Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:37 am

    It's a testament to how much of imbecile Mikhail Gorbachev was...

    Not at all... in the 1980s most IRBMs were armed with nukes and the short flight time would be measured in minutes and seconds.

    This meant that Soviet retaliation capabilities had to be able to act in a few minutes otherwise an IRBM might destroy Moscow before a launch decision had been made leaving all of the Soviet weapons unlaunched as all the wests weapons were sent to the Soviet Union.

    Such a situation with such a hair trigger for a full retaliation was very dangerous so removing all such weapons made the world much safer.

    the Soviets had S-300P and S-300V which would have shot down the shorter range stuff but longer range missiles would have been a problem.

    These days however there are two important factors.

    First the accuracy of Russian guidance means conventional warheads can be as effective as nuclear warheads, and second Russian SAMs are entering service that can shoot down most IRBMs anyway and without the ABM treaty limiting radar location and direction Russia can set up a national ABM defence system of its own that will likely be quite effective and become more so over time.

    If this treaty does "burn", do you think Russia will reveal the "true range" of the Iskander? I sure hope so!

    Without the INF treaty the range of Iskander can be greatly increased very rapidly and with little effort.

    Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.

    The MTCR treaty only effects exported weapons... and even then the US has violated this on several occasions selling long range weapons to allies.

    I don't know Mike, to me the START treaty still holds some signifacance, but if the U.S keep pushing there luck like this then all treaties go out the fricking window, there's no point in restraining yourself when the enemy is at the flipping gates!!

    START is useful, but if the US continues with its global ABM system then START becomes limiting for Russia... so...

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    ICBMs are not related to broken arrows...

    And new IRBMs would not need nuclear warheads as guidance accuracy and performance means conventional warheads are sufficient.

    In my opinion, countries should be able to have as many nukes and ABM systems as they like.

    The problem with ABM systems is that some countries might think they make them safe... they do not.

    Having lots of ICBMs makes the world safer because of MAD. Having lots of ABMs makes the world less safe because the country with lots of ABM systems might think MAD no longer applies because it has ABMs and protect itself. Whether that is true or not it makes full scale nuclear war more likely rather than less likely... which is a bad thing IMHO.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1433
    Points : 1434
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I mostly agree, France and Britain should have indeed signed sought a treaty, but that treaty could not be the START treaty, because the biggest reason for the START treaty was to lessen the amount nuclear weapons, you cannot have nations with far less nukes then the treaty allowed (max), this would give these weaker nations permission not to decrease there stockpiles, but to increase them instead, which makes the entire point of the treaty (START) meaningless.

    But you need to acknowledge that there are "sides" in Europe and it is basically NATO vs Russia so rather than allowing the UK and France to have the same number of strategic nuclear weapons as Russia or the US the weapons of Americas allies should be included with Americas weapon numbers.... otherwise it ends up like the farce that the CFE became where instead of balance as originally wanted it ended up with NATO having most of the Warsaw Pacts allocation of numbers with a resulting huge imbalance that became rather meaningless.
    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 am

    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??

    The initial agreement was intended to reduce the huge amount of hardware in the Soviet Union without it being transfered to allies in Europe... by setting limits they were able to get rid of a lot of old stuff and ensure limits of hardware in Europe on both sides.

    The main sticking points later on were deployments of Russian troops in disputed regions like Abkhazia and South Ossetia and of course in Nagarno Karabach.

    Even as countries changed from the Warsaw Pact to NATO and took their CFE levels with them and the whole concept of balance became ridiculous there were plenty of sticking points including limits put early on in areas of the Soviet Union. The so called flank areas of the north and south meant that the Ukraine and Russia were the only countries in the entire agreement that were restricted as to where they could deploy their forces in their north and south regions.

    the original intent was to prevent large amounts of material being moved from the west bases in former WP countries to the south or north of Russia or the Ukraine as it was seen as destabilising for those areas to now be confronted with large force numbers just on the other side of the border.

    Obviously during the conflicts of the 90s and 00s the Russians would have preferred to have been free to deploy any forces particularly to the south where and when they were needed... no other country in the agreement had limitiations within their borders on where they could or could not deploy their forces.

    Of course for a while when Russia had no money for its military having to scrap large amounts of material was a money saving measure and it also put limits on the production and deployment of NATO conventional forces so Russia found it useful if more and more absurd over time as the original concept of balance with 20K tanks each gradually changed as countries left the WP and joined NATO.

