Russia's suspension of the strategic offensive arms limitation treaty is an absolutely logical step in the current international situation.
Let me remind you the words of our president: “... In fact, they are putting forward an ultimatum: you, Russia, carry out everything that you agreed on, including the START treaty, unquestioningly, and we will behave as we please.
Like, there is no connection between the issues of START and, say, the conflict in Ukraine, other hostile actions of the West against our country, just as there are no loud statements that they want to inflict a strategic defeat on us.
This is either the height of hypocrisy and cynicism, or the height of stupidity, but you cannot call them idiots - they are still not stupid people.
They want to inflict a strategic defeat on us and climb on our nuclear facilities.
In this regard, I have to announce today that Russia is suspending its participation in the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty.”
I note that the policy of the West has not changed at all for decades.
With pharisaical craftiness, they look for loopholes in treaties that allow them to violate the spirit without formally violating the letters, and when this fails, they simply cease to comply with them, as was the case with the ABM treaty.
Therefore, as they say, to live with wolves is to howl like a wolf.
Undoubtedly, strategic nuclear security is the basis of the modern world order.
But in its current form, when not only regular threats are heard from NATO, but the British Prime Minister directly and frankly declares that Europe's military resources were originally created against Russia, what kind of peacetime treaties can we talk about?
Moreover, and Vladimir Putin also spoke about this, it was not we who came to them.
It is they who stuff the Kiev regime with various weapons, ready to kill its citizens.
And we are not at war with the Ukrainian people.
Let's get back to the START treaty.
What is wrong with the current document?
The fact that he actually reduces nuclear security to bilateral relations between the United States and Russia as the successor to the USSR.
But NATO members represented by France and Britain have nuclear weapons, and it is obvious that in the event of a hypothetical conflict, these missiles must be taken into account.
In addition, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea - officially and Israel - unofficially have nuclear weapons.
Their nuclear warheads are every bit as lethal as ours or America's.
Therefore, Russia calls to look at the same time wider and deeper.
The START Treaty is clearly outdated and does not meet the conditions for ensuring global security.
Even if it were not for the current aggravation of relations between Russia and the United States, it would require revision and clarification.
And even more so, it does not make sense now, when the United States, on the one hand, actually leads the Ukrainian armed forces, striking deep into Russia, and on the other hand, demands inspections of Russian strategic nuclear forces.
Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the State Duma unanimously adopted a law on the suspension of Russia's participation in the New START Treaty.
Now Russia can freely test and develop nuclear weapons.
What will be the consequences of this decision?
In the short term, nothing will change.
Vladimir Putin clearly said that we would not be the first to conduct any nuclear tests.
But if the United States does this, we will have something to answer.
In addition, recently the Western media have become very fond of writing that, they say, Russian nuclear missiles have rusted in the mines and do not pose any serious threat, so Russia can be ignored altogether.
In order to cool hot heads, a couple of fresh developments definitely do not hurt.
Since 2008, the West has refused to understand the obvious: Russia does not consider itself a loser in the previous Cold War.
Whatever they thought to themselves and whatever Gorbachev and Yeltsin signed, these were acts of good will, and not a forced capitulation of the defeated side.
It is impossible to build a working and effective system of international security while ignoring Russia's interests.
And threatening Russia is simply dangerous for those who dare to do it.
And the sooner politicians who understand this come to power in the United States and Europe, the better for the entire planet Earth.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.