MOSCOW, November 6 (RIA Novosti) - With the election of a new Democratic president in the U.S., Washington and Moscow may sign a new strategic arms reduction deal as early as the summer of next year, a Russian analyst said on Thursday.
" Obama supports sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals and I believe that Russia and the U.S. may sign in the summer or fall of 2009 a new treaty that would replace START-1, which expires in December 2009," Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute of the U.S. and Canada, told a news conference in RIA Novosti.
The effective Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union on July 31, 1991, five months before the U.S.S.R. collapsed.
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since disposed of all their nuclear weapons or transferred them to Russia, and the U.S. and Russia have reduced the number of delivery vehicles to 1,600 each, with no more than 6,000 warheads. The treaty is set to expire on December 5, 2009.
Rogov said, however, that the signing of a new nuclear disarmament deal would only be possible if Washington abandoned its plans to place elements of a U.S. missile shield in central Europe.
"I am certain you are familiar with the statements made by President Medvedev yesterday. I think that Russia has expressed its position clearly - we are ready to make new steps in the sphere of disarmament, but we are waiting for the U.S. to abandon its attempts to surround Russia with a missile defense ring," the analyst said.
Moscow has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Washington's plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic, saying they threaten Russia's national security.
Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday in his first state of the nation address that Russia would deploy short-range Iskander missile systems in its western exclave of Kaliningrad "to neutralize if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe."
Russia also insists that any agreement replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty should be a legally binding document and must set lower ceilings not only for the number of nuclear warheads, but also for their delivery vehicles.
jujubee, thank you for the informative link. I knew that I had read and/or heard that the reason Saddam was not overthrown was because he (correctly) didn't think it would have been a favorable outcome but it was a while ago. And thank you for saving me the trouble of searching for something to back up my claim.
"Russia has been flexing its muscles IN RECENT YEARS, flush with oil wealth and a renewed sense of national pride, and most recently demonstrated its disregard for international opinion when it invaded the nation of Georgia, a former Soviet bloc country."
Yup...this "sudden" posturing by Russia is all because Obama was elected (give me a break).
>>>Bush went into Iraq to push out Iran. Mission accomplished and we left.
What??? Seriously, what are you talking about?
Bush41 went into Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Had to save those oil wells. Mission accomplished, and we left.
Bush43 went into Iraq because Saddam had WMD. And then it was to liberate the Iraqi people. And then it was because Saddam was buddies with Osama Bin Laden and conspired with him on Sept. 11th. And then it was something else. I can't even remember all the different reasons they dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. And despite what Bush said when he was playing "Top Gun" on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the mission has NOT been accomplished ('cause really, who even knows what the mission is???) and we have not left.
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
Pages
<
"Well now we get to see what Obama is"
Yeah.
MOSCOW, November 6 (RIA Novosti) - With the election of a new Democratic president in the U.S., Washington and Moscow may sign a new strategic arms reduction deal as early as the summer of next year, a Russian analyst said on Thursday.
" Obama supports sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals and I believe that Russia and the U.S. may sign in the summer or fall of 2009 a new treaty that would replace START-1, which expires in December 2009," Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute of the U.S. and Canada, told a news conference in RIA Novosti.
The effective Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union on July 31, 1991, five months before the U.S.S.R. collapsed.
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since disposed of all their nuclear weapons or transferred them to Russia, and the U.S. and Russia have reduced the number of delivery vehicles to 1,600 each, with no more than 6,000 warheads. The treaty is set to expire on December 5, 2009.
Rogov said, however, that the signing of a new nuclear disarmament deal would only be possible if Washington abandoned its plans to place elements of a U.S. missile shield in central Europe.
"I am certain you are familiar with the statements made by President Medvedev yesterday. I think that Russia has expressed its position clearly - we are ready to make new steps in the sphere of disarmament, but we are waiting for the U.S. to abandon its attempts to surround Russia with a missile defense ring," the analyst said.
Moscow has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Washington's plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic, saying they threaten Russia's national security.
Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday in his first state of the nation address that Russia would deploy short-range Iskander missile systems in its western exclave of Kaliningrad "to neutralize if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe."
Russia also insists that any agreement replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty should be a legally binding document and must set lower ceilings not only for the number of nuclear warheads, but also for their delivery vehicles.
Thank you, nicole_ftm for my siggy!
It's pretty common knowledge, but sure:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/mccain_10-19.html
<>
From the article (caps, mine for emphasis)
"Russia has been flexing its muscles IN RECENT YEARS, flush with oil wealth and a renewed sense of national pride, and most recently demonstrated its disregard for international opinion when it invaded the nation of Georgia, a former Soviet bloc country."
Yup...this "sudden" posturing by Russia is all because Obama was elected (give me a break).
My son has talked about when he was on different carriers, in different parts of the world how they were "Greeted".
>>>Bush went into Iraq to push out Iran. Mission accomplished and we left.
What??? Seriously, what are you talking about?
Bush41 went into Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Had to save those oil wells. Mission accomplished, and we left.
Bush43 went into Iraq because Saddam had WMD. And then it was to liberate the Iraqi people. And then it was because Saddam was buddies with Osama Bin Laden and conspired with him on Sept. 11th. And then it was something else. I can't even remember all the different reasons they dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. And despite what Bush said when he was playing "Top Gun" on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the mission has NOT been accomplished ('cause really, who even knows what the mission is???) and we have not left.
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
Pages