Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+35
Mindstorm
The-thing-next-door
calripson
nero
hoom
Sujoy
owais.usmani
PapaDragon
dino00
Hole
Labrador
LMFS
franco
ATLASCUB
Project Canada
miketheterrible
Isos
Arrow
kvs
OminousSpudd
Big_Gazza
TheRealist
max steel
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
George1
Viktor
zg18
macedonian
AlfaT8
Ogannisyan8887
GarryB
Admin
Farhad Gulemov
Russian Patriot
39 posters

    New START Treaty

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10899
    Points : 11044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs 17/03/21, 03:56 am

    Arrow wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/12/trident-nuclear-warhead-numbers-set-to-increase-for-first-time-since-cold-war?__twitter_impression=true

    Start extended now UK increases strategic arsenal.

    The UK will never be able to keep up. America has made exiting from important arms treaties (ABM, INF) fashionable. If UK-tards push
    too hard they will be swamped with superior Russian ICBMs and warheads.

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31025
    Points : 31553
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB 17/03/21, 02:13 pm

    With new breeder reactors coming online I rather suspect producing nuclear weapons grade material should be quite trivial and relatively cheap... in fact they could probably sell some to the Chinese if China sees the UK producing nuclear missiles and wants to boost its own capacity to defend itself.

    Funny thing that the UK can't afford new tanks or fighter planes but they want nukes... suggests they are going to take a more hands off approach to the world with less interventions with the US because they simply wont have the conventional military capacity to do very much.

    kvs likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3921
    Points : 3923
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  LMFS 17/03/21, 04:45 pm

    They are simply soiling their pants about the current and growing Russian conventional capabilities and think more nukes are going to help them preserve their privileges. Apart from their world beating hypocrisy of waiting for the ratifying of START to announce this, and doing it while blabbering about Iran's nuclear threat, it is very doubtful that such measures are going to prevent them from being put in their place in the medium term. More nukes will just be of use if they are ready to be annihilated as a country, I would say.

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 1496
    Points : 1656
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sujoy 17/03/21, 07:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:With new breeder reactors coming online I rather suspect producing nuclear weapons grade material should be quite trivial and relatively cheap... in fact they could probably sell some to the Chinese if China sees the UK producing nuclear missiles and wants to boost its own capacity to defend itself.

    Funny thing that the UK can't afford new tanks or fighter planes but they want nukes... suggests they are going to take a more hands off approach to the world with less interventions with the US because they simply wont have the conventional military capacity to do very much.
    UK to increase nuclear stockpile from 180 to no more than 260 warheads. The implication is larger stockpile is to have capacity so that Trident can be counter to both Russian short-range systems for use on European battlefield as well as longer-range missiles that threaten homelands. Details in the Twitter thread below.

    https://twitter.com/LawDavF/status/1371837330378661893?s=20
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10899
    Points : 11044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs 17/03/21, 08:09 pm

    Sujoy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With new breeder reactors coming online I rather suspect producing nuclear weapons grade material should be quite trivial and relatively cheap... in fact they could probably sell some to the Chinese if China sees the UK producing nuclear missiles and wants to boost its own capacity to defend itself.

    Funny thing that the UK can't afford new tanks or fighter planes but they want nukes... suggests they are going to take a more hands off approach to the world with less interventions with the US because they simply wont have the conventional military capacity to do very much.
    UK to increase nuclear stockpile from 180 to no more than 260 warheads. The implication is larger stockpile is to have capacity so that Trident can be counter to both Russian short-range systems for use on European battlefield as well as longer-range missiles that threaten homelands. Details in the Twitter thread below.

    https://twitter.com/LawDavF/status/1371837330378661893?s=20

    The UK is actively sabotaging START. Whether it understands this or not.

    A collection of chutzpah monkeys who think that reality bends to their will.

    miketheterrible and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31025
    Points : 31553
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB 18/03/21, 06:51 am

    Hahahahahahaha... brilliant.... those Brits are morons... worse they are dangerous morons...

    If they think adding extra tridents so they can use them as tactical nuclear missiles to support the Baltic states or Poland or the Ukraine all ganging up to take Kaliningrad or some such nonsense do they not realise that the Russians tracking those trident subs seeing a trident missile launch will think WWIII just kicked off and reply in kind against the UK and US and the rest of HATO.

    The US are the same... they think the Russians have developed so low yield nuke weapons that the west thinks the Russians think they can get away with using in a conventional war without escalating to a nuke war... so the US want low yield nukes on their SLBMs so they can use them early on too... the problem is that the entire basis of the entire scenario is bullshit... some arsehole made it all up.... there is no evidence at all that the Russians are making low yield nuclear weapons they can use in a conventional conflict... that is rubbish.... but when highly likely is good enough to impose sanctions and start new weapon programmes... wonder where we are headed....

    magnumcromagnon and kvs like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3921
    Points : 3923
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  LMFS 18/03/21, 07:08 am

    That is what the "escalate to de-escalate" BS, "Gerasimov doctrine" crap and similar Western retardation says. But of course, it is all an intelligence insulting cover up for the nuclear blackmailing the West is planning to implement in case they lose (hint: they have already lost it) the conventional armaments race and someone decides it is time to put an end to their global dictatorship. The world is either theirs or it won't be, that is how their "brains" work.

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon and kvs like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 799
    Points : 801
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  lyle6 18/03/21, 07:18 am

    Perfidious Albion strikes again. This time trying to hitch a carnival ride they clearly aren't tall enough, so they scramble for platform shoes, only its made up of hand grenades. These fuckers really are going to risk WW3 just because they can't afford an effective arsenal of conventional warhead delivery systems to saber rattle with aren't they? Listen up dickheads, I don't care if you have have to sell the NHS or whore the queen out but at least have the decency of not ending the world while you're out there having a pissing contest with the Russians, eh?

    magnumcromagnon and LMFS like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11571
    Points : 11639
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  PapaDragon 18/03/21, 08:54 am


    Relax folks

    START got 5 year extension after which new negotiations will be required which will be the moment when those French and British nukes should be introduced to new deal or the whole thing is a wash and Russia can start cranking up some fresh nukes in peace

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6212
    Points : 6186
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  miketheterrible 18/03/21, 10:01 am

    It will take them decades to increase nuke arsenal (Brits).
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3921
    Points : 3923
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  LMFS 19/03/21, 04:20 am

    New START Treaty - Page 13 EwyB3IfWUAgwVtN?format=jpg&name=small

    magnumcromagnon and Hole like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 476
    Points : 478
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  lancelot 19/03/21, 04:55 am

    GarryB wrote:With new breeder reactors coming online I rather suspect producing nuclear weapons grade material should be quite trivial and relatively cheap... in fact they could probably sell some to the Chinese if China sees the UK producing nuclear missiles and wants to boost its own capacity to defend itself.

    Funny thing that the UK can't afford new tanks or fighter planes but they want nukes... suggests they are going to take a more hands off approach to the world with less interventions with the US because they simply wont have the conventional military capacity to do very much.

    China should be able to make the enriched uranium and plutonium themselves.

    They have a lot of enrichment capacity, more than Uncle Sham which imports enriched uranium from Russia.

    China also has recently put into operation a small test breeder reactor (20 MWe) made with Russian help.
    At the same time they are building not one, but two CFR-600 breeder reactors (600 MWe).
    https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-starts-building-second-CFR-600-fast-reactor
    https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-begins-building-pilot-fast-reactor-2912174.html
    https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-fast-reactor-begins-high-power-operation

    China is also making huge plutonium separation facilities. Supposedly to make MOX fuel to burn in their reactors.
    How easy those facilities would be converted to making plutonium for nuclear weapons is anyone's guess.

    As for the UK many years back they had to upgrade their Trident missile warheads which were near expiration date. Back then France proposed to the UK that they have a joint nuclear weapons program. The British refused the French offer because they claimed Uncle Sham's Trident was much superior to the French SLBM available then which was the M4. The French shared that they were developing the M5 but the British scoffed at them. Now in 2021 the French have a version of the M51 which does everything the M5 was supposed to do and more. The French have a deterrent fully independent from the USA, they have their own uranium separation facilities, their own plutonium separation facilities everything. UK will purchase everything from Uncle Sham at vastly inflated prices. Now they pile on their stupid decision and want to increase their warheads. Stupid waste of money.

    GarryB, kvs and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31025
    Points : 31553
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB 19/03/21, 11:57 am

    China should be able to make the enriched uranium and plutonium themselves.

    They have a lot of enrichment capacity, more than Uncle Sham which imports enriched uranium from Russia.

    Of course China is perfectly capable of dealing with the problems of increasing its nuclear weapon capacity, but producing weapons grade material is not normally quick nor cheap so when the UK declares that it is boosting its weapon numbers then being able to respond quickly would be useful... Russia has excellent nuclear technology and can assist China by producing nuclear weapons material efficiently and relatively cheaply so they don't have to waste a lot of money doing the same.

    China could certainly solve the problem herself but they might find it quicker and easier to buy some material ready to go and just make their own at a relatively low rate so the purchased material boosts their stocks and their production rates allows them to maintain and gradually grow their stocks in a sustainable and affordable way.

    As for the UK many years back they had to upgrade their Trident missile warheads which were near expiration date.

    "Yes, Minister", and "Yes, Prime Minister" are the two best political comedies ever made anywhere... the humour is fantastic and it always seems so silly yet so plausible... Anyone who has not seen either series I would highly reccommend watching them... it is the story of a wide eyed young politician getting into politics thinking he will change the world for the better only to find out that the civil servants really run the show and all the great new ideas for reform have been tried before and have failed for various reasons... most often sabotage. Eventually he is elected PM which leads to the follow on programme Yes, Prime Minister... which is just as funny and shows why Trump and Biden really have no power at all.

    kvs, LMFS and lancelot like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3921
    Points : 3923
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  LMFS 25/05/21, 06:07 am

    Russia accused the United States of violating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3)

    Russia accused the United States of violating the provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3). According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Americans have underestimated the real number of deployed and non-deployed launchers and strategic bombers.

    At the end of March this year, the United States and Russia exchanged new data on nuclear arsenals. According to them, Russia has increased the number of nuclear warheads and their carriers, while the United States, on the contrary, has reduced it. During the reporting period, Russia increased the number of nuclear warheads by nine, bringing their total to 1456 (up from 1447 in September last year). The United States has reduced the number of nuclear warheads by 100, bringing their number to 1357; in September 2020, the report indicated 1457 warheads.

    During the same period, Russia put into operation three carriers of nuclear weapons, indicating the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and heavy bombers - 517, as of September last year there were 510. The United States showed a reduction in carriers of nuclear weapons by 24 units, indicating 651 carriers (September 2020 - 675 ).

    In addition, Russia increased the number of deployed and non-deployed launchers by three, indicating their number equal to 767. In turn, the United States noted that their number of launchers has not changed compared to the previous reporting period and remained the same - 800 pieces.

    According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the number of American launchers and heavy bombers exceeds the number allowed by the treaty by 101 units. The United States unilaterally removed 56 SLBM (submarine ballistic missile) launchers and 41 B-52H strategic bomber from the offset.

    However, the re-equipment of the launchers was carried out in such a way that Russia cannot confirm their unsuitability for the use of nuclear weapons. In addition, the US has renamed four mines "training" and refuses to include them on the list, although the treaty does not include such a category as "training mines".

    The United States does not admit Russia's accusations, claiming the accuracy of the information provided. Recall that according to the agreement, Russia and the United States must exchange data on nuclear arsenals every six months.

    https://en.topwar.ru/183305-rossija-ulichila-ssha-v-narushenii-dogovora-o-sokraschenii-strategicheskih-nastupatelnyh-vooruzhenij-snv-3.html

    dino00 likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4499
    Points : 4531
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  franco 25/05/21, 08:53 pm

    Russia has prepared a serious claim for the meeting between Putin and Biden

    One of Joe Biden's achievements is considered to be a quick, without delay, extension of the Russian-American nuclear treaty START III, the fate of which hung in the balance. But if under Trump they openly prepared to bury the treaty, now the Americans continue to quietly sabotage it. How is the United States trying to circumvent the parity in offensive nuclear weapons prescribed in the document?

    On Monday, the Foreign Ministry released data on how Russia and the United States are implementing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III), which was extended for five years in February this year. It follows from the message that the United States unreasonably removed some of its strategic weapons outside the framework of the treaty. In particular, according to the Foreign Ministry, the Americans have exceeded the number of launchers and heavy bombers required by the treaty.

    Recall that the START-3 Treaty, under which Moscow and Washington committed themselves to further reducing strategic nuclear arsenals, was signed in 2011 for a period of 10 years. All the years of Donald Trump's presidency, the question of renegotiating the agreement for a new term remained in question. With the election of Joe Biden, the fate of the agreement was quickly decided, the agreement was extended without changes and additions until 2026. But already in April, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Washington is silent about its own plans to deploy new nuclear weapons and the fact that NATO's military-strategic infrastructure is approaching Russia's borders.

    Judging by the current Foreign Ministry report, at first glance, the Americans are observing the parity required under the treaty. For example, Washington reports that in the category of “deployed and non-deployed ICBM and submarine ballistic missile launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers,” the US has 800 weapons, while Russia has 767.

    "The indicator declared by the United States ... was achieved not only thanks to real reductions in American armaments, but also through the unilateral withdrawal from the treaty of 56 Trident II SLBM (ballistic missile submarine) launchers and 41 B-52H heavy bombers," the report says. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Moscow states that the Americans have converted these launchers and bombers in such a way that "the Russian side cannot confirm that these strategic offensive weapons have been made unsuitable for the use of nuclear weapons."

    “In addition, the United States has renamed four silo launchers intended for training in the category of“ training silos ”not envisaged by START, and refuses to include them under the treaty as non-deployed silo launchers of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said ...

    As a result, the Americans have exceeded the arsenal of strategic offensive nuclear weapons permitted by START-3 by 101 units.

    “The American side simply announced that these installations are not installations for launching sea-launched Trident nuclear missiles, or air-launched cruise missiles, or Minuteman ICBMs. The fact is that there are no clear conversion procedures in the contract. This is what is called contracted ambiguity - "the ambiguity of the contract," explained the former head of the international treaty department of the Russian Defense Ministry, Lieutenant General Yevgeny Buzhinsky.

    In fact, the American side is finding quite a few ways to sabotage its own START-3 commitments, Buzhinsky added. “For example, the Americans removed the flexible membranes that cover the missile silo at several Trident SLBM launchers and installed steel covers on either eight or 12 bolts,” the source said. “And they said that it was“ not considered ”usable anymore. To which our experts objected - today there is a cover, tomorrow it is not, and suggested: "Destroy at least the steam catapult." The American side refuses to dismantle the catapult, under the pretext that the boat on which the Tridents are stationed will someday receive non-nuclear status, and it will be possible to launch non-nuclear missiles from it. "

    It is incorrect to suspect the Americans that they are creating new launchers, Buzhinsky said. “But,” he added, “the United States hates physically destroying its weapons. They took this step under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. And now, within the framework of START-3, they began to destroy something, but then they changed their minds and decided to re-equip, remove a certain number of launchers from the account ”.

    The Foreign Ministry admitted the year before last that the Americans had reached the level set in START III both in terms of the number of warheads and the number of launchers, the source said. "And 101 weapons are classified as technical disagreements that must be resolved within the framework of a joint consultative commission operating under the START Treaty," said Lieutenant General Buzhinsky. "But now our relations with America are, to put it mildly, too bad to show goodwill." After the Foreign Ministry has given its arguments, the American side will bring counter-arguments, and the dispute can drag on for quite a long time, the interlocutor predicts.

    This is far from a new situation in Russian-American relations, in turn, noted Alexei Arbatov, Academician, Head of the Center for International Security of the IMEMO RAS. “Two years ago, when the parties announced the fulfillment of the treaty in terms of reaching the thresholds for warheads and delivery vehicles, we said that we were not satisfied with insufficiently deeply converted launchers and bombers. That is, the changes made by the Americans are not irreversible, the expert noted. - But there was no further discussion. We did not withdraw from the agreement, and the Americans said that they would not do anything further. At that time, no one knew yet whether the START Treaty would be extended or not. "

    As a result, by now the Americans have technically re-equipped the Trident II SLBM launchers and B-52N heavy bombers, so they have removed them from the calculations. “But if earlier such a re-equipment meant a deeper modification of weapons, now, in order to save time and money, the Americans have simplified this process. As a result, we accused them of the fact that the changes made are reversible, ”the expert clarified.

    Arbatov suggested that the publication of the Foreign Ministry's message on the implementation of the START Treaty by the Americans is connected with the upcoming summit of Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden. “Apparently, during the meeting, it is planned to resume negotiations on the next agreement. And in order to strengthen its negotiating positions, the Russian side decided to put forward claims again, ”the expert believes.

    “From a technical point of view, our position is correct,” said Arbatov. But, he believes, the American side will put forward a counterargument - there are no violations on their part, since they are not going to convert bombers, launchers and carriers of nuclear weapons back.

    https://w43uas65ureck2afb4cs3eatty-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-k-politika-ru.translate.goog/rossiya-prigotovila-k-vstreche-putina-i-bajdena-sereznuyu-pretenziyu/?utm_source=warfiles.ru

    GarryB and LMFS like this post

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16744
    Points : 17251
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 02/06/21, 06:11 pm

    Russia will not tolerate US refusal to count some delivery vehicles — Foreign Ministry

    The vehicles were described as reconfigured and removed from the total count

    MOSCOW, June 2. /TASS/. Russia will not tolerate Washington’s refusal to count a number of US strategic delivery vehicles under the Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Lenta.ru in an interview.

    "Also, we should address the issue of the United States’ far-fetched refusal to count a certain number of its strategic delivery vehicles. They were described as reconfigured and removed from the total count. That the New START has been prolonged by five years does not mean that we are prepared to leave this problem unnoticed and turn a blind eye on it," he stressed.

    The senior diplomat said that Russia was unable to verify on its own if it was true the US strategic delivery vehicles had been reconfigured, which created a so-called additional "upload potential."

    "We discussed that at length with the previous administration," Ryabkov recalled.

    He stressed that whenever the issue of strategic stability and considerable amounts of nuclear weapons were on the agenda, only balanced and responsible decisions must be made.

    "When there are tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in stock, then hypothetically it might be possible to say: several warheads more, or several warheads less makes no difference. But when the warheads number hundreds, then the situation is very different. In this particular case, we are obliged to display greater responsibility, and this is precisely what we have been calling our US counterparts for," Ryabkov concluded.

    Russia and the United States signed the New START treaty in 2010. On February 3, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US embassy exchanged notes confirming the completion of internal procedures required for the treaty’s prolongation to take effect. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the treaty’s prolongation ensured the preservation and further functioning of the crucial mechanism of maintaining strategic stability, which limits the signatories’ nuclear missile potentials on the basis of strict parity.

    https://tass.com/defense/1297125

    Big_Gazza, kvs, PapaDragon and Hole like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10899
    Points : 11044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs 02/06/21, 06:56 pm

    Russia needs to take a zero tolerance approach to START.   The Americans got away with gross breaches of the INF with their deployment of dual use
    launchers in Europe.   They try to pull the same stunt with START.   Russia does not need START more than the USA.   In fact, it is the USA that
    needs START for all its vaunted ABM efforts.   Going back to the 1980s with unlimited ICBMs and now combined with no MIRV restrictions kills
    any hope the USA has for an ABM shield.   The Washington deciders should ask themselves if they are feeling lucky.

    LMFS and Hole like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10899
    Points : 11044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs 01/10/21, 10:36 pm



    The clowns in Washington have totally lost the plot.   They think that they can "break" Russia to bend over and take it in the rear
    and sign away its nuclear arsenal because American wants it so.   Amerislimes are spazzing that China is building up its nuclear
    arsenal.   Tough shit.   China is not Russia and Russia has no obligation to form some moronic China-Russia START partnership
    to split is nuclear arsenal and balance the combined amount with the US.  

    If the yanqui fecks are not happy, they are free to break START and chase China's and Russia's combined arsenal.   We'll see
    how far they get since Russia can crank up its launcher and warhead counts to any level short of physical limitations.

    Big_Gazza and Hole like this post

    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 1020
    Points : 1018
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Arrow 15/10/21, 12:41 pm

    https://tass.com/defense/1349261/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    Putin, as usual, wants to talk about further reduction of strategic weapons. I believe this is wrong. Reducing Russia's existing strategic arsenals, which are the lowest in history anyway, will not increase security in the world, on the contrary. Moreover, entering into any treaties with the USA makes no sense. Russia and the USSR have already found out about it. Now that Russia has a significant technical advantage over the US, Putin wants to negotiate further reductions.

    Big_Gazza, kvs, zepia, owais.usmani and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content

    New START Treaty - Page 13 Empty Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 27/10/21, 07:33 am