Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday announced that Moscow is suspending its participation in New START, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia.
“In this regard, I am forced to announce today that Russia is suspending its participation in the strategic offensive arms treaty,” Putin said in a state of the nation address delivered to Russia’s Federal Assembly.
New START was first signed in 2010 by then-President Obama and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who now serves as the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, and replaced the START I Treaty that was signed in 1991.
New START came into force in 2011 and caps the deployment of nuclear warheads at 1,550. It also places limits on the deployment of launchers, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers.
New START was set to expire in February 2021, but Putin and President Biden agreed in January 2021 to extend the agreement by five years. According to the State Department, inspections under the treaty have been suspended since March 2020 due to Covid-19.
Explaining his reasoning for suspending the treaty, Putin said it was signed at a time when the US was less hostile. He also wants to address the issue of the UK and France’s nuclear weapons, which are part of NATO’s arsenal, although both countries have significantly smaller arsenals than the US and Russia.
“Before we return to discussing this agreement, we must understand for ourselves what the intentions of countries like France and the UK are and how we will consider their strategic arsenals as well, which is the cumulative striking potential of NATO,” Putin said, according to RT.
Putin’s move is the result of the lack of diplomacy between the US and Russia. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has only held one known call with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, since Russia launched the invasion on February 24, 2022, and the discussion was focused on a prisoner swap, not the war or arms control.
The two countries were engaged in arms control talks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the US canceled the negotiations. After months of refusing to engage with Russia on the issue, the US eventually agreed to hold talks on New START in November 2022, but Russia pulled out at the last minute.
Arms control between the US and Russia had been crumbling for years as Washington withdrew from key treaties. In 2019, the Trump administration pulled out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned ground-launched missiles with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers.
Putin mentioned the INF withdrawal in his speech on Tuesday. “The whole world witnessed how they withdrew from fundamental agreements on weapons, including the treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles, unilaterally tearing up the fundamental agreements that maintain world peace,” he said.
The Trump administration also withdrew from the Open Skies treaty, which allowed unarmed surveillance flights over participating countries. Russia tried to salvage the treaty with the Biden administration but had no success. The administration told Moscow it wouldn’t rejoin Open Skies.
In his speech, Putin vowed to fight on in Ukraine and blamed the US and its allies for provoking the war by expanding NATO and supporting the 2014 coup that ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. He said the Western provision of longer-range weapons would result in Ukraine losing more territory.
“The longer the range of the Western systems being brought to Ukraine, the farther away from our borders we will be forced to push the threat,” Putin said. He mentioned statements from Western officials calling for the “strategic defeat” of Russia.
“This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country,” Putin said.
According to Russian officials, Russia’s military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons if the state of Russia faces an “existential threat.”
150 thoughts on “Putin Announces Suspension of the New START Treaty”
Biden won’t stop until he gets us involved in a full-fledged nuclear war with Russia, will he? And for what? Political points? Democrat control of government? Who controls Bakhmut? Stock price of Raytheon? None of them come close go good reasons for escalation, but here we are, continuing down the path to mutual destruction. Heaven help us all.
None of the above, but all of those are symptoms of what’s at stake. I agree with Gilbert Doctorow that this has become an existential war for America to maintain its hegemony. Regimes are at their most dangerous when they are dying.
Spot on but I am not prepared to get my a– nuked just so the US can hold on to its title…
Welcome back, Donna! You’ve been missed!
I wondered where Donna was too…I was getting worried about her!
Good to see you, Sistah! ❤️
Yeah, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the Democrats activities since 2014. Let the US rot, keep the cameras on the rich, enjoying themselves and normalizing wealth while demonizing the working class.
That at least lines up with neoliberalism. But starting a nuclear war? Unless they think self-satisfaction is proof against nuclear weapons, none of this makes sense.
And we can’t even question it directly to at least try to get an explanation, because any questioning is dissent from their propaganda campaign to paint this as the Sudatenland in the thirties, which it clearly is not.
The feeling like self preservation and protecting the world against apocalypse is somehow on par with virulent racism and the phobias only bad people who doubt the Democrats commit is making me crazy.
It goes back much farther than 2014. The original neoconservatives were liberals until the late 1970’s, when they shifted to the right. Their message is that the US is the force for morality in the world and must prevail to defeat evil (and promote ‘democracy’). The neoliberals are for ultra-free-market economics, i.e., absolute minimum of government regulation. Together, the neoconservatives and neoliberals form the New World Order, or Rules-Based Order. The ruthless evangelical moralism and ruthless economic capitalism are intertwined. This goes back at least to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991.
