Military Review

Mr. Obama puzzles: extend START-3 or disband NATO?

46
The Washington Post newspaper reported that Barack H. Obama allegedly was ready to offer Russia to extend the START-3 agreement to 2026. The Kremlin, however, said they did not receive proposals from the White House to extend the contract. Some Russian military experts say that Moscow could extend START-3 subject to the second side of a number of conditions, other analysts strongly oppose the prolongation.



Recall the agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, abbreviated as START-3 or START-III, was signed by Presidents D. Medvedev and B. Obama 8 on April 2010. The Act entered into force on February 5 2011 .

START-3 is designed for ten years with a possible extension for another five years by agreement of the parties.

The agreement provides for a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads to 1550 units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missiles and strategic bombers to 700 units.

From the material Washington Post 11 July became aware of the intentions of Barack Obama to make a number of major changes in US nuclear policy.

The Washington Post refers to high-ranking informed sources at the White House. These people report on the upcoming historic announcement of the White House: that the United States is no longer going to use nuclear weapons. weapon the first.

Moreover, the administration of the peacemaker B.H. Obama decided to initiate, for his part, the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution banning nuclear testing.

Separately touched upon and the Russian theme. Obama proposes to offer Moscow to extend to 2026 of the year (that is, another five years plus the current term) of the START-3 treaty.

But this is not all: some US officials went further than Obama and spoke in favor of stopping the development of long-range cruise missiles (intended for a limited nuclear strike).

Finally, the material and financial issue. Without him, of course, not done. The White House administration plans to cut spending on modernizing nuclear weapons. If you do not reduce, then the mentioned modernization will require from the US 350 billion dollars in expenses over the next ten years.

The newspaper notes that the administration’s proposals are still proposals: none of them have been approved.

Of course, congressional Republicans were outraged by such peacemaking of the president. The main argument of the "hawks": they say, you can not use the remaining months of sitting in the Oval Office to weaken the nuclear potential of the Motherland! Yes, and the allies will be unhappy.

The Kremlin has not yet received notifications from the United States about the proposals of Barack Obama to extend the treaty on the reduction of offensive weapons, signed in 2010 year. On this 11 July said the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov.

"No, we do not know anything about it," - quotes him "Lenta.ru".

B. H. Obama's unapproved proposals provoked a storm of discussions in the Russian expert community.

Some military experts believe that Russia will go on renewing the START-3 agreement only if the United States fulfills a number of conditions. For example, Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, said RIA News"that the Kremlin will go on extending the treaty only if Washington meets a number of requirements, including refusing to deploy missile defense systems near the borders of Russia.

“Negotiations on the further reduction of nuclear arsenals will be conducted by Moscow in the implementation of the three most important points. The first point: the complete withdrawal of American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe to the United States. Second, during negotiations, a total credit of the nuclear potentials of the United States, Great Britain and France is needed on the one hand, and the Russian Federation on the other. The third point is that Americans must sign a legally binding agreement on limiting the deployment of their missile defense systems that affect the global strategic balance, ”Korotchenko news agency quoted.

According to the expert, if the United States refuses to fulfill the above points, there can be no talk of Russia’s reduction of its nuclear potential.

In addition, it should be taken into account, the expert noted, that the value of nuclear weapons for Washington has steadily decreased in recent decades. This is due to the fact that new high-precision systems in non-nuclear equipment are being put into service.

“In no case can we extend the START-3 agreement now,” stated categorically "Free Press" Leading expert at the Center for Military-Political Studies MGIMO Mikhail Alexandrov. “All these are tales that Obama wants to help his successor.” In fact, there are serious issues of American military planning and construction. Due to the exacerbation of the military-political situation, the Americans do not know what types of weapons they should build up. If we extend the treaty today, then Washington will know about our refusal to produce additional strategic nuclear weapons. Then the United States will continue to quietly build up its missile defense system. ”

The expert believes that if there is a prospect for Russia to increase offensive forces, then the idea of ​​building a missile defense system will "go bankrupt": after all, missile defense "is now ineffective, but new types of missiles that are planned to be delivered by the 2021 year will change the situation." “If the agreement is extended, then the missile defense system will be effective against a small number of missiles,” the analyst explained. “If we withdraw from the treaty, begin to deploy a large number of missiles, then there will never be enough antimissiles.”

