0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
895 $

U.S. Says Russia Should Sign New START Extension, Or Treaty Terms Will Turn Unfavorable For It

Support SouthFront

U.S. Says Russia Should Sign New START Extension, Or Treaty Terms Will Turn Unfavorable For It

Click to see full-size image

The US President’s Special Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingsley said that he considers Washington’s proposed parameters for a new strategic offensive arms agreement with Moscow “a good proposal,” despite the controversy that arose.

Billingsley gave an interview with Russian outlet Kommersant.

“Russia itself must decide whether it wants to extend the New START. We made a good offer. We do not think this proposal is unfair. We believe it is based on the principle of reciprocity and will lead to greater transparency. And we think this is very valuable in the current environment when the United States and Russia do not trust each other in anything,” Billingsley said.

The agreement was concluded between Russia and the United States in 2010 and came into force in 2011. It expires in February 2021. In accordance with the agreement, Moscow and Washington must reduce the number of nuclear warheads in service to about 1,500 each, and the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles in service, as well as missiles on submarines and heavy bombers, to 700.

Billingsley said Moscow and Washington have already reached a consensus on China’s participation in a possible new agreement on nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.

At the same time, the United States opposes the inclusion in the treaty of its European allies – Great Britain and France.

“We made it clear to our Russian colleagues that what China is doing is significantly different from what the UK and France are doing. Neither Britain nor France is building up their nuclear arsenals. China is actively developing and deploying its nuclear weapons,” Billingsley explained.

Speaking about the structure of the new treaty, Billingsley indicated that it could have several components.

For example, nuclear weapons verification agreements may be frameworks to begin with and “require perhaps a more schematic approach to technical details that will be refined later”.

Other agreements, in particular regarding the mutual accounting of the arsenals of countries, initially require an agreement “containing political commitments of the parties.”

Despite the fact that Washington insists on China’s participation in the new agreement, the United States does not intend to require other nuclear-armed countries such as Pakistan, India or North Korea to join the treaty. Billingsley explained that expanding the circle of participants will make the agreement inoperative due to the delay in the negotiation process.

Billingsley pointed out that Washington does not intend to export nuclear weapons from Europe among the principal issues for the United States.

In general, Billingsley called the proposals made by the United States to extend or renegotiate the New START “moderate” and “reasonable”, stressing that if Russia does not agree to them now, then after the US presidential elections, the treaties will become more complicated.

“I suppose that if Russia does not accept the terms, then after Trump is re-elected, the “entrance fee,” as we say in the United States, will increase. I think that if by that time we do not move forward, then we will have a number of new conditions on which we will have to insist. But so far, the proposal remains in force in the form in which we made it,” he said.

Billingsley stressed that the extension of the New START, which expires in February 2021, is not fundamental for the United States in any case.

“We made an offer [to Russia] in good faith. But if Russia does not want to accept it, that’s okay. We are going to modernize our nuclear forces. Russia has largely finished modernizing its nuclear arsenal. We are just starting ours. And we will be extremely happy to continue it without the restrictions envisaged by the New START,” he concluded.

Billingsley said in early May that Russia should persuade China to join arms control negotiations, calling it a key condition for extending the agreement. Washington has previously spoken about the need to connect Beijing to START – US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this in April 2019.

In July, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the fate of the New START was a foregone conclusion, since the United States, apparently, decided not to extend it.

“The persistence with which the lack of alternative of transferring the entire conversation to a trilateral plane is emphasized, it says that this is already a foregone conclusion,” the minister explained.

The proposed deal is especially favorable to the US, and attempts to put Russia in a position in which it needs to persuade China to also partake in the agreement. The US wants to status quo to continue, with both the UK and France keeping Washington’s nuclear weapons on their soil, and be free to develop further weapons of their own, while both Russia and China would need to be subdued.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rightiswrong rightiswrong

Anyone would think the US were doing Russia a favour by offering to limit each others nuclear arsenals.

The US is hated globally, their economy fell off a cliff years ago, long before it approached over 20 trillion in debt, and the Nazi Germans who invented stuff for them, are dead.