And neoconservatives have established themselves as career bureaucrats in government since that time, remaining in place and advancing regardless of the party in the White House, Democrat or GOP.
Neoconservatives came from Trotskyism, not liberalism.
Yes, the ‘New York Intellectuals’ of the 1930’s, including Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, et al., started out as anti-Stalin Marxists (or Trotskyists) and then shifted to a conservative view strongly influenced by the philosopher Leo Strauss. Another branch began as liberals and defected from the Democratic party beginning in the late 1960’s, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Scoop Jackson, and Richard Pipes.
I’m drawing on a review by Brandon High entitled The Recent Historiography of American Neoconservatism, published in 2009 in The Historical Journal, a Cambridge Univ. Press journal. It’s available here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40264180
The neoconservative history is very rich and interesting!
Seems kinda ridiculous since most conservatives in US regard Bolsheviks as an extreme left/liberal.
The aging decrepit elite are dying, but before they leave they’ll take the rest of the western countries with them.
I read mist of the speech, and it serms two critical points are not mentioned here.
Ine is the immediate cause of New START treaty pullout, and another — the decision to start the war in April.
According to Putin just recently requested in-site inspections of Russia’s nuclear sites. , Russia refused and is withdawing from the Treaty.
According to Putin Ukraine was not only refusing to implement Minsk Agreement, but was actively preparing for “Punitive operation” against Donbas. Russia could not continue alliwing Ukraine to becime NATO equipped and instrumenized. The outcome would have been a Ukrainian military operation right on Russia’s border, In Putin’s words, “NATO supported Ukraine started the war against Donbas in 2014, snd Russia intervened to stop that war.”
The salient point here is that it is not Putin aline who is seing this cause of intervention to publuc. Russian public was galvanized by events in Ukraine ever since 2014. And watched in horror Kiev’s actions against the Russian soeakers of Ukraune. In fact frustration was growing about Russia’s faith in Minsk Agreement. The military intervention did not catcn Russian lopulatio. Off guard. Just the opposite, population was ahead of politics. But Putin has always aimed to be pushed by public.
Yes, Anglo-American empire attempted to arm puppet regime in Kiev with nuclear weapons. Essentially repeating India-Pakistan scenario. Ignoring or tolerating such threat would be extremely foolish.
You are talking crazy. No one attempted to give Ukraine nuclear weapons. That is a paranoid delusion.
Beside Volodimor openly stating desire to acquire nuclear weapons, I’ve seen NSA/CIA trolls trying to inject the idea of nuclear-armed Ukraine. It was bad idea to agree to remove nukes from Ukraine in the first place. Nukes would have prevented Anglo-American regime change and civil war.
No one wants to give Ukraine nuclear weapons and US/NATO and Russia would never allow Ukraine to get nukes, even if the regime wanted them. Nukes to Ukraine a not a red line. It is a red river canyon. In English, we call it the Grand Canyon.
Who’s nukes were removed, were they the old Soviet ones?
Yeah after collapse of USSR. Ukraine had a substantial nuclear arsenal.
“It was a bad idea to remove nukes from Ukraine . . .?”
Are you crazy? If Ukraine kept its nukes, Ukraine would be the fourth nuclear power in NATO today. Be careful, youngster. Sometimes people get what they wish for. Stick with the video games.
No, it would have been another nuclear power in Eurasian alliance and likely fully restored USSR. Like I already said, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The Anglo-American propaganda and brainwashing of Ukrainians would not have been possible if they had a strong government in Kiev. Even today, with imperial puppet regime 90% of Ukrainians don’t want anything to do with your terrorist empire.
Umm . . . But the same year Ukraine gave up its nukes (1991) Ukraine also voted for independence from the USSR. And Ukraine has not been the most stable political state in Europe since then. You need to learn to separate your virtual reality fantasies from the real reality, youngster. Stop fantasizing about a restored USSR, Them days are over.
knock it off with that “youngster” BS, it makes you sound like the youngster. and he sounds like he knows what he is talking about to me.
ukraine got rid of their soviet nukes ok – so where did they go?
actually my mama’s old friend was involved in dismantling them but he has died so i can’t ask him.
