Russia has denounced its agreement with the United States on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.

16 111 85
Russia has denounced its agreement with the United States on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.

Russia has completely withdrawn from the plutonium disposal treaty with the United States, and the State Duma has denounced the agreement. The Russian government submitted a bill to the State Duma calling for the denunciation.

Moscow considers it “unacceptable” to fulfill its obligations under the agreement with the United States on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium, which is necessary for the creation of a nuclear weaponsThe agreement between Russia and the United States was signed back in 2000 and ratified in 2001. According to the agreement, both parties were required to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, but the United States failed to comply with any of the agreement's provisions.



The treaty was suspended by Russia in 2016 by decree of Vladimir Putin in response to US sanctions, Washington's support for Ukraine, NATO expansion, and other factors. Now, the agreement has been completely denounced. Simultaneously, all accompanying protocols signed by the parties are no longer in effect.

It was previously assumed that the suspended agreement would be resumed as soon as the US began to comply with Russia's demands, including lifting sanctions. However, this could take forever, as the US has no intention of doing so, and instead threatens new restrictions. So, Russia will have to figure out for itself what to do with the remaining weapons-grade plutonium.

Earlier, the Russian president proposed that the United States adhere to the provisions of the New START Treaty, which expires on February 5, 2026, for another year. However, there is no talk of extending the treaty itself.
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +28
    8 October 2025 13: 33
    The agreement between Russia and the United States was signed back in 2000 and ratified in 2001. According to the agreement, both sides were required to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, but the United States failed to comply with any of the agreement's provisions.

    25 years have passed, Karl, 25! Simply Estonian speed of reaction.
    1. +11
      8 October 2025 13: 49
      At least now we're definitely not threatened by Bush's legs and Boeings. At least that's a plus. Otherwise, they'd start dumping all sorts of consumer goods on our market, and we'd be buying it all up out of friendship.
    2. +11
      8 October 2025 13: 59
      25 years have passed, Karl, 25! Just Estonian speed of reaction.

      The agreement was suspended by the Russian side, this was done in 2016.
      1. +10
        8 October 2025 14: 06
        Now this plutonium must be put up for auction to Iran, North Korea, or Nicaragua, as reparations from Ukraine.
        1. +1
          8 October 2025 14: 23
          Great joke! 👍. But we also need reparations and compensation from most of the European countries. Poland should rule for 100 years, and the Czech Republic for 99 years. Or let them give up their territories.
        2. osp
          +2
          8 October 2025 14: 38
          And how much weapons-grade plutonium does Russia have left?
          Moreover, the last industrial reactor producing it was shut down in 2010 in the presence of the American ambassador.
          Moreover, by decree of Yeltsin, its purchase for military purposes was stopped back in 1995.
          And the last reactor operated as a nuclear power plant and supplied some amount of plutonium to the warehouse.
          So how much is left?
          If it has not been produced for 15 years and has not been purchased for military purposes for 30 years.
          1. 0
            8 October 2025 18: 32
            Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium, which can be used to develop nuclear weapons, are estimated at 400 kilograms. This includes 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
          2. +1
            8 October 2025 21: 03
            Quote from osp
            And how much weapons-grade plutonium does Russia have left?

            Who's going to tell you? But rumor has it it's about 128 tons.

            Quote from osp
            The last industrial reactor producing it was shut down in 2010 in the presence of the American ambassador

            This last industrial reactor in Zheleznogorsk has not produced plutonium since 1995 and operated as a conventional nuclear power plant until 2010.
            1. 0
              9 October 2025 02: 31
              Quote from: nik-mazur
              according to rumors, about 128 tons.

              These are very good reserves, considering that less than 10 kg of this metal is required for a nuclear warhead core. This means that these reserves are sufficient for the production of 15,000–20,000 new nuclear warheads.
              1. 0
                9 October 2025 11: 56
                Quote: bayard
                That is, these are reserves for the production of 15,000 - 20,000 new nuclear warheads.

                This doesn't even include what already exists. Russia could resume plutonium production at any time. And Rosatom is apparently doing so, without making much of a publicity stunt, of course.
                1. 0
                  9 October 2025 13: 52
                  Quote from: nik-mazur
                  And it seems that Rosatom is doing this, without making much of a publicity stunt, of course.

