START III extension is not peace, but preparation for war

The extension until February 5, 2026 of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3), which was reported yesterday by all world media, is undoubtedly a positive event. At the same time, however, one should not at all overestimate its importance, seeing in such a decision a reason for complacency and relaxation.

It should be understood that Washington took this step solely due to the fact that at the moment it considers this agreement to be more beneficial for itself than for Russia. Moreover, while talking about peace and "reducing the threat," in fact, the American side is not just continuing, but intensifying and accelerating preparations for a nuclear war with our country.

"Struggle for Peace" with a Double Bottom?

Do not flatter yourself. The topic of heightened interest of the American side in this deal sounds quite frank even in the first official comments on the extension of START III, emanating from high-ranking US officials. Thus, the head of the State Department, Anthony Blinken, clearly indicates that she serves "the leading role of the United States in the field of arms control." The subordinates of Mr. Blinken in the message published on the agency's website regarding the continuation of the agreement are no less straightforward. According to them, "the resulting verification regime will allow American inspectors to monitor Russian nuclear forces and facilities in order to have a better understanding of Moscow's nuclear position."

Frankly speaking, Washington, frightened by the breakthrough development of domestic weapons and, above all, by the appearance of hypersonic missile systems in Russia, is doing everything to track this development as closely as possible. And if possible - and slow down. The best example of this, perhaps, is the recent publication in the American edition of The National Interest, whose authors enthusiastically speculate that the extension of the treaty will, perhaps, "turn into a museum exhibit" the newest Russian missile system Avangard, which is so frightening to the United States. They are firmly convinced that under the terms of the inspections, "the Kremlin will be obliged to notify Washington of the movement, deployment and testing" of these missiles every time. At the same time, the reference goes to the speech in the State Duma of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergei Ryabkov, who confirmed that Avangard was subject to START-3.

True, another statement by the same representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry is bypassed. Even before the official ratification of the extension of the treaty, Mr. Ryabkov clarified that "any actions of the American side that may be perceived by Russia as destructive and are an attempt to undermine its national security" will lead to the withdrawal of our country from START-3, which is "quite acceptable under the protocol." ... No, according to the deputy head of our diplomatic department, there are hopes that this will not come to this, and they expect to continue negotiations to "work out a new security formula covering all factors of strategic stability." It should be noted that at the same time, statements of a completely different kind are being made by the North Atlantic Alliance. In their official comment on the extension of START-3, NATO representatives say that they, of course, "fully support and welcome".

However, the same document is followed by a passage stating that the Alliance intends, despite this agreement, "to step up efforts in the field of close cooperation to repel Russia's aggressive actions that pose a threat to Euro-Atlantic security." But the Alliance is, in particular, Great Britain and France, which have their own nuclear arsenals and are not bound by any agreements. Such demarches, combined with recent statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the need to "increase defense spending to confront Russia and the rise of China" and similar "programmatic" statements by the head of the Alliance, leave a very bad aftertaste. However, the rhetoric of high-ranking representatives of the US military circles is even more alarming.

"To catch up and overtake the Russians ..." To destroy?

Speech in this case about the revelations of the commander of the US Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard. When a person, who is one of the key figures in the national defense system of the United States, begins to explain to his compatriots that the idea of ​​the fundamental impossibility of nuclear war is the deepest delusion, and in fact it is a "very likely scenario", it becomes somehow uncomfortable. Tellingly, this maxim contains as an article by the admiral, recently published in a specialized journal of the US Naval Institute. Subsequently, it was also duplicated in his interview with The Washington Times. Agree, against the background of the renegotiation of the treaty on the containment of strategic offensive arms, such conversations sound somehow not entirely appropriate. At the same time, the Strategic Command assures that the admiral's opus was written "last summer", and its publication "was prevented by a pandemic."

The connection, in truth, is rather dubious - rather, the speech of one of the highest-ranking officials of the Pentagon looks exactly as a counterbalance to the actions of the White House signing START-3. Let's return, however, to the essence and meaning of Richard's statements. In his opinion, a "regional conflict" between the United States and NATO with these countries can easily develop into a nuclear war with Russia or China. At the same time, the admiral, in the usual manner for Americans, "shifts from a sore head to a healthy one" and declares that, of course, Moscow or Beijing will use atomic weapons - "if they feel that they are losing and this threatens their regime or state." ... Interesting wording, isn't it? As if it is incomprehensible that the war between our country and the West, if it, God forbid, begins, in any case will be waged by our enemies for complete destruction ...