To Russia, obviously. Russian Federation is the inheritor of everything USSR.
“Russian Federation is the inheritor of everything USSR”
really then why was crimea allowed to be a part of ukraine when all of it’s peoples speak the russian?
Because Kremlin lost the cold war. Nobody in Crimea wanted to be part of Ukraine. It was a sham referendum.
Following a referendum held in Crimea in 1991, Crimea declared independence from the USSR around the same time that Ukraine declared independence. The more interesting question is why Ukraine was allowed to abolish Crimea’s Parliament in 1992.
Here is an overview: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
Ukraine kept the bio-labs. Or, when did they arrive??
After 2014 but Pentagon bioweapon RnD on targeting Slavic genome started way back in the 90s.
Ivan, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if ZelBoy acquired them from IsraHell, since his stated intention is to turn Ukainazia “into a big Israel”.
Now that’s one sick mf-er.
Why would they, when they have attack mosquitos
This BioLab conspiracy started at the beginning of the War. It was never brought up before the war by the Kremlin.
The entire project started under the obama administration and it has been debunked many times.
It’s been open source from its beginning.
The Minsk agreement and the Ukraine war have nothing to do with the responsibilities of Biden and Putin to act in the interests of the human race on arms control. Neither one is fit to lead a nuclear superpower.
Russia and Putin know that the U.S. cannot be trusted to keep any agreement.
The US can’t be trusted. That is old news. But the arms control agreements reduced the US and Russian nuclear arsenals by 85%. We need more nuclear arms control. Not less.
In 1969 Nixon threatened nuclear war twice. But the USSR acted like the adult in the room and saved the world. It is time for Putin to accept his defeat in Ukraine and start acting like the statesman he used to be.
Pulling out of the START treaty does not enhance the security of the Russian people.
I think it’s time in the West people finally start taking seriously that the political elite of Russia is viewing their predicament as an existential threat and what that entails.
If China were arming Mexican Nazi’s, who were in the business of killing Americans residing in Mexico and outlawing English, hamburgers and the baking of apple pies and all that sort of craziness, there would I think be much less of a call for restraint and statesmanship. Seeing the absence of any of the sort with the totally unnecessary belligerence toward China today.
The fact is that Americans in Mexico are being killed by gangs that are protected by corrupt police and government officials. That is not a cause to invade Mexico. Nor was the stationing of Soviet missiles in Cuba a justification for threatening nuclear war.
The elite in Russia should be more concerned about what the paranoid little guy at the end of the big table in the Kremlin might do. He reminds me of Nixon when things were going bad for him in Vietnam. Hope thereis someone in Putin’s circle who can stop him if he buckles under the stress.
Those gangs don’t have missiles pointed at the US or are a threat to our existence. If the Warsaw Pact had tried to get our neighbors as members, I think our reaction would have been similar to Russia’s but much more brutal.
The world needs a reset before things get too far out of hand. Diplomacy isn’t perfect but it is always a good place to start. (no pun intended.)
Yes, of course, it would have been unrestrained Shock&Awe destruction. Total devastation. Because, that is what the US did to Iraq and Afghanistan and those countries didn’t even act against the US.
Yes it does. It returns to the deterrence strategy of mutually assured destruction. And since Putin is actually winning in Ukraine and simultaneously accelerating the decline of the West, imminent nuclear exchange notwithstanding, Russia will relatively soon “win” the geopolitical “competition”.
I’m annoyed that Putin is repeating this myth of “Russian civilization” There is no such thing as Russian or Western civilization. Russia is a federation and a major part of Slavic Civilization. So-called “west” is an empire and not a civilization at all. It is a fragment of dead Roman civilization.
The answer to the oligarch parasites is simple, put limits on personal wealth, this will limit the damage (corruption) that they do.
This is a communist solution. It doesn’t work. What is needed is prevention of wealth-power influence over politics. Wealth itself isn’t the problem. Problem is the social influence. That is what needs to be nullified and solution to that is individual personal sovereignty.
How is it communist? This solution has never been implemented before how can you say it wont work? You will not get rid of this corruption without placing limits on wealth. So you prefer a continual corrupt world. I get it, you stand with the oligarchs you want your cut.
The problem is the huge individual wealth we allow the criminals to obtain. You cannot obtain this wealth without being a criminal, this wealth in the hands of criminals corrupts everything.
