Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on Wednesday left the door open on continued contacts with the US on New START even though Russia has officially suspended its participation in the treaty.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Tuesday officially suspending Russia’s participation in New START, which limits the deployment of nuclear warheads and launchers and is the last nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia.
The US State Department said Wednesday that it received a diplomatic note from Russia about the suspension. Ryabkov said the US and Russia had been talking about the issue through back channels and that such discussions might continue.
“I can confirm that in recent days we have had discussions on the New START issue through closed channels, this is an indisputable fact. They [the discussions] may continue,” he said, according to the Russian news agency TASS. So far, there’s no sign that Russia is planning to change its nuclear posture following the suspension.
Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s position that the suspension will be changed once the US takes steps to de-escalate tensions over its support for Ukraine and said he hasn’t seen any sign that will happen.
“We see no indication that there has been any change in the United States’ position, which is rather destructive and leaves no chance of carrying on work as before,” Ryabov said. Putin has also said that he wants Britain and France’s nuclear arsenals to be taken into account for New START to resume since they are part of NATO.
Russia’s suspension of New START was the culmination of crumbling arms control treaties between the two powers that started with the George W. Bush administration withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Trump administration later pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and Open Skies, which allowed unarmed surveillance flights over participating countries’ territory.
What I would like to see is a treaty that prohibits any fictional characters from influencing matters of state.
Just to be clear I regard any entity without a birth certificate as a fictional character.
Birth certificates are issued by entities you seem to consider fictional, so how would they change the fictional/non-fictional status of the entities they’re issued to?
It is, however, interesting to think of (for example) every US president prior to JFK as a fictional character.
How did we get back to birth certificates? That is two Presidents back.
They are indeed issued by the very entities that I consider to be fictional.
Have you ever wondered why our names on all official documents such as birth certificates are always in spelt in capitals [It was explanained to me that this is because that name is our corporate self]
However my comment was more in reference to fictional characters such as corporations having undue influence over matters of state.
What I would consider Democracy simply hasn’t got a chance – Corporations have far too much power and influence over matters of government and its policies – Far more than that of the electorate and they’re not even allowed to vote since they really are fictional characters.
Take for example trade agreements inclusive of ISDS/IIAS provisions which provide corporations with a way to hold government accountable to their agenda by hauling them before a closed and private tribunal where corporate officials preside over these proceedings and award damages in taxpayers funds…..[And there’s no appeal process]
Religion or any fictional characters should never be allowed to influence politics like they are doing – governments should be wholly dedicated to the health and wealth of the people – then there’s the animal world [farm animals and the oceans] and the environment that we live in.
Time and again our political representatives have proven that they’re not fighting for the best interests of the ”communities” that they’re meant to be representing but the interests of the financial elite who’ve and even though they we’re never meant meant to – have gained considerable influence over these matters
MLK made this very clear however each time I post this quote by him it’s bound to trigger certain filters.
Not that anyone should have faith in American treaties (we tear those up randomly on whim all the time..), but we sorely need something to prevent our planet from becoming a radioactive hellhole. Are there any sane people left in government?
Talk about a treaty after the Ukraine War is not the same as allowing Americans to do targeting recon in Russia’s bases during the War.
Of course they’ll talk. Of course inspections are “suspended” until the Americans can no longer abuse them to target Russia for “Ukraine’s” attacks using American weapons and targeting.
President Johnson, like Eisenhower and Kennedy before him, and Nixon after him, didn’t want to be the first American president to lose a war. So, he ginned up a simplistic lie and “soldiered on.” (war on vietnam)
…. google
Any talk by Z of “retaking” Crimea should consider reading this story. I have read others expressing the same sentiments by locals in Crimea.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-crimea-russian-military-annexed-ukraine-retake-putin-rcna72606
Stop and start again. Well, it is better than nothing. 🙂