Alexander Perendzhiev, an expert at the Association of Independent Military Political Scientists, suggests that an article in an American newspaper could have been a simple informational injection, designed to get opinions on the initiative.

The question is not whether or not to agree with Obama’s proposed initiatives, but about the specific content of the agreements, the expert believes.

“That is a speech today about what the States can do and what obligations they are ready to take on. But, in my opinion, all their promises will remain unfulfilled. Obama wants everyone to remember how he fought for peace. At the same time, to say that the United States had proposals, and Russia prevented from implementing such good initiatives. ”


“Apparently,” the expert added, “now the work is not even on political, but on historical Obama's image. So that he goes down in history as a peacemaker. Moreover, the descendants will ask why he received the Nobel Peace Prize? ”

Die, add, Obama is not going to. Recently, he was checked by doctors and concluded: healthy as a bull. And the “descendants” will hardly be asked if the Third World War begins.

Presumably, in the recent months Barack Obama has become uncomfortable with the world arms race that has begun. After all, if humanity is on the verge of a global war and remembers something to Mr. President, it is a dangerous “cold” confrontation with Russia, begun by its administration.

* * *


It seems that Mr. American President, under the curtain of his political career, really intended to confirm the status of the Nobel peacemaker.

Judge for yourself: by extending the START-3 agreement to 2026 (of course, with the consent of the Kremlin), Obama would create a reserve for the successor, whoever it turned out to be - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If START-3 is prolonged to 2026, the successor president will not have time to change the terms of cooperation with Russia in the field of nuclear weapons during the reign. Even if the double term of “imprisonment” on the throne falls to him, he still does not have time.

In a word, Obama is making another attempt to make history. Maybe the Nobel Committee is dissatisfied with his behavior?

Oh, Mr. Obama! Float fine! Dissolve NATO - that would be a truly peaceful plan!

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
46 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 13 July 2016 04: 38
    +2
    Yes, let the State Department break everything. Anyway, ours will overtake them.
    1. Teberii
      Teberii 13 July 2016 05: 50
      +3
      Soon, the elections need him to win at least some kind of victory. Yes, and put the pitchfork in Moscow. We’ll blow off the bell and act aggressively once again.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Karabin
      Karabin 13 July 2016 09: 55
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Anyway, ours will overtake them.

      Is he not a Muscovite anymore? wink
    3. GYGOLA
      GYGOLA 13 July 2016 10: 01
      +1
      Igor Korotchenko told RIA Novosti that the Kremlin would only extend the agreement if Washington met a number of requirements, including refusing to deploy missile defense systems near Russia's borders.
      Well, that’s the whole fate of this agreement. And it’s right. Unless the Kremlin suddenly changes its mind ...
      1. DIVAN SOLDIER
        DIVAN SOLDIER 13 July 2016 11: 27
        +3
        Each START treaty is a step towards a big war, they specifically want to disarm us more, so that the probability of an answer is less.
        1. Reserve officer
          Reserve officer 13 July 2016 13: 28
          +1
          Global security is not based solely on this START-3. And what about tactical nuclear weapons at the US bases in Europe, and missile defense, and increasing the US presence in the Baltic states and Poland, and finally the very existence of NATO, which is constantly growing?
          There is yet another attempt to weaken Russia, and not to achieve any higher goals for global security. Enough.
          1. 222222
            222222 13 July 2016 16: 49
            0
            This is yet another attempt to weaken Russia, rather than achieve any higher goals for global security. Enough."
            The course is backward .. and better again with European boots and lives ..
            .....
            2012--25th NATO Summit in Chicago May 20–21, 2012
            http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2012-06-08/1_summit.html
            2014 - NATO Summit in Newport (September 4 - 5, 2014) - 26th Summit of the Heads of State and Heads of Government of the participating countries
            "" "In the future, you will see an increased NATO presence in the east," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. This also applies to the presence of soldiers in these countries, who will be "constantly rotated".

            2016 - NATO Summit in Warsaw (July 8-9, 2016) - 27th Summit of the Heads of State and Heads of Government of the participating countries ...
        2. Asadullah
          Asadullah 13 July 2016 16: 03
          +2
          Each START treaty is a step towards a big war, they specifically want to disarm us more, so that the probability of an answer is less.