You even smear any proposed solution to protect the wealth of these parasites. I guess calling it communist was the worst smear you could think of? You are so transparently corrupted yourself.
Not at all. Communist isn’t a dirty word for me. Marxist-socialist solution just isn’t practical.
Think about it. Wealth is essentially a social concept. If you place limits on acquisition of wealth, you limit economical development and make the problem of social influence over politics and corruption worse. The problem is basically purchasing politicians by oligarchs. Wealth is simply an instrument. It’s not the functioning mechanism.
It cant be argued to be Marxist. Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the working class, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society.
Exactly how does it limit economic development?
If you remove the vast sums of money they obtain then they cant buy politicians. There is no other solution.
We have already made corruption unlawfull but it doesn’t stop it. LAWS are passed by politicians who are bought by criminals.
You are so transparently corrupted yourself. Maybe communist isnt a dirty word for you because you dont know the first thing about it?
Comminism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
Its not even Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Its free market capitalism with limits placed on wealth.
Yeah and that’s another issue. Warfare/hostility in any form isn’t productive.
Marxism is based on the idea of Free Democratic Republic. Marx simply copied and re-branded “We the People” from American Declaration of Independence.
But that is beside the point.
The wealth-power dynamic is functioning element. As in conjoined concept. Wealth gives power and power gives wealth. This is what need to be targeted. The link itself.
Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society.
We have a Marxist corrupt ruling class now. You have not defined the problem or provided a solution?
But smeared mine by making stuff up.
Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers (meaning everyone else), leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society. Marxism is not based on free democratic principals at all. Karl Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto.
We have a Marxist corrupt ruling class now. You have not defined the problem or provided a solution?
But smeared mine by making stuff up.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I didn’t intend to smear anything you said. I intended to solidify and aid your point.
We both agree that purchasing politicians is the problem, correct?
No i am arguing that purchasing politicians is a symptom of a corrupt ruling class.
A Kondratiev Wave is a long-term economic cycle, which provides a long period of prosperity and ends with economic decline. I believe this economic decline is created by the capture of most of the wealth by the few. This creates extreme class warfare.
The problem is the extreme wealth that can be obtained by individuals.
OK, so that’s a misunderstanding or wishful thinking on my part.
Excessive wealth growth can be a problem but I don’t see it as the main problem. I see influence over politics as the main problem.
How exactly do you get influence over politicians unless you have extreme wealth? Its a symptom of excessive wealth.
This is what creates the destructive cycle in the Kondratiev Wave and what follows is rapid decline, poverty and war.
btw when your economic development is driven by corruption and all levers of power are corrupted its called Fascism.
In order to have influence, one need to care about wealth of others. Having extreme wealth or extreme social influence is essentially the same thing. Both can be nullified by the population.
You do not get extreme wealth by caring for others. That economic activity is done by volunteers and exploited by the wealthy.
Greed is what drives extreme wealth. It is achieved by criminal activities.
Right and greed is an anti-social concept.
Let’s say a typical parasite steals wealth from the population. How is this pest remain unpunished? It purchase social influence with stolen wealth. Wealth itself isn’t the problem. The problem is the ability to rob and influence the victims.
Parliament is the mechanism to legalise corruption and allow exploitation.
Without the parliamentary influence they wont pass exploitative laws because they will need the peoples contributions.
When the contributions of 1 donor are significantly greater than all those by the working class then we have fascism, poverty and war.
Right. Using wealth to get power and using power to get wealth. It is the link that needs to be destroyed. Politicians should not have any sovereign ability to purchase goods or services. They should be completely economically dependent on the society at large for their basic needs. That means no accumulation of wealth of ANY kind. Politicians need to be completely downgraded to servants position. It shouldn’t a protected class.
No just place limits on people wealth. Because then the cycle is broken.
It isn’t practical. There is too much room for abuse. I can already see several exploits to bypass your limits. Besides, you’re not dealing with root cause. Greed for power or wealth.
It is rather a strange quote starting from “In this regard, I am forced to announce”. In regard of what? It would be logical and correct to mention the reason. The reason was that, in accordance with this treaty, Americans insisted on their right to inspect the modern Russian nuclear weapons. After official announcement that the goal of US leadership was to defeat Russia militarily, it was a bit too insolent and Putin mentioned that.
“Putin Announces Suspension of the New START Treaty New START is the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia”
No surprise, NATO helps Ukraine with targeting and prepping drones to strike Russia’s strategic bomber base well inside of Russia and now the US wants to put boots on those bases to inspect them.