Nevertheless, the head of the Strategic Command is trying to assure that the last step from military operations using conventional weapons to a nuclear Apocalypse will certainly be made by the Russians or the Chinese. At the same time, he makes a very intriguing conclusion: the US armed forces must, first of all, "abandon the wrong attitude towards the impossibility of using nuclear weapons today," and, most importantly, "act in accordance with the changed reality." Considering that the basis of the American military doctrine is the bet on "preemptive" and "preemptive" strikes, all this looks like a very dangerous guide to action for his subordinates, sounding from the lips of the chief strategist of the Pentagon. It must be said that the propaganda of renunciation of the inadmissibility of the use of atomic weapons as such is combined in Charles Richard's speeches with another, very clearly traced motive. The admiral never tires of repeating: Moscow and Beijing "have recently invested too much in their nuclear potential," which allowed them to "bypass the United States." He believes that by the end of the decade, the Americans will "face two of their atomic counterparts." As for "strategic containment", then, according to Richard, it "may well not be in a world with a changed environment of threats."

It is said very much too abstruse (especially for a man in uniform), but the meaning is clear - the United States will adhere to any agreements only as long as it deems it beneficial and necessary for itself. Generally speaking, the idea of ​​the "lagging" of the United States in the military field from the "most likely adversaries" in the person of Russia and China has recently become too popular in certain circles of this country. The idea of ​​the need for some radical and immediate action to change the situation so unacceptable for the world hegemon is broadcast by the media close to the authorities with unpleasant regularity. What for?

For example, The Washington Post, in its recent publication, states that "the US military nearly lost world leadership" (are you sure ?! - author), and in order to "successfully compete for global influence" they must immediately take measures to increase "their own readiness for battle". Further in the editorial, in fact, follows a set of all the standard cliches that have become pretty boring during the Trump presidency - more appropriations for the Pentagon, more "cutting edge developments" and "investment in research" instead of "maintaining outdated and overly expensive weapons systems." Calls again to "make America hypersonic" and equip the Air Force there with unmanned fighters with artificial intelligence. It all ends with a rather vague reasoning about a kind of "unique but limited window of opportunity" that the United States has received right now, and which should certainly be used. One gets the feeling that this is precisely the extension of START-3, under the cover of which the United States intends to improve its weapons, holding back the development of Russian ones to the maximum.

In the meantime, the Pentagon, despite any agreements and talks between the leaders of the two states to reduce tensions, continues to attack Russia. Yes, yes, exactly an offensive, making the maximum advance to the borders of our country and taking positions for nuclear strikes on its territory. So, on the eve it became known about the transfer of the US Air Force of its strategic bombers Rockwell B-1 Lancer to Norway at the Erland airbase. According to the statement of the commander of the US Air Force in Europe and Africa Jeffy Harrigian, this is being done "to support NATO allies" and as part of the Bomber Task Force missions. At the same time, no one, in fact, even thinks to hide that these "strategists" will be aimed specifically at Russia and the Russian Arctic - the airbase, which will become their place of deployment, is located 480 kilometers from the Arctic Circle.

The extension of START-3 is, of course, wonderful. However, the goals and objectives of this action on different sides of the ocean are obviously understood in completely different ways. Someone wants peace. And someone is preparing for war ...
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dimy4 Online Dimy4
    Dimy4 (Dmitriy) 4 February 2021 09: 25
    "Struggle for Peace" with a Double Bottom?

