• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Russia: New START Clearly Links Missile Reduction with Missile Defense

    This Thursday President Barack Obama is scheduled to sign a follow on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in Prague with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Since the day agreement on the new treaty was leaked by the Kremlin, the White House has been claiming that the treaty “does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.” And from day one the Russians have been saying the opposite.

    Today in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov again made it clear that Russia does not share the same understanding of the treaty that the Obama administration does. Minister Lavrov told reporters that Russia maintains the right to exit the agreement if “the U.S.’s build-up of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces. … Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.”

    “Trust but verify” was Ronald Reagan’s approach to relations with the Soviet Union. The Senate should keep that phrase in mind when working with the Obama administration while deciding whether or not they should ratify this agreement.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Russia: New START Clearly Links Missile Reduction with Missile Defense

    1. Harry Factor Colorad says:


      B.H.O. has usurped Americans freedom thru His detrimental policies and actions to Americas National Security and Fiscal Responsibility.

      B.H.O. is a traitor to America in giving "Aid and Comfort" to Americas enemies by notifying them that America will not use full force to defend the United States of America.

      By surrounding himself, (B.H.O.), with a dangerous regime, (Socialists), he is derelict in his responsibilities as President of the United States of America.

      B.H.O. has been in office long enough to learn and administer his duties and responsibilities as required by the Constitution of The United States of America.

      I propose that he be impeached for failure to perform his duties under The Constitution of, The United States of America and uphold his "Oath of Office" as President of The United States of America!

    2. Jim Altfeld, Burbank says:

      This nonsense has been going on since the sixties. Every president since Eisenhower has proclaimed they have an ironclad nuclear arms treaty with teeth. It's all a bunch of grandstanding, rhetoric and supernatural bolognie. Well, bolognie, perhaps, but supernatural, perhaps not.

    3. Roger Scott Francis, says:

      With the announcement of its new nuclear policy, the Washington Regime drives yet another nail into the coffin that will hold the remains of America's once singular greatness. In the squared circle of international relations, Obama is an overrated pugilist standing center ring with his hands lowered to his sides.

    4. Tim AZ says:

      The Russians have far more credibility on this issue than Mao-Bama ever will. Mao-Bama must be dumb founded that even the Russians are undermining him even though it does not serve them to do so.

    5. ROBERT COLORADO says:

      I would like to see the language of the treaty. As the O'Bama team passionately allege that it has not given away missile defense, that reservation should obviously be clearly stated in the treaty.

      The Russians, however, insist that that language of treaty specifically extends to the prohibition of missile defense.

      This is very disturbing in light of President O'Bama's chronic duplicity on so many other subjects. It is tragic that an American should be inclined to accept the Russian statement that missile defense is clearly prohibited than the statement of our President that missile defense has been preserved.

      I do believe in verification. Sadly, it is the statement of our president that must be verified. I think that a lie, that would compromise national security, should be an impeachable offense.

      Which is it?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.