Russia, why bother talking to a nation which is about to implode into many new states?


The implosion has to be carefully monitored, contained and must be done in such a fashion that the US doesn’t resort to pressing the red button. So far China and Russia are doing a good job. US will rant and rave, threaten and become even more abusive until the penny drops and they realize that they are naked and close to worthless. Personally I would get in first and nuke the israelis and the 5 eyes.


If US have decided not to extend START and came up with some new silly pre-condition’s imagining that they are in position of force to dictate and blackmail, than that is their problem.

They are delusional and nearing their total collapse every day more.


Why sign anything with the US, as Putin once said “they are agreement incapable” and history has proven so. Russia just needs to place those missiles logistically and then announce to the EU/US the types of missiles and the targets; give them the option of removing their missiles for Russia to do the same.

Damien C

Russia would be insane to listen to this bullying dog-shite, “buy now or the price goes up next week”
The Americans wanted out of the deal for years but now they realise just how far they are behind in developement and production against the likes of China and Russia the penny has dropped that it will cost them an absolute moster cheque to catch up.

This is an immature bluff by USA in the hope of not being undressed in the international weapons window as being devoid of innovation and lacking the ability to overcome technical problems without years of developement backed with continued colossal investment.
So they’re throwing their last chips into the pot in the hope that Russia will fold!

Lone Ranger


Lone Ranger

U.S. can go and eff themselves.
Now they are the one playing catching up with a collapsed economy.
The roles have changed the U.S. is in no position to pressure or to dictate anymore.
Too bad they are delusional and havent realized it yet, same as the trolls in Londonistan whom still think the Empire and Queen Victoria is alive and well.


I guess the U.S is making some new surprises, Russia should join the new agreement because we already know Trump is not playing around.

Servet Köseoğlu

they have to join..midget already started crying..no-one no longer amused by their amateurish display of mediocrity

Concrete Mike

Mediocre, like how your country helps jabhat al nusrah, but your excuse is its ok the land is ours!!!

Imperialist peice of shit!

Servet Köseoğlu

cut the shit..you dont need to reply evrything..did ı throw you bone?

rightiswrong rightiswrong

You can’t afford a bone ffs.

S Melanson

I agree on this.

What surprises do you see. I see a few but want to hear yours. My comment above is a basic broad brush of the context – one point caught my attention is sign now or much harder later – it is not quite ultimatum but is unusual coming from a weaker position in strategic And tactical Nuclear forces. I sense there is additional meaning … as for what it could be … there is a historical equivalent but I will keep that to myself for the moment.


I think the U.S has developed a new ICBM with a better range and they keep it secretly. Also, they made it possible to shoot nukes from submarines that can do only tactical damage, which might motivate the U.S army to use it against their enemies someday. So i think it’s a cleart message to Russia, the U.S can also weaponize space with their new force.

S Melanson

US Nuclear Posture Review 2018 addresses US response to Russian tactical nuke doctrine considered as excessively permissive and warned to expect strong response to ‘limited nuke war’ Implying strategic nuke response but also will match Russia in willingness to use tac on enemies so threat already explicit

Frank G

you forget it is us that first escalates everything world wide, then when others counter, they again further escalate things, like they always need to one up the others whether on paper or in reality. it is and was only the US that reserves the right to attack anyone preemptively as they see fit. you forget that it is the us that, used A bombs, biological and chemical warfare in korea and vietnam, white phosphorous and cluster bombs in civilian areas, killed, maimed and displaced tens of millions, arms and supports terrorists as their proxies, interferes with other countries politics, assassinates endless list of rivals, overthrows governments, runs the global drug and sex trafficking trades……violates un charters, human rights and just about anything else…..but they can as they are exceptional, meaning above the laws/rules, they are exempt.

S Melanson

I am stating the attitude of the US military as stated in the Posture Review Document, not my own personal views. What I am pointing out to Iron Zion is it is no secret, the military says as much.

Александра Ростиславна

United Kingdom is no stranger to chemical and biological warfare, as seen by WWI’s mustard gas, filling rice fields with arsenic. Copying VX, Sarin, and Chlorine gas during WWII, and currently the real perpetrator behind 4 different nerve gas attacks.