                  They absolutely do. MOX fuel for nuclear power plants uses plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel rods. So the process has been tested to a 5++ standard. But I think this is more than enough for us in the near and medium term. We simply need to reintroduce nuclear warheads into long- and medium-range SAMs, anti-ship missiles of all classes, torpedoes, depth charges, cruise missiles, and hypersonic missiles. We need to ensure that at least one-third of the available missiles are equipped with the correct warhead. The same goes for missile defense systems. At least the R-37M and R-97, but also the R-77M SD missile defense system should be equipped with such warheads. This will dramatically improve the effectiveness of air combat with NATO and Co. aircraft.
                  Nuclear warheads are also highly desirable on the Kh-59 anti-aircraft missiles, given their range and speed of around Mach 5. They can also be used against the stealthy Kh-69s from the Su-57's BC. They can also be used against artillery shells, mines for the Tyulpan heavy mortar, Tornado-S guided missiles, glide bombs, and other lethal weapons.
                  In total, we need to accept and have in service from 15,000 to 25,000 nuclear warheads of all types and classes. Without negotiations, agreements, or even thoughts of limiting their numbers.
                  And our reserves of weapons-grade plutonium are quite sufficient for this.
                  If only Strength is respected in this world, we must become the strongest on this planet. And with a focus on nuclear weapons.
                  And from now on, negotiations with NATO will only be about their capitulation and concessions on their part.
                  1. 0
                    9 October 2025 16: 25
                    Quote: bayard
                    To ensure that at least 1/3 of the available missiles are equipped with the correct warhead

                    Harsh, but on the other hand, why not? On the other hand, it could encourage the enemy to take nuclear issues seriously.
                    1. 0
                      9 October 2025 16: 32
                      But there is no need to give them time for this.
                      Although they've already started doing so—France, for example. And some have even started talking about the need for nuclear weapons. Therefore, Europe needs to be dealt with. With a preemptive strike, and finally. As prescribed by the Russian Federation Military Doctrine.
                      1. 0
                        9 October 2025 16: 38
                        Quote: bayard
                        We don't need to give them time for this... we need to finish with Europe. With a preemptive strike and finally

                        I'm afraid that it won't work quickly, with little bloodshed, and on foreign territory.
                      2. 0
                        9 October 2025 17: 05
                        I'm not talking about conquest. I'm talking about liquidation. A preemptive strike to avoid a strike from them. We're talking now only, even exclusively, about nuclear means of final pacification. If Europe wants to commit suicide, they need help. And to do so with the least possible time and material costs. So that "in the morning the world wakes up, and Europe is gone. And England, her neighbor."
                        In fact, even from a purely technical standpoint, this is very simple to accomplish. There are, of course, moral aspects, but when the choice is "either you or be taken," you have to choose the former. It's simple. You just have to feel sorry for your own people, not for others. Because the question is already "either-or."
            2. 0
              9 October 2025 03: 25
              The Americans even gave money for a new thermal power plant.
              This reactor could have produced plutonium. But we were so eager to be partners with the West that we stopped doing so.
              1. 0
                9 October 2025 12: 00
                Quote: Denkenmacht
                This reactor could produce plutonium.

                It can still do so now – it wasn’t dismantled.
                Russia has more than enough plutonium, as well as the capacity to produce it. The rest is just information noise.

                Quote: Denkenmacht
                We so wanted to be partners with the West

                You speak as if fighting with the whole world is better than cooperating.
                1. 0
                  9 October 2025 15: 47
                  It depends on your definition of "cooperation" and "war." Basically, I see them as one and the same, manifested in a strange military operation.
                  1. 0
                    9 October 2025 16: 36
                    Quote: Denkenmacht
                    It depends on what you mean by cooperation and war.

                    No frills - just what's written in the dictionary.
                    WAR, -ы; pl. wars, wars; f. 1. Armed struggle between states, peoples, tribes, etc., or social classes within a state.

                    COOPERATION|O, -a, only units, Wed, n.d., II a.
                    1.0. The action by the meaning of the verb "to cooperate", i.e. joint activity, participation in a common cause.


