carriers and nuclear warheads when determining the parameters of new legal agreements between the US and Russia to reduce strategic offensive arms. This also applies to inspections of appropriate launchers.

The idea of ​​implementing the Global Rapid Strike using medium-range ballistic missiles on Virginia-class submarines (SSN-744), considered by the Pentagon, seems unacceptable. This proposal is clearly destabilizing.

First, the presence of medium-range ballistic missiles on Virginia-class submarines will drastically change the military-strategic balance in favor of the United States, allowing them to strike 10 – 15 minutes of missile flight times against strategic targets in the Russian Federation. The inclusion of these funds in the parameters of the agreements on strategic offensive arms is hardly feasible.

Secondly, the creation of a new class of medium-range ballistic missiles could lead to the undermining of the INF Treaty. After all, Russia may also have an incentive to deploy its own medium-range ballistic missiles, given that North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and a number of Middle Eastern states have such missiles, which have rejected Moscow’s proposal to accede to the obligations of the INF Treaty.

Third, the presence of thousands of high-precision cruise missiles capable of hitting certain strategic targets with the US Navy on surface ships and submarines plays a significant destabilizing role. In the case of implementation of the radical cuts in strategic nuclear weapons proposed in the Global Zero report, it can be assumed that the number of strategic targets for a hypothetical preemptive strike will also decrease by one and a half to two times. As a result, the United States will have the opportunity to hit 4 – 30% with a high-precision conventional means, but 50 – 70% of the reduced number of targets in Russia.

Strategic bomber B-1B ready for takeoff.

This may hinder Russia's agreement to reduce the strategic nuclear forces. Therefore, the placement of both high-precision cruise missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles on Virginia-class submarines will have a very negative impact on the situation in the naval sphere, where the United States already has absolute superiority.

New confidence building measures in the naval sphere

Solving the problem of sea-based strategic non-nuclear armaments seems to be possible by concluding a new Russian-American agreement on confidence-building measures and ensuring transparency at sea. It must complement the proven agreement on the prevention of incidents in the open sea and the airspace above it from 25 in May 1972. In addition, in 2003, the Document on confidence- and security-building measures in the naval area on the Black Sea came into effect. The measures are politically binding. This is the first precedent of the spread of confidence-building measures on the activities of the naval forces: the exchange of information, annual plans of naval activities and prior notification of them. The document contains a wide range of voluntary forms of cooperation: joint exercises, ship calls, exchanges of delegations, reciprocal visits based on the annual rotation of naval bases, “annual exercises of trust” (invitation to the ships or observers). This is a good precedent for possible new Russia-US agreements on additional confidence-building measures.

Considering the notorious episode with the launch of the American cruiser Monterey into the Black Sea in August 2008, one cannot fail to recognize the validity of the Russian side’s concerns about the possible deployment of the US Navy group equipped with both SM-3 interceptor missiles in the waters Baltic and Barents Seas. It is necessary to prevent such situations.

With respect to the principle of freedom of navigation, the parties could agree to notify each other in advance about the location of their surface ships and submarines in certain areas of the world’s ocean, which are approximately xNUMX miles from the other side. This may include the coasts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, as well as the Gulf of Mexico for the United States and the waters of the Black, Baltic, Barents, Okhotsk and Japan seas for the Russian Federation. It must be emphasized that although the entry of surface ships and submarines into these geographic areas will not be prohibited, fears of a possible sudden disarming and decapitating strike as a result of the covert deployment of naval forces will decrease.

At the same time, such confidence-building measures in many ways will reduce the threat of interception of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs by American ships equipped with the Aegis system with SM-3 interceptor missiles of various modifications at the initial and secondary segments of their flight.

In our opinion, the proposed new agreements on confidence-building measures and transparency could include:

- limiting the number of SM-3 interceptors on ships at sea (for example, no more than 30% of ammunition). Inviting Russian observers to ships or entering the Russian port to confirm such loading;

- providing annual information on the number of such ships and their loading, as well as preliminary plans for their naval activities;

- inviting Russian observers to the exercises with the actual use of shipboard missile defense systems (at least once a year);

- preliminary notification of the conduct of the missile defense system exercises;

- conducting various kinds of joint exercises with the participation of Russian ships in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean and North Sea.

NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS

If nuclear weapons of intercontinental, medium and shorter range are regulated by legal obligations under the START and INF Treaty, then tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) with a range of up to 500 km have never been limited to any agreements. True, in the 1991, the United States and the USSR, and later the Russian Federation, made parallel unilateral political declarations on reducing tactical nuclear weapons arsenals. However, no verification and verification measures were envisaged. Nevertheless, it is believed that both parties basically fulfilled their promises.

In recent years, the United States has abandoned most types of nuclear weapons, including SLCMs with nuclear warheads. The total number of US tactical warheads is estimated to be around 760 units. In the future, the Pentagon will have only one type of nuclear weapons - the B61 free-fall bombs, designed to equip the front-line aviation (500 units). Some of them (approximately 150–250 units) are stored at six US air bases in Europe and Turkey. The rest are in the United States. However, the B-52 strategic bombers are also equipped with the same bombs, which are included in the parameters of the new START Treaty. But according to the rules of offsetting this Agreement, for each bomber only one nuclear warhead is counted. The remaining aviation nuclear weapons are considered non-deployed and are not included in the limit of 1550 deployed nuclear warheads.

