Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces Suspension of U.S. Attachment to INF Treaty…

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces the suspension of the United States from the INF missile treaty, based upon ongoing violations from Russia.  [Video and Transcript]

…make no mistake about President Trump’s mission set. President Trump’s mission set is to make sure that any agreement that we entered into has America’s best interest – that is, it protects the American people, protects our allies around the world as well, and has provisions that other countries are both capable and willing to comply with, and allow us to verify that they have complied with those agreements.

[Transcript] SECRETARY POMPEO: Good morning, everyone. At the core of President Trump’s foreign policy are a few very, very simple truths. The security of the American people must be our greatest consideration, the agreements into which we enter must serve American interests, and countries must be held accountable when they break the rules.

For years, Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse. To this day, Russia remains in material breach of its treaty obligations not to produce, possess, or flight-test a ground-launched intermediate-range cruise missile system with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

In spite of this violation, for almost six years the United States has gone to tremendous lengths to preserve this agreement and to ensure security for our people, our allies, and our partners. We have raised Russia’s noncompliance with Russian officials, including at the highest levels of government, more than 30 times, yet Russia continues to deny that its missile system is noncompliant and violates the treaty.

Russia’s violation puts millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk. It aims to put the United States at a military disadvantage, and it undercuts the chances of moving our bilateral relationship in a better direction. It’s our duty to respond appropriately.

When an agreement is so brazenly disregarded and our security is so openly threatened, we must respond. We did that last December when the United States, with strong support from all of our NATO allies, formally declared Russia in material breach of the treaty. I also then provided notice that unless Russia returned to full and verifiable compliance within 60 days, we would suspend our obligation under that treaty.

We provided Russia an ample window of time to mend its ways and for Russia to honor its commitment. Tomorrow that time runs out. Russia has refused to take any steps to return real and verifiable compliance over these 60 days.

The United States will therefore suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty effective February 2nd. We will provide Russia and the other treaty parties with formal notice that the United States is withdrawing from the INF Treaty effective in six months, pursuant to Article 15 of the treaty.

Russia has jeopardized the United States security interest, and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it. If Russia does not return to full and verifiable compliance with the treaty within this six-month period by verifiably destroying its INF-violating missiles, their launchers, and associated equipment, the treaty will terminate.

Before I close, I want to give a special thanks to our NATO allies who have stood with us in our mission to uphold the rule of law and protect our people. Their solidarity reflects the historical strength and unity of the NATO alliance. Their support is good for our shared security, it’s good for trans-Atlantic unity, and it’s good for international peace and security. President Trump is grateful for all that you have done.

The United States is hopeful that we can put our relationship with Russia back on a better footing, but the onus is on Russia to change course from a pattern of destabilizing activity, not just on this issue but on many others as well. The United States stands ready to engage with Russia on arms control negotiations that advance U.S. and allied and partners’ security, and are verifiable and enforceable. It must also include all the partners that must all responsibly comply with their obligations. As we remain hopeful of a fundamental shift in Russia’s posture, the United States will continue to do what is best for our people and those of our allies.

I’m happy to take a couple of questions this morning.

MR PALLADINO: Reuters, Lesley Wroughton.

QUESTION: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Hi, Lesley.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, one of the big things that everyone is worried about is that this could eventually spark an arms race. What are you doing to prevent that? How concerned are you that Russia will not engage in that six months and that it could see this posture as a threat and take it on?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Well, the very risk that you identified is the one that we are suffering from today. The Russians are in violation of the agreement. That is, their commitment – this agreement that’s been in place for an awfully long time – the Russians have been violating. That is, they have begun to move towards what it is – that risk you actually have just identified. And you heard me this morning: We’ll continue to have conversations with them. We hope they’ll come back into compliance. We’ve had conversations at every level, at the senior levels, at technical levels, conversations about the nature of these systems. There’s no mistaking that the Russians have chosen to not comply with this treaty and present the risk of continued arms growth in a way that they had committed to back when they signed this treaty that they would not do, and if you just have one party to a treaty complying, you’re down the path that you describe.

