Obama: Moscow does not show enough interest in reducing nuclear potential

89
According to Barack Obama, Moscow is not sufficiently interested in reducing the arsenal of nuclear weapons, reports RIA News.

Obama: Moscow does not show enough interest in reducing nuclear potential


In an interview with the NHK channel, Obama recalled that during his time as president, he “managed to sign a new offensive arms reduction treaty (START-3) with Moscow, which made it possible to reduce the nuclear potential of both states”.

“I think that we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown any interest in doing more”,
he declared.

In addition, Obama stressed that he was not going to apologize "for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima."

According to him, “every manager has to make very difficult decisions, especially during a war.”
  • EPA
Our news channels

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

89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +45
    22 May 2016 10: 58
    What a scoundrel !!! you cut your missile defense there to begin with.
    1. +39
      22 May 2016 11: 07
      To begin with, let the nuclear weapons outside the United States let them then express their opinions and apologize to the Japanese for Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
      1. +24
        22 May 2016 11: 12
        This is who is building the missile defense system, and even reproaches us for not wanting to unload. "And don't give the keys to the apartment where the money is."
        1. +16
          22 May 2016 11: 31

          This is who will surpass our neighbors in the saying "look in the eyes - God's dew"

          - so these are Americans

          After they invented the explanation "nothing personal - just business", for them

          there are no boundaries of arrogance
          1. +4
            22 May 2016 11: 48
            This is who will surpass our neighbors in the saying "look in the eyes - God's dew"

            Well, no one can surpass our neighbors in terms of "God's dew". For it is said about them. The Yankees are just inept imitators, although they try very hard, of course .. laughing
            1. 0
              22 May 2016 14: 53
              Will the Chinese also reduce themselves and decrease in numbers along with everyone?
              1. +1
                22 May 2016 20: 06
                Barachich forgot that the condition for the emergence of agreements to reduce S.N. served as an agreement on a ban on missile defense. Otherwise, a nuclear club is cheaply reliable and practical.
                1. 0
                  22 May 2016 21: 22
                  It was about the Chinese
            2. +1
              22 May 2016 14: 53
              Will the Chinese also reduce themselves and decrease in numbers along with everyone?
          2. +5
            22 May 2016 11: 51
            Quote: bulvas
            This is who will surpass our neighbors in the saying "look in the eyes - God's dew"

            - so these are Americans

            After they invented the explanation "nothing personal - just business", for them

            there are no boundaries of arrogance

            Conclusion: you need to take their approach into service, and this is only the protection of their own interests and people ....
          3. +2
            22 May 2016 16: 59
            Quote: bulvas
            This is who will surpass our neighbors in the saying "look in the eyes - God's dew"


            That's for sure. When Barack Husseinovich uttered these words, his Pentagon official, someone Wark, said another:
            (cry)
          4. cap
            +1
            22 May 2016 18: 27
            Quote: bulvas
            This is who will surpass our neighbors in the saying "look in the eyes - God's dew"

            - so these are Americans

            After they invented the explanation "nothing personal - just business", for them

            there are no boundaries of arrogance

            bear
        2. +9
          22 May 2016 12: 09
          Quote: Teberii
          This is who is building the missile defense system, and even reproaches us for not wanting to unload. "And don't give the keys to the apartment where the money is."
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. +28
      22 May 2016 11: 08
      By the way, I would like to recall the unprecedented opportunity to make the world generally nuclear-free! This could have happened on October 11, 1986, when the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Raisovich Gorbachev made a stunning proposal to the actor - US President Ronald Reagan at a meeting in Reykjavik: to sign an agreement on the complete nuclear disarmament of both countries within 10 years! And this proposal from the "evil empire" was silenced in the world by the efforts of the "good empire"! Reagan said no! Obama would need to know history before presenting himself as a dove of peace, although, incidentally, he does it badly ... laughing
      1. +20
        22 May 2016 11: 34
        Gorbachev wanted everyone to like it so much that he was ready to flush the country into the toilet, which, in principle, he did, and Yeltsin almost finished it off.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +9
          22 May 2016 12: 19
          Thank god the buchek broke ...
    3. +9
      22 May 2016 11: 15
      Quote: evgenii67
      What a scoundrel !!! you cut your missile defense there to begin with.