As for Russia, unfortunately, official data on non-strategic nuclear weapons have never been published here. According to the most realistic western expert estimates, Russia has approximately 2 thousand tactical nuclear warheads. Of these, about one third (about 700 units) refers to weapons of the air defense and missile defense systems. About 400 - to marine systems (mines, torpedoes, tactical missiles). Thus, the number of nuclear bombs and missile warheads (with a range of up to 500 km) does not exceed 900 units.

Many experts believe that Russian tactical nuclear weapons to a certain extent compensate for the asymmetric situation in conventional armaments in Europe, as already mentioned above. Recall that at the height of the Cold War, the United States launched 7 thousand units of TNW in Western Europe to compensate for Soviet superiority in conventional weapons.

Upon ratification of the New START Treaty, the US Senate recorded a requirement to include TNW in any new legal agreements on nuclear arms reduction. Relevant official and unofficial proposals have recently been put forward by the American side at various levels. NATO calls for reducing Russian tactical nuclear weapons or for withdrawing them from Europe to Asia. However, Moscow refuses to negotiate on this issue until American TNW is withdrawn from Europe to the United States. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the CFE Treaty was frozen, which provided for quantitative restrictions and verification of front-line aviation, including fighter-bombers, which are carriers of nuclear weapons. In addition, there are two more nuclear powers in Europe - members of NATO. Armed with France and the UK is about 500 nuclear warheads. However, these countries, like China, refuse to accept international legal obligations to limit and reduce nuclear weapons. But Russia can not ignore the British and French systems in assessing the nuclear balance in Europe.

In total, at the European theater of operations, the NATO countries have about 650 – 750 nuclear bombs and missile warheads, excluding American strategic nuclear weapons falling under the limitations of the new START Treaty. This is about the same as Russia has, if you do not take into account the nuclear weapons of the Navy, air defense and missile defense. But some of the 900 tactical warheads are in the Asian part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, to achieve a legally binding agreement on tactical nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States is unlikely to succeed.

The way out, apparently, is to include TNW in new Russian-American agreements on nuclear arms reduction, abandoning the artificial separation of nuclear weapons into strategic and non-strategic ones achieved in 1972. At the same time, all non-strategic nuclear weapons will meet the definition of non-deployed warheads adopted in the new START Treaty. But this will require the parties ’consent to concentrate all tactical nuclear warheads at the central storage bases.

Thus, it seems appropriate to establish a total quantitative ceiling for all classes of nuclear weapons. As a result, Russia’s preoccupation with US superiority in the so-called return potential of strategic nuclear weapons, where the American side has a significant quantitative superiority, and the US preoccupation with Russia's quantitative superiority in tactical nuclear warheads will be taken into account to some extent.

This "scalpel" especially irritated our overseas partners.

WEAPONS OF THIRD COUNTRIES

The fact that all other nuclear states have no division into strategic and tactical nuclear weapons also speaks in favor of this approach. Connecting these countries to the process of nuclear disarmament, which could have happened years through 5 – 10, will make it necessary to take into account all classes of nuclear weapons, regardless of the range of their delivery vehicles. This allows Russia and the United States to reduce their nuclear arsenals to about 1000 deployed nuclear warheads (that is, the total number of nuclear weapons of third countries), although deeper reductions cannot be ruled out, as suggested by the authors of the Global Zero report. But this seems to be possible only if other nuclear powers make a political commitment not to build up their nuclear arsenals. An important role could be played by such declarative steps as providing information on the number of available nuclear weapons, as well as plans to modernize nuclear arsenals, if such intentions are available.

In addition, it is advisable to seek the consent of third nuclear states to selective confidence and transparency. In the 21st century, a comprehensive negotiating process involving all nuclear states is required. Some nuclear states should not be allowed to disarm, while others at that time were building up their nuclear arsenals. Such an exchange of views, apparently, should begin in the framework of the officially recognized “nuclear five” (USA, Russia, China, Great Britain and France). The first step is to reach agreements on non-development, transparency and verification of nuclear arsenals, which will form the basis for formal negotiations on nuclear arms control.

In general, the problem of universalizing the process of nuclear disarmament deserves a comprehensive study with the obligatory participation of representatives of both officially recognized (China, France, Great Britain) and de jure unrecognized nuclear states (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea). Otherwise, the “nuclear club” can replenish Iran and a number of other countries, and the non-proliferation regime will finally collapse.

OPERATIONAL STATUS OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES IN THE XXI CENTURY

The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States exceed what is needed to meet the needs of deterrence between the two countries, as well as with respect to third countries. According to official data, according to the rules for offsetting the New START Treaty, on 1 September 2012, the US had 808 deployed launchers (launchers) of ICBMs and SLBMs, as well as heavy bombers (TB) and 1737 nuclear warheads, from Russia - 491 PUs and TB, respectively and 1499 warheads. In addition, the US had 228 non-deployed PU, and Russia had 393.

If Washington and Moscow agree on a mutually acceptable solution of the missile defense problem and start discussing other problems related to the modern understanding of the military-strategic balance, the proposals for further reductions of the Strategic Nuclear Forces, as outlined in the Global Zero report, are possible.

Based on the real needs of nuclear deterrence, it seems possible and achievable during 10 years (by 2022) of Russia and the United States to reduce their nuclear potential more significantly than stipulated by the agreements (700 deployed PU and TB and 1550 deployed warheads on them) . It is advisable to consider three options for the possible composition of the Russian nuclear forces by 2022 year.