I have always felt that the chemical warfare sector to be way more malicious than the nuclear sector, and they (specifically, UK) and immune to any sort of sanctions.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

You think range matters, after 60 years of rockets?
What a moron, greater range, I suppose you think the Yanks couldn’t reach Moscow before then, what a plonker.

And having a Space Force is a clue to them having weapons, which could be used in space, just like the Russian air and space forces have.

Lone Ranger

I disagree.
Russia already won the arms race.
Why fold to a weaker adversary if they will need another 10-15 years to develop the same.
Given they wont be balkanized…
Which there is a high probability of.
Adide from that the U.S. violates agreements on a constant basis.
They arent thusteorthy.

S Melanson

By signing, Russia affirms commitment to arms control, to refuse risks being seen as aggressive initiator of arms race that wants to press the advantage where incremental increases in superiority have dubious value in nuclear warfare and is detrimental to approximate parity under MAD doctrine – US would like that, reason Russia may want to focus on exposing impossible China demand and agree to US but cannot agree to China participation, only China can. Need to play the psychological war and generally Russia has played well so far with just the right amount of kinetic conflict in the mix

Also If the US needs that long to catch up, then Russia can have a safe advantage for period of treaty – ten years and will be advantageous as it ensures resources freed up by agreement can be directed to more urgent issues since agreement constrains use as a political football and safe since strategic and tactical balance in Russian favour And US spends spends spends

Frank G

you seem to forget about the part where the us wants rus to sign a revised neocon made treaty that says we will work out all the fine details later, where they would just keep adding unreasonable demands in order to just make rus cancel and pull out eventually unless they bend over….b tw if rus did not modernize they would not be able to make the stands they took in the last several years.

S Melanson

Think in terms of psychological war and not to play into US hands which sets traps.

Concrete Mike

Elephant in the room question time!!!

Will israel sign npt now?
Your country used a nuke in lebanon last month.

Its time for your country to come clean with its nuclear program.

Dont give me any Iran bullshit, your country had nukes when the Shah was in power.

Im tired of having nuclear weapons talks. Yet no one talks about the israeli arsenal.
What gives what is so secret?

Are the rumors true that the israeli arsenal is stolen davy crocket nukes?

S Melanson

Good points but root of problem is security doctrine and it has been entrenched for seventy years. The focus has to be on a change in doctrine or should I say, modernization of doctrine which is out of step with current reality – And given the doctrine is basically a manifesto of the realist school of international relations theory, you would think…

But the doctrine is so embedded in the politics that it’s flaws remain invisible even when obvious to outsiders. But the Ben Gurion Doctrine needs to change. Only then will Israel even consider signing any arms control treaty which also requires nuclear declaration even though it is the world’s worst kept secret


I wouldn’t know Mike, that is not my position in the army.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Who gives a fig what Trump thinks ffs. He changes his mind as often as he does his hair.

Israel should surrender, and go back to Florida and Poland, as we know the Arab people are not playing around when they say they will recover the stolen land and expel all those colonists from Palestine.

Fog of War

How about they go back to Khazaria their original homeland.

cechas vodobenikov

trump=paper tiger

S Melanson

I look at this differently. MAD or mutually assured destruction is premised on approximate parity and credible deterrence. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review contrasts US and Russian nuclear weapons developments. The US has not matched Russian nuclear forces modernization for approx. 25 years and is only two years into a program to modernize. Russia created a missile ‘gap’ that the US military used to justify a nuclear arms race and modernization meaning big budget allocations

The US is behind but still maintains credible deterrence and will catch up. Signing will put a lid on US nuclear developments to matching Russia and Russia can put resources freed up to better use elsewhere. US does not like Russian posture on tactical nuclear arsenal and Russia does not like US posture on ABM systems. I agree on both counts, Russian posture lowers threshold for use due to significant superiority in quantitative, qualitative and deployment modalities As well as doctrinal.