                    Quote: Denkenmacht
                    strange military operation

                    What's so strange? It was a typical local war with limited objectives and, accordingly, limited means. Not existential at all. Like the vast majority of wars. It's just that we're used to thinking of war as something like the Great Patriotic War, and that's the only comparison we make.
                    1. -1
                      10 October 2025 03: 25
                      No, we’re not used to it. There was Afghanistan, two Chechen Republics.
                      By the way, the SVO is similar to the first Chechen war in some ways: some spent the night in the trenches, others traded oil and weapons, and it ended in a deal.
                      1. 0
                        10 October 2025 12: 25
                        Quote: Denkenmacht
                        there was Afghanistan, two Chechens

                        Here, no one compares the SVO to Afghanistan or Chechnya, let alone Vietnam. Everyone only remembers how the Soviet Army, under Stalin's leadership and Zhukov's command, crushed the enemy in 1944 during the Great Patriotic War.
                      2. 0
                        10 October 2025 12: 29
                        Well, it's too bad they don't compare. They wanted WWII, but they got Chechnya.
                      3. 0
                        10 October 2025 14: 39
                        Quote: Denkenmacht
                        They wanted WWII

                        Who wanted it?
                      4. 0
                        11 October 2025 05: 26
                        The patriots wanted a war with defeats in cauldrons and air raids on the enemy, but they got what they got.
                      5. 0
                        11 October 2025 12: 53
                        Quote: Denkenmacht
                        Patriots, they wanted

                        These are the problems of patriots.
        3. BMS
          0
          8 October 2025 15: 16
          What do you mean? They'll pay us with our money, received as reparations from Ukraine? What's in it for us?
          1. +1
            8 October 2025 18: 36
            Quote: BMS
            What do you mean? They'll pay us with our money, received as reparations from Ukraine? What's in it for us?

            In the hope that they will understand and forgive and accept them into their family as “equals”.
      2. +1
        8 October 2025 14: 38
        Quote: Tagan
        The agreement was suspended by the Russian side, this was done in 2016.

        25 years sounds more beautiful and weighty.)
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +1
        8 October 2025 15: 05

        Quote
        A complaint
        Tagan
        Tagan
        +6
        Today, 13: 59
        25 years have passed, Karl, 25! Just Estonian speed of reaction.

        The agreement was suspended by the Russian side, this was done in 2016.
        The plant in Zheleznogorsk was launched in 2015, so it took about a year to get going, so I think there are still about 30 tons of plutonium left. good
    3. 0
      8 October 2025 20: 01
      25 years have passed, Karl, 25! Simply Estonian speed of reaction.
      Please read the article carefully (To date, the treaty has been suspended by the Russian side, which was done in 2016 by decree of Vladimir Putin in response to US sanctions, Washington's support for Ukraine, NATO expansion, etc.) that is, the agreement has not been valid for 9 years, in the hope that our "partners" will come to their senses, and now there is a complete denunciation,
  2. -2
    8 October 2025 13: 34
    According to the agreement, both sides were required to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, but the United States failed to comply with any of the agreement's provisions.
    Did Russia implement it? If so, who's in charge in Russia?
    1. +5
      8 October 2025 14: 25
      The Russian Federation, like the USSR, accomplished a lot, but the FSA accomplished practically nothing.
      1. +3
        8 October 2025 14: 27
        Or even better, a louse! That's it! I'm off to register a new definition of lice.
    2. +1
      8 October 2025 14: 33
      Quote: opuonmed
      Did Russia implement it? If so, who's in charge in Russia?

      You apparently have precise data to justify posing the question this way—"if so?" Please share it with us so we can clarify—"if so" or "yes"? Otherwise, your comment is meaningless and feels more like a quick remark.
      1. +4
        8 October 2025 15: 05
        An update: the agreement with the US for the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium was signed in 2000, but the industrial facility for this purpose in Russia only became fully operational in October 2015. The Americans have done virtually nothing, leading to the decision to suspend the agreement's implementation in early October 2016. So, all the fabrications and fabrications about "Wow, how much plutonium has Russia unilaterally disposed of to please America!" are based on nothing more than a desire to stir up the issue. Anyone interested can read the publication from October 4, 2016:
        https://fedpress.ru/article/1681869
    3. +5
      8 October 2025 14: 58
      Quote: opuonmed
      If so, who is at the helm in the Russian Federation?

      A responsible, intelligent man, at the very least. This is an international treaty, and all parties MUST comply with it! If one party doesn't, that doesn't mean the other is just as much of a complete Anglo-Saxon bastard! The question here is: why did we spend so long trying to get the Anglo-Saxons to show conscience, knowing full well that the English language doesn't have the word (or term) "conscience" as we understand it! There are only two terms: "money" and "fear for one's life"! That's where we should be, in my opinion!
    4. -2
      8 October 2025 18: 37
      Quote: opuonmed
      Did Russia implement it? If so, who's in charge in Russia?

