Lavrov: The US has not responded to Russia's proposal to adhere to the START restrictions.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) has expired, and Russia has made an offer to the United States, but has yet to receive a response. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated this in his address to the Moscow Non-Proliferation Conference.

Today, there is virtually no control over strategic offensive arms. The last active treaty, New START, expired on February 5, 2026. Russia has offered the United States voluntary adherence to the restrictions until a new treaty is adopted, but Moscow has yet to receive any response from Washington.

The initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin on further voluntary compliance by the parties to the New START Treaty with the central quantitative restrictions set out therein was left unanswered by the American side.

A week after the New START Treaty expired, the United States announced that it was allegedly negotiating a new treaty with Moscow, having refused to extend the old one. However, it emphasized that there were no agreements between the countries on continued compliance with the treaty.

Trump previously stated his intention to conclude a new, "improved" strategic arms treaty, mandatorily including China. However, Beijing is categorically opposed to this, as China's nuclear arsenal is too small compared to Russia's and the United States'.

Comments

[Alex777]

I don’t understand why they are so diligently pushing the topic in which they were sent?
The United States in general, and Trump in particular, don't need the old START Treaty. Not at all.
The United States wants to stop China's development of nuclear weapons and our innovations.
And until they figure out how to do this, there will be no limitation of strategic nuclear forces.

[Gardamir]

Grandpa Seryozha imitates vigorous activity. Like, look, I can do more than just swear.

[lis-ik]

Why do they keep pestering me with their peace initiatives and negotiations? Surely no one needs it, or have they really already squandered their nuclear weapons? It's disgusting to watch this whining.

[hrych]

He's a messenger, and everyone sends him away. These voluntary self-restraints were named after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, but they will soon be renamed in honor of another historical figure.

[K._2]

The Amegikos were spinning us around in one place, but we were still flying in the clouds

[hrych]

We have Burevestnik in the clouds, and Poseidon under the sea... they'll finally be here. Our guarantor of supply was thinking of exchanging it for the US abandoning its missile defense system. And indeed, the Americans are right, for once, they say, without China, there's no point in a strategic offensive arms treaty. It will gradually catch up with us. Just like with the INF Treaty, which is the foundation of China's nuclear forces. In fact, those strategic offensive arms didn't take into account the Anglo-French arsenal aimed at us, just as China was against us. Before Hu Jintao, China was an ally of the US, and now they're not our friend, unless Trump declared them a target. Why? Chinese INF missiles were firing across our territory, and everything was fine, but when China acquired ICBMs and SLBMs, threatening the US and the EU, things changed. China also decided to build aircraft carriers alongside its submarines, meaning it decided to challenge the rulers of the seas. It went in the wrong direction, and we were the losers under all the treaties. We didn't even have the means to strike either the EU or China. We destroyed the SD Pioneers, which from Anadyr were firing across the entire US West Coast. It's good that the Sineva and Bulava missiles from the Arctic covered the entire enemy frontier, covering the US, EU, and China, but that's expensive and insufficient. No, our Guarantor still refuses to calm down with its self-imposed restrictions. Fine, they ignore it. Our tactical nuclear weapons have reached hypersonic speeds and strategic range, and the Poseidon, originally intended for bargaining, has finally entered production and will become the ultimate weapon... thanks to Trump.

[bayard]

Quote: hrych

Poseidon under water... will finally be.

Well, there are already two standard carriers. And that's not to mention that any specially equipped vessel could carry such a contraption, or even just launch it from a pier.
The Oreshnik missile has returned to production and, in addition to its Western deployment, may also return to its bases in Anadyr. The Iskander-1000 has a range of up to 1200-1300 km. Perhaps a two-stage Iskander with a range of 2000-2500 km will also appear. So, despite all the "peaceful rhetoric," we've been and are seriously considering the armored train on a siding. And the Yars missile is still in production, and the number of transport launchers can be safely and systematically increased.
Lavrov is now conducting roughly the same kind of sounding out as Stalin did on the very eve of WWII, when he published an article in Pravda entitled "On False Statements About an Imminent War Between the USSR and Germany." What was important wasn't the text of the article, but the reaction of official Berlin. Its absence made it clear that war was indeed VERY close.