Russia has good reason to be upset as the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review discusses ABM systems utility as an offensive ICBM weapon to destroy launch platforms before time to launch and INF treaty just went bye-bye – hello Jupiter ICBM systems in Turkey redux … next stop Cuban Missile Crisis

It also does not help that a separate planning document specific to ABM modernization explicitly outlines intent to enhance their offensive first strike capabilities

Bringing in other parties will burn up to much time and instead focus on the two issues above to mutually resolve both. Deal with China next. Britain and France have maintained relative quantitative stockpile sufficient as a deterrent since joining the nuclear club. Modernization has been to keep up. They are not going to embark on nuclear arms race from miles behind so a pissed off electorate votes them out of office so move on.

S Melanson

Anyone that downvotes should respond and explain their objections. Downvoting adds little to the debate and is intellectually lazy. This topic is of great concern to everyone living on this planet so I am all ears.

Lone Ranger

U.S. violates, twists and abandones its own agreements, so why bother…
Russia didnt create a missile gap just for fun, they did it because the U.S. missile defense system threatended to neutralize the MAD Doctrine in favor of the U.S.
Aegis ashore missile launch tubes are also compatible with nuke tipped Tomahawks on tbze Russian border, local host countries have no access to these bases so they cant control what the U.S. is doing.
Russia was smart and instead nullified the U.S. advantage from a fraction of the cost.
Good job ;)
CIA trolls and hasbarats will cry and rage ?

S Melanson

Largely correct but not inconsistent with what I say which raises the question why the US would allow the gap if the military industrial complex is as powerful as some say. Russian modernization was a good move, but will have the consequences I pointed out. Question is if modernization went beyond optimal when anticipating US reaction. Your reply prompted me to think and I think Russia did it right. Capabilities to evade and other enhancements reaffirm Principle of credible deterrence under MAD. Good reply

P.S. one thing, CIA reaction depends on how this plays out

Tommy Jensen

I just wonder how people can continue to forget US is not capable of agreeing anything other than backstabbing, faking and creator of chaos and misery.
The other thing is, I dont think most people are aware of how close we were to a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia under Obama.

Only because Russia pulled out a rabbit from the hat in the form of new hypersonic weapons, the WWIII plans collapsed for some years but are still in hybrid force in other areas than the military.
Imagine what will happen if US succeed military superiority again.

Therefore it cant be a question of whether Russia should sign a new treaty or not, but on how we together neutralise a mental disabled gorilla who cause only troubles for evrybody .

S Melanson

Do you have a link? I am familiar with some details but not much.

Also, how many are aware of a sustained effort to precipitate a Russian nuclear first-strike – so far frustrated but still on-going.

US is to the core in civil war short of full kinetic open conflict. Battles are between and within government institutions and agencies and to avert judgement day on November 3rd is current focus (bear in mind it is a placeholder to mask the true event) – the previous judgement day averted was fall of 2014 almost no one knows of that and it was a unintended collision of two events that together would have been the end. I was involved in averting the 2014 event collision and am involved again – happy if my modest contribution makes some positive difference – so I will speak for the silent heroes that have played an important part in civilization making it this far – although unsung, it is actually preferred to remain for the most part silent heroes

cechas vodobenikov

world war is suicide for USA/Europe, militarily and economically—Russia will be least impacted due to territory and self sufficiency

rightiswrong rightiswrong

The US didn’t allow anything, they simply spent their money on bailing out banks, and attacking numerous nations with their over bloated military budget.
Russia did not stop the US from modernising their nuclear weapons, the US just assumed they wouldn’t need to modernise, as they do not do strategic thinking, or even think.

The USA are about to end yet another international agreement, par for the course of a terrorist state. About time the muppets who live in the West woke up, before the USA leads them all too Armageddon.

It’s not Russia’s problem what the Westerners put up with in their governments, if Europeans are worried, then vote for people who will break the link with the USA.

S Melanson

What you say is correct but what I say is an observation that if the military industrial complex is as powerful as it elicits public warning from Presidents – Eisenhower, Kennedy and just recently Trump warned of the self-interest of the military promoted wars and a very powerful voice in government. Meaning thwarting the foreign policy of an elected President.

