The US and Russia continue 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.
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. EvgNik Rank
    EvgNik
    0
    23 October 2015 11: 02
    Thanks for the information, took note.
    1. kil 31 Rank
      kil 31
      +8
      23 October 2015 11: 06
      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_ Rank
        _Vladislav_
        +9
        23 October 2015 11: 09
        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 Rank
          Eugene-Eugene
          +1
          23 October 2015 11: 26
          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 Rank
      vovanpain
      +9
      23 October 2015 11: 08
      Mattresses promise a lot, but they always strive to throw. We must be careful with them, nuclear weapons are no laughing matter.
      1. Vitaly Anisimov Rank
        Vitaly Anisimov
        +6
        23 October 2015 11: 33
        It will be difficult to negotiate with such .... laughing Bitch still!
        1. Eugene-Eugene Rank
          Eugene-Eugene
          +2
          23 October 2015 11: 39
          All women need hard male caress
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. veksha50 Rank
          veksha50
          +1
          23 October 2015 12: 17
          Quote: MIKHAN
          Bitch still!



          They wore the wrong uniform ... The Gestapovskaya would have gone more for them ... Just to see faces ...
  2. semuel Rank
    semuel
    0
    23 October 2015 11: 04
    annual discussion dates
    Tobish terms of discussion of terms? Is it worth it to strain?
  3. roskot Rank
    roskot
    +2
    23 October 2015 11: 12
    And they will let ours go to all objects. Doubts take something.
    1. veksha50 Rank
      veksha50
      0
      23 October 2015 12: 19
      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 Rank
    Kelwin
    +2
    23 October 2015 11: 40
    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 Rank
    maikl50jrij
    +2
    23 October 2015 11: 54
    Here personally to me these "contracts", as they say, across the throat! One, with "Kamchatka" on his forehead, the other, a hopeless drunk, they promised, they concluded, and now they have to take the rap! And this is still a budget! Western analysts admitted that our army was revived in a very short time, compared to the 30s. This is true. The army is our pride and strength, but what did it cost ... My opinion: it is necessary to leave these "agreements". Bonded for us. We all "obey", and amers on the drum! If not for our Caspian lionfish, they would not have moved! am
    1. veksha50 Rank
      veksha50
      0
      23 October 2015 12: 23
      Quote: maikl50jrij
      One, with "Kamchatka" on his forehead, the other, a hopeless drunk, they promised, they concluded,



      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 Rank
    Turkir
    +4
    23 October 2015 11: 55
    Contracts are always good.
    However, experience has shown that the US violates them. Is always.
  7. Loner_53 Rank
    Loner_53
    0
    23 October 2015 12: 02
    Quote: Turkir
    My opinion: it is necessary to leave these "agreements". Bonded for us. We all "obey", and amers on the drum! If not for our Caspian lionfish, they would not have moved!

    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 Rank
    Gormenghast
    0
    23 October 2015 12: 03
    START-3 signed (Medvedev) and ratified - where to go?

    But it does not limit the BZHRK, which is what we use. And in terms of deployed nuclear weapons, we still have a significant reserve - we can safely change the partially Ukrainian Voevoda for a completely Russian Sarmat, while increasing their numbers. Moreover, the Voevoda is being utilized in the most efficient way - it is used as a Dnepr carrier rocket.

    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 Rank
      veksha50
      0
      23 October 2015 12: 25
      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 Rank
    Kelwin
    0
    23 October 2015 12: 13
    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 Rank
    veksha50
    0
    23 October 2015 12: 15
    "According to the START Treaty signed in April 2010parties can annually 18 inspections, the exchange of information on weapons takes place twice a year - on March 1 and September 1 "...

    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 ...

    Although no one is interested in my opinion, but I just want to say: "And Baba Yaga is against !!!" ...
  11. Watchdog Rank
    Watchdog
    0
    23 October 2015 12: 30
    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 Rank
    Old26
    0
    23 October 2015 17: 49
    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.

    Yeah, they just didn't ask you whether to go out or not. Let's not let their inspectors in. So, what is next? Are you sure that the number of their BGs will not fly up several times? Indeed, unlike us, many of their missiles are "unloaded". Instead of 3 - carries one, instead of 14 - 4. And if you refuse, what? What are we going to do? Will we attach several BGs to a monoblock poplar? Or on the PC-18 instead of 6 we will shove 16, and on the RS-20 instead of 10 we will shove 30 ... Damn ...

    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 Rank
    Old26
    0
    23 October 2015 17: 53
    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 Rank
    Old26
    0
    23 October 2015 17: 59
    Quote: Gormengast
    And in terms of deployed nuclear weapons, we still have a significant reserve - we can safely change the partially Ukrainian Voevoda for a completely Russian Sarmat, while increasing their numbers. Moreover, the Voevoda is utilized in the most efficient way - it is used as a Dnepr launch vehicle.

    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???
    Let's write off the remaining 46 "Voevod". And when will we put into service a similar number of "Sarmats" (which do not yet exist)?
    "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 launch of the Dnepr LV, created on the basis of the Voevoda. And I'm afraid it won't ...