We will continue to work with the Russians to achieve an outcome that gets us to a place. President Trump very much wants to have an agreement that is verifiable and enforceable on these systems and I hope we can convince the Russians it’s in their best interest as well. We certainly think that it is.

MR PALLADINO: One more question. Michael Gordon, Wall Street Journal.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Sir.

QUESTION: Sir, the Trump administration has withdrawn from agreements it doesn’t like, the JCPOA, and now you’ve indicated your intentions on INF because of the Russian alleged violation, but the question is whether – what new agreements can be worked out to take their place. The Russians have said they’re prepared to discuss a New START extension. The treaty expires in two years, which is not a lot of time if the administration plans to take a new approach. When will the United States be prepared to discuss the future of strategic arms control, and what is your vision of how to go about eliminating or reducing the world’s most dangerous arms?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yeah, these are incredibly important questions. I would wager to say that President Trump has put this risk of proliferation as his highest American national security interest, and we’re endeavoring to do everything we can to ensure that the risks of proliferation that increase in these massively destructive weapons systems is diminished. But, Michael, it does no good to sign an agreement if a party’s not going to comply with it. The piece of paper, if it’s not being complied with, is – doesn’t reduce the risk, it doesn’t take down that threat. To the people around the world, the INF document today is being violated by the Russians. That is, the very agreement that they signed up for. We didn’t force them into the agreement; they decided this was in their best interest. They’ve now decided it’s not in their best interest to comply with that agreement.

So we are prepared to enter into negotiations on these complex arms control issues all around the world, including conversations about the renewal of other arms control agreements as we move forward. But make no mistake about President Trump’s mission set. President Trump’s mission set is to make sure that any agreement that we entered into has America’s best interest – that is, it protects the American people, protects our allies around the world as well, and has provisions that other countries are both capable and willing to comply with, and allow us to verify that they have complied with those agreements. Absent that, it’s just sitting around a table talking. It is incredibly important that we make sure that the provisions of these agreements are enforceable and verifiable, and that’s our aim. That’s our aim in every set of important arms control discussions that this administration will engage in.

Thank you all. Have a great day.

[Transcript Link]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Deep State, Donald Trump, media bias, President Trump, Russia, Secretary Pompeo, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces Suspension of U.S. Attachment to INF Treaty…

  1. sundance says:

    Liked by 15 people

    • USTerminator says:

      This is the most dangerous treaty at this moment for the US to remain in. This is all about China. Russian accuse is just a diversion. PDJT wants to eliminate the disadvantage of balance of force in Western Pacific with China. China has several thousands of short and intermediate range missiles aiming at US force in Western Pacific and US has nothing to counter due to INF treaty. China entirely defense strategy is overwhelming quantity of short and intermediate range missiles to counter US force. It works wonderful for China until now since we are sitting duck in the outbreak of war if happen. There is no defend against thousands of missiles coming to you, Just minimize the loss and the defense cost is astronomical. With the US having the short and intermediate range missiles, China would need to think twice.

      Liked by 6 people

      • whoseyore says:

        Good to know, maybe he will talk with President Xi about entering into this treaty as well when he talks to him about trade. Probably won’t happen, but we can always beef up our arsenal aimed at them if he doesn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

    • DJT2020 says:

      If you read the statement it appears Trump is going to merge this issue into a larger deal.

      Like

  2. Bullseye says:

    Que McTurtle and the neocons to put a bill forward restricting PTrump’s ability to withdraw from treaties

    Liked by 4 people

    • Carson Napier says:

      This is a treaty the neocons likely want to withdraw from. They are probably already counting all the new missiles and warheads and Boeing and Lockheed $$$$$$$$$ and a full return to the Cold War until they can get a hot one..

      Liked by 2 people

  3. joebkonobi says:

    Treaty been violated for six years. Where was Obama? Did anyone ever hear of this? Of course not. He was on a hot mike saying he would have more flexibility once he got re-elected! Thank God for President Donald J. Trump! We may survive this nightmare after all.