    We will fight for peace in such a way that there will be no stone unturned in this world!
  2. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 4 February 2021 09: 42
    are an attempt to undermine its national security ", will lead to the withdrawal of our country from START

    When the Americans were building their missile defense systems in Romania and Poland, Russia did not withdraw from the treaty on medium-range missiles. On the contrary, it was the United States withdrew from the IRSD when they had already built their missile defense systems. And the fact that the United States is profitable now is for sure. I believe that without the INF Treaty we do not need this START in any form !!!
    1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
      alex5450 (Alex L) 4 February 2021 20: 06
      Russia withdrew from the INF Treaty on March 20, 2019. Cif August 2, 2019. That is, in your opinion, the United States should have observed the treaty from which Russia withdrew?
  3. Uneven Offline Uneven
    Uneven (X) 4 February 2021 11: 06
    In the first place, its economy does not allow the current Russian Federation to compete with the West. Without radical political changes in the country, Russia's lag will only grow, which will ultimately lead to the death of the state. No global war is required for this. It will be quite enough just not to change anything in Russia.
    1. shiva Offline shiva
      shiva (Ivan) 4 February 2021 12: 38
      I disagree. On the contrary, if we do not allow tagged, and even just fans or agents of our Western "partners" to come to power, then we ourselves will live quite well, not bothering anyone, as long as they emanate bile there. But if we, with our own hands, begin to bring dramatic changes, cut missiles, run over planes with tractors, and lose as a result of "social reforms" a couple of million of the population a year - then it will definitely be crap.
      1. Uneven Offline Uneven
        Uneven (X) 4 February 2021 13: 38
        if you do not allow the labeled

        So already "allowed". They have been in power in Russia for three decades.
        And with them "just live" will not work. Only degradation and death.
      2. alex5450 Offline alex5450
        alex5450 (Alex L) 4 February 2021 20: 07
        You have great fantasies. Now, if everyone became kind and good, and there everyone was bad, they lived like that. )
        I hope at least your king is kind? Only boyars are playing pranks? ))
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. olpin51 Offline olpin51
      olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 4 February 2021 21: 05
      Uneven have a question. Where and how is it indigenous?
      1. Uneven Offline Uneven
        Uneven (X) 4 February 2021 22: 25
        Synonyms: cardinal, radical, capital ...
        So clearer?
        1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
          olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 5 February 2021 19: 54
          There are so many synonyms radically, radically, fundamentally. But the question remains. How? And then everyone can puff their cheeks, there are zero cardinal proposals.
          In general, what do you dislike? Compete? And now we don't have to compete with anyone. Let them compete with us in some way. We have more than enough such areas. Usually, those who ask such questions slip into everyday life. - Here we do not have such and such, and such ...
          1. Uneven Offline Uneven
            Uneven (X) 6 February 2021 10: 34
            1) Read History. There are quite enough examples of how radical transformations are carried out. Choose whichever method you can master.
            2) How exactly can a colony compete with its mother country?
            1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
              olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 6 February 2021 22: 27
              Well, here we are - read, choose. Yes, I don't really need it. It depends on the point of view, on the direction from where to look and where. Someone believes that they live in a colony, where degradation and death are all around - their right. Probably just did not find myself in this life. And I live in a state that is already sovereign, otherwise they wouldn’t be yapping from all sides and I support this state.
              1. Uneven Offline Uneven
                Uneven (X) 7 February 2021 15: 14
                Please, tell me - what exactly "sovereign" did you manage to find in the Russian Federation, which was even banned from performing under its flag at sporting events?
                1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
                  olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 7 February 2021 20: 22
                  Does not depend on other states, has the authority and ability to enter into international relations with other states. And the most important thing is the priority of Russian law over international law. And the prohibition to act under the flag is thanks to the pi dr who fled. Wada must be respected, however, and not enter into conflicts.
                  1. Uneven Offline Uneven
                    Uneven (X) 8 February 2021 12: 04
                    1) Depends.
                    2) The colony may well "enter into a relationship".
                    3) If Russia had the priority of "Russian law over international law", it would not pay by the decision of foreign authorities.
                    1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
                      olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 8 February 2021 14: 59
                      Tired of rolling butter ...
                2. olpin51 Offline olpin51
                  olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 7 February 2021 20: 30
                  And in general, what do we have?
                  1. Uneven Offline Uneven
                    Uneven (X) 9 February 2021 08: 26
                    If you "already know everything", then I stop talking ...
                    1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
                      olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 9 February 2021 10: 33
                      You can't trust anyone but me ...