      According to Barack Obama, Moscow is not sufficiently interested in reducing the nuclear arsenal

      Give up your overseas military bases, and then let's talk, "peacemaker" with a tomahawk!
    4. +13
      22 May 2016 11: 47
      “I think that we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown any interest in doing more”,

      well, yes, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, have done more that are now in the Stone Age request But Russia is not bad. Yes
    5. +5
      22 May 2016 13: 31
      Quote: evgenii67
      What a scoundrel !!! you cut your missile defense there to begin with.



      Why are you so! We just need to agree to the consideration of this issue, but first return to our territorial borders air defense, nuclear weapons, and also bring to the common denominator of the strategic nuclear forces of NATO countries with Russia, ships, submarines, aircraft, etc. And also withdraw all bordering countries from military blocs with obligations to protect them, jointly, from third countries.

      We should not give up peace plans, but set appropriate conditions, even more peaceful ones (which the West does not accept).
    6. -1
      22 May 2016 21: 52
      First, Yellowstone will reduce the United States, and then Russia will place a couple of warheads in the warehouse.
  2. +19
    22 May 2016 10: 58
    If our leadership will reduce nuclear weapons in the light of recent NATO actions, I will seriously doubt their adequacy and capacity as leaders of our country.
    1. +2
      22 May 2016 14: 10
      As long as the US exists, not a gram can be reduced. And why in the media they do not say how many nuclear weapons mattresses have outside the United States, you need to constantly scroll through this information.
  3. +13
    22 May 2016 10: 58
    Monkey what to take from him! laughing
    1. +21
      22 May 2016 11: 37
      Monkey what to take from him
      1. -1
        22 May 2016 15: 58
        the only pity is that this is just a photoshop (the letter "H" is lower than the others) ... :-(
  4. +8
    22 May 2016 10: 59
    And it says the main global mastermind of armed conflict.
  5. +8
    22 May 2016 10: 59
    Dear, in addition, Russia is developing new models of weapons, as well as improving existing ones, yes, yes, gentlemen, "democrats", according to you, there will be no more
  6. +13
    22 May 2016 11: 00
    After the disarmament of the United States.
    1. +3
      22 May 2016 11: 12
      Quote: sgazeev
      After the disarmament of the United States.

      Smiled. How to post on enemy resources?
      1. +5
        22 May 2016 11: 26
        Quote: noWAR
        Quote: sgazeev
        After the disarmament of the United States.

        Smiled. How to post on enemy resources?
      2. 0
        22 May 2016 11: 26
        Quote: noWAR
        Quote: sgazeev
        After the disarmament of the United States.

        Smiled. How to post on enemy resources?
        1. 0
          22 May 2016 11: 45
          To moderators. Remove unnecessary comments of mine. Including this one. crying
        2. 0
          22 May 2016 11: 45
          To moderators. Remove unnecessary comments of mine. Including this one. crying
  7. +8
    22 May 2016 11: 01
    The problem is that Moscow is not interested in reducing its nuclear potential to please Washington-Obama directly Captain Evidence laughing
    1. +2
      22 May 2016 15: 08
      Quote: 3officer
      The problem is that Moscow is not interested in reducing its nuclear potential to please Washington-Obama

      Undoubtedly, in the 21 century it is important to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, since the nuclear powers have too many, but this does not mean that they will have to sacrifice their own security. Barack Obama does not understand this. He publicly stated that he was not satisfied with the pace of nuclear disarmament in Russia. According to him, the States are doing everything to reduce the global nuclear potential, but the Russian Federation does not show interest in this matter. However, the US president is cunning and this is obvious, since Russia is reducing the number of nuclear warheads and if the pace of their destruction does not satisfy Obama personally, this does not mean that Vladimir Putin must catch his head and destroy his own weapons headlong. from the USA. Their military most often uses harsh language when it comes to Russia and our weapons. It is difficult to admit that Russian weapons are more perfect? Moreover, our military power in all its glory has shown itself in Syria, which has earned the trust of both the Syrians and investors.
  8. +16
    22 May 2016 11: 01
    He signed START-3 and withdrew from the ABM Treaty; do you hope for a global strike without consequences? And why not immediately call-disarm Russia!
    1. +1
      22 May 2016 12: 20
      Quote: 73bor
      He signed START-3 and withdrew from the ABM Treaty; do you hope for a global strike without consequences? And why not immediately call-disarm Russia!