      Someone who really likes to comply with laws that are unfavorable for Russia.
  3. +2
    8 October 2025 13: 34
    Well, at least something is being done besides drawing lines.
  4. +16
    8 October 2025 13: 34
    Come on, the US didn't fulfill any of the points, WHAT A SURPRISE, who would have thought.
    1. 0
      8 October 2025 16: 49
      Come on, they (Fsha) just don't have any money, there's a crisis. But WE found it!
  5. +13
    8 October 2025 13: 39
    Beautiful. They probably thought it would work, just like chemical weapons. When the USSR built a plant and destroyed all its chemical weapons (so-called binary munitions), they didn't even bother. They supposedly ran out of money.

    It didn't work this time. Thank God.
    1. +3
      8 October 2025 13: 44
      Svetlana hi This happened before—the Shchuchye plant is located there. However, confirmation from an international commission didn't stop the US and its stooges from later accusing Russia of "transferring" chemical weapons to Assad. So, experience in this area has been gained more than once.
      1. +3
        8 October 2025 13: 50
        Yeah. And there were even photos of similar barrels from Syria.
    2. 0
      8 October 2025 14: 58
      Are you talking about Shikhany, above Saratov?
      There is now a serious environmental hazard there if the burial sites leak...
  6. -8
    8 October 2025 13: 41
    Quote: Murmur 55
    Come on, the US hasn't fulfilled any of the points.

    After 25 years, we will say - our partners deceived us again!
    1. -5
      8 October 2025 14: 10
      Quote: moreman78
      Quote: Murmur 55
      Come on, the US hasn't fulfilled any of the points.

      After 25 years, we will say - our partners deceived us again!

      Well, Putin won't last that long. And who will be next? I hope he doesn't regret it much sooner.
  7. 0
    8 October 2025 13: 55
    How much weapons-grade plutonium did we destroy in 16 years before we realized the Americans had screwed us?
    1. +1
      8 October 2025 14: 06
      Quote: APASUS
      before they figured it out

      Not right away! For 16 years the idea was there, there, there... And at 25 it took shape.
    2. -1
      8 October 2025 14: 27
      about half, there's still a lot of it, there's nowhere to put it
      1. osp
        +1
        8 October 2025 14: 43
        A lot of what is that?
        Which one is Soviet-made and 40-50 years old?
        So it needs to be cleaned from decay fragments at radiochemical plants.
        Difficult and expensive.
        And the shelf life of the charge based on it is 10-15 years, depending on the type and power.
        After which they take a random charge from the batch, take it to the testing ground, place it in a mine underground and detonate it there - the characteristics of the explosion are measured.
        If there are no complaints, the service life is extended.
        If there is, the entire batch is removed for maintenance.
        This is either cleaning the charge or replacing the fissile material with fresh material.
        And these same tests have not happened for more than 30 years.
        1. -2
          8 October 2025 14: 57
          This is about plutonium not from active weapons, the weapons were reduced, but it remained
    3. -1
      8 October 2025 15: 11
      Quote: APASUS
      How much weapons-grade plutonium did we destroy in 16 years before we realized the Americans had screwed us?

      How much? Stun the public with reliable data. tongue
      1. -2
        9 October 2025 09: 41
        Quote: Montezuma
        Quote: APASUS
        How much weapons-grade plutonium did we destroy in 16 years before we realized the Americans had screwed us?

        How much? Stun the public with reliable data. tongue

        This is a question, if you can’t see it, you are fair to us!
    4. 0
      8 October 2025 19: 58
      Quote: APASUS
      How much weapons-grade plutonium did we destroy in 16 years before we realized the Americans had screwed us?


      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Quote: APASUS
      before they figured it out

      Not right away! For 16 years the idea was there, there, there... And at 25 it took shape.

      0 kg 000 gr.
      Quote: Montezuma
      Addition to the topic: the agreement with the US on the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium was signed in 2000, but the industrial plant for these purposes in the Russian Federation only began operating at full capacity in October 2015, the Americans did practically nothing, which is why at the beginning October 2016 A decision was made to suspend the agreement's implementation. So all the fabrications and fabrications about "Wow, how much plutonium did Russia unilaterally dispose of to please America!" are based on nothing more than a desire to stir up the issue. Anyone interested can read the publication from October 4, 2016:
      https://fedpress.ru/article/1681869
    5. +1
      8 October 2025 21: 11
      Quote: APASUS
      How much weapons-grade plutonium have we destroyed in 16 years?