[Taimen]

"Guys, let's live in peace." A speech by Leopold the Cat from the cartoon. To which the mice dropped a bucket of bricks on his head.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

I don’t understand why they are so diligently pushing the topic in which they were sent?

This isn't just a tirade, it's a probe. And the reaction to this probe is also being analyzed. So far, it's known that the US has decided to return the full complement of nuclear warheads to the Minuteman III ICBMs (albeit old, but three-headed at conception), the Trident II SLBMs, and is returning cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to strategic bombers.
The goal is to double the number of nuclear warheads on strategic carriers.
It wouldn't be difficult for us to do the same: increase the number of our own ICBMs (especially those with ground-based launchers), SLBMs, and SSBNs/SBNs, and increase the number of strategic/long-range bombers. In other words, the US and Russia could easily double or even triple the number of nuclear warheads on strategic launch vehicles. But this is much more difficult for China; it can't just pull out updated warheads from storage and return them to their original locations; it needs to MAKE them. The US is already working hard on this. We see and understand this, so we're probing and watching for reactions. And while the US ignores these probing signals and doesn't answer questions, we understand that we can and MUST increase our own capabilities and the number of strategic nuclear forces. Including new types.

Quote: Alex777

The United States wants to stop China's development of nuclear weapons and our innovations.

And how will they stop them if they haven't signed a new treaty, or even verbally stated that they won't violate the treaty's framework parameters for at least another year? This means only one thing: the US is frantically returning nuclear warheads to carriers, replacing the heavy fuel elements in Minuteman stages (we still can't do that... but the US CAN), and updating and redesigning the physical packages of its old nuclear warheads. New nuclear weapons bunkers are being built and old ones expanded, new launch sites for new silos for the advanced Sentinel ICBMs are being constructed, and the aging B-52s are being brought back into service and equipped with modern, stealthy cruise missiles.
We simply need to do the same by adding nuclear warheads to existing carriers, by extending the Borei-A SSBN series (or the prospective Borei-AM), and by continuing to commission new Tu-160M2s. And by deploying the latest Oreshnik IRBMs (with a range of 5500 km+) to counter the potential of Euro-NATO and other areas. So, nothing much changes for us; we're simply continuing our programs as planned, slightly adjusting the numbers and pace of our plans.
You can’t trust anyone, you should be guided only by necessity and expediency based on the existing threats.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

We just need to do the same thing by adding YABCH to the existing media.

Actually, three buses stop at Sarmaty, each with five BC...

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

Actually, three buses stop at Sarmaty, each with five BC...

This is great, of course, the only question is whether the Sarmat has been fully developed (since after the explosion during tests in 2022, which destroyed the launch pad/silo and the surrounding area... no new tests have been announced), whether serial production has been established, and how many of them are already on combat duty? The R-36M2 could carry 14 nuclear warheads, but in reality, only 10 were deployed. Now there are no restrictions on the number of nuclear warheads, and you can freely choose. Just like on the Yars. Just like on the Bulava. Just like on the Oreshniki.