    Liked by 5 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      You expressed my thoughts! What was Barry doing for all of those years?

      Liked by 1 person

    • alonzo1956 says:

      The Obama administration questioned Russian compliance with the INF treaty more than once. O wasn’t very aggressive when it came to enforcing the agreement. It didn’t get very much attention because of his interest of using that Reset button that SOS Cankles pulled out during her TV appearance with Lavrov. There was more media frenzy regarding the New Start agreement than there was with non-compliance on existing agreements. It looks great in the public eye if there was a new arms reduction agreement, while ignoring the actual threat posed to the American public. Turning a blind eye to the facts is what got us to where we are today. I trust the men at the helm on this decision, because I believe they have our best interests at heart.

      Like

  4. Chip Doctor says:

    So much for the “Putin has something on PDJT” fake news. In Don Jr’s words “another one bites the dust”.

    Liked by 12 people

  5. quintrillion says:

    Are these types of nuclear missiles used in submarines?

    Like

    • Mark McQueen says:

      The treaty specifies ground launched I believe.

      Liked by 1 person

    • quintrillion says:

      I guess I found the answer to my question. They are nuclear ground launched and cruise missiles w ranges 500 to 5500 Kilometers their launchers, structures and equipment within 3 years of signing were to be removed. Signed 1988

      https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm

      Like

      • cthulhu says:

        To put this into perspective, these are missiles that could fly from the US to Cuba, or the US to Venezuela, or the US to part of Siberia.

        By contrast, these missiles could fly from Moscow to Portugal or any other part of Europe. From China, they could reach northern Australia, all of Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and a good chunk of the Middle East…..not to mention Russia.

        Accordingly, this treaty has always been more regional to Russia, and more about allies to the US. And both have been increasingly irrelevant in the face of Chinese expansionism.

        Liked by 3 people

    • crewdog 52 says:

      INF Treaty in 1988 removed and destroyed Ground Launched Cruise Missiles and the Pershing II missiles from Europe in exchange for the Soviets removing and destroying their SS-20s, a MIRVed, 3-warhead intermediate range missile. The Soviets especially feared the mobile Pershing II which could, with a little advancement from their bases, put the highly accurate missile within range of Moscow. An approximate 10 minute flight time, and the ability to take out hardened underground command centers represented a potential decapitation threat to the Soviets. They would not want to see the return of this or an even better system to an eastward expanded NATO.

      Liked by 2 people

      • USTerminator says:

        I want to see new and improve Pershing II to install in Guam, Conventional warhead in Okinawa and Japan. Right now China can start the war by rain down several thousands land based conventional missiles to Japan, SK, Okinawa, Singapore, Guam and decapitate the 7th fleet without any worry about being responded in kind by US. US forces will be handicapped for at least a couple weeks unless we want to go nuke from mainland or subs. This is all about China. Russia is an excuse to get out the horrible “deals”

        Liked by 3 people

      • farrier105 says:

        All Russian MIRV warheads are the result of the State Department letting a Russian academic into the country to learn all about making Accelerometers, instruments that detect slight fluctuations in gravitational pull that enable reentry vehicles to adjust their flight accordingly. State Department and Commerce Department approved the sale of Bryant Chucking Grinder Company’s Centalign B machines that enabled Russia to mass produce precision miniature ball bearings, also used in missile guidance systems. Russians, with both Accelerometers and miniature ball bearings, changed form one large warhead on every ICBM to multiple warheads. Made possible by US corporations.