      In fairness, it’s like Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Although maybe I remember something wrong.
      1. 0
        22 May 2016 18: 17
        Well, it's just the details, Bush came out and this one followed in the footsteps and is deploying missile defense in Romania and Poland!
  9. +10
    22 May 2016 11: 01
    Not interested enough? Well, get interested. Anything to offer besides missile defense at our borders?
  10. +9
    22 May 2016 11: 01
    OK, what. Put all kinds of missile defense around and something else to talk about reduction. The smoked cuckoo went. Hohlobred infected?
    Only after you.
  11. +9
    22 May 2016 11: 02
    According to Obama, Russia again does not want to improve the attitude. The American in his repertoire once again blaming Russia, once again with the help of a CIA agent sent to the Kremlin, it was disarmament that it’s not completely disarmed .. enough
  12. +7
    22 May 2016 11: 02
    But why disarm when everyone is arming. The United States can disarm, we are not opposed.
  13. +12
    22 May 2016 11: 03
    So without Russia’s nuclear weapons, Russia won’t be able to fight a war with NATO, the navy’s serious lag in the number of planes, and the cat burst into tears of combat-ready people who want to fight in Russia. Therefore, the nuclear potential must be increased, and the number of missiles and their thrust-weight ratio, let the states ache but it’s impossible to reduce nuclear weapons. Yeltsin has already undermined the country's defense capabilities
  14. +7
    22 May 2016 11: 06
    According to Barack Obama, Moscow is not sufficiently interested in reducing the nuclear arsenal
    Well, what's the matter, interest us, if only you really want it. We managed to interest us in the START-3 treaty, and we signed it. And if again, as always, "one-sided game", we, of course, will not go for it. Gone are the days of the Gorbachev-Yeltsian "deflections" in front of you, our interests will be taken into account in full. If, of course, you really want to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons.
    1. +2
      22 May 2016 13: 02
      Only one thing is relevant here. Listen to what Western presidents say, and do the opposite.
  15. +3
    22 May 2016 11: 06
    So she wants to tell the Black Baboon - go to you prick !!!!
  16. +9
    22 May 2016 11: 07
    “I think that we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown any interest in doing more”,


    Well, cut back! We do not mind. And not only we, the whole World are interested in reducing your nuclear weapons and in reducing your military budget. And we will help if necessary. In the neighborhood.
  17. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 09
    It is enough for Mr. Obama to re-read the preamble of the agreement he signed to add 1 + 1 and not look like an idiot.
  18. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 09
    Quote: Oleg16661
    If our leadership will reduce nuclear weapons in the light of recent NATO actions, I will seriously doubt their adequacy and capacity as leaders of our country.

    Why think so badly about our NOW leadership?
  19. +7
    22 May 2016 11: 14
    National interests and sovereignty above all else. The West is like a down, without a club behind its back it is not controlled. And with a club, soul-guy!
  20. +3
    22 May 2016 11: 18
    a monkey can’t wait to fight, stupid people think to sit in America. It will be interesting what hamburger eaters will eat when the nuclear winter comes. Maybe they will devour the frame, along with Hillary - also a bloodthirsty witch.
  21. +4
    22 May 2016 11: 21
    Now, just laces off!)))
  22. PPD
    +3
    22 May 2016 11: 23
    The guy has problems with his head! wassat
    It was necessary to combine everything together:
    He doesn’t want to disarm, but not just repent for Hiroshima, we won’t apologize.
    Concert and only, by the way-
    Speaker Barack Obama, he will perform the work of DBKabalevsky Clowns,
    although probably here in the singular-clown. laughing
  23. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 24
    We would love to be friends, just the iron for ironing shoelaces has broken. We cannot set up production either. The economy is this, in shreds
  24. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 28
    The abbreviation in the Amer’s way is for keeping, and ours is under the knife. Thanks, have already passed.
  25. +1
    22 May 2016 11: 30
    He really considers himself an "exceptional" politician,
    how much the disease worsened.
  26. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 33
    He doesn’t notice a log in his eye ...
    Over in the 90s Our people have cut a lot, but in vain.
    America's dream --- sitting on our neck and hanging legs.
  27. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 33
    Was this monkey completely confused? We’ll straighten the laces and drop the slippers and run to disarm ...
  28. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 36
    Quote: Pereira
    Not interested enough? Well, get interested. Anything to offer besides missile defense at our borders?