    The final straw was when Russia finally signed a new CFE treaty but pretty much no one else did in protest at Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and also NK.

    Russia was bound by the treaty and was getting criticism from the west which was not bound because it had not signed yet so Putin withdrew from the CFE treaty until everyone else had signed it... they didn't.

    Just as well Russia stuck to their guns and did not withdraw their forces from SO... who knows what might have happened if those forces were not present... 8 8 8.

    Once Russia has S-400 and S-500 and S-350 in full production then the INF treaty becomes less useful and more of a hinderance.

    As US ABM systems pop up everywhere the new START treaty also becomes less useful too.

    Russia and the INF Treaty violation

    Interesting article, but intrigued at the idea that the Krasnoyarsk radar... near the Soviet border with Mongolia violated the ABM treaty yet the US radars in the UK (fylingdales) and Greenland (Thule) did not violate the rules of the ABM treaty... The UK and Greenland are further from US borders than Krasnoyarsk is from the Soviet Mongolian border.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1433
    Points : 1434
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??

    The initial agreement was intended to reduce the huge amount of hardware in the Soviet Union without it being transfered to allies in Europe... by setting limits they were able to get rid of a lot of old stuff and ensure limits of hardware in Europe on both sides.

    The main sticking points later on were deployments of Russian troops in disputed regions like Abkhazia and South Ossetia and of course in Nagarno Karabach.

    Even as countries changed from the Warsaw Pact to NATO and took their CFE levels with them and the whole concept of balance became ridiculous there were plenty of sticking points including limits put early on in areas of the Soviet Union. The so called flank areas of the north and south meant that the Ukraine and Russia were the only countries in the entire agreement that were restricted as to where they could deploy their forces in their north and south regions.

    the original intent was to prevent large amounts of material being moved from the west bases in former WP countries to the south or north of Russia or the Ukraine as it was seen as destabilising for those areas to now be confronted with large force numbers just on the other side of the border.

    Obviously during the conflicts of the 90s and 00s the Russians would have preferred to have been free to deploy any forces particularly to the south where and when they were needed... no other country in the agreement had limitiations within their borders on where they could or could not deploy their forces.

    Of course for a while when Russia had no money for its military having to scrap large amounts of material was a money saving measure and it also put limits on the production and deployment of NATO conventional forces so Russia found it useful if more and more absurd over time as the original concept of balance with 20K tanks each gradually changed as countries left the WP and joined NATO.

    The final straw was when Russia finally signed a new CFE treaty but pretty much no one else did in protest at Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and also NK.

    Russia was bound by the treaty and was getting criticism from the west which was not bound because it had not signed yet so Putin withdrew from the CFE treaty until everyone else had signed it... they didn't.

    Just as well Russia stuck to their guns and did not withdraw their forces from SO... who knows what might have happened if those forces were not present... 8 8 8.

    Once Russia has S-400 and S-500 and S-350 in full production then the INF treaty becomes less useful and more of a hinderance.

    As US ABM systems pop up everywhere the new START treaty also becomes less useful too.
    Damn, what a mess, and can you clarify what you mean about the START treaty becoming useless.

    Russia and the INF Treaty violation

    Interesting article, but intrigued at the idea that the Krasnoyarsk radar... near the Soviet border with Mongolia violated the ABM treaty yet the US radars in the UK (fylingdales) and Greenland (Thule) did not violate the rules of the ABM treaty... The UK and Greenland are further from US borders than Krasnoyarsk is from the Soviet Mongolian border.
    Western hypocrisy at it's best. Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arms control treaties

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:39 am

    START is not so much useless as a hinderance.

    The first agreement was SALT which set limitations on the number of missiles and platforms each side could deploy.... the L is for limitation.

    START is for reduction and is all about reducing strategic weapons to levels where they are still effective for defence but reduced in number to a bare minimum.

    The problem is that it made sense to limit the number of nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs and cruise missiles carried by strategic bomber when there was pretty much little the other side could do to stop such platforms. What was expected to happen was the ICBMs and SLBMs would arrive first and be unstoppable and destroy everything. Then a few hours later the cruise missiles would start arriving and destroy everything else.