        Like

  6. POTUS insists that treaties are real obligations not just ones written and then defied with a wink wink nod nod.
    I suspect that the “easier after my last election” referred to exactly these violations from Russia. Thank goodness for an administration that cares about real security. Our NATO allies should be lining up to pay their fair share (though I’m sure they won’t), since USA is the only country willing to hold Russia to account.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. trapper says:

    Apparently we are already in an intermediate range arms race but the US is the only country not running, since Russia is ignoring the treaty and China isn’t even a party to it.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Tonye says:

    Time to build an armada of tactical neutron bombs, after all, we don’t want destroy those beautiful buildings and museums in Moscow and St. Petersburg.. Now Caracas.. I got some distant cousins in there…

    Like

    • cthulhu says:

      I can think of a few regions of the world that might be dramatically improved through the application of a neutron bomb. Having been to Saint Petersburg, I can attest that it is not such a place. The people of Saint Petersburg were gracious hosts, superb chefs, knowledgeable guides, witty conversationalists, amazing entertainers, fair vendors, and evenhanded bureaucrats during our visit.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dennis Leonard says:

      You know of course they have never tested a neutron bomb,one of the reasons was they do not know if the reaction would stop..I also knew a guy who was a driller and worked in Nv drilling the test holes for underground nuclear tests,he told me of one that leaked and the whole area was abandoned,equipment,everything.I have often wonder if that is why they have that area 51.

      Like

      • dd_sc says:

        Area 51 is a testing ground for aircraft.

        There are places on the NTS that are strictly forbidden in part because the area or building is still hot with radiation.

        Like

  9. Arrest Soros says:

    Michael Gordon, Wall Street Journal

    QUESTION: Sir, the Trump administration has withdrawn from agreements it doesn’t like,

    These journos are arseholes. What sort of a way is that to ask a question “treatise it doesn’t like”
    Nothing to do with liking or not liking. The Ruskies are in breach you utter, utter moron.
    Impolite basterds.

    Liked by 10 people

    • SteveT says:

      Agreed.
      It’s time to start restricting the attendance at press briefings to people with an IQ of above three figures (no decimal points! ) .
      Reuters, in particular, should be ashamed of their moron, while the WSJ can surely manage to find a representative who can understand English and knows what the purpose of a treaty is and why a country would sign up to one.
      These people are there to create a narrative to present in their rags instead of reporting the real and relevant current position of the subject in hand.

      Start withdrawing passes of people who can be shown to be misrepresenting the facts. A short, but precise description of the reason should be given when the withdrawal is announced, and any appeal against this decision would have to be accompanied by printing the original statement, together with a rebuttal, for consideration. This, using the same page/position/font/type size used as the “offending” report, would ensure that both sides of the reasoning are presented instead of the current misleading one-sided narratives that are pushed into the public arena.

      SteveT

      Liked by 4 people

    • Sharpshorts says:

      More narrative spin, in that same sentence by Michael Gordon, Wall Street Journal:
      “…because of the Russian alleged,/b> violation…”

      The violation is REALITY, Mr. Gorden, not alleged,/b>reality…you do know the difference do you not?

      Liked by 2 people

    • USTerminator says:

      We should withdraw from INF even Russia would conform with the treaty. The INF treaty was signed when it is mutual benefit both parties (US and USSR). Now, this treaty is handicapped US to defend from a third party (China) then this treaty should be terminated since it is no longer benefit both signatories. Put a fork on it, it is done even if the Russian begging to remain.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Pyrthroes says:

    Signed by Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987, ratified June 1988, the 30-year old Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is in principle a peace-keeping measure. But as Reagan’s “trust but verify” kicked in, and Gorbo’s Soviet Union fell to pieces in 1989 – ’91, “principle” went a-glimmer in Yeltsin’s rump State followed by Putin’s Great Russian crypto-Soviet kleptocracy.

    From 1989 – 2016, Bush I and II, Clinton and Benedict Barack Gangrenous studiously avoided rattling Putin’s nuclear cage while his seething revanchists violated every INF jot-and-tittle with impunity. Comes now an American patriot practicing Realpolitik in Old Hickory mode, and Rats’ eggplant souffles know not which way to turn.

    Behind all this, from Russia’s hypersonic aircraft, cruise missiles, and orbital Space Forces to China’s arm-waving territorial aggressions, lies the grim reality of nuclear Armageddon: Let any trogbrain Fuhrer, for whatever communo-fascist reason, let fly so much as a nuclear hand-grenade at the U.S., thirty-six hundred 10-megaton MIRVed warheads will remove the top ten feet of topsoil from the Baltic Sea to Taiwan Strait.