      Not at all. Because even according to the agreement, the disposition of 34 tons of plutonium was supposed to begin in 2018, after the technical capacity had been prepared. However, already in 2106, our side suspended the agreement because the Americans hadn't built anything, but decided to vitrify their plutonium and dispose of it, which contradicted the agreements, which stipulated the irreversibility of disposition.
      1. 0
        9 October 2025 12: 27
        Quote from: nik-mazur
        Not at all.

        They simply transferred it under the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal.
        1. 0
          9 October 2025 12: 53
          Quote: APASUS
          transferred under the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal

          Why on earth?
          Have you ever wondered what the letters HEU-LEU mean in that Gore-Chernomyrdin deal? Well, I'll tell you, since you can't look it up online: it means highly enriched (or weapons-grade) uranium is being down-blended to the level of low-enriched (energy-grade) uranium. Plutonium, which was covered by a separate agreement, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
          Not to mention that the transfer of plutonium in any form is strictly prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And the treaty is respected, no matter what armchair experts may think. It's so respected that even France, a leader in nuclear technology and a NATO ally of the United States, doesn't supply the Americans with weapons-grade uranium, much less plutonium.
          In short, stick with the material, not the terrifying revelations in the tabloid press about how the comprador Russian government treacherously sold $18 trillion worth of plutonium on the cheap.
          1. 0
            9 October 2025 12: 57
            Quote from: nik-mazur
            Highly enriched (or weapons-grade) uranium is down-blended to the level of low-enriched (energy-grade) uranium.

            But uranium is limited on the planet and requires enormous efforts and money,
            resources for extraction. I'm not even talking about the payment, which is ridiculously low.
            1. 0
              9 October 2025 13: 18
              Quote: APASUS
              only uranium is finite on the planet

              The plutonium injection didn't work out, so you decided to switch to uranium?
              OK. About uranium.
              Firstly, Russia, through Rosatom and its affiliates, controls 45% of the world's uranium enrichment and 30% of global production – even the US has a uranium mine. This means we have more than enough uranium for both energy and weapons purposes.
              Secondly, Russia is developing a closed nuclear fuel cycle (CNFC) at an industrial level using uranium-238, of which tens of thousands of tons have accumulated, since it is a waste product of nuclear production.
              And thirdly, in addition to this, active work is underway to create hybrid nuclear-fusion and thorium reactors. The former can burn anything fissionable, while the latter utilize thorium, which is several times more abundant than uranium.

              Quote: APASUS
              about payment, for ridiculous money

              Uranium prices were quite competitive. They were laughable for the United States, which used the outdated and very expensive gaseous diffusion method of uranium enrichment.
              Incidentally, as a side effect of the HEU-LEU deal, our uranium supplies practically killed the American nuclear industry. Not without a bit of corruption, of course – malicious tongues claim the Clinton-Obama clan profited handsomely from it.
  8. -4
    8 October 2025 14: 05
    It's funny to read this, especially when it's presented as some kind of "achievement"... They're probably counting on the people having forgotten the Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement...
    1. 0
      8 October 2025 21: 18
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The people have forgotten the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement

      The people (at least some of them) don’t care at all that the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement or the HEU-LEU deal has nothing to do with plutonium.
  9. +5
    8 October 2025 14: 10
    One of the most striking examples of the US's inability to negotiate. Every new president there begins to ignore everything that happened under their predecessor. How can you negotiate with them? And the current one is completely incomprehensible.
  10. +2
    8 October 2025 14: 10
    Yeah, few people realize how much effort and money goes into producing weapons-grade plutonium. Entire cities were built for this purpose, complete with infrastructure and associated factories. I even had to work at one of those factories for a bit during the turbulent 90s. I remember the mayor of Seversk, Kuzmenko, with fond words – a true communist. Then "partners" and "effective" managers appeared, and the former glory of such cities faded into oblivion.
  11. -4
    8 October 2025 14: 11
    Joy is joy, at least 3 closed territorial entities existed under this agreement alone
    The article did not say what would happen to single-industry towns that lost funding.
    Something tells me that the budget did not include anything for the fate of many tens of thousands of people.
    Only turbopatriots think that the news is only positive.
    By the way, the notorious Nemtsov and a number of other equally famous comrades put their stray hands to work to worsen the results of such changes.
    1. +5
      8 October 2025 14: 17
      What's stopping us from restarting centrifuges? Weapons-grade plutonium also has an expiration date. And no one has cancelled the production of fuel for nuclear power plants and icebreakers...
      1. -4
        8 October 2025 14: 25
        Quote: Evgeny_Sviridenko
        What's stopping you from restarting the centrifuges?

