Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov rejected the US request to extend the New Start nuclear arms control treaty.
The US and Russia have signed an agreement called New Start on the control of nuclear weapons, but Russia is refusing to extend the agreement based on reservations.
According to the report, the United States wants to extend the New Start agreement in any case so that the Trump government can get a large number of public support in the upcoming elections, but the Moscow government rejected the American request to extend the agreement.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the extension of the agreement is unacceptable, there are restrictions on the US stock of nuclear weapons and we do not accept their position.
In recent days, US negotiator Michelle Billings Lee claimed that Russia is ready to extend the agreement and we want the Moscow government to be ready to limit its nuclear weapons.
In response to this statement, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister severely criticized the Trump administration and said that we reject agreements and compromises related to the American elections.
It should be noted that in 2010, the New Start agreement was signed between the US and Russia under which both countries agreed to reduce the number of their strategic nuclear weapons from 1550 to a maximum of 700.
#request #extend #Start #treaty #nuclear #arms #control #rejected
In your opinion, what role does public perception play in shaping the US’s strategic decisions on missile defense and arms control agreements like New START?
**Interview with Dr. Elena Koroleva, Arms Control Expert**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Koroleva. There’s been a significant development in nuclear arms control talks between the US and Russia, specifically regarding the New START Treaty. Can you explain why Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov rejected the US request for an extension of this treaty?
**Dr. Koroleva:** Certainly. Ryabkov’s rejection largely stems from Russia’s concerns that extending the treaty under current conditions would impose restrictions on its nuclear arsenal while not reciprocally limiting US capabilities. He expressed that the treaty’s extension is unacceptable and indicates that Russia perceives a lack of balance in negotiations, especially in light of upcoming US elections, which they believe could influence the negotiation dynamics.
**Editor:** It has been reported that the US is eager to extend the treaty to bolster public support ahead of elections. How do you see domestic politics affecting international agreements like New START?
**Dr. Koroleva:** Domestic politics play a crucial role. The pressure on leaders to demonstrate strength can lead to reluctance in compromising on international fronts. In the case of the New START, the political climate in the US may prioritize short-term electoral gains over long-term strategic stability, making negotiations more challenging. Countries may view this tactic as a sign of instability or opportunism, which can undermine trust in such agreements.
**Editor:** In recent statements, the US negotiator Michelle Billings Lee suggested that Russia is actually willing to negotiate an extension. How do you interpret this conflicting communication?
**Dr. Koroleva:** This discrepancy highlights the complexities of diplomacy. It suggests that while there may be a desire from some factions within Russia to continue discussions, the official line being communicated from senior officials like Ryabkov reflects deeper strategic reservations. This inconsistency may indicate internal divisions within Russian leadership regarding how to approach the US, making the future of these negotiations uncertain.
**Editor:** Considering the implications of treaty extensions or rejections, what do you think is at stake for both countries if New START is not extended?
**Dr. Koroleva:** If New START is not extended, the risk of a renewed arms race increases significantly. Both countries could accelerate the development of new nuclear weapons systems without oversight. This situation could destabilize international security, encourage other nations to pursue nuclear capabilities, and lead to decreased global confidence in multilateral arms control frameworks. The stakes are not just bilateral; they affect global peace and security.
**Editor:** how should the international community respond to this ongoing situation? What measures can be taken to foster dialogue?
**Dr. Koroleva:** The international community should advocate for renewed dialogue and transparency between the US and Russia. Third-party countries could facilitate talks, and confidence-building measures like arms reduction or verification frameworks might help create a conducive environment for negotiations. It’s vital that nations learn from past mistakes and recognize the collective benefit of strategic stability.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Koroleva, for your insights into this critical issue. It’s undoubtedly a topic that will continue to evolve and capture public attention.
**Question for Readers:** Given the complex interplay of domestic politics and international relations, what do you think the US and Russia should prioritize in their negotiations? Is there a path to mutual trust, or has the opportunity for effective arms control fundamentally changed?