    Liked by 3 people

    • dollops says:

      Bonus: the nuclear winter theory would offset the global warming theory, resulting in several years delay to climatastrophy .. theoretically.

      Like

  11. covfefe999 says:

    Another Obama failure. It seems every deal we were involved with were total shams. THANK GOD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT. I doubt Hillary would have addresses any of this stuff, especially NAFTA, and Jeb! certainly wouldn’t have. MAGA everyone.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Need Pelosi, Schiff , Warner, Swallwell to explain this
    Or maybe Rachel Maddow can.

    There’s an uprising on Sesame Street…..

    It appears the Slav Muppeteer does not have control of his Orange Muppet.

    Like

  13. covfefe999 says:

    Pompeo makes a critical point: Russia signed up for this but then didn’t follow the terms of the agreement, so we didn’t even have an agreement, we just had a piece of paper that was worthless. Be sure to remind snowflakes of this if you find yourself talking to them.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Majik says:

    So, the Ruskis are saying, “yeah, were out of it.” And claim US Raytheon has INF missles designs ready to roll out. Meanwhile, the ChicComs are upset, and want the INF ban (which they are not party to) to continue.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/02/russia-abandon-nuclear-arms-treaty-us-accuses-moscow-deploying/

    https://sputniknews.com/world/201902021072061943-us-inf-missiles/

    https://mia.mk/2019/02/china-calls-on-us-russia-to-preserve-nuclear-arms-deal/?lang=en

    Liked by 2 people

  15. unconqueredone says:

    Does this give POTUS the power to prevent nuclear material from leaving the US (that HC so willingly approved the Russians buying control)?

    Like

  16. Bogeyfree says:

    Agree that getting out and building up a missile strategy to defend/counter the pacific and China is critical.

    But also critical is the US must play catch up in Hypersonic missiles as O IMO ignored this technology and now we are behind both Russia and China in this area. Currently the US has no real defense to these missiles.

    Like

  17. TradeBait says:

    Every day that goes by proves just how incompetent or traitorous our leaders have been since PRR. God has provided an instrument in PDT to change the path the world was on. I thank PDT, his faithful cabinet/staff members, along with our military for making things better for Americans and our friends around the world. If Cankles had won we were done. Thank you, Lord, for the reprieve we received on 11-8-16. May your will be done.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. chojun says:

    MOAR PROOF DRUMPF IS PUTINS PUPPAT OMG

    Liked by 2 people

    • Noah says:

      I wish it didn’t seem like Trump is being blackmailed by neocons and other traitorous war profiteers. Is there verifiable evidence Russia is violating this in ways the US/NATO are not? Or did I step into the middle of a pro-war group here? (I didn’t think so) As some commented this is framing Russia to go after China–that would be the type of thing that comes back to bite us: Being untrustworthy, the facts not mattering, pushing forward a military industrial complex plan, ripping the taxpayer off left and right.

      The best comment pattern is just anything Trump does make it about Obama, because he’s been corrupting the US for the last 6-7 decades, right? It didn’t start with Obama! Please ignore this if this sounds off the walls. I’m just a bit lost on who actually on the side of peace through strength, not subverting peace through deception, again and again. How many still believe we are in the Cold War, or if we aren’t we should restart it? Will we actually withdraw from Syria, including even CIA funded terrorist groups (but where will they get their narco-terror funded for black projects)? Does Trump actually control the CIA? I hope Trump starts asserting himself stronger in the light of day about his actual plans. The FBI and Justice appear in a full coup. Secret plans and non-visible victories aren’t going to win a re-election, or bring America back to its own moral center, and we know the GOP isn’t going to go out of its way to support him. I guess I need to pray for his moral strength and to resist the plans of level upon level of truly satanic, conspiring jackals, wearing the camoflauge of Defense, Morality and Patriotism, while literally feasting on the life blood of the innocent and making the righteous bow down to their evil sacrement. Please God help us navigate out of this.

