Uh-huh. Words on a piece of paper. Just like the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
Geopolitics 101: Neighboring countries are enemies.
China has irredentist claims on Siberia.
Russia will probably regret that treaty, unless China collapses sooner than later.
In the same summit that is the topic of this thread putin said Russia had "at her disposal a considerable... stockpile of heavy ground-launched strategic missiles...".
As does the United States.
"Their combat characteristics, including the surmounting of any systems of anti-missile defences, are unrivalled," he said.
THAT part is pure BS, because NOBODY has conducted a live-fire test of a nuclear missile since 1962--and nobody has EVER fired one under combat conditions (i.e., without a lot of factory technicians doing a lot of prelaunch maintenance to make sure that everything will work).
You may not understand this...but the folks in charge do, and they understand that ICBMs are far less useful as combat weapons than one would think.
Now... who, besides Russia herself, has (or will have) a ballistic missile defense?
The United States--but that one's not going to be any sort of system that can handle a full-fledged strike by the likely opposition. Neither, BTW, is Russia's (which only protects Moscow).
Putin is pointing out that Russia can destroy the US. We can more than destroy Russia.
I had assumed you already had the facts regarding the nature of Russia, China, and their satellite allies (including Iraq, DPRK, Iran, Syria, and others) each having been (or previously) openly hostile to the United States.
Iraq is no longer an ally of Russia. Iran is not anyone's ally (indeed, they are openly aiding Islamists operating in Chechnya and Western China, to the extreme discomfort of Russia and China). The DPRK is not your father's DPRK--any war on the Korean peninsula will turn into a question of "Gosh, should we let the ROKs go all the way to the Yalu or not?"
One can't dispute that if they are informed.
Good, then quit disputing, as you obviously AREN'T informed.
In the 1960s and 1970s NATO used a policy of "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" if I recall correctly-- not preemption.
Against a massive Soviet invasion, "Flexible Response" was really a promise to use tactical nuclear weapons early and often.