Option 1. Nuclear forces - 2500 warheads: 1800 strategic nuclear weapons in modified operational readiness and 700 units of non-deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons. For nuclear deterrence, the 900 strategic warheads are deployed, and the rest are in active reserve.

Option 2. Nuclear forces - 2000 warheads: 1400 strategic nuclear weapons in modified operational readiness and 600 units of non-deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons. Contained in the expanded state of 700 units of strategic weapons, and the rest - in reserve.

Option 3. Nuclear forces - 1500 warheads: 1000 strategic nuclear weapons in modified operational readiness and 500 units of non-deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons. At the same time for the implementation of nuclear deterrence contained in the expanded state of 500 warheads, and the rest is in active reserve.

Moscow and Washington could have implemented the first and second abbreviations without directly connecting other nuclear states to the disarmament process. The third option seems to be the most preferable if we proceed from the seriousness of the intentions of the political leadership of Russia and the United States to move towards a nuclear-free world. However, it can hardly be implemented without the participation of other nuclear-weapon States, primarily China.

The third embodiment structurally SNF Russia may consist of 270 IDB equipped 540 warheads (270 deployed, 270 in reserve), 8 NPBMS with 128 SLBMs and 280 tipped on them (140 deployed, 140 in reserve) and 15 heavy bomber with intended for them 180 ALCM.

A nuclear weapon contained in an active reserve can be taken from storage and loaded onto carriers for a period of several weeks to several months (which cannot be done imperceptibly). Most of the (up to 80 – 85%) deployed strategic nuclear weapons can be kept in low alert (with its recovery in 24 – 72 hours).

In everyday activities, it is sufficient to have two SSBNs on combat patrols at sea in the hourly ready to launch SLBMs equipped with a total of 70 warheads. In an emergency, two more SSBNs deployed in bases and armed with 70 additional warheads can be launched into the sea within a few hours. In 24 – 72 hours, the 135 MBR with 270 warheads can be restored, and 15 ALCMs are loaded on all 180 heavy bombers. Thus, after 72 hours, the number of deployed and ready for immediate use of strategic nuclear weapons in Russia will reach 590 units. This is quite enough for an adequate emergency response.

In the event of a protracted crisis or a sharp deterioration in geostrategic relations between Russia and the United States or China, a lasting period of several weeks or months would provide an opportunity to alert all 1000 weapons.

The ability of the Russian strategic nuclear forces to deliver strategic nuclear warheads to 1000 targets creates the risk of causing unacceptable damage to any potential aggressor. Thus, the task of nuclear deterrence is guaranteed to be solved if the considerations expressed above with respect to non-nuclear strategic weapons are taken into account.

Based on realities, Russia can limit its nuclear arsenal to the ceiling in 1500 of nuclear warheads in active reserves - strategic and non-strategic (tactical), deployed and non-deployed (stored and intended to be issued to the troops). These steps could be taken in unison with the United States, subject to resolving the problems associated with the deployment of strategic missile defense systems, high-precision conventional long-range weapons and the rejection of the deployment of any attack systems in space.

The existing high operational readiness for the launch of strategic nuclear missiles of Russia and the United States creates an unjustified risk and creates distrust between these countries. It is impossible today to imagine a situation in which Russia or the United States would suddenly decide to launch a preemptive nuclear missile strike against the other side. There is simply no motivation for this. Therefore, readiness for launching nuclear missiles can and should be reduced and brought in line with new military and political realities. If you even take such a step as transferring all nuclear missiles of Russia and the United States to lowered readiness, then Moscow and Washington’s ability to carry out nuclear deterrence will not suffer, because other nuclear states in the future have no motivation for a sudden nuclear attack on Russia or the United States.

Russia's possession of non-strategic nuclear weapons is considered by its military-political leadership as the most important factor in ensuring deterrence at the regional level of other states (coalition of states) from attempts to resolve the contradictions with the Russian Federation by military means, and in the case of unleashing aggression - to repel (stop) those catastrophic consequences that are inherent in the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Such an approach to the role and significance of non-strategic nuclear weapons is due to the changes in the ratio of military potentials that are not in favor of Russia in all strategic areas, aggravated by the weakening of the general-purpose forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Therefore, unlike the United States, which does not feel the need to contain its neighbors, Russia cannot abandon non-strategic nuclear weapons.

At the same time, in today's realities, the arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons that Russia possesses is surplus (according to estimates, the active stock of Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons is about 2000 units). It can be reduced to about 500 units, completely eliminating the types of nuclear weapons that have lost their military significance (anti-aircraft missile warheads, depth charges, mines), and reducing the number of tactical aviation nuclear missiles and bombs. This amount of non-strategic nuclear weapons is enough for regional nuclear deterrence. In a large-scale armed conflict, which is unlikely, but still possible, Russia, in any case, will have to rely in ensuring its military security on its entire nuclear arsenal.

Russian-US agreements to reduce nuclear weapons cannot be sufficient to maintain military-strategic balance if we accept the “broad” definition of strategic stability, which, on the one hand, must take into account non-nuclear strategic systems, and on the other, the multipolar nature of the modern world. Restraining the militarization of space and the development of cybernetic weapons will help to maintain balance in the world. Maintaining strategic stability in a multipolar world in the 21st century will require new efforts to eliminate the threats arising in these areas of military rivalry.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. YARY
    +2
    4 December 2012 11: 56
    You can not reduce only given SyShyA!
    You must have an "account" with NATO !!!!
    1. Jaromir
      +14
      4 December 2012 13: 14
      With americos fair play is impossible! They have all the cards stained. If they themselves offer to shorten, then this is beneficial for them, and not for us.
      1. +5
        4 December 2012 14: 34
        Yes, they are so "smart", they have posted their pro around us, and now they say, let's reduce nuclear weapons so that it would be easier for us to shoot down. Do not wait! We are already making a new 100-ton rocket so that more uranium reaches you.
    2. +6
      4 December 2012 13: 14
      Quote: Ardent
      You can not reduce only given SyShyA!