    Well, why? There is still the ability to store their own missiles, while Russia has conscientiously destroyed its own! God forbid to return to us at this time ...
  29. 0
    22 May 2016 11: 38
    Quote: Zena20298
    Was this monkey completely confused? We’ll straighten the laces and drop the slippers and run to disarm ...

    laughing laughing laughing
  30. +2
    22 May 2016 11: 38
    The problem is not whether we’ll disarm or not, there is parity with SGA at the moment, but we must take into account the number of nuclear weapons in other NATO countries. Yao should not be below the level sufficient for a retaliatory strike. Only the possibility of mutual destruction stops them from attacking our country.
  31. +1
    22 May 2016 11: 38
    The black baboon, march on a palm tree. You’re already tired of everyone, horseradish peacemaker
  32. 0
    22 May 2016 11: 42
    “I think that we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown any interest in doing more”,
    You Obama look foolish among your satellites. We have enough of the nuclear weapons that we have, only we will do it even more efficiently.
  33. 0
    22 May 2016 11: 51
    Right now, we ran away to cut. Roll away from our borders and from Europe, then we'll talk. And then, on condition that it is mandatory (although you believe yourself more expensive, but at least something) to refuse to launch a sudden nuclear or non-nuclear first strike.
  34. 0
    22 May 2016 11: 53
    I am generally for disarmament the only way. we store and they saw
  35. +4
    22 May 2016 11: 54
    And the northern animal "scribe" sneaks up on the mattress toppers from the other side wassat Americans are beginning to respect our Armed Forces, but let them remain in the delusion about Russia's "torn" economy. Well, who can defeat the country in which such women live?
    1. +3
      22 May 2016 12: 41
      and still no one will defeat us with such roads
      1. 0
        22 May 2016 13: 05
        Quote: Gingerbread Man 59
        and still no one will defeat us with such roads
        ABOUT ! Me, me Rusish Autobahn Das Is Fantasy wassat A patching is an insidious plan for the Russians! Go figure out which patch the land mine wassat And the village of Gryaznukha will not be taken by the NATO tank regiment, even if it is defended by one district police officer with "Makar"! NATY has no equipment capable of conquering Russian roads wassat
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      22 May 2016 18: 48
      We put the asphalt
      Partly and a bit
      So that every occupier
      Stuck at the approaches

      Such a song was someone the author does not remember, from the history like the Germans by the end of 1941 complained to their command that the tanks had track tracks and piston rings in the engines worn out.
  36. +6
    22 May 2016 11: 57
    The political system of the United States of America is structured in such a way that if LeMur is imprisoned instead of a baboon, nothing changes, the President is strictly limited in his abilities. But he can talk as much as you want, and he doesn’t seriously listen to this stupid chatter and didn’t sign it — all this goes through several stages of approval until it becomes law or contract. This is an examination by the vice president of the US State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Army and then approval by the party that promoted it and, finally, approval by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Such a lengthy procedure does not allow adopt some law or agreement if the headman * has a roof * and this headman knows and understands it and therefore only says that he will be brought on a note written by his * assistants * that is, curators of A * flirting * presidents are simply removed and DF Kennedy is far from the first
  37. -1
    22 May 2016 12: 08
    Finally, Russia has not shown sufficient interest in what the Americans are interested in!
    And before, it showed, and even how, starting with Gorbachev, then Yeltsin, and today's very first exchanged the naval base in Kamrani and the intelligence center in Cuba just for fu fu, waiting in vain for interest from overseas.

    NF is a trump ace in a game with world cheaters and dumping it on the American sixes is simply stupid.
    1. +2
      22 May 2016 12: 33
      Quote: akudr48
      Finally, Russia has not shown sufficient interest in what the Americans are interested in!

      Have you been sleeping for eight years and you just woke up? Prior to this, Russia:

      - tamed Georgia (remember?)
      - annexed Crimea
      - introduced "counter-sanctions". Contrary to the WTO norms, by the way, the entry into which there is only lazy .. did not lay around the perimeter
      - broke the "partners" the entire raspberry plant in Syria

      These are only the most obvious of the things that were "against the grain" striped "partners".

      Quote: akudr48
      ... today's best traded naval base in Kamrani and the intelligence center in Cuba just for fu fu ...