        lack of money and will to ensure normal operation.
      2. osp
        +2
        8 October 2025 14: 48
        Yes, that's right. Those closed administrative-territorial entities (ZATOs) that were previously involved in defense have long since been converted to the production of nuclear power plant/icebreaker/submarine fuel and spent fuel management.
        The mining and chemical plant is the same.
        The last plutonium production reactor was shut down back in 2010; it was still operating as a nuclear power plant.
        Uranium centrifuges seem to have always worked, at least in Zelenogorsk.
        There is also a similar plant in the Urals.
        That's fuel uranium there.
      3. 0
        8 October 2025 15: 10
        Why are centrifuges needed in the production of weapons-grade Pu-239? And regarding shelf life: the "old" plutonium is stripped of fission product impurities, probably mainly Am-141 (I assume by electrorefining) – and no centrifuges are needed. The purified plutonium is ready for the manufacture of new weapons.
        1. +1
          8 October 2025 17: 43
          Well, I was being figurative. Yes, plutonium is produced from natural uranium-238 using neutron irradiation and subsequent chemical processing. Uranium-235 is produced using centrifuges, but that's a different story.
          1. osp
            0
            8 October 2025 20: 16
            Novosibirsk usually supplied natural uranium in blocks for plutonium production.
            For industrial reactors.
      4. 0
        8 October 2025 21: 21
        Quote: Evgeny_Sviridenko
        What's stopping us from restarting the centrifuges?

        Weapons-grade plutonium is not enriched in centrifuges; it is produced directly in the reactor.
  12. -2
    8 October 2025 14: 17
    Better late than never, it seems. Well, at least it's good.
    1. 0
      8 October 2025 14: 29
      It's not very good, what should those who reprocessed weapons-grade plutonium do now?
      1. osp
        +1
        8 October 2025 15: 00
        For a long time, there have been plans to make MOX fuel from it for the Beloyarsk and Balakovo nuclear power plants.
        But it seems like it was made for fast reactors a long time ago. With plutonium.
  13. -1
    8 October 2025 14: 26
    Quote: APASUS
    How much weapons-grade plutonium did we destroy in 16 years before we realized the Americans had screwed us?
    It seems that on the fourth day, Sharp-Eyed Falcon noticed that the barn was missing one wall. wink
    1. 0
      8 October 2025 14: 52
      The Anglo-Saxons couldn't cheat, they are all gentlemen, they simply forgot, but ours were embarrassed to remind...
  14. +1
    8 October 2025 14: 40
    Taking into account the supply of axes to Ukraine, we are expecting the start of nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya.
    I think this will definitely sober up the hot heads in the West.
    North Korea, when Trump threatened it during his last term, carried out several nuclear explosions, which immediately calmed all passions... After that, North Korea became Trump's best friend...
  15. +1
    8 October 2025 15: 07
    With this state of lies and scams, you can only make agreements from a position of strength, otherwise they'll screw you over 100%. It's all down to Yeltsin and his "God bless America..." And our leader is wasting his time, flying off to meet with the head of this very gang. Even worse: he's negotiating with Netanyahu, that racist, Nazi, and murderer of Palestinian civilians. It's a disgrace.
  16. -1
    8 October 2025 15: 09
    That's right. There's no point in pulling this burden ourselves.
  17. -2
    8 October 2025 20: 46
    Our bourgeoisie, as always, has probably already utilized 99% of the uranium, and now they are trying to show how cool they are.
    1. +1
      9 October 2025 07: 17
      We're talking about plutonium)))) Unfortunately, it's not 99%, there's still a lot of work to be done.
  18. -3
    8 October 2025 21: 11
    Quote: severok1979
    25 years have passed, Karl, 25! Just Estonian speed of reaction.

    That's exactly it! What's the point of waiting until February 5, 2026? What will change? Apparently we're waiting for the arrival of the Crimson Buddha.
    1. 0
      9 October 2025 07: 16
      You won't understand if you don't think about it.
  19. 0
    9 October 2025 15: 51
    It took 25 years to realize the US had no intention of disposing of anything? It's the same story with chemical weapons. It's certainly a nice gesture to swear by claiming Russia has COMPLETELY destroyed its own arsenals, but the US didn't even pretend to destroy its own, and NATO countries weren't even participating in the program.
  20. 0
    9 October 2025 15: 58
    Plutonium quickly degrades (falls apart) and needs to be renewed; it is not gold or uranium.