      In general, we must not reduce ..... we need to have as many carriers and warheads as guarantee the destruction of the United States and its allies, taking into account the anti-missile defense, in the event of a large-scale war !!! And then we will "go down" to the point that in the event of a conflict we will not be able to overcome their missile defense system and they will take us warm ..... And how much they will have, I personally do not care ....
      1. bart74
        0
        5 December 2012 00: 56
        I do not agree. Parity should be. I have 3 missiles, and you have 20. It’s the same as going out to fight one against five. How many total missiles in NATO is not an idle question.
        1. +1
          5 December 2012 07: 44
          Quote: bart74
          Parity should be. I have 3 missiles, and you have 20. It’s the same as going out to fight one against five. How many total missiles in NATO is not an idle question.


          If 3 rockets are enough for me to destroy you, why should I 20? Destroy seven times? And if 3 missiles destroy me, it makes no difference to me 1 time to die or 7 .... Is it not so? So if it makes no difference, why pay more? (I mean, for the content of extra missiles)
    3. +2
      4 December 2012 17: 00
      Quote: Ardent
      It is impossible to reduce only taking into account SyShyA! You must have an "account" with NATO !!!!


      and you can’t forget about China, although this player is easier to multiply by zero than the United States, but nevertheless ....
      In general, it is impossible to negotiate with the United States, any agreements with impudent Saxons are worse than swimming in a pool with a flock of hungry white sharks, with only one difference in favor of the latter ..... sharks do not lie.
    4. 0
      4 December 2012 19: 06
      The worst thing that is written in this article is: "..where the US already has the upper hand." I mean nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles. Before the collapse of the USSR, we had practically parity in this type. Thanks to Hunchback and Bor, the drunkard, we lost this.
      1. speedy
        0
        4 December 2012 21: 02
        Quote: starshina78
        The worst thing that is written in this article is: "..where the US already has the upper hand." I mean nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles. Before the collapse of the USSR, we had practically parity in this type. Thanks to Hunchback and Bor, the drunkard, we lost this.

        BEFORE THE collapse of the USSR, WE HAD EXCELLENCE 950 SLBMs AGAINST 600 AT AMER, THE TRUTH OF MANY OLD ROCKETS WAS.
    5. bart74
      0
      5 December 2012 00: 56
      I totally agree!
  2. survivor
    +5
    4 December 2012 12: 10
    generally not touchable. the only deterrent weapon. the smaller it is with us, the more likely they will climb (((
    1. Kaa
      +1
      4 December 2012 18: 54
      Quote: survivor
      not to touch at all. the only deterrent weapon

      There is an analogy with the non-use of chemical weapons in the 2nd World ...
      "According to the results of the First World War, mustard gas became the undisputed" leader "among poisonous substances (OM). Therefore, the work of the victorious countries in this war was carried out in the direction of improving the agents of skin blistering action and the means of their use. Until the very end of the Second World The coalitions were unable to establish the real developments of the Germans in the field of organophosphate compounds.German chemists under the leadership of G. Schrader in 1936 managed to synthesize a herd, in 1939 - sarin, in 1944 - soman and create a plant for the production of a herd. OV Germany received a clear advantage over its opponents in the field of chemical weapons.If the opponents of the Third Reich unleashed a chemical war, the use of sarin, soman and herd by the German army would present the allies with unsolvable problems until the end of the war to protect troops and population from these OV.
      The reciprocal use of mustard gas, phosgene, and lewisite, which formed the basis of the chemical arsenal of the USA, Great Britain, and the USSR, would not provide an adequate effect. The allies lacked appropriate antidotes, gas detectors, degassing solutions, impregnated uniforms. The war could have gone according to this scenario already at the end of 1940 if Hitler had decided on Operation Sea Lion. It was only after May 1945 that it became known that at the highest level of leadership in the United Kingdom, it was decided to use military warfare agents in such a situation as a last resort, "if all other conventional methods of defense prove to be untenable." The British planned with the help of aviation to use mustard gas on the bridgeheads captured by German troops.
      At the end of the war, the chief of staff of the US Army, General George Marshall, prepared recommendations on the use of chemical weapons against Japan. However, it was not necessary to realize it because of the tough opposition of Winston Churchill. The British prime minister learned well the lessons of chemical warfare, taught by German military chemists to the Entente troops in 1915-1918, and seriously feared that Germany would again use military weapons against the United Kingdom. Therefore, the American command decided to use chemical weapons only as a retaliatory measure for Japan's violation of the Geneva Protocol. Thus, it was not the Geneva Protocol, but the elementary fear of retaliation that prevented at least one of the belligerents from unleashing a chemical war. "Http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2009-06-19/14_chemistry.html
      There are never many nuclear weapons!
      1. bart74
        0
        5 December 2012 01: 01
        Yes, sir. I think Putin will be smart enough to end this negotiation process without signing any protocols.
      2. Beck
        +1
        5 December 2012 10: 33
        Quote: Kaa
        There are never many nuclear weapons!