If Cuba struck American bomber bases in the US do you think the US would allow Russian inspectors on US bases.
I think not!
No one fundamentally believes they are mortal. We all live day to day, oblivious of the end point. But when life is stable, boring, war becomes exciting, something to do. But of course it won’t kill us, we think. Which is true, especially if we are pushing others into being cannon fodder. And war creates its own hypnotic, hysteria — like all manias. Per Chomsky, propaganda is the most potent weapon for modern governments to use against their own people. Too bad nukes make this all irrelevant.
This is an insane move by Putin. The man is frustrated by his political and military setbacks in Ukraine and throwing a tantrum. Blaming the West is bullshit. Putin needs to take responsibility for his own reckless actions.
The US is also acting with criminal irresponsibility. The US should not have canceled Open Skies.
The human race needs the START and Open Skies and a renewed ABM treaty, not a renewed offensive arms race or political posturing by two nuclear superpowers holding the rest of us hostage..
It will be a while before we know whether the move was insane, or whether it was calculated for specific objectives.
Perhaps Putin has decided that some of the new weapons need to be actually tested instead of just bragged about, both as a practical matter and to maximize the booga booga effect, and is clearing the treaty decks for that.
Putin seems to be following the path of Nixon’s breakdown when things began to fall apart for the US in Vietnam. Nixon threatened the Soviets with nuclear war twice in October 1969. Withdrawing from START and Open Skies and letting the ABM treaty expire is like pulling the control rods out of a nuclear reactor.
And testing new weapons is a sure fire way to restart the nuclear arms race that bankrupted the Soviet Union and enriched the Western MIC. This is a bad move by Putin that will make things worse for his country and the world.
Not at all. You said it yourself that trying to clean up Ukraine from Pentagon terrorists is hopeless. Exterminating this threat directly in US and England is a perfectly logical solution.
You are writing paranoid bullshit. Grow up!
As the pro-war gang likes to say in the US papers, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. Most of the people commenting here understand that the US is the principal bully in global affairs.
Moscow is not mucking around, the western powers started a proxy war and they are loosing. Moscow will destroy the West if we continue. I do not blame them at all, we deserve what is coming.
Umm . . . Moscow can’t destroy the west without destroying the world. That includes destroying Moscow. Get real, Doom!
Do you understand the significance of hypersonic weapons? Both Kremlin and Beijing have the capability to completely annihilate US and England without fear of retaliation.
You are obviously ignorant of modern warfare. Hypersonic missiles are useless against nuclear submarines. One Trident or Boreii class submarine can destroy the major metropolitan regions of either superpower. And only a deranged lunatic would want to test either superpower’s ABM systems in a real warfare setting. Stop bragging about hypersonic weapons. Nuclear war is not a computer game. Grow up and get real!
You are amusing. Please look up capabilities of Nudol hypersonic interceptor missiles before making foolish statement.
You are also completely clueless on strategic submarine warfare. Bulova SLBMs carried by Borei class submarines outpreform Trident in pretty much every category.
it probably doesn’t matter if Bulava outperforms Trident.
here is analogy = Ford outperforms Chevy but it doesn’t matter
He(?) compared Trident with Borei. It’s like comparing tires with the car.
Besides, Borei boomers isn’t just a boomer. It’s a hybreed. It turns into a hunter-killer after launching its payload. It can’t be compared with ancient Ohio class boomers.
But if it has launched its payload before turning into a hunter-killer, it is hunting/killing submarines which have launched their payloads when its own launch was detected and identified. So it’s hunting/killing on behalf of a chain of command which would fit in an urn if there was anyone left to pour it into the urn.
I am reading The Doomsday Machine, written by Daniel Ellsberg. Quite interesting read.
The point is, ancient Ohio class boomer is a sitting duck with Borei boomers/hunter-killers around. And they both hang out in the same “safe space”
Not only any ICBMs or SLBMs launched will be intercepted by hypersonic missile defense before reaching their targets, subs wont even get a chance to launch before being destroyed.
Like I said before, RF/PRC = Total Nuclear Superiority. US = totally screwed.
What do you mean by “hypersonic missile defense?”
Do you mean defense against hypersonic missiles (which is difficult because they’re moving fast until the last little bit when they would have to slow down in order to track non-stationary targets — the hypersonic speed creates a plasma shield which interferes with on-the-move targeting), or missile defense which uses hypersonic missiles (even more difficult for the same reasons)?
