All news

Lavrov: US arguments on Russia's suspension of participation in New START 'legally void’

"There is no need to assure anyone that these principles have been violated and discarded by the current US administration," the Russian top diplomat noted

MOSCOW, March 28. /TASS/. The arguments of the United States on the suspension of Russia’s participation in the New START are legally null and void, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TASS on Tuesday.

"They submit notes to us, they protest and say that we have no right to take the decision we have taken. These are legally void arguments," the Russian top diplomat pointed out.

Lavrov stressed that Moscow clearly set it out in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s State of the Nation Address and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement that Americans "undermined the fundamental principles communicated in the treaty and enshrined in the preamble, in which it is written that Russia and the US would develop cooperation based on mutual trust and respect, agreeing to ensure the indivisibility of security in the context of their efforts to support strategic stability."

"There is no need to assure anyone that these principles have been violated and discarded by the current US administration," the Russian top diplomat noted.

The US Department of State said earlier that Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty was legally invalid. According to Washington, "Russia remains bound by its obligations under the treaty." The Department of State once again claimed that Russia had failed to comply with New START and could return to full compliance by allowing inspections and agreeing to a meeting of the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in his State of the Nation Address to the Federal Assembly that Moscow was suspending its participation in the New START treaty but was not withdrawing from it. The head of state emphasized that before resuming discussions of further activities under the treaty, Russia needed to figure out for itself how the arsenals of NATO’s other nuclear-weapons countries, the UK and France, would be taken into account along with US capacities.