If they have the power to do that, they have the power to thwart defence cuts to strategic nuclear forces. But over several successive Presidential administrations Democrat and Republican, this happened. If you read the actual of transcripts summarizing the secret meeting between Kennedy’s brother Robert, also the Attorney General and the Russian ambassador – one written by Robert Kennedy, And the one written by the Ambassador plus read Khrushchev’s assessment

rightiswrong rightiswrong

The MIC are the government, they are the same guys who go to Davos every year, handing out orders to the junior lackeys.
They run the Western world, they told Trump to run, like Hitler, they need a fall guy if Russia defeats the next Adolf.
They are collapsing the Western economy, just like they did to Germany. The Western economy runs on slave labour, or colonised resources, with millions of refugees welcomed into the Western economy, at the expense of the native populations. They lock you up if you refuse to wear a mask, soon, they will have yellow stars to hand out to their new pet hate.

S Melanson

If they are the government, how is it they got into the predicament of Russian superiority in nuclear forces – it had to be intentional to not modernize for decades while Russia forged ahead – I am asking the question why? The US military is modernizing now, since 2018, so budget allocation was not a constraint in this at all, the money to modernize could be made available anytime with the political will and if the MIC is that will, why did they willingly not modernize with the expected consequences surely known?

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Like all previous empires, they took their eye off the things that got them there.

The hubris since the 1990s has clouded all their judgements, they forget how they bankrupted themselves trying to out-do the SU.
The economic reality hit them in 2007, and they just went to the presses, carried on and hoped for the best.

This is the best idea they have now, pretend that C19 is why the West is going broke, while the reality is it’s been broke for decades.

S Melanson

Your observation on Covid-19 purpose for financial reset is just as you say -the idea, but the reset Attempt I think will be full-spectrum. I do not know how this will end but I do know it will not go to plan – this was foreseen 240 years ago.

I think 2007 is shadow banking system with its unregulated derivatives and securitization which should have been regulated under securities law given loans could be bundled and sold off removing accountability for lending practices and not fixed actually worse now and holding pattern is all they can do until the Covid reset.

I would say the financial damage of the Vietnam war that brought down the Bretten Woods system is the lesson and yes, this is the historical pattern of empire.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

We can look at the German model when the Deep State, MIC, NWO or whatever they were called back then, handed over to the Nazis full power though they only had a quarter of the seats of the parliament. The Nazis banned trade unions, cut salaries by 15%, laid off thousands of civil servants, and privatised everything. The state was subverted to private industry, and industrialists. Small scale businesses were forced to work for the state and large enterprises, mostly at a loss to themselves.
Today, even coalition governments in Europe are ruling by decree, no parliamentary oversight, no need for the elected representatives to vote, just approve with their silence. The banks are still lending to the major industries, while cutting all lending to small businesses and individuals, even though nearly all of them are state owned, or have been bailed out by society.

I think we are there already, in a totalitarian regime who have banned all opposition to their decrees. £10000 fines for bitching about wearing a face nappy is obscene, and again, never debated or voted by any legislative authority.

Money is the root of all evil, and as long as we tolerate these pariahs and parasitical bankersfinanciers, the world will never be at peace, or just.

Sorry for the negative outlook, but I’m rightly pissed off today, lol.

S Melanson

Yes we are there, just coming out more in the open. The reaction is populist uprising to regain voice in public sphere and if voice ignored, then action – Brexit, Yellow vests… this has frightened the horses in the globalist stable and their reaction hardly subtle.

I struggle to keep positive as well but always I see examples of courage and the will to stand one’s ground regardless of what is done to them – Houthis for example.

Power is to control the agenda so that certain topics remain invisible. This failed. Next, control the narrative to ridicule, then discredit and finally threaten. All failed. Then prevent any successful actions to show powerless such that resistance is futile. This failed with Brexit and Trump. Lastly, instigate a police state – overthrow the Republic. This is in progress but opposition is more prepared than most realize and this goes back to the time of the founding Fathers.

Stand or fall. Divided we fall but the polarization of the public is contrived and has had no impact on the bedrock of patriots who will never allow tyranny to take hold which is why they will never give up their firearms as they are to restore the Republic.