      Like

      • James says:

        I don’t think he’s being blackmailed. However, he is under withering fire from Neocons, Dem / Republican uniparty, military / intelligence industrial complex, state department, defense industry oligarchs and warmongers. Personally, I’d guess that John Bolton has a significant role in this. And I noted a number of commenters on this site expressed their clear disapproval of the appointment of Bolton.

        Re. Venezuela. Is there a twelve step program for a country? Because we can’t help ourselves. We have to do regime changes all over the globe. When are we going to learn our lesson?

        Like

      • chojun says:

        Regardless of whether Trump has been manipulated into this withdrawal by neocons or whomever, the fact of the matter is that Russia has been in violation of the treaty for quite some time.

        Like

  19. InAz says:

    Russia violated the treaty thanks to the Communist Uniparty. Same thing with Iran.

    Would be nice if President Trump outlines the Communist Demoncraps collusion with Russia regarding many things.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. 335blues says:

    The 9M729 nuclear capable intermediate range cruise missile that Russia has deployed in Europe
    in violation of the treaty it signed has greatly increased the threat of world war 3.
    These theater specific missiles equipped with low yield nuclear weapons create a supreme risk of war because they are designed to take the place of a ground invasion over limited amounts
    of territory (<3,000 miles), and thus greatly reduce a country's infantry losses while annihilating the opposing force. Thus, they almost invite an ambitiously insane dictator to take the risk.
    Vladimir Putin is such a man, and he is also a freaking moron.
    All he will accomplish is that America will now develop it's own missiles of similar design,
    except that they will be 10 times as accurate and reliable.
    And make no mistake, they will be deployed against the threat.
    Putin expected Russia's friend hillary clinton to be President, and she of course would have done
    nothing to counter the threat.
    President Trump WILL counter the threat. That much is certain.

    Like

  21. Mike says:

    This not complicated. Our button is bigger and more accurate. What more is there to discuss?

    Like

  22. Fools Gold says:

    But muh Russia….I told you Trump don’t play dat Adam Shiffy schit. I don’t think Russia is gonna like Trumps full response..

    Like

  23. Petrel says:

    Back in the 1980s, President Reagan offered the Soviets a treaty banning land-based Intermediate Ballistic Missiles (whether conventional or nuclear tipped) to abate the chance of a mutually destructive nuclear exchange, caused by some inadvertent firing of a NATO missile from near the Soviet Union, like Germany or Turkey.

    Since the time for a fired missile to reach the Russian heartland was a few minutes, such an event left the Soviets no time to verify with the White House if the missile was 1) a mistake and 2) conventionally tipped, or nuclear. Absent such confirmation, the Soviet military were programmed to trigger a nuclear response, leading to a nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets — and our mutual destruction. (Clearly, President Reagan’s treaty was more important to the Soviets, because the US is thousands of miles away, which distance provides more time to verify and correct an accidental land-based missile launch.)

    Not five years after treaty signing, the Soviet Union imploded. President Bush 41, who understood the rationale of the ban to Russia, reassured the new Russian Federation that the US would not extend NATO to their borders and would maintain the intermediate missile ban. His successors, Clinton and Bush 43, in the 1990s and 2000s, casually reneged on these assurances, certainly without explaining to US citizens the nuclear risks involved.

    But, a stunned Russian government, lead by Vladimir Putin, did respond with a warning. Russia would continue to honor the Intermediate Ballistic Agreement, since it abated the chance of an accidental nuclear exchange, but Russia would improve the accuracy and speed of its long-range missiles, whether tipped with conventional, or nuclear warheads.

    Ten years later, in 2017, Vladimir Putin announced the development of new ballistic missiles, flying eight to ten times faster than the speed of sound, and capable of hitting a US aircraft carrier in the south-Atlantic, or south Pacific, with a conventional high-explosive bomb and the death of 4,500 seamen, with the sinking of a $ 20 Billion carrier and its complement of warplanes.

    Faced with the implosion of our current defense, based on 13 aircraft carrier groups, a rational Washington would have despatched diplomats to assure Russia of our friendship. Instead, Neo-Con Washington despatched John Bolton to tell Putin that the US would withdