Military Review

The United States and the Russian Federation continued consultations on the implementation of the START Treaty

21
Moscow and Washington, in the framework of consultations on the START Treaty, agreed on the timing of the annual discussion on the exchange of information on launches of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, reports RIA News message of the Russian Foreign Ministry.




“The tenth session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission on the Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) took place in Geneva from 7 to 20 in October. The delegations of Russia and the United States continued to discuss practical issues related to the implementation of the treaty, ”the message says.

"They also signed an agreement on adjusting the timing of the annual discussion of the issue of the exchange of telemetry information on launches of ICBMs and SLBMs," the Foreign Ministry informed.

In February, the parties agreed on the number of launches of these missiles, for which they will exchange data this year.

According to the START Treaty, signed in April of 2010, the parties may conduct 18 inspections annually, and exchange information on armaments twice a year - March 1 and September September 1.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. EvgNik
    EvgNik 23 October 2015 11: 02 New
    0
    Thanks for the information, took note.
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 23 October 2015 11: 06 New
      +8
      Well, what for. They have air defense in Europe. Why should we report and let their inspectors come to us? Now everything has changed, we must withdraw from these agreements.
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 23 October 2015 11: 09 New
        +9
        I think this is premature.

        We need to talk about this topic only with the new administration of the new US president, after the 2016 elections. And based on the new doctrinal policies of the states, one would think.

        And then there (among the candidates) there are hotheads who would not mind fighting with Russia, and offer not to be afraid of a nuclear war (no more no less). For example, Marco Antonio Rubio.

        What a reduction in offensive arms.
        1. Eugene-Eugene
          Eugene-Eugene 23 October 2015 11: 26 New
          +1
          Marco Antonio Rubio’s chances of winning are the same as those of Mark Antony after the Battle of Actium. Although to compare this petty bureaucrat with one of the greatest Roman leaders is blasphemy.
    2. vovanpain
      vovanpain 23 October 2015 11: 08 New
      +9
      Mattresses promise a lot, but they always strive to throw. We must be careful with them, nuclear weapons are no laughing matter.
      1. MIKHAN
        MIKHAN 23 October 2015 11: 33 New
        +6
        It will be difficult to negotiate with such .... laughing Bitch still!
        1. Eugene-Eugene
          Eugene-Eugene 23 October 2015 11: 39 New
          +2
          All women need hard male caress
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. veksha50
          veksha50 23 October 2015 12: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: MIKHAN
          Bitch still!



          They wore the wrong uniform ... The Gestapovskaya would have gone more for them ... Just to see faces ...
  2. semuil
    semuil 23 October 2015 11: 04 New
    0
    annual discussion dates
    Tobish terms of discussion of terms? Is it worth it to strain?
  3. roskot
    roskot 23 October 2015 11: 12 New
    +2
    And they will let ours go to all objects. Doubts take something.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 23 October 2015 12: 19 New
      0
      Quote: roskot
      And they will let ours go to all objects. Doubts take something.



      You’re doing the right thing, that you doubt it ... Ours from everywhere in the 80s allowed them everywhere, but on our arrival in the USA they fooled us as soon as they could ...
  4. Kelwin
    Kelwin 23 October 2015 11: 40 New
    +2
    The point, as always, is not in the objects, but in the dough. EBN,, for five cents (11 billion raccoons) sold 300 tons of uranium, which forty years have been produced by the whole USSR. HEU-KNOW ITIT ... Also dilution at your own expense. No one was bothered that the oil equivalent of these three hundred tons, no less than 8,5tl Baku, was at that time, 2003. Awesome gift. Decorate the rocket as an inspector, and send it to the object, a trim two double, so that the face cracked.
  5. maikl50jrij
    maikl50jrij 23 October 2015 11: 54 New
    +2
    Вот лично мне эти "договора", что называется, поперек горла! Один, с "Камчаткой" на лбу, другой, алкаш беспросветный, наобещали, назаключали, а теперь отдуваться приходится! А это все таки бюджет! Западные аналитики признали, что наша армия возродилась за очень короткое время, в сравнении с 30-ми годами. Это так. Армия-гордость и сила наша, но чего это стоило... Мое мнение: уходить от этих "договоров" надо. Кабальные для нас. Мы все "блюдем", а амерам по барабану! Если бы не наши каспийские крылатки-они бы и не шелохнулись! am
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 23 October 2015 12: 23 New
      0
      Quote: maikl50jrij
      Один, с "Камчаткой" на лбу, другой, алкаш беспросветный, наобещали, назаключали,