          Americans do not like to fight, they like to beat. It is not the same. From that, a big war, in the understanding of American global strategy, is possible if the enemy is hundreds of times weaker. In the case of Russia, this was possible plunging the country into dozens of regional wars, a parade of sovereignty of the subjects of the federation, dismemberment of logistics and industrial ties, stopping nuclear facilities. Otherwise, the West will never start a large-scale war. Even a local conflict of an accidental collision would instantly inflict a defensive function on NATO. It is one thing to participate in such a collective farm for trade preferences and loans, and it is quite another to plunge the country into a state of war. From that, the entire Western defense system carries two tasks, the first economic and political for internal use, the second, as a method of pressure on third countries, including Russia, with the goal of submission.
    4. Al1977
      Al1977 13 July 2016 14: 17
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Yes, let the State Department break everything. Anyway, ours will overtake them.

      The truth and justice are behind us!
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Wolka
    Wolka 13 July 2016 05: 26
    0
    a good trap for the Yankees, so that all one thing the Yankees need grandmas for the maintenance of their nuclear trash, and considerable, and a good Yankee is a poor Yankees, without a dollar they are not even pastoralists and not Indians, they are poor adventurers
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 13 July 2016 09: 54
      +1
      Quote: Volka
      good trap

      Quote: Oleg Chuvakin
      Dissolve NATO - that would be a truly peaceful plan!


      ... however, they were intent on something else -
      "We have a tradition in the EU. Once a century my friends and I gather in the Reich and climb into a den to a bear ..."
      Canada, which had not fought 100 for years in Europe, and never even on its territory, with the face of its Prime Minister Trudeau, decided to demonstrate full and absolute enthusiasm for leading NATO forces in the central direction of defense against "Russian aggression", which is now taking on a complete configuration:

      1) Britain with Estonian wagon train intends to defend against aggressive Russians in the general direction of St. Petersburg and Veliky Novgorod.

      2) Canada will defend itself from the “Putin hordes” in the direction of Velikiye Luki and Rzhev

      3) Germany will guard the rest of the NATO countries in the direction of Minsk-Smolensk-Vyazma for one simple reason - they already went there and everyone knows (it is quite possible that the French can connect to the same direction - they have there, on the Berezina, too left unfinished business ...)

      4) The Empire of Good is located closer to the Black Sea coast, because where is it without the Navy ... and the vassals who can be sent to "defend NATO's borders" in this region are a dime a dozen. There are Ukrainians, Turks, Romanian-Moldovans, and “brothers” who are eager to protect NATO, and Hungarians, who have some things to do near Stalingrad ... well, since talkative Ukrainians have already spoken about the “NATO offensive lines”, then we can only repeat after them the territories that must be "protected from the insidious Russians" - wow, what huge territories these are - from Crimea-Krasnodar-Voronezh to the Caucasus and further - to Ufa, Tyumen, and Surgut with Nizhnevartovsk ...

      In a word, nothing new - NATO is going to defend and defend itself against Russia in the same way as it defended itself and fell all the previous time. Simply, it (NATO) was called differently then - the Teutonic Order, Rzeczpospolita, the Kingdom of Sweden, the French and then the British Empire, the 3 Reich ... In a word, we have a tradition with our friends - once in a century we are all in the EU Reich, and climb into the den to the bear chorus ...

      "I free people from aggravating limitations of reason, from dirty and humiliating self-torture of the chimera called conscience and morality, and from claims to freedom and personal independence, to which only a few grow!" ... according to G. Rauschning, who cited this statement ( from an interview with Hitler in 1934) in the book "The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks", 1940
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 13 July 2016 10: 00
        +2
        Quote: Rus2012
        We have a tradition in the EU. Once a century, my friends and I gather in the Reich and climb into the den to the bear ...


        Somehow survive. Yes, and the Germans, they know, are no longer the same - neither you are of the order, nor of the order, nor of the Nordic nature are being observed for them - for pederast tolerance has done its job.
      2. the villain
        the villain 13 July 2016 10: 15
        +2
        Quote: Rus2012
        We have a tradition in the EU. Once a century, my friends and I gather in the Reich and climb into the den to the bear ...

        Here, only every time the Bear exclaims "DANUNAKH" !!! he sprinkles them with a shovel with a shovel and drives them all the way to the house, but they do it, suffocating with delight, and dropping fjakalia. And the thought is one for all: "but what for us" ??? I really hope that this time will not be an exception.
  4. 2014ya.ru
    2014ya.ru 13 July 2016 05: 50
    +9
    Due to the aggravation of the military-political situation, the Americans do not know what types of weapons they should build up. If we extend the treaty today, Washington will be aware of our refusal to produce additional strategic nuclear weapons. Then the United States will continue to calmly build up its missile defense system. Amerikosovskie tales and you can not believe them in any case! They will never refuse to build up any weapons. Another performance on the background of the information war!
  5. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 13 July 2016 05: 59
    +4
    Wait and see ... What to guess then?
  6. Aleksander
    Aleksander 13 July 2016 06: 10
    +6
    Third point - Americans must sign legally binding agreement about limiting the deployment of their missile defense systems that affect the global strategic balance, "


    Yeah, when it turns out that they violated it and it’s too late to change anything — what, will you run to the court to complain? Or will they dismiss missile defense with this piece of paper? What an idiocy!
    No extensions, the existing agreement is absolutely disadvantageous for Russia and puts it at a disadvantage, leaving unaccounted for nuclear missiles of France and England directed against Russia.
    1. Kos_kalinki9
      Kos_kalinki9 13 July 2016 06: 52
      +1
      Quote: Aleksander
      Third point - Americans must sign legally binding agreement about limiting the deployment of their missile defense systems that affect the global strategic balance, "


      Yeah, when it turns out that they violated it and it’s too late to change anything — what, will you run to the court to complain? Or will they dismiss missile defense with this piece of paper? What an idiocy!
      No extensions, the existing agreement is absolutely disadvantageous for Russia and puts it at a disadvantage, leaving unaccounted for nuclear missiles of France and England directed against Russia.

      Yes, I understand that Korotchenkov remembers our "precious" Gorby. He didn't sign anything at all. I believed in my "friends" and "partners".
      And yet (IMHO) this is an occasion that the Americans themselves would refuse to prolong the contract, because they will never go to a totalized calculation, taking into account the nuclear potential of London and Porizh.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 13 July 2016 10: 09
      0
      Quote: Aleksander
      Yeah, when it turns out that they violated it and it’s too late to change anything — what, will you run to the court to complain?

      ... there is a bit of a ta.
      When an agreement is signed, a list of MEASURES FOR VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE is proposed to it.
      In this case, for example, the constant presence of Russian INSPECTORS at the facility with the right of instrumental checks ...
  7. Knowing
    Knowing 13 July 2016 06: 18
    +1
    NATO, the EU, Obama, START-3, the United States, they all fall, falling apart .... recourse
  8. cap
    cap 13 July 2016 06: 32
    0
    Judge for yourself: by extending the START-3 agreement to 2026 (of course, with the consent of the Kremlin), Obama would create a reserve for the successor, whoever it turned out to be - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If START-3 is prolonged to 2026, the successor president will not have time to change the terms of cooperation with Russia in the field of nuclear weapons during the reign. Even if the double term of “imprisonment” on the throne falls to him, he still does not have time.

    Good article. Once again we are convinced that it is impossible to trust "partners".
    It is useless to sign any papers. Get wiped out by "agreements" at any time convenient for you.
    There has already been one "reboot" (overload), with a very familiar "lady".
  9. dojjdik
    dojjdik 13 July 2016 06: 52
    -3
    civil war in Lebanon? civil war in Jordan? civil war in Chechnya? civil war in Georgia? in Ukraine? civil war in Syria? Yes, yes, between Sunites, Shiites, Alawites, Christians, Muslims, brothers and sisters, but what about the same civil war in Israel, why is Israel without a civil war? death and destruction except Israel and the United States where Jews should live in peace and tranquility
  10. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 July 2016 06: 57
    +1
    Pure water is a political provocation. They are well aware that Russia will not sign the agreement on their terms and they will not go to the proposed restrictions. And according to this they announce to the World that we are planning a nuclear war and their missile defense was deployed on time and correctly.
  11. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 13 July 2016 06: 57
    0
    Obama, give the Nobel back, do not disgrace smile And then the descendants will really start to ask stupid questions lol Then the epithets of America will not be those that Americans are now imposing on themselves (exclusivity, bringing good to the masses), but deceit and hypocrisy. Then everything will fall into place and it will not be necessary to wonder why the words diverge from the deed repeat
  12. aszzz888
    aszzz888 13 July 2016 06: 58
    0
    In a word, Obama is making another attempt to make history. Maybe the Nobel Committee is dissatisfied with his behavior?

    Better to let it COME out of the "history".
  13. parusnik
    parusnik 13 July 2016 07: 11
    0
    A real step towards world peace is the dissolution of military blocs ... and NATO should be the first to dissolve .. And the START treaties from the evil one are called Rus, surrender ..
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 13 July 2016 14: 51
      +1
      parusnik

      All we are doing now is a discussion of rumors.

      Dear author, there is nothing to do, he wrote an article based on rumors. Starting her to discuss is to crush the water in the mortar.

      NATO does not belong to the United States. This tool of violence is actually controlled by other structures. If still controlled.

      There is a conflict of interests between financial and industrial groups in the world. The President of the United States is a "whipping boy" who tries to play on the contradictions of two forces of influence. In the United States, this is all the more difficult, because the real presidential power is weaker and weaker every year.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 13 July 2016 16: 15
        +1
        In other words, we are on the verge of interesting events ..
  14. grandfather Mih
    grandfather Mih 13 July 2016 07: 16
    +1
    Obama got into a mess of history. Cave ... must understand that the world is the peace of our country. The desire for war in our territory is nonsense. The weapon is such that there will be no country on the globe that wished it.
  15. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 13 July 2016 07: 37
    +2
    some U.S. officials went further than Obama and called for the cessation of the development of long-range cruise missiles (intended for limited nuclear strike).

    And why do they need long-range missiles, if there are those that are in Europe. But there is reason to blame Russia for what you are developing, but we are not.
  16. Beard
    Beard 13 July 2016 07: 59
    -1
    Here on the Internet rumors roam that the Americans have forgotten how to enrich uranium. And quite reasonable.
  17. cost 75
    cost 75 13 July 2016 08: 13
    -1
    They do not need to be enriched either. They store the old in warehouses.
    1. Beard
      Beard 14 July 2016 13: 37
      0
      Quote: kos 75
      They do not need to be enriched either. They store the old in warehouses.
      They say the radioactive islands are decaying. Not? And they say that even ordinary ammunition has its own shelf life. Also lying? Warranty period for YaB 30 years.
  18. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 13 July 2016 08: 22
    -2
    Quote: dojjdik
    civil war in Lebanon? civil war in Jordan? civil war in Chechnya? civil war in Georgia? in Ukraine? civil war in Syria? Yes, yes, between Sunites, Shiites, Alawites, Christians, Muslims, brothers and sisters, but what about the same civil war in Israel, why is Israel without a civil war? death and destruction except Israel and the United States where Jews should live in peace and tranquility

    What nonsense? Have you heard about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Why isn’t you a civil war? And what cannibalistic position? Not even a minus.
    1. dojjdik
      dojjdik 13 July 2016 21: 05
      0
      Well, everything is clear, any so-called "civil war" is the essence of sabotage, no matter what this sabotage group is called, in Kiev, this group under the "command" of Paroshenko on the border between Iraq and Syria is a sabotage group of ISIS or Daesh in Afghanistan, they were first called mujahideen then the Taliban and so on in Lebanon, the so-called "civil war" was under the invented by Israeli propagandists chatter supposedly between Muslims and Christians-Beirut was destroyed but why this very war ended in 1990 he he answer yourself
  19. grandfather Mih
    grandfather Mih 13 July 2016 09: 49
    +1
    Quote: Grandfather Micah
    Obama got into a mess of history. Cave ... must understand that the world is the peace of our country. The desire for war in our territory is nonsense. The weapon is such that there will be no country on the globe that wished it.
    The incitement to hatred of the Russians is an article to be summed up. Nobel’s eyes froze. In one country, this laureate has already staged Russian genocide. Proactively and radically, it is necessary to crush such and others like him in Syria.
  20. denchik1977
    denchik1977 13 July 2016 12: 21
    0
    Barack Obama, like his predecessors, who served as president throughout the 1972th century, never took friendly steps towards the Soviet Union (now the Russian Federation). True, we must give them their due, they all tried to act in the interests of the United States more or less carefully and, if I may say so, "filigree", perhaps with the exception of George W. Bush, who, as a resident of the "Texas outback", is a "cowboy" decency "stupidly" and completely impudently left the ABM Treaty of XNUMX. Obama's attempts to become a "true peacemaker" are doomed in reality to imitate the activities of George W. Bush (well, how can you not recall Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin with his immortal aphorism " it turned out as always ... ").
    The country's top leadership and Vladimir Putin personally should be well aware that an attempt to prolong the operation of the SVN-3 or an attempt to allegedly "dissolve" NATO is aimed at only one thing - to weaken Russia as soon as possible and by any available means, and even better - to simply erase it from face of the earth. The system of treaties of the XX century is no longer in effect, the same INF Treaty of 1987 is already more dead than alive today ... In no case can you trust the US leadership, because with a sweet smile on the face and advocating world peace, that Barack Obama, this unrecognized and underestimated "dove of peace" by no one until the end, at the first convenient opportunity is ready to thrust a "knife" into his back to the very hilt, just to achieve the interests of the United States.
  21. Kozliu
    Kozliu 13 July 2016 12: 50
    +1
    The fewer missiles take off, the easier it will be to shoot down missile defense.
    START - anti-Russian treaty
  22. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 13 July 2016 14: 24
    +1
    The dance of Bush Jr. during a memorial service for the victims of the shooting in Dallas.

  23. Logos
    Logos 13 July 2016 17: 34
    0
    With the refusal of the United States to fulfill the above points, there can be no talk of any negotiations to reduce Russia’s nuclear potential.

    This explains everything. Since Russia will never reduce its nuclear weapons (after all, without nuclear weapons, NATO will tear Russia apart like a hot-water bottle), all US maneuvers are designed to put Russia in an unfavorable light
  24. berezin1987
    berezin1987 13 July 2016 17: 43
    0
    Nuclear weapons must be sufficient to completely destroy any adversary in any coalition with a guaranteed supply. And yet, it would be good to start developing a new ultralight ballistic missile of the Courier type. Such a missile should have a range of 11-12 thousand km and a payload of 500-600 kg, which will allow it to be equipped with a megaton-class warhead with means of overcoming missile defense. This will significantly reduce the cost of delivery vehicles and increase their mobility.
  25. Yak28
    Yak28 13 July 2016 17: 52
    +1
    It’s clear that Russia’s nothing to catch without nuclear weapons and disarmament is out of the question, but the main thing is why France, Israel, China, England and so on aren’t also reducing their nuclear arsenals? or maybe even building up their arsenals. The same applies to China and India with Pakistan. Only the states and Russia should not have many warheads, does this not concern others? request
  26. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 13 July 2016 18: 08
    0
    Come on, breaks. Bush Jr. proved that American presidents have not had a brain in a long time.
    Dance Obama.
  27. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 13 July 2016 20: 49
    0
    The Negro decided that the Russians are like Indians or his ancestors from Africa ??? We give you mirrors, and you give us your land, your women and gold ...
  28. Turkir
    Turkir 13 July 2016 23: 09
    0
    Mr. Obama is racking his brains

    It would be better if he broke his neck.
  29. 15Bars
    15Bars 14 July 2016 00: 06
    0
    Mr. Obama would go on ...
  30. Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 14 July 2016 03: 09
    0
    Down with the NATO! Down with NATO! Mettons fin a l'OTAN!
  31. tracer
    tracer 14 July 2016 08: 14
    0
    In conventional armaments, NATO has a huge advantage. Only the nuclear weapons can restrain the hordes of armed men with the latest technology (armed armed men and not for la that M 4 does not shoot). All agreements to reduce these weapons are extremely dangerous. Because they will immediately create the desire of the enemy to play by force. These agreements are on the figs ... I think that the government and the commander in chief understand this very well.
  32. Samoyed
    Samoyed 14 July 2016 11: 12
    0
    Nuclear weapons are Russia's asymmetric response. NATO's budget is more than 10 times larger than Russia's defense budget. And the delivery vehicles should be moved to the Arctic and to the East, closer to the "exceptional" ones. It's time to zoning poplars in Chukotka soldier .