The state Duma unanimously ratified the presidential bill on the suspension of the Russian-American agreement on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium. Actually we are talking about the funeral of this document: Vladimir Putin negotiated the return to him of such obviously unacceptable for the USA conditions that to list them in the plenary hall out loud did not dare anybody.
Deputy foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov explained that suspends not only the so-called plutonium agreement, but two of the Protocol. The agreement was signed in 2000 but entered into force only in 2011 – because “over the years passed a certain evolution of our approach and the U.S. approach to its subject matter and purpose.”
It was originally planned elimination of plutonium by burning it as nuclear reactors. The US wanted to dispose of plutonium in light water power reactors, but such expensive technology had not, and in the end, to build factories did not become, having decided to bury the plutonium at a special test site in new Mexico. And in Russia, built a plant to manufacture mixed oxide fuel replytomessage in Zheleznogorsk, and these “pills”, as he called Mr. Ryabkov new fuel, already used but not in light water reactors, and fast breeder reactor at Beloyarsk NPP.
But it is not the technological discrepancies, acknowledged Deputy foreign Minister, and the “political question” – in the “ongoing hostile policy of Washington against Russia that began long before the events in Crimea and Ukraine, and in 2012 acquired a distinct form in the form of legislative anti-Russian initiatives, the introduction of the sanctions policy.”
“In parallel we are approaching our borders military infrastructure, created anti-Russian alliances among the European allies of the United States,” continued Mr. Ryabkov. Moreover, the President of the Russian Federation considered the “fundamental change of circumstances” justifying the suspension of the agreement.
“We have formulated a set of requirements that can return Russia to implement the agreements. It is clear that their scale is such that in the interests of the return to plutonium agreement, Washington will not do it”,- declared the speaker.
None of these requirements, Mr. Ryabkov is not voiced. The same restraint showed by the head of the Duma Committee on international Affairs Leonid Slutsky (LDPR).
Meanwhile, the bill signed by the President refers to the reduction of military infrastructure and the number of US forces located on the territory of NATO countries “after September 1, 2000”, and “the failure of the US hostile policy against Russia” (the abolition of the law of Sergei Magnitsky, adopted in 2012, and “against Russia of the provisions of the 2014 law on freedom support of Ukraine”, the abolition of all penalties and damages incurred by Russia as a result of their introduction, “including losses from the introduction of forced counter-sanctions against the United States”).
“Utopia” called Mr. Slutsky any hope for a return to cooperation in the nuclear field in the next few years, whoever becomes President of the United States. “But a few years is in the historical scale, insignificant period of time. Both Russia and the United States in the global architecture of the 21st century, which is now, I am sure, will remain partners,” he added optimism…
However, the unnamed President of the damage suffered by Russia from American sanctions and counter-sanctions of its own, has a chance to grow. Mr. Ryabkov said that “part of our response to the us hostile line was always the possibility of using asymmetric painful measures”, one of which is the suspension of the plutonium agreement and the Russian authorities to “retain the possibility to apply this approach in the future”.
All factions fully supported the President’s initiative. LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, however, appealed to his colleagues with these words: “we must have a different position, because the President is beneficial to hear in Parliament different to say… And here will come out and say: “we, we, we”… Who needs a Parliament if all the “pros”?”
However, he was “for”.