Clinton comes to Russia to talk START
Published: 03 October, 2009, 16:29
Edited: 05 October, 2009, 04:01
TAGS: Arms, Meeting, Nuclear, Politics
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his US counterpart Hillary Clinton will meet in Moscow next week to discuss the details of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
The Russian Foreign Ministry made the announcement on the aftermath of the sixth round of bilateral talks in Geneva on Saturday.
The ministry branded the discussions “constructive”, adding that the full results of the talks will be announced during the upcoming meeting of Sergey Lavrov and Hillary Clinton on October 13.
Earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev told the UN Council that the US and Russia are “ready to move further and cut the number of delivery vehicles for strategic offensive armaments by more than three times.” The Russian president suggested that the new treaty might be ready by December 2009.
The US State Department reported in April that, as of January, Russia had 3,909 nuclear warheads and 814 delivery vehicles, while the United States possessed 5,576 warheads and 1,198 delivery vehicles.
The US Secretary of State’s visit to Russia comes as part of her European tour that also includes Britain and Ireland.
03.10.2009, 13:00
2 comments
“Deal with Saudi Arabia is a risk for Russia’s reputation”Arms deals with Saudi Arabia can damage Russia’s reputation as an independent arms supplier, as such a deal could tempt Russia into being less involved in the arms trade with Iran, said military analyst Ruslan Pukhov. |
04.10.2009, 12:49
6 comments
EU and Russia “cannot afford to have disputes everywhere”Thierry de Montbrial, the director of the French Institute of International Relations, spoke to RT about marked shifts in the balance of international diplomacy and Russia’s role in what is becoming a multi-polar world. |
We've found seven lifesaving rescue rings, in Plymouth harbour district, all with P.C.C (county council) embossed. They can be further embossed. Etc. Orrible Ian's setting-up right now and wants to know "if the Pilgrimother needs another lifesaver or not", an'-whar-about a straw madam?' ; easy with boathooks.
This whole concept of START seems bizarre, a little like agreeing to wound and not kill, which more than worries me. I’m not sure which is better, saying that if you do something stupid, you are most definitely dead, and there is no place to hide, or saying if you do something stupid, you and I will both become amputees, but life will go on in a wheel chair? Like this other crazy thing that a US nuclear specialist said, if we attack Russia, we only going to attack the industrial areas, what does that mean? Sounds like madness to me. Hilary Clintons face is showing the strain and it’s like a road map, every time I look at her, I see another dead end. Nuclear reduction or honest options, I wonder which is better? A quick economic buck, or a better world, is there a choice?