        Already a lot. And why is it needed? The cold war is over. The leaders of both Russia and the United States have repeatedly stated that they do not regard each other as mandatory enemies militarily. You can’t create space telescopes with the help of nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea, this is a reverse example.

        Add about chemical weapons. Hitler did not dare to use chemical weapons, since after the outbreak of the war, Britain and the United States warned Germany. What if she applies it, then the United States and England will have enough production capacities to fill in OM throughout Germany.
  3. +3
    4 December 2012 12: 14
    In this matter, the United States should not retreat a single millimeter from Russia's interests. Everyone was already unilaterally making some concessions, and in response they received a goat’s face. It is necessary to speak with amers in their own language, they do not understand differently.
  4. +3
    4 December 2012 12: 18
    Only Russia's own interests are important.
    But these interests are the revival of the army and navy.
    And do not forget that only thanks to the nuclear component we still exist. Thanks to her, in the 90s we did not become a de jure and de facto colony.
    1. mda
      mda
      0
      4 December 2012 15: 01
      Quote: Pharao7766
      But these interests are the revival of the army and navy.

      That is precisely why so much money has been thrown into rebuilding the army by 2020, and the number of aircraft carriers will increase to 2025 by 4, and to 2030 to 8.
  5. +3
    4 December 2012 12: 50
    We’ll sign it .. As it was already, only Russia will be able to fulfill it again. And the rest are all the navels of the earth angry
    1. 0
      4 December 2012 13: 13
      Quote: S_name_sila
      We’ll sign it .. As it was already, only Russia will be able to fulfill it again. And the rest are all the navels of the earth

      It is necessary to sign when they unilaterally already reduce half of the declared.
      1. mda
        mda
        0
        4 December 2012 15: 03
        The report sets out a plan for the unilateral reduction of US nuclear forces by five times - to a level of 900 warheads (instead of 5 at present). Of these, half will be in a low state of alert (use is possible in a few days, not hours), and the second half will be in reserve. Expanded nuclear charges can be used after 24–72 hours, and reserve ones after 6 months. All US ICBMs, as well as tactical nuclear weapons, must be eliminated. Thus, the United States will have no more than 270 nuclear warheads on SLBMs to deliver a preemptive strike, which is clearly not enough to defeat all strategic goals in Russia. If the entire American nuclear potential is mobilized to attack Russian targets, the following forces can be used: 325 warheads to destroy ICBM mines, 110 warheads to destroy command posts, 136 warheads to destroy military-industrial facilities, and 80 warheads will be designed to strike at Moscow.
        If they do so, then I will understand that GOD is fair.
        1. +2
          4 December 2012 18: 11
          If they do so, then I will understand that GOD is fair.

          Just before prayer, do not forget that the new concept of American global wars provides for the possibility of striking at the enemy of the 1000 KR daily for 3 (!) Months. And this is not counting strike UAVs, YES, tactical aircraft (which is very serious in the presence of the 11 AUG and a network of bases).
          That is, we have the opportunity to get 5-7 thousands of destroyed objects per day at the entire operational depth without nuclear weapons. What are we going to shoot from 80 warheads over Moscow after? Yes, they, in fact, and nafig will not be needed.
          Yes, and not everything is clear on missile defense - Berki will stand up with missile defense on the routes of our ICBMs, and what should I do?
          So if we have serious strategic fists, it’s not worth undertaking obligations to threaten only with a finger. Let them live as they wish, and there is nothing to look back at them. We’ve already wondered, now only the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can fight in the UN.
  6. yustas
    0
    4 December 2012 12: 51
    Quote: Ardent
    You can not reduce only given SyShyA!
    You must have an "account" with NATO !!!!

    Exactly, if NATO and the United States, then we also need the number that they have together, that's just unprofitable
  7. 0
    4 December 2012 13: 01
    As long as we don’t have an army comparable in strength to conventional weapons of the US and NATO armies, nuclear weapons will be our only guarantee of security. Nuclear disarmament is a blatantly stupid proposal, which God forbid, we will agree without having conventional weapons comparable to NATO. Reducing nuclear weapons for us is a crime and undermining national security. What do we in the United States equal in number of warheads ?! When behind this hegemon is a flock of loyal jackals waiting for the go-ahead from the owner? Their warheads are US warheads. They are, as it were, a whole and it’s stupid to disagree with this. That's when our conventional weapons will be comparable to the amount available to the United States (at least) then it will be possible to conduct any negotiations on the reduction of warheads. You can’t chop the branch on which you sit.
  8. donchepano
    +5
    4 December 2012 13: 03
    REDUCE ALREADY ANYTHING.
    REACHED.

    FOR ANGLOSAKS TO BREAK ANY AGREEMENT - TIME TO SPIT
    1. +2
      4 December 2012 13: 07
      I agree, colleague. After losing in a nuclear war, it’s stupid to go to court to a state that has violated a treaty. Let them conclude a pact, Molotov and Ribentrop.
    2. +1
      4 December 2012 16: 07
      Quote: donchepano
      FOR ANGLOSAKS


      Once the great Russian geopolitician Edrikhin (Vandam) said: “What could be worse than enmity with the Anglo-Saxon? Just friendship".
  9. +3
    4 December 2012 13: 13
    As for Russia, unfortunately, official data on non-strategic nuclear weapons have never been published here.

