Putin Offers US a Temporary Nuclear Control Deal
"To Prevent New Arms Race"
Tyler Durden
 Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has offered President Trump a temporary nuclear arms control deal that would extend the status quo by one year, at a moment the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, is hanging by a thread.
During a meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council, Putin said he was ready to extend by one year the last arms control treaty between Washington and Moscow, Reuters reports. This would allow time to negotiate its further extension, likely by another five years. This would be “if the US reciprocates, to prevent a new arms race,” Putin stipulated.
He painted a dire picture of strategic security in the world. “Unfortunately, it continues to degrade, which is caused by the combined impact of a number of factors, including negative ones, provoking the aggravation of existing and the emergence of new strategic risks,” Putin said.
He described that central to the problem is that multiple Cold War era arms agreements had steadily eroded and then been dropped between the US and Russia, while only New START remains.
“Step by step, the system of Soviet-American and Russian-American agreements on control over nuclear missiles and strategic defensive weapons was almost completely dismantled,” the Russian leader said.
“We associate the multiple problems that have accumulated in the strategic sphere since the beginning of the twenty-first century with the destructive actions of the West.”
Putin further asserted that no one should have doubt that Russia will be ready for any threat. “Our plans to strengthen the country’s defense capability are being developed taking into account the changing global situation and are being implemented in full and in a timely manner,” he underscored, before saying:
“I emphasize, and no one should have any doubt about this, that Russia is able to respond to any existing and newly emerging threats.”
But the fact that Putin is offering a year-long extension to New START while its renewal is negotiated is a major positive sign, showing advancement in trust related to Trump’s efforts to have bilateral talks even as the Ukraine war rages.
New START will expire in February 2026 unless a half-decade extension can be reached. Both leaders have shown willingness to reach a breakthrough on this issue. Putin on Monday…
Putin says ‘Removal of such limitations would not be a reasonable step’ Adds that Russia is offering a one-year EXTENSION of limits if the US reciprocates — to prevent a new arms race.
The treaty is intended to limit and reduce nuclear arms on either side, setting a limit of no more than 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 missiles. START I began in 1991, with New START signed under the Obama and Medvedev administrations in 2010 as a successor agreement.
In August 2023 the US accused Russia of violating the treaty in disallowing US on-site inspections under its stipulations. In response, Washington halted Russian inspectors’ ability to do the same on American soil.
 our mission:
to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
...responsibly used.
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.
www.zerohedge.com
| 