So rages the psychological war and they are not winning so far.

КПТ. Александра Ростиславна

I think it goes beyond modernizing the nuclear arsenal. Hypersonic missiles render ICBMs a hazard to the country that hosts them. Actively developing them beyond the missile treaty in effect is a breach of the treaty, and seen as hostile.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Not as hostile as undermining an arms treaty by developing anti missile systems, as the USA did.

The Russians warned them that they would develop systems that could bypass missile defences, did the Yanks listen!
Give the Yanks enough rope, and they always hang themselves, they are incapable of honouring any commitment they ever made.


At this point, I would expect Venezuela wants nukes to deter CIA+USA.
Obtaining them is an entirely different situation since USA bled them of all their assets, they can’t order any from Iran. Not to mention that the surrounding waters are occupied by US forces, even if a shipment were to come, they’d probably sink the transport vessel immediately.

Cuban Missile Crisis II does not seem a possibility at all.

S Melanson

When I say Cuban Missile crisis 2 I focus on the provocative acts that will cause a strong Russian reaction such as ABM systems near border used offensively for a first strike with a few minutes to hitting targets is the same issue that triggered the Cuban crisis. Khrushchev also complained about being encircled by US military bases – that certainly is still the case. Note Russia sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela and had negotiated a military basing agreement which is a bargaining chip in my view. The bombers are a reminder to US what happened in Cuba. When the history and language of respective ideologies, movements, philosophies and principles underlying policies, rhetoric and actions carry more nuanced and layered meaning


The Art of the Deal. Whoever doesn’t bend, shall be bended

S Melanson

Given the history, The Russian people could be described as unbendable. What does Art of the Deal say about an unstoppable force meets an unbendable object?

Tommy Jensen

Its opposite. Russia has already bended enough. Its the unstoppable force who doesnt bend who shall be bended.

S Melanson

Very good insight. Thank you


No art just common sales tactics …. basically the oldest trick in the books “act now, before the price goes up”…. duh.

Show me one instance where Trump has “won” a negotiation. And I’m not talking about him claiming he won or where he won by simply throwing more lawyers at a problem than the other guy.

That might work on some flooring contractor Trump doesn’t want to pay or some poor sap sucked in by Trump University but not on the Russians.

johnny rotten

The Americans especially try to insert the mutual control of the arsenals in order to closely inspect the Russian hypersonic weapons, that is the real Yankee headache.

Jim Bim

It`s not even close to the level of a proposal, but an US ultimatum and demands. The Russian reaction is understandable

“The approach of setting ultimatums is alarming, saying that it is ‘our way or not at all.’ This is hardly the easiest path to achieving the desired result, or it means that the desired result for the Americans is not to reach a stable and mutually accepted agreement,”

Potato Man

“a good proposal” / “a Zion proposal” which favorable to the US, that’s the deal they proposed. LMFAO
BTW ask Iran what happened to their deal with US.


Call their bluff.

The USA is bankrupt. The US stock market is only doing well because the FED printed $3 T USD and there is nowhere else to invest. The rise in stock prices far above the value of even companies potential earnings is in fact the first sign of hyper inflation. The real economy has tanked to depths not seen since the great depression. You can see inflation taking hold in the price of food and commodities … statistically inflation zeros out to about 3 percent because wages and assets like commercial real estate have tanked but inflation’s there … it’s coming and Trump will do everything statistically possible to hide it.

The USA isn’t going to have the cash for both overseas bases / ongoing wars and expensive weapons programs. They are putting a lot of wear and tear on ships and aircraft that will need to be maintained / replaced let alone have money to roll out new weapons systems.

They better get cracking at educating STEM workers instead of MBa’s and lawyers because they can no longer attract the worlds best and brightest young minds due to their political stance re. immigration, economic situation ….. AND because the USA is now a disease ridden shithole full of homeless and unemployed and nightly race riots in every city.

Traiano Welcome

M.A.D is the ultimate “treaty”. Nothing else is needed.