    Though somewhere smart enough not to squander the Old
  10. Starksa
    +2
    4 December 2012 13: 21
    it is impossible to continue the destruction of the long loaf until the number and quality of offensive weapons equals the number of these weapons in seshea itself, but the main defensive weapon
  11. georg737577
    +5
    4 December 2012 13: 33
    It is important to understand that the only reason I can sit and write this comment alive is that the USSR had nuclear weapons. Otherwise, our country would have long been destroyed. And I don’t see that anything would change much, especially now that the struggle for natural resources (Russian) has become the main priority of geopolitics. I repeat, a country should have such an army and military-industrial complex that ensure that it is possible to successfully fight on an equal footing with any other country or coalition of countries. Everything else against the background of this task is less priority. And we know the price of contracts - either you're right, or you have a trunk. I have the trunk now - it means you're wrong ...
    1. mda
      mda
      0
      4 December 2012 15: 06
      Quote: georg737577
      Otherwise, our country would have long been destroyed

      Believe from the USA and there is no empty space.
  12. anchonsha
    +4
    4 December 2012 13: 37
    Reducing nuclear assets is only possible when you can rely on a partner. The United States has never been such a partner for the USSR, and now for Russia. You should always understand the US proposal to reduce these weapons they have only when they surpass us in other weapons no less dangerous than nuclear.
  13. 0
    4 December 2012 13: 49
    agreements on the number of missile defense ships in the Baltic and Black Seas from the category of assurances of non-proliferation of NATO to the east. The United States has the opportunity at any time to increase the IJIS at our borders.
  14. +1
    4 December 2012 14: 40
    All who read military review vt Nuclear weapons cannot be reduced in Russia, including analysts.
    1. 0
      4 December 2012 14: 47
      reduce, only as a last resort, by firing towards the USA am
    2. Rezun
      0
      4 December 2012 16: 36
      I read Voennoe Obozreniye, and you read my thoughts ...
  15. glorious glorious
    -1
    4 December 2012 14: 59
    reduce it will reduce it ... only on paper ... since the majority of representatives of other civilizations have been deactivating the planet ... if there is a sharp movement of tectonic plates in North America, and this is most likely to be expected, we can imagine how the planet is breaking in half from the explosions of such bombs .... now it’s somehow necessary to write off ... so to speak, to avert eyes, and just a purely paper-red tape business ...
    1. 0
      4 December 2012 15: 18
      Quote: glorious
      reduce it will be reduced ... only on paper ... since the majority have already been deactivated by representatives of other civilizations observing the planet

      and these representatives in the CIA, by chance, do not work?)))
  16. DAOSS
    -2
    4 December 2012 15: 05
    It is necessary to deploy nuclear weapons again in Ukraine and Belarus, and on the territory of Russia it is possible to reduce the same amount.
    Dae Yure everything is OK
    De Facto Russia in Chocolate
    True, our thief government will have to pay a lot.
    1. 0
      4 December 2012 17: 03
      News of Ukraine:
      Party UNA-UNSO stands for the return to Ukraine of the status of a nuclear power.

      Nationalist Party UNA-UNSO, which participates in the elections to the Verkhovna Rada, on September 5 presented its electoral program. According to the "New Region", it contains a clause on the return of the status of a nuclear power to Ukraine.

      Quote: DAOSS
      It is necessary to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine again

      No thanks, especially since Ukraine abandoned nuclear weapons at the expense of guarantees of independence (apparently from Russia)
      YES and rumors roam that it’s not sickly to sell their nuclear weapons on the black market, but your government is special in this (the supply of weapons of Georgia as an example)
      1. Kaa
        0
        4 December 2012 18: 51
        Quote: urzul
        YES and rumors roam that it’s not sickly to sell their YaS on the black market

        The Ukrainian military could not even (for 17,5 years from the date of final ratification by Ukraine of START-1 / START-1 in February 1994) calculate: how many nuclear warheads were assigned to the strategic nuclear forces of Ukraine according to the calculation rules developed by this agreement (these rules provide the offset is not the actual number of warheads, but some conventional according to a special technique). So, according to them, Ukraine should have counted 1592 warheads (with the actual number of deployed 1868 units), but the Ministry of Defense for some reason still believes that even according to the set-off rules there were 1944 of them (which means the actual number is still several hundred units more). Officially, the last UR-100N UTTH missiles were eliminated or withdrawn from Ukraine by 1999, and three years later it suddenly turned out that Kiev had 31 units. Of the 24 UR-100N UTTX sent (according to documents) to Russia, only 19 got there.
        The fate of the remaining five missiles (each weighing 106 tons with a firing range of up to 10 thousand km, is designed for six nuclear warheads of 550 kilotons of TNT equivalent) and is still shrouded in obscurity. Of course, it is unlikely that the Soviet nuclear weapons that went to Ukraine fell into the wrong hands .. But the secret of the fate of the Soviet “nuclear legacy” in the amount of at least 180 tactical nuclear warheads and at least several strategic missiles (intercontinental ballistic and winged) remains unsolved.: http: //nvo.ng.ru/armament/2011-12-23/12_rockets.html
        Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran received two out of three nuclear warheads, as well as medium-range nuclear delivery vehicles from Kazakhstan. He also said that Iran had acquired four 152 mm nuclear munitions from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers.
        To make matters worse, several years later, Russian officials said that when comparing documents on the transfer of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy in as many as 250 nuclear warheads. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, experienced intelligence officer, awarded " A bronze star ”said that its sources report that Iran now has two working nuclear warheads.
        An editorial in the Iranian newspaper Kayhan, a newspaper that is directly monitored by Iran’s spiritual leader’s apparatus, warned last year that if Iran was attacked, nuclear explosions in US cities would follow.
        http://www.inosmi.ru/asia/20111028/176730988.html#ixzz2E5wIghRD
        1. bart74
          0
          5 December 2012 01: 07
          So it was! Fortunately, nuclear weapons are not automatic, they still need to be able to store them, and indeed with it more troubles than returns. Especially in the wild.
  17. -1
    4 December 2012 17: 43
    Where do such idiots come from? Sergey Rogov, Victor Esin, Pavel Zolotarev, Valentin Kuznetsov. I am reporting. The Americans will soon naturally not have a single working YBG: once every 15 years they need maintenance with the replacement of decaying materials to maintain their "shape", and enterprises in the states where these materials were previously produced have been closed since the second half of the 90s. These technologies remained in a number of countries in Europe and South Korea. All agreements with the states to reduce our real YBG to their (non-working) look like a betrayal. All their "shortened" YABG with Amerza carriers will be handed over to naglia, where they will be made workers. This is a double betrayal: we are reducing, and they only grow. Well, why and who needs it ???????? What day is it: some bad news ?!
  18. wax
    +1
    4 December 2012 17: 56
    It should be sought. that any nuclear weapons in any form be found only within the borders of the national territory of a country possessing nuclear weapons.
  19. djon3volta
    -2
    4 December 2012 18: 51
    anyone can say at least roughly: here on Nagasaki they threw off a nuclear weapon with a capacity of 12 kilotons, like 30 thousand Japanese died in the first seconds ... so I wonder what will happen if a 50 megaton "kuzka mother" is dropped on Washington wassat
  20. Beck
    0
    4 December 2012 20: 04
    YES.