      Lourdes in 1996-2000 cost 300 million raccoons a year. Three hundred million, Karl! This was exactly when the country was in debt for the most part (thanks to EBN) and there was no money in the country. From the word "absolutely".

      Cam Ranh has not been used since the mid-90s. Also from the word "absolutely".

      And you just have to throw something - "after all, you bastards, all-pro-salipolymers" .. this, dear, the easiest way is just .. to think (at least a little) is much more difficult Yes

      PS: minuscenters - face! laughing
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. +1
    22 May 2016 12: 44
    Russia has not shown interest in doing more

    But why? belay
    No, with such "gentlemen" there must be a big, thick, knotty club in the sleeve. So that if something is suddenly forgotten, you could hit them on the head, so that they "shove" with their brains. And without a club on the skull too quickly everyone forgets that there is only one planet and it is small, but everyone wants to live normally.
  40. +2
    22 May 2016 13: 05
    Until the victory of the world revolution, Moscow should not have shown any interest in reducing nuclear potential.
  41. +1
    22 May 2016 13: 09
    Here is a filthy monkey!
    And on the contrary, Russia needs only to build up and improve nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles to the territory of our worst enemy - the USA!
  42. 0
    22 May 2016 13: 10
    Shitty disarm, the whole point of what has been said.
    It’s always interesting to see how the NATO members remain, as it were, with nothing, because disarmament concerns only the USA and Russia. I see the Americans once again trying to lead us into the arms race.
  43. 0
    22 May 2016 13: 28
    The soot has completely beached the coast, they are standing very close to the borders and still disarm? -Maybe he can take out the keys
  44. 0
    22 May 2016 13: 30
    All of Europe is stuffed with military bases, and they want voluntary disarmament from Russia ... More than enough has been said about the unconditional need for a nuclear shield in Russia. Strategic missile forces, strategic nuclear missile submarines of the types: Squid, Dolphin, Shark and Borey, as well as strategic bombers, are the only weighty arguments that deter Russia's geopolitical enemies from open military confrontation.
  45. 0
    22 May 2016 13: 33
    No, nigga mess, we’ll only build up nuclear weapons. We don’t trust your sweet speeches ...
  46. 0
    22 May 2016 13: 41
    To the West. Yes, give the goats, entoy monkey is one Nobel Peace Prize: just to shut up. laughing
  47. 0
    22 May 2016 14: 12
    Well, babama, well, balobol, well, balobolish!
  48. 0
    22 May 2016 14: 17
    Tricky Monkey.
  49. 0
    22 May 2016 14: 22
    The presence of nuclear weapons only saved Russia from "democratization" in the American way. And now - let them be afraid. For them, unacceptable damage - for us - a question of existence.
  50. 0
    22 May 2016 14: 36
    ““ I think we can go further (in reducing armaments), but so far, Russia has not shown interest in doing more"" ...

    Hmm ... For some reason, Obama does not want to understand that Russia, by and large, must have not only at least US parity, but also with NATO as a whole (Naglia, France have their own nuclear weapons) and also such US allies as Pakistan , Israel have nuclear weapons as well - to deter possible threats from the East ... There, too, someone who wants to take advantage of the Russian territories has nuclear weapons and modern armies ...

    I won't poke a finger, but there are enough threats to us, Russia, from all sides, and we should have a "present" ready for everyone ...

    So, speaking of parity with the USA, Obama is practically trying to leave us naked and without a baton in his hand, surrounded by a flock of rabid dogs ...
  51. +1
    22 May 2016 15: 00
    According to him, “every manager has to make very difficult decisions, especially during a war.”
    Don't mistake Russians for people like you, Obama! Who disarms during war? laughing
  52. +1
    22 May 2016 15: 29
    “I think that we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown any interest in doing more”,

    This is what it is like, dense Russia!
    Obama teach us by your example: unilaterally reduce nuclear weapons its countries, abolish a dozen or two military bases around Russia - maybe we’ll get the idea?
  53. +1
    22 May 2016 15: 32
    Moscow is objectively not interested in further reducing its nuclear potential for one simple reason: further reduction of nuclear weapons is a direct path to a new world war! NATO will no longer have the only deterrent to attacking Russia. In the context of the threatening approach of NATO's military infrastructure to our borders, there can be no talk of reducing nuclear weapons. So let them say thank you for saving them from war.