      Um ... the contract in question is concluded in 2010 year... just when air defense systems weren’t delivered to any of the neighbors ... Until now, it seems, we go to debtors (???) ...

      But in general, it’s enough to play the pens and observe international law ... It, this is international - is Stopudovo American and harms us ...

      All contracts that cause even the slightest harm to Russia must be annulled completely and irrevocably ...
  6. Turkir
    Turkir 23 October 2015 11: 55 New
    +4
    Contracts are always good.
    However, experience has shown that the US violates them. Is always.
  7. Loner_53
    Loner_53 23 October 2015 12: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Turkir
    Мое мнение: уходить от этих "договоров" надо. Кабальные для нас. Мы все "блюдем", а амерам по барабану! Если бы не наши каспийские крылатки-они бы и не шелохнулись!

    That's right, no blah blah with the mattress. We, as a conscientious country, will fulfill the treaty, but .... we will learn again what thread Iran will come up with, they say we have it but not against you am
  8. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 23 October 2015 12: 03 New
    0
    START-3 signed (Medvedev) and ratified - where to go?

    Зато он не ограничивает БЖРК, чем мы и пользуемся. И по развернутым носителям ЯО у нас еще есть существенный запас - можем спокойно менять частично украинскую "Воеводу" на совершенно российский "Сармат", одновременно наращивая их численность. Тем более, что "Воевода" утилизируется максимольно эффективным способом - используется в качестве ракеты-носителя "Днепр".

    But as for the further reduction, as the Obama wanted, it needs to be seriously thought - you can reduce to the point that the possibility of effective retaliation is leveled.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 23 October 2015 12: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Gormengast
      And as for the further reduction, as the Obama wanted, this need to think seriously


      We have already disarmed, stripped, limited to cowards ... Enough !!!

      There’s nothing to think ... You have to shake !!! So that all coconut bananas crumble from the palm ...
  9. Kelwin
    Kelwin 23 October 2015 12: 13 New
    0
    You can simply withdraw from the contract, unilaterally. Around us, NATO bases multiply like lice, they test the European there and other geopolitical brothel - in general, they have lost fear. Syrian salute will not be enough, you need a hint thicker.
  10. veksha50
    veksha50 23 October 2015 12: 15 New
    0
    "Согласно договору о СНВ, подписанному in April 2010parties can annually 18 inspections, обмен информацией о вооружениях проходит дважды в год – 1 марта и 1 сентября"...

    I do not like this agreement ... More than sure that Russia more or less honestly provides objects and information for verification, and Amers distort their information ...

    Хоть мое мнение никого и не интересует, но так и хочется сказать: "А Баба Яга - против !!!"...
  11. Watchdog
    Watchdog 23 October 2015 12: 30 New
    0
    What strategic offensive arms ??? He gives us sanctions, they give us Ukroraich, they give us Syria, they give us the Flow, they give us the Mistral (oh well, everyone understands that they are), they give us missile defense systems in Europe, they give us NATO reinforcements there, and we with them START ??? How long ??? belay fool stop angry
  12. Old26
    Old26 23 October 2015 17: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Kil 31
    Well, what for. They have air defense in Europe. Why should we report and let their inspectors come to us? Now everything has changed, we must withdraw from these agreements.