We planned to have 50-54 Sarmat missiles in combat. But given the US's plans to have 400-450 Sentinel ICBMs with the same launch weight and class as the previous MX (up to 10 nuclear warheads), it makes sense to consider expanding the Sarmat fleet by at least two to three times, as well as a slightly heavier solid-fuel ICBM.
And finally, learn how to hydraulically flush solid propellant in rocket stages to reload them and extend the service life of such ICBMs. Such a working installation exists/was in Pavlograd. The secret there is not only in the design of the nozzles, but also the composition of the stabilizer, as well as its consistency. In the Russian Federation, there was an experiment with hydraulic flushing, a detonation occurred, people died... But damn, after SO MUCH time and with a working installation nearby, it is impossible to determine the stabilizer composition and the operating conditions/pressure for hydraulic flushing... is this... LAZINESS? In our country (Russia), solid-fuel ICBMs are being decommissioned due to the degradation of solid propellant in the stages (a natural process). But instead of simply replacing the solid propellant, they write off and dispose of perfectly functional missiles (which is difficult, harmful, and dangerous)... And the US has been using its Minuteman missiles since the early 70s and just refuelling them. Of course, we're doing well not to lose our skills and production base by constantly replacing decommissioned missiles with new ones, but... it's time to think about learning from this experience. In the US, even the Shuttle's solid-fuel booster stages were reloaded and reused. Has our intelligence completely lost its luster? Can't we get samples from a former Soviet plant? How many Topol and Topol-M missiles could be returned to service by now? And the Yars missiles are about to reach their prime...
The extracted TT with its stabilizer can be used as quarry explosive. TT has a calorific value relative to trinitrotoluene of 2,2-2,5, so it tears through rock like crazy. Right after the start of the Second World War, the former management of Yuzhmash and the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau fled to Russia... didn't they really grab samples of the stabilizer and the technical specifications for the American installation? I saw it, there's nothing fancy about it. You just need to know the composition of this white gunk, the characteristics of the nozzles, and the operating pressure. And equipment for packaging the resulting slurry into "sausages" for subsequent use in mining blasting. Reusing TT as quarry explosive will offset the hassle of extracting it from the stages and the entire procedure of replacing the TT. But the rockets can be reused. Whether for combat service, for launching satellites, or for transformation into heavy IRBMs.

[RuAbel]

So, are we taking advantage of the fact that there's no agreement? Or are we doing it voluntarily and unilaterally?

[hrych]

Quote from Ruabel

So, are we taking advantage of the fact that there's no agreement? Or are we doing it voluntarily and unilaterally?

Voluntarily and unilaterally. It's begging for another round of four fists...

[bayard]

Quote: hrych

. It begs for another four fists...

Ugus. Meanwhile, Votkinsk is mass-producing the Oreshniki. At the same capacity as the Yars. New buildings have been built, but... we have a moratorium on not violating the contract's framework figures, only for one (one) year.
And that's ALL.
It's like an old poem in a new way:
To a difficult question
There is always an answer
We have hypersound
And you don't have it.

Netanyahu deceived Trump on the 4th fist.
For this, they'll apparently bury him on Tuesday. The German doctors couldn't save him.

But I don’t like the fact that Moscow has been probed day and night for weak spots for a strike with Flaminka missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
It's time to sink the pirate island.

[NICK111]

Gorbachev has already reached an agreement with them.
How they fulfill the signed papers has long been known to everyone.
Sergei Viktorovich, don't be so naive. They only understand force.

[Idle_piston]

[Quote]Lavrov: The US has not responded to Russia's proposal to adhere to the START restrictions[/ Quote]
It's all quite simple and harsh: "The sheriff doesn't care about the problems of blacks."

[Alex F._2]

The US hasn't even adhered to moral standards for half a century, let alone such complex matters as international treaties, oh my!

[EvilCommunist]

So big, but you believe in fairy tales (s)

[Ivan№One]

They ask and ask
And they still don't get an answer.
Well, I guess I need to ask again, right?

[tralflot1832]

The US is not happy with our position on the New START Treaty. Since the times of the USSR, the US has been accustomed to dictating terms. And now, oops.

[Jacques sekavar]

"Lavrov: The US has still not responded to Russia's proposal to adhere to the START restrictions."

This clearly demonstrates the attitude towards the Russian Federation - how many times during the war in Ukraine the Russian Federation designated all sorts of uncrossable red lines to which no one paid any attention, and the US attitude towards the Russian Federation is exactly the same.