    The ABM treaty of 1972 didn't ban ABM systems... it restricted their use to either protecting ICBM fields or the countries capital city. The Soviets built one to defend Moscow... the logic being that by stopping the first few nukes headed for Moscow the leadership will have more time to get commands out to mobilise and launch the Soviet response. The US built an ABM field near an ICBM field and closed it the day it was opened because ICBMs don't need protecting... if you detect an enemy attack just launching all your ICBMs will mean they will be in the air and on their way to the other country when the other countries missiles get to your ICBM fields.

    Who would sign an agreement limiting the size and power of small arms he is allowed when there is no agreement or restriction on armour?

    The US could put 20,000 nuclear tipped ABM missiles in Europe and Asia and the North Pole/Canada region and they would not be restricted by any agreement.

    More importantly unlike ICBM warheads having ABM missiles might delude the US into thinking they are safe from ICBM attack... whether it is true or not it is dangerous because MAD works and ABM systems undermine MAD.

    The US first said they would build only 10 ABMs in Poland. Now they say they will use one of their AEGIS class cruisers with huge numbers of missiles and mobility to allow them to be positioned all over the place... very destabilising.

    The fact that the Russians will have the naval version in the S-500 does not balance the situation.

    The best solution for Russia would be lots of warheads to overwhelm the system but START limits warheads and platforms...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US making ‘no practical steps’ to ratify Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – Russia

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:47 pm

    US leadership is nothing more than pretentious sanctimonious hypocrites, it's been almost 20 years and the U.S. still hasn't ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty:

    US making ‘no practical steps’ to ratify Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – Russia


    ...All this nonsense about you have stop Iran from getting a nuke, meanwhile IAEA never presses Israel on it's nuclear stockpile, and the US refuses to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, what a ridiculous joke!!!

    I think Russia should give the US govt. 1 month to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and if they don't Russia should unilaterally end the treaty and start testing brand new warheads.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:33 am

    Russia hopes for early signing of protocol to Central Asian nuke-free zone treaty

    On Monday, President Barack Obama sent the protocol for ratification to the US Senate

    UNITED NATIONS, April 28. /TASS/. Russia has ratified a protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia and it hopes that the document will be signed soon, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for nonproliferation and armaments control, Mikhail Ulyanov, said here on Monday.

    "Russia has completed ratification of the protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia and we hope that a protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Southeast Asia will be signed soon enough, too," he said at a review conference on observance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    The Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia, which took effect in 2009, envisions that all the signatories - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - renounce development, purchases or storage of nuclear weaponry.

    To turn the treaty into a full-fledged document, each of the five nations possessing nuclear weapons officially - Russia, Britain, China, France, and the US - should give guarantees to the member-states that the nukes will never be used against them. This is to be done by signing an appropriate protocol.

    The same practice has been applied to the treaties on all other nuclear-free zones in case of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in South East Asia, etc.

    On Monday, President Barack Obama sent the protocol for ratification to the US Senate. He said in the letter of explanations that this step would benefit the US by raising the country’s security. Also, it would support Washington’s efforts to avert a fast buildup of the masses of nuclear weapons across the world and consolidate relations between the US and Central Asian countries,

    Askar Beshimov, Kyrgyzstan’s foreign ministry told the review conference Kyrgyzstan hoped the US would round up the signing procedure soon.

    He also said that by setting up a nuclear free zone the regional countries were making a sizable contribution to the nuclear nonproliferation regime, as well as to regional and global security.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu May 14, 2015 2:19 pm

    New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty not on Russia’s agenda — diplomat

    The diplomat metioned the US missile shield, possible deployment of weapons in space as well as misbalances in the sphere of conventional weapons as reasons

    MOSCOW, May 13. /TASS/. An issue of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is not on Russia’s agenda at the moment due to unstable global situation concerning the strategic balance, Mikhail Ulyanov, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, said on Wednesday.

    In an interview with Kommersant daily, Ulyanov said that "no one will be able to answer the question at the moment whether a new treaty on the strategic arms reduction would be concluded."

    "At least this issue is currently not on our [Russia’s] agenda," the diplomat said adding it was because that "since the end of the Cold War era there had never been such an unfavorable situation for continuing talks on the nuclear disarmament."

    "The situation concerning the strategic stability is very uncertain today," Ulyanov said. "It goes for what we [Russia] have repeatedly stated about and it is the US missile shield, which is being upgraded and changes a lot in the modern world, the possible deployment of weapons in space as well as misbalances in the sphere of conventional weapons."

    Russia and US-led NATO have been in a long dispute over US missile shield plans in Europe, which the United States said was aimed to defend its allies from possible missile threats emerging from Iran and North Korea.