    If the peace of the world depended on this page of the site, then it, peace will never come. Since the vast majority of visitors are categorically against the reduction of nuclear arsenals.

    It is not clear that all opponents of reduction want to live with nuclear psychosis. Most probably do not know what it is. I captured such a psychosis. In the first half of the 60s, almost at every house in a large city (at least Almaty and Ust-Kamenogorsk) red arrows were inscribed with the inscription - Refuge showing the entrance to the basement. It’s hard to imagine what kind of people were feeling.

    Reviewing history, the United States never had a desire to attack the USSR. There were plans on staff maps; there was no desire to unleash a nuclear holocaust. What about the plans? So exactly the same plans were in the General Staff of the Soviet Army. You can’t make plans when the war has already begun. And in general, if the United States had a desire, they would attack, having one hundred percent superiority in nuclear weapons, in the interval between 06.08.1945/29.08.1949/XNUMX (Hiroshima) and XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX (the first test of the Soviet atomic bomb). It was during this four-year period that the Americans had an atomic monopoly.

    Now, there is no reason for either the United States or Russia to attack each other, in view of guaranteed mutual destruction. Moreover, it is not the Cold War now. And if there is no reason, then it is necessary to reduce, which is spent on maintenance and storage. Reduce on a reciprocal basis, with a guaranteed possibility of mutual control.

    At present, China, India, Pakistan, England, France cannot be brought to disarmament. Since they reasonably declare that when the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia reach at least some more or less low acceptable level, only then can we talk about general nuclear disarmament. It looks something like this. - India and Pakistan have, for example, 50 nuclear weapons each. With a general reduction of at least 50, there is nothing left for India and Pakistan. The USA and Russia, for example, out of 1050, 1000 remain.

    Disarmament NEEDS the whole world. The United States and Russia now, and in the future, will not and will not have any compelling reasons for starting a nuclear holocaust. Everything should be decided on the field of economics.
    1. +1
      4 December 2012 21: 51
      And no one is going to start a nuclear war. I believe that we want not to be touched. If at my place, for example, an RPG, and everyone knows about it, then I will not change it for a knife just because my neighbor asked for it. I then know that the presence of an RPG house has a beneficial effect on the mood of a neighbor and his politeness. And having a knife at home is not very good. And if the neighbors have all kinds of machine guns, or even Bumblebees, then what for me to remain powerless. It's because they, while I'm with RPGs, are smiling, and then they shut up. Anyone will write words on the fence, throw rubbish, and start to excite - they can fill up the face.
      So I don’t want to use RPGs, but everyone knows that I already have it. Therefore, let it be.

      And about your "the United States never had a desire to attack the USSR" - as I remember, they were not going to attack Japan either. And what, did it help Japan? We got both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And all reluctantly - so peaceful, these Americans. some pacifists.
      1. Beck
        +1
        5 December 2012 09: 06
        Quote: Botanologist
        And no one is going to start a nuclear war.


        And then the fig is a nuclear weapon. But at the negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as an integral part, it is possible to discuss parity on conventional weapons.

        Quote: Botanologist
        And about your "the United States never had a desire to attack the USSR" - as I remember, they were not going to attack Japan either. And what, did it help Japan? We got both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And all reluctantly - so peaceful, these Americans. some pacifists.


        What does Japan help or not help. Who was the first to attack? - Japan attacked. And she received resistance and defeat as an aggressor. There was no need to attack.

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I feel you brought as an example of cruelty. Note. After the capture of Okinawa, the General Staff of the US Army developed plans for invading the Japanese islands themselves. Since Japan categorically stated that it would never, on its own initiative, surrender, but would fight to the end. Based on this Japanese concept, according to American plans, it turned out that a full occupation of the islands would take 1-1,5 will cost 1-2 million lives of American soldiers and 4-6 million Japanese lives, including civilians. All military plans provide for minimizing their losses. In addition, the presence of atomic weapons would still be known. And then the mother of 2 million dead Americans and would ask the government - Why, having such a weapon, the government allowed the death of 2 million soldiers. Therefore, Truman ordered the bombing. Killed 200 thousand people, but the remaining 8 million remained alive.