[tralflot1832]

In response to Doni's demands for the conditions for initiating strategic offensive arms negotiations with Russia, China's presence is mandatory. China's response was "nothing but a word!" Ryabkov recalled England and France. And most importantly, no one is talking about the DPRK, with whom we have a strategic military agreement, proven in combat. Trump is in a weak negotiating position, so he's gone silent. It looks like things are heading toward mutual bangs at the nuclear test sites.

[bayard]

Quote: tralflot1832

It looks like things are heading towards mutual bangs at the nuclear test sites.

Iran could become a nuclear testing ground for the United States.
And Trump has already stated this. In his characteristic buffoonish manner.

[Zheka111]

Nobody will answer you anything, that's it, forget it - the past will not return.
The world has entered a phase of heated and uncompromising confrontation and competition.
Now, only a strong economy, a powerful industry, developed science, and, of course, the army and navy can ensure security, and not the false treaties that politicians rely on.

[tralflot1832]

Donya did everything, if you have oil and you don’t have an atomic bomb, then we will come to you and check how you wash your hands.

[james]

Aren't you tired of humiliating yourself and humiliating Russia?

[comradChe]

"Rising from our knees" happened only in words.

[DO]

Russia has proposed that the United States voluntarily adhere to the restrictions until a new treaty is adopted, but Moscow has not yet received any response from Washington.

It is clear that diplomats need work, and Lavrov’s department is looking for it.
But why would the minister dump details that disparage the Russian leadership on the media? After all, such information, by common sense, should remain a closely guarded secret?

[Kmet]

So the US doesn't want to talk about its previous positions, so what's so hard to understand? This isn't a new trend. We can live without this expired treaty. They want a treaty with China? Well, let them go to China and try to convince them of their point of view. The treaty is between Russia and the US, so what does China have to do with it? Besides, by this logic, the EU should also be included in the list of parties to the treaty, but there's no sign of anyone taking any action towards it. The US is making it clear they don't need this treaty, so what's the big deal now? As the saying goes, "If you don't want it, don't bother your ass." If only Russia needs this treaty and no one else is happy with it, then Russia needs to think about the reasons and what can be done to achieve parity or absolute superiority, so that people come to us asking for a treaty, rather than us going around begging someone for some lofty goal. Here, the security of our own state and our own interests must come first. Trump is doing just that. And in general, judging by all the signs, a new attack on Russia is being prepared... that's why no one is planning to sign any treaties. There was also a treaty with Germany in 1939... the results are well known.

[Victor B]

Today, there is virtually no control over strategic offensive weapons.

It no longer exists legally.
So the cards are in your hands - take advantage of the situation, test the latest systems, deploy weapons in space.

[Peace]

A global superpower isn't responding? How is that possible? They don't appreciate the words of a great politician and strategist. Old people have woken up again and once again don't understand that the world has changed and that they're no longer living in the 70s. The Soviet Union no longer exists, nor does the Warsaw Pact, and the economic and political systems have changed. All that remains (for now) are raw materials. Today, every more or less significant state either possesses nuclear weapons or, at least, has the means to produce them, even for a "dirty bomb." And this will also apply, for example, to Ukraine. Although nuclear weapons will probably not be deployed there, since NATO will deploy them approximately 70 km from St. Petersburg in Finland. And all normal people know that no one will ever use nuclear weapons anyway. And what's written in certain documents (various doctrines, etc.) interests no one.

[guest]

The US has not responded to Russia's proposal to adhere to the START restrictions.

They certainly responded, they sent us away according to all the rules of diplomacy.

[T.A.V.]

Maybe you should stop looking into their mouths already? It's so surreal.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: bayard

Quote: tralflot1832

It looks like things are heading towards mutual bangs at the nuclear test sites.

Iran could become a nuclear testing ground for the United States.
And Trump has already stated this. In his characteristic buffoonish manner.

It might explode if NATO forces him into a corner by refusing to create a coalition against Iran.