Not so simple. With arrival of hype-sonic missiles that can disable, cripple strategic nuke strike in matter of minutes… M.A.D. will soon change, than completely lose its meaning because only computers will be able to react fast enough in launch of nukes.
Forcing us to leave in extremely dangerous world.

S Melanson

Yes, and it is a problem right now. The Russian perimeter system ‘dead hand’ does an auto-counter strike after a false flag nuke attack on Russia in the 1990 film By Dawn’s Early Light

A great film by the way.


Yes. US has the similar system.The problem is AI (artificial intelligence ) that is still very far from high quality of adequate autonomous decisions, good enough to be trusted completely for such complex and sophisticated task that would decide destiny of billions of people.

S Melanson

Very good point – the fear is unsophisticated AI destroying human civilization. The worry a super-intelligent AI would want to eradicate humanity is a possibility but unlikely if thought through with some critical thinking.


The real one is not actually an “auto” counter, they still need someone to press the red button. My assumption is that when it was built that the computer was not smart enough to make the choice to destroy everybody or would false-positive launch.

КПТ. Александра Ростиславна

Perimetr was obsolete and they changed the command ICBM in 2019, it is going through a major overhaul currently. MAD has been subverted by the US actively developing hypersonic missiles for the purpose of targeting known ICBM silos. Naturally Russia was forced to develop their own.

SU-57’s can launch hypersonic missiles and will come with EMP DEWs as standard.

Claiming Perimiter as fully automatic is myth though, somebody still had to push the button.

Thanks for the update on perimeter system – note that my comment was on how the system was portrayed in a movie. Be interested in what the overhaul entails.

Assad must stay

gee what a juicy deal for russia hahahahha such insanity from US will not end well for it

Tommy Jensen

Precisely what I have pointed out. Russia has MACH, and US have RØMER.
Under these conditions we made an absolutely fair offer [to Russia] in good faith they cant refuse.

But if Russia prefer the vodka bottle rather than peace, America will continue developing its RØMER weapons and Russia can continue fumbling around with its obsolete MACH arsenal. comment image

cechas vodobenikov

comic book tammy: a little child —a Disney character that resides in hyperreality

rightiswrong rightiswrong

No wonder the USA is broke, with prize twats like Billingsey trying to negotiate for the USA. They must have a special place where they train twats like Billingsley and Pompous Fatso Mike, as the chances of having so many fat useless cretins as negotiaters must be astronomical.

Russia doesn’t need a new treaty, they already modernised their nuclear triad, and added hypersonic manouverable nuclear weapons to their arsenal. Russia would like to sign a treaty, guaranteeing world peace and security, but they are not the ones threatening the peace and security of the world.

The exceptional nation do that all by themselves, exceptional in that they have so many idiots who manage to find jobs they know nothing about.

S Melanson

I think that is intentional. When the plan is to deliver non-negotiable demands backed by threat, do not use people that actually know negotiation, use autocratic oriented, and as PNAC founders said – use hard nosed large stature … or fat… that can look the other side in the eye and convey they would without hesitation destroy them and enjoy doing it… Lovely… and who they have ‘negotiating’ fits the job description perfectly.

I mean when they sent President Bolton on a diplomatic mission to Moscow it was the pinnacle of being a living oxymoron and even Putin joked openly with Bolton at the table that he knew Bolton had no ‘olives’ only arrows. For Bolton, diplomacy is carried out from the cockpits of fighter-bombers.

cechas vodobenikov

Russian superiority merely provokes insecure amerikans—sanders, biden, trump and their peasants …they will sacrifice their freedom for burgers and stupidly spend even more to produce incompetent weapons—self defeat is expected in an empire near collapse


That is ridiculous, because of George W. Bush’s war on “terror” AKA Al Qaeda (Not MOSSAD, lmao) – they let a treaty expire.

START 2020 won’t even begin to happen because Amerika weaponized space, active development of hypersonic missiles (which are intended to be fired at ICBM launch silos), and picked fights with Russia’s allies.

Putin literally said that these moves forced their hand to seek other terms of protection for their homeland and allies, and Cold War II did no favours for peace and stability, when Amerika’s goons want to attack.

We are at war now, and it’s the actions of Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump that caused it.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x