    Ага, вот только вас не спросили, выходить или нет. Давайте не будем пускать их инспекторов. И что дальше? вы уверены, что количество их БГ не взлетит вверх в несколько раз? Ведь в отличии от нас, у них многие ракеты "разгружены". Вместо 3 - несет одну, вместо 14 - 4. А при отказе что? А мы что сделаем? На моноблочный тополь прицепим несколько БГ? Или на РС-18 вместо 6 запихнем 16, а на РС-20 вместо 10 - запихнем 30.... Блин...

    Quote: _Vladislav_
    I think this is premature. You need to talk about this topic only with the new administration of the new US president, after the 2016 elections. And already on the basis of the new doctrinal policy of the states, one would think. And then there (among the candidates) there are hotheads who would not mind fighting with Russia, and offer not to be afraid of nuclear war (no more no less). For example, Marco Antonio Rubio. What already reduction in offensive weapons.

    It is necessary to talk with any administration, regardless of the time it has left. Moreover, this year more than a year in power ...
    The doctrinal policy of the United States, like Russia, is based on the implementation of such agreements. And any administration will implement the offensive arms treaty, since such a treaty is beneficial ...
    Now, during the election period, they will say everything that the voter wants, right up to the release of Alpha Centauri. It is necessary to distinguish between administration policies and election slogans. According to them, we have been washing boots in the Indian Ocean regularly for a quarter of a century, but something is not observed.
  13. Old26
    Old26 23 October 2015 17: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Turkir
    Contracts are always good.
    However, experience has shown that the US violates them. Is always.

    Can you give specific examples of the violation by the Americans of strategic arms treaties? You are probably already the twelfth or fifteenth to whom I ask this question. But the answer is silence, the answer is usually no. Blurt out - easily. Reply - alas ...

    Quote: veksha50
    I do not like this agreement ... More than sure that Russia more or less honestly provides objects and information for verification, and Amers distort their information ...

    Any facts? Please voice how this happens, distortions of information from the American side

    Quote: Watchdog
    What strategic offensive arms ??? He gives us sanctions, they give us Ukroraich, they give us Syria, they give us the Flow, they give us the Mistral (oh well, everyone understands that they are), they give us missile defense systems in Europe, they give us NATO reinforcements there, and we with them START ??? How long ??? belay fool stop angry

    How long? as long as it is profitable RUSSIA!!!! Or do not agree with this?

    Quote: KelWin
    You can simply withdraw from the contract, unilaterally. Around us, NATO bases multiply like lice, they test the European there and other geopolitical brothel - in general, they have lost fear. Syrian salute will not be enough, you need a hint thicker.

    Can. For example, from the INF Treaty. As a result, we will get at our borders several hundred shorter and medium-range missiles capable of covering (BRMD) a large part of the European territory of Russia or a large part of the country (if we are talking about BRSD).
    And in response? NOT ONE the missile will not fall into the United States. Moreover, the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces will slow down or completely stop, since the factories NO. And you have to choose: intercontinental or medium and shorter range ...
    Do you want this? But this is not the 80s, when the flight time was at least 7-10 minutes. Now is it 3-4 minutes? Do you want this ???
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Old26
    Old26 23 October 2015 17: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Gormengast
    И по развернутым носителям ЯО у нас еще есть существенный запас - можем спокойно менять частично украинскую "Воеводу" на совершенно российский "Сармат", одновременно наращивая их численность. Тем более, что "Воевода" утилизируется максимольно эффективным способом - используется в качестве ракеты-носителя "Днепр".

    There really is stock. The only thing is that there are no capacities. For the year (2015), we have delivered and will supply 55 EMNIP missiles to the troops. This includes both ICBMs and SLBMs. As a result, we put into service 2, maximum 3 regiments per year. AND???
    Спишем оставшиеся 46 "Воевод". А когда поставим на вооружение аналогичное количество "Сарматов" (которых еще нет)?
    "Voivode" not disposed of as efficiently as possible. "Dnieper" - A model R-36 M UTTHwhich is structurally different from R-36M2 "Voevoda". Did not have NO ONE пуска РН "Днепр", созданной на базе "Воеводы". И боюсь не будет...