                      (Muhler - 17 Moments of Spring)
                      1. Uneven Offline Uneven
                        Uneven (X) 9 February 2021 11: 25
                        I sent the information from Muller to you in a personal message.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. olpin51 Offline olpin51
    olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 4 February 2021 14: 13
    Yes, they will not dare to do anything to anyone. They are even afraid of the DPRK, which made fun of it. Let them catch up - their right, for their money.
    1. Anatoly Babug Offline Anatoly Babug
      Anatoly Babug (Anatol) 4 February 2021 15: 08
      Wow, I made fun of it - after the visit of the American aircraft carriers, for some reason, it abruptly stopped all nuclear tests. And more is not needed, let this reserve remain as it is. Nobody needs millions of zombified people from the last century.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. olpin51 Offline olpin51
        olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 4 February 2021 21: 11
        Visit? It was kind of ... with puffing up the cheeks. Well, the country is certainly more terrible than Grenada.
  6. alex5450 Offline alex5450
    alex5450 (Alex L) 4 February 2021 20: 09
    Eh. The article is just like from the distant Soviet past - we are all fighting for peace, and there they sharpen knives. )
  7. Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 4 February 2021 21: 00
    "To catch up and overtake the Russians ..." To destroy?

    Any more or less nuclear weapons specialist will tell you about the parity of the Russian Federation and the United States in nuclear weapons. The Russian Federation does not have any lead. Even the appearance of something advanced requires its mass production. The other side is also awake. There is nothing that one did and the other could not repeat.
    After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons accumulated wagons, constantly improved it and, strangely enough, no war began. So it will continue. There are no fools to start a nuclear war. After all, everyone knows that his nuclear weapons are so much that several times you can destroy each other. Do we want this?
    1. Dmitry Kokorev Offline Dmitry Kokorev
      Dmitry Kokorev (Dmitry Kokorev) 22 February 2021 23: 24
      The Pentagon knows that there will be no "nuclear winter" - this is a myth invented by Carl Sagan
  8. kriten Offline kriten
    kriten (Vladimir) 5 February 2021 16: 24
    There is only one way out, somewhere in the backyard to show the United States what awaits them, and right at home.
  9. Dmitry Kokorev Offline Dmitry Kokorev
    Dmitry Kokorev (Dmitry Kokorev) 22 February 2021 23: 22
    The Pentagon knows that there will be no "nuclear winter" - and on this it builds its current strategy.
    Carl Sagan entered such "necessary data" into the computer to obtain the desired result - "nuclear winter". Namely, he created the concept of "nuclear winter".
    However, the "tests" of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square meters were burned out. km, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the concept of "nuclear winter". You cannot dismiss this, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself. The most interesting thing is that calculations of the formation of soot in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2,5 grams per square meter. meters of forest fire. Over the entire area of ​​the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square meters. km - 2,5 million tons, which is 1600 times less than in the concept of "nuclear winter". And this - in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when the rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
    Such a difference of 1600 times directly proves the impudent falsification carried out by the Carl Sagan group.
    So the Pentagon knows what it is doing. He expects that after the exchange of strikes with nuclear weapons, the war will turn into a battle between the Russian economy and the economy of the entire "surviving" Western world.
  10. Dmitry Kokorev Offline Dmitry Kokorev
    Dmitry Kokorev (Dmitry Kokorev) 22 February 2021 23: 26
    Quote: Vladest
    After all, everyone knows that his nuclear weapons are so much that several times you can destroy each other.

    from what scientific papers did you get this information ???

    In service with Russia and on alert there are 1735 warheads of varying power, and in service with the United States and also on alert there are 1654 warheads. The total capacity of the Russian arsenal is, according to rough estimates, based on open press data, 755,5 megatons. It would seem that this is colossal power, although it is much inferior to the power of the arsenals of the Cold War. However, if we calculate the approximate area of ​​destruction calculated using the high-explosiveness formula for each type of nuclear warhead, then the total Russian arsenal can hit 23309 sq. km of the area. The total area occupied by NATO member states is 24,2 million square meters. km. Thus, Russian nuclear weapons can hit 0,09% of this territory. If all Russian nuclear weapons were used against a country with a comparable area, for example Slovenia (20,5 thousand square kilometers), then life in this country would definitely end. But even most European countries are too big for an entire Russian nuclear strike to erase them into radioactive dust.
    The situation is similar with the American arsenal. If we take the average warhead yield of 475 kilotons (the United States does not publish more accurate data on the composition and power of its arsenal), then American warheads can hit an area of ​​22825 square meters. km. This is 0,13% of the territory of Russia, which is 17,1 million square meters. km.