    PS. Moreover, we would not have to increase nuclear power in connection with the active deployment of missile defense on our borders.
  54. 0
    22 May 2016 15: 42
    Vile, arrogant hypocrites......let them suck...d
  55. 0
    22 May 2016 16: 33
    You Americans are cunning, how can we negotiate with you? There was an agreement to build factories for the disposal of warheads, Russia has built and is building several such factories. And you cheated, dismantled the warheads and put them in a warehouse, in case they came in handy. And not a single plant was built. You first need to fulfill the previous agreements in full. And only then will you blame Russia. Show me an example of how this is done.
  56. 0
    22 May 2016 19: 28
    I wonder what initiatives are on your part? You are deploying new missile defense systems in Europe, moving NATO troops to the very borders, constantly screaming that Russia threatens the whole world, and have 800 military bases. And against this background, we must also reduce our strategic weapons?
  57. +1
    22 May 2016 19: 49
    Gentlemen, reading such speeches from their presidents, “I think we can go further (in arms reduction), but so far Russia has not shown interest in doing more,” I understand more and more that in the near future The 3rd World War will still take place, we have already been portrayed as enemies everywhere, they are constantly whipping up hysteria, and when they already say that we are not interested in nuclear disarmament, moreover, there are NATO bases around us, then it doesn’t take a genius to understand where this will all lead
  58. 0
    22 May 2016 20: 02
    We won't have much left without nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is “our everything.” And the guarantor and politics, and pride and conscience and humor. No, it’s impossible without him.
  59. 0
    22 May 2016 21: 29
    Quote: 73bor
    Signed START-3 and withdrew from the ABM Treaty

    Actually, it's the other way around. First, they left the ABM treaty (EMNIP in 2002), and START-3 was signed in April 2010

    Quote: LÄRZ
    Obama doesn't understand this. He publicly stated that he was not satisfied with the pace of nuclear disarmament in Russia. According to him, the United States is doing everything to reduce the world's nuclear potential, but the Russian Federation is not interested in this issue.

    Of course, he doesn’t understand how the Russians manage it, that by reducing strategic nuclear forces, the number of warheads increases. And if at the time of signing the Americans had 2,5 hundred more warheads than us, now it’s the other way around. We have 2,5 hundred more than them
  60. 0
    22 May 2016 21: 41
    Well, yes, with such bosom “partners” who bared their teeth and positioned themselves along the borders, it’s time to reduce the nuclear potential. The chairman of the Washington Regional Committee apparently decided to snag another Nobel Peace Prize.
  61. 0
    22 May 2016 21: 52
    Completely crazy! And they themselves “destroy” only through conservation! So it would be better to keep quiet.
  62. 0
    22 May 2016 23: 11
    it means you're not interested enough in Russia
  63. 0
    23 May 2016 00: 31
    Obama: Moscow does not show enough interest in reducing nuclear potential

    Damn it, dear! Is the country showing sufficient interest in reducing its military bases? And, this... 19 trillion. pay off your debts.
  64. The comment was deleted.
  65. 0
    23 May 2016 08: 23
    Comrades!!!! I read all a hundred of your posts, full of emotions and expression. Well, honestly, how do children react? CALMER necessary. Typical lame duck political babble. Americans themselves consider Obama's reign to be the most unsuccessful of the reigns of other presidents. And now, before leaving, he simply needs some kind of peace-loving initiative like air in order to go down in history as a “peacemaker.” But alas, nothing will work out for him.

    And such initiatives are mainly for the public, and not for the leadership of countries. Remember Gorbachev's similar initiative for a world without nuclear weapons. It would be nice to negotiate with the United States on a complete reduction, but where does that leave France, England, China, and Israel??? That is, exactly the same zilch, shock of air, as Obama is experiencing now. Such issues cannot be resolved overnight; sometimes it takes more than a year to agree on everything...

    Quote: cat hippo
    I wonder what initiatives are on your part? You are deploying new missile defense systems in Europe, moving NATO troops to the very borders, constantly screaming that Russia threatens the whole world, and have 800 military bases. And against this background, we must also reduce our strategic weapons?

    Actually, Obama's recent talk has not been about reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Several years ago he was directly told that there could be no talk of any reductions in strategic nuclear forces until the end of the START-3 treaty. He has recently been calling for a reduction in tactical nuclear weapons, of which we have several times more than the Americans.

"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"