Hypersonic interceptor missiles which are specifically designed to take down ICBMs, SLBMs and satellites (Like Nudol-type hypersonic interceptor)
Well, the problem is that the Nudol can either be hypersonic or take down ICBMs and SLBMs.
Satellites may be a special case insofar as they have very known specific orbits and can be destroyed by explosions relatively far away. But a ballistic missile is traveling fast enough, and not over exact pre-known space, that an interceptor will have to track it in real time. And at hypersonic speeds, an interceptor can neither track the target itself or receive data from external sources tracking it because those speeds create a plasma layer around the interceptor that blocks radio, radar, etc.
Ah, okay. So I guess Russians don’t have any reasons in keeping them or building more. Good to know.
I can’t shoot an ICBM down with a shoulder-fired rifle, either, but that doesn’t mean there’s no reason to have one.
What’s important to understand is that while every new weapon system tries to change the game, few of those weapon systems prove to be all-problem-solving “magic bullets,” and even when one comes close it’s not long until one’s opponent comes up with countermeasures to reduce its efficacy. See, for example, the machine gun, gas, and tanks. None of them were in action for long before everyone else had them and started figuring out ways to reduce their early impact on battle.
The difference with potentially nuclear-armed weapons and systems designed to counteract those weapons is that once they’re uncorked, there won’t be months or years to improve them. They’ll all either work or not in a matter of a few minutes or hours, after which we’ll probably have to start re-learning how to make better clubs and flint arrowheads.
You’re not telling me anything new. I’ve argued for a while that Kremlin need to destroy the imperial aggressor while they have the window of opportunity to do so.
They have no such “window of opportunity” that doesn’t end with the Kremlin also destroyed.
Kremlin wont be destroyed even without hypersonic missile defense. They had “Crazy Ivan” missile defense over Moscow since the 50s. It was excluded from ABM treaty.
If it goes nuclear, finding and marveling over what’s left of the Kremlin in the ruins of Moscow will be a project for archaeologists a few thousand years from now if humans survive and civilization re-emerges.
Japanese civilization survived brutal attack of imperial thug. Humanity will survive without Washington and London.
Yes, humanity may well survive without Washington and London.
Russia, however, won’t.
You base that silly assertion on what exactly?
On the fact that mutual assured destruction remains mutually assured.
If London and Washington go, so does Moscow and so does the bulk of humanity.
Well, I’m sorry but it’s a fatal kind of delusion of security. This is not a fact anymore. It’s history. I’d argue that Russia had total nuclear superiority over US since 2014. Today they are way ahead. Pentagon knows that but the Washington regime doesn’t care. They want Russians to kill Americans.
If it goes nuclear, finding and marveling over what’s left of the white house in the ruins of washington will be a project for archaeologists a few thousand years from now if humans survive and civilisation re-emerges.
That is not likely since Moscow has the most advanced anti-missile system known to man.
A conventional interceptor that is.
You have to have the need to know to get answers.
I am sure the Russians incinerated and irradiated by the Trident’s nukes will be gratified to hear that the Tridents were outperformed by the Boreii’s. Your postings sound like a teenager addicted to virtual reality war games. Grow up and get real!
Do you actually have anything substantial to contribute? We’re already established that your knowledge in pretty much every sphere is negligible.
Go back to your computer games. Maybe first strike works there.
No one is talking nuclear except you? What this tells us is that you believe that US nuclear is the only possible response to a failing Western proxy war. You have nothing else but the thereat of Nuclear war, and you know it.
What about a torpedo from a Russian sub. Also, the nuclear sub has to be at a near surface position to fire off its ICBM.
That is utterly false, are you familiar with the concept of the nuclear triad? Well it doesn’t much matter but the point is we have hundreds of warheads on submarines pointed at Russia ready to go. Russia can certainly destroy the USA but the certainly cannot avoid a massive retaliatory strike.
Yes they can and that is the damn point! Nullification of ABM by Dubya pushed them to develop modern and vastly superior missile defense systems.
These delusional imperial rats in Washington and London need to be carried out feet first.
Biden,s trip to Kiev was a complete failure, he has exposed just how weak the West is. He should of got Harris to go, he should of been in Ohio managing the disaster there.
I wish he was in West [Bank] Palestine or Gaza checking out the Zionist hell the taxpayers are paying for.