        I would not mind if, in November 1941, during fierce battles near Moscow, Soviet aircraft launched nuclear attacks on two German cities. Then Germany would capitulate not in 1945, but in December 1941. And there would be no 50 million losses to the inhabitants of Europe.
    2. 0
      4 December 2012 22: 53
      Now the Russian Federation has about 10000 nuclear warheads at various stages of registration. At the peak there were about 40 thousand. More than half are in combat readiness, the other part is under maintenance (bulkhead) and disposal (disassembly). New small-sized warheads with a long service life and environmentally friendly (without radioactive contamination of the area) charges have been developed. Now there is a paradoxical situation: it is possible to destroy several factories in Britain, France, Switzerland, Pakistan and Korea, and the American arsenal will turn exclusively into "dirty" bombs, at best with a thermal explosion.
    3. bart74
      +1
      5 December 2012 01: 16
      Yes Yes. Do you yourself believe in what you wrote? Then we have a direct flourishing of the economy. And we eat GMOs from amers in our sausage like slaughter cows. Such a fool was tarisch Stalin, having the most powerful COMBAT army, for some reason he really wanted to have at least one "Kid". Nuclear weapons for Russia are like a revolver for an American cowboy at a crossroads on the prairie, among wild monkeys. With such liberal pacification, you put yourself a pacific in the anus, so that every naglo-Saxon knows where to shove you when you stand with crustaceans
  21. WW3
    WW3
    +3
    4 December 2012 20: 21
    Everything is simple in the article ... the reduction of strategic nuclear forces will lead to the fact that Amers will have an advantage in non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons .... this cannot be allowed!
    1. djon3volta
      -1
      4 December 2012 21: 41
      bolt is clear. if, for example, nuclear weapons disappear completely, and the amers have 1000 tanks and 500 aircraft, and Russia has 10 tanks and 3 planes, then believe me, the United States will move the whole armada to Russia, knowing that now they are surely rebuffed by no one will give.
  22. 0
    4 December 2012 23: 57
    In my opinion it’s easier to agree on something else! The United States should completely remove the concept that the Russian Federation is an enemy, the Russian Federation should join NATO and be a full member like the United States, the missile defense should be developed jointly by the Russian Federation and the United States. Dear golden billion, let's not destroy each other, not spoil each other's economies, but fight the third countries that are developing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems with the entire billion-dollar armada - it’s not too late !!! If we blunt and brake then China, Iran, Sev. Korea and others will be able to present a real danger to the Russian Federation, the USA, and the EU, and after nuclear weapons are eliminated in other countries, they need to be reduced to zero altogether.
    1. bart74
      0
      5 December 2012 01: 20
      Do you even believe in what you write? What class are you in? We are at war, economic in the first place. Secondly, the one who has the gun has weight and voice. TOTALLY WITHOUT NW RUSSIA JUST RAW MATERIAL SH * HA. Do you want that?
      1. Beck
        +1
        5 December 2012 10: 17
        Quote: bart74
        Do you even believe in what you write? What class are you in? We are at war, economic in the first place. Secondly, the one who has the gun has weight and voice. TOTALLY WITHOUT NW RUSSIA JUST RAW MATERIAL SH * HA. Do you want that?


        Respected. By and large, the United States and Russia are not at war. Economically, of course, rivals, but not enemies. Enemies are in the understanding of the cheers-patriots, for what, nothing, not so, that way, but you need to tear, choke, bury. If only, to become any valuable first in the world. So this superiority, in the modern world is won not by weapons, but by economic development, weapons are already a consequence of a developed economy, and that is not necessary. Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Germany do without nuclear weapons. And their weight in the world is no less than Russia, and according to some indicators it is even higher.

        And the raw material base of Russia, so God gave it. And this must be cleverly disposed of in order to create on its basis not one, as in the United States, "Silicon Valley", but several. Skolkovo is the beginning. But without a raw material component and money from it, you cannot build any valley.
  23. Skinny
    +1
    5 December 2012 00: 05
    The only guarantee of existence without war is the possibility of 100% mutual destruction.
    (Alfred Nobel)
  24. 0
    5 December 2012 00: 37
    In no case can you reduce the strategic nuclear forces more!
  25. bart74
    0
    5 December 2012 01: 29
    Comrades liberals, pacifists and others who dream of living with shitcrats, under the stars and stripes, and coming to work to sing the anthem of a trans-national corporation, and salute a "happy" day with a fake smile. Nothing has changed for you, you used to sing "soar with fires" and did not believe what you were singing about, you wanted a sweet life and sausages, it does not matter, the main thing is that there are many, even 200 varieties with GMOs. But ENOUGH! YOUR TIME IS OVER! WE WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOUR CALLS TO DISARM. WE STILL REMEMBER BREST WORLD. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FORCE US!
    1. Beck
      +1
      5 December 2012 10: 40
      Quote: bart74
      WE REMEMBER REMAINING THE BREST WORLD. And THIS IS WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT ON!


      Brest peace. So who was his biggest initiator, Germany or Russia? Although Bolshevik Russia, but Russia as a subject of international law. This Bolsheviks needed peace at any cost with any concessions, if only to maintain communism, even in two regions of St. Petersburg and Novgorod.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"