    Russia viewed the deployment of the missile shield near its borders as a threat to its national security and in 2011 then-President Dmitry Medvedev announced a set of measures to counter the US-proposed missile defense system in Europe. The measures particularly included the construction of new air-defense radar systems and deployment of Iskander missiles in Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, which borders on Europe.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Is Nunn-Lugar Agreement still valid ? It was due to expire in 2013

    Post  max steel on Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:52 pm

    Is Nunn-Lugar Agreement still valid ? It was due to expire in 2013 . As Garry mentioned if this agreement harms Russia , then why are they keen in continuing it ?


    What i got from net . I guess Russia had withdrawn itself already . cheers

    Russia turns back on Nunn-Lugar after 20 years of cooperative nuclear weapons destruction – Russian papers say





    The Russian government announced that it is backing out of the Nunn-Lugar program, the most successful US-Russia nuclear and chemical weapons destruction program of the post-Soviet period, citing, according to US officials, the Kremlin’s prioritization of military secrets over financial assistance, Russian Media have reported.

    http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-issues-in-ex-soviet-republics/2012-10-update-russia-turns-back-on-nunn-lugar-after-20-years-of-cooperative-nuclear-weapons-destruction-russian-papers-say
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:09 pm

    US Violates Non-Proliferation Treaty With Nuclear Bombs in Germany - NGO

    New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Alice Slater claims that the United States continues to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s prohibition of sharing nuclear weapons with non-nuclear weapons states by stationing nuclear bombs in five NATO member nations.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States continues to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) prohibition of sharing nuclear weapons with non-nuclear weapons states by stationing nuclear bombs in five NATO member nations, New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Alice Slater told Sputnik.

    The United States continues to deploy nuclear weapons in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey and The Netherlands, Slater pointed out on Friday.

    "[The Obama administration is] now actually upgrading the weapons and deliveries systems at bases in those country hosting the illegal US instruments of death and destruction on their soil, even though those five non-nuclear weapons states signed the NPT and promised never to acquire nuclear weapons," Slater explained.

    "It is not surprising that Russia would be rattling its nuclear sabers in response," she added.

    Alexander Neu, a member of the Bundestag claims that US plans to modernize its nuclear arsenal in Germany infringe on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    On Tuesday, the German television station ZDF revealed the US Department of Defense plans to deploy B61 nuclear gravity bombs in Germany at the Buchel air force base this fall — replacing the 20 weapons already at the site.

    "The recent news that the United States is planning to station 20 new nuclear bombs in Germany, each one 80 times more destructive power than the bomb used in Hiroshima, gives cause for despair for global peace activists who have been working for nuclear disarmament and an end to war," Slater said.

    She explained that in 2000 then US President Bill Clinton rejected a proposal from Russian President Vladimir Putin that to start nuclear disarmament.

    "Putin had made an offer to Clinton, in 2000, that the United States and Russia should cut their arsenals of 19,000 nuclear weapons to 1,000 warheads each… and negotiate a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons on the planet," Slater said.

    Putin’s condition, she recalled, was that the Unite States refrain from building missile bases in Eastern Europe.

    However, "Clinton refused and Putin withdrew the offer," she noted.

    Slater also said the US media remained dominated by the military-industrial complex. making it very difficult for Americans to learn the truth.

    "We need all the help we can get… to get the truth out. Perhaps the Pope can talk some sense into the world and help the great majority of the world’s people to find the courage and enthusiasm to empower democracy and give peace a chance," Slater concluded.

    At present, there are an estimated 16,300 nuclear bombs in the world.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150926/1027562273.html#ixzz3mrTF8Gwu


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10773
    Points : 11252
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:43 pm

    UNIDIR project on tactical nuclear weapons is looking for a researcher

    UNIDIR is looking for a researcher to run a project on tactical nuclear weapons. Here is the formal announcement at Insipra, the UN web site. I've had a few people contacting me already with questions, so I thought it would make sense to say a few words about the project.

    It's no secret that this is not a great time to discuss arms control in general and for measures to address tactical nuclear weapons in Europe in particular. So, the project will not try to suggest any specific steps that would help restart the dialogue between Russia and NATO. That would take much more than a research project, at UNIDIR or elsewhere.

    What we will try to do at UNIDIR is to look at some ideas on how to deal with tactical nuclear weapons when we eventually get to the point of discussing them. The general outline of the approach is, in fact, not very controversial - any agreement would probably consolidate all these weapons in some storage facilities. Where these facilities might be is a matter of dispute - Russia wants them on national territories, NATO wants them away from its borders - but it's a political, not substantive dispute. Then, there would have to be a way of verifying that these weapons are there.

    There is a question of numbers as well. One of the ideas that is quite popular in Washington is that there would have to be some common ceiling for all weapons - strategic and not - so each country is free to choose its own mix. Specific numbers that are mentioned are somewhere around 2500-3000 total warheads. I don't think it's a good idea (to put it mildly), especially if you notice that we already have this ceiling - 1550 operationally deployed warheads in New START. Yes, this treaty does not deal with non-strategic weapons, but if you take its definitions, we are pretty close to having zero deployed non-strategic warheads (it's a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea).

    So, one of the main ideas of the UNIDIR project is to see if you can use the New START provisions to deal with non-strategic weapons. That would range from New START definitions to its verification and inspection provisions. As my colleagues and I demonstrated before, New START is a very powerful instrument that can be used, for example, to extend transparency provisions to arsenals of all nuclear weapon states. I also tried to look at New START and non-strategic weapons in a paper, prepared for a APS-CSIS workshop in 2013. Read the paper to get a sense of my thoughts about where the project might go.

    In practical terms, the project will involve looking at where weapon storage facilities are, getting a general sense of how one can conduct verification activities there, and identifying areas where New START provisions can be applied. This part of the work would probably require looking at satellite imagery. Knowledge of New START verification arrangements would be a considerable asset as well. Given the recent developments around cruise missiles, we will probably have to look into various approaches to, say, SLCM verification, which are technically not part of the START process. We then plan to have an expert meeting to discuss the ideas developed during the first stage of the project. And finally, the project will produce a report with its findings.

    UNIDIR will definitely prefer someone working in Geneva full time, but we may have some flexibility for an exceptionally good candidate. The project will start as soon as practically possible. Feel free to write to me if you have any questions. However, if you want to apply, please use the UN site to do so.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/04/unidir_project_on_tactical_nuc.shtml


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:18 am

    Russian Foreign Ministry sees no preconditions for resuming disarmament dialogue with US

    According to the ministry, the Washington-pursued policy of "deterring" Russia is erecting barriers to normal relations and is destabilizing the world situation

    The Russian side does not see preconditions for resuming a dialogue with the United States on strategic nuclear arms, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a review on "Russia’s Foreign Policy Activities in 2015" posted on the ministry’s website on Tuesday.

    "There has been stagnation in our dialogue with the United States on arms control issues. Those contacts were incidental in view of the previous decision of Barack Obama’s administration to stop bilateral military interaction," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

    "We steadily tried to bring our point home to the Americans that we do not see any preconditions for resuming a concrete discussion on strategic nuclear arms issues except for the continuation of regular sessions of the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) to discuss issues related to the implementation of the START treaty," the Russian Foreign Ministry noted adding that the sides had continued working jointly in multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation formats.

    According to the ministry, the Washington-pursued policy of "deterring" Russia is erecting barriers to normal relations and is destabilizing the world situation.

    "Despite the well-established interaction on most vital issues on the international agenda, Washington has, on the whole, refused to give up its policy of pressure and ‘deterrence’ of Russia. It continues imposing its policy line on the European allies relying on countries with the most pro-Atlantic thinking," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

    "The fact that the United States has enshrined these goals in its strategic planning documents and military policy is erecting long-term barriers to normalizing the relations and is undermining the basic for security and stability globally, including the Euro-Atlantic region," the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed.

    It added that Russia had always been open to cooperation in the solution of global and regional problems on the basis of equality, mutual respect and concern for interests in compliance with international law.

    The ministry has drawn Washington’s attention to the fact that attempts to exert pressure on Russia have no prospects, the US should adhere to the principles of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs.

    "During our bilateral contacts, we consistently pointed to the Americans that attempts to exert pressure on Russia are futile and demanded complying with the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs," the ministry said. "At the same time, we continued practical cooperation in the areas that meet Russia’s interests and the tasks of ensuring international security."

    "We continued to demand solving bilateral problems from Washington, many of which were created artificially by the US prior to the Ukrainian crisis," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We insisted that the US law enforcement agencies should stop hunting for Russian citizens travelling abroad bypassing the existing agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters."





    Sponsored content

    Re: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:42 pm