Thanks for that , Sky ☺️
biden is not an idiot. he has no business managing the ohio disaster and he knows that himself. that’s why he immediately sent the proper agencies there who will manage it.
They should have had a more aggressive posture back in 2014. Kremlin’s pacifist stance is what causing today’s escalation. There is no possible way to negotiate peace with Anglo-American imperial parasites. These barbarians only understand the language of brute force.
You seem to understand nothing about the consequences of nuclear war. Brave, keyboard warrior! Grow up!
Nobody wants a nuclear war and there wont be a nuclear war. Even pin-point strikes on political, military and economic control centers of Anglo-American empire can be avoided by simply exterminating the parasites who control the imperial regime.
Stop talking macho bullshit and do something for peace.
I am. I propose exterminating few hundred Anglo-American parasites to save millions of innocent people.
“Save” them so your preferred Russian parasites can suck their blood instead? Doesn’t seem like there’s much to be gained in the tradeoff.
Hey, if they retaliate by exterminating Russian pests, humanity wins. They want war, let them fight.
You “am” still talking bullshit.
That would have played straight into the hands of the Neocons – Without a scintilla of verifiable evidence the Russians had been accused of the downing of the MH17.
Yeah, Russia would have faced economic difficulties. Kremlin played the big game and Ukraine is just a pawn.
Each side will use nuclear weapons if under “existential threat” – and the other side knows it. Avoiding such a scenario is the urgent challenge.
The CIA talking pointers are on this article like a dog on a bone, flees on a dog, ticks on dogs ears, bees on honey, flies on $hit… Okay, enough. I’m tired. I’ll go take a nap.
One of the things missing from reports on Nuclear weapons is the fact that our arsenal isn’t just Old and out of date, it’s no longer possible to know how many of our older nukes would even work if they were used. It’s estimated that 90% of our stockpile is no longer functionally reliable, Why? It’s because of the “half life” of anything nuclear related. In the next decade the US will either Test New Nukes or live with the fact that our nuclear deterrent might not work if it were ever actually needed.
If our nukes might not work, they might not be a deterrent either. There is no possible way the US will let this happen, therefore we absolutely will be building new nukes and testing them. Russia and China have a slightly younger stockpile but they will soon be running into the same issue and they too will be forced to start nuke testing again.
The nuke treaties were going to be torn up sooner or later because of this fact. Putin tore this one up first, but it’s more about optics than reality. In reality Russia knows that the US will soon start testing new nukes and that they will be forced to follow along. Think of this as a preemptive move or simply Moving first, so that it doesn’t look like Russia is slow to the game and weak as a result.
By the way, Putin stated that he will not start Testing new nukes until the US does, so while he’s pulling out of the treaty, he’s also saying that he will not be the first to violate the no nuke testing part of it. That part of the treaty will not officially die, at least not until the US tests new nukes. Once they do Russia and China will both quickly follow.
In any regard, the reality of our crumbling nuclear deterrent, would have created a situation where we would all be violating this agreement soon, no matter what Putin does or doesn’t do.
The stale nuke argument is overblown, not least because of the money at stake. The functional effects of radiation degradation can be directly tested for every component of a nuclear warhead except the nuclear materials themselves, and the effects of nuclear material degradation on the detonation dynamics should be reasonably quantifiable by digital simulation. In a worst case the nuclear materials could simply be reprocessed and reused. Unfortunately the MSM doesn’t understand how a balloon works, so the stale nuke question is far over their heads.
OMG! What a calamity! Well, where was the angst when, beginning with the Shrub presidency, we, the United States of Amnesia withdrew from these treaties with Russia?:
OPEN SKIES TREATY
Here! The angst was here! Any idiot could tell that withdrawing from nuclear treaties for cheap political points (at best) would end in disaster.
So what’s the US spin on this?
1) OMG, Putin is a madman, let’s build more nukes, or
2) OMG, we don’t want to die in a nuclear war, let’s negotiate in good faith to avoid one (which was Putin’s point).
#2 is obviously off the table so I guess we’re stuck with #1.
Under Donald Trump, the US bowed out of three nuclear agreements as of August 2020. In Feb. 2020, Trump staged a nuclear war practice against Russia. The war game was held in Nebraska, but unfortunately, the US taxpayer funded game was about protecting Europe from attack, not the US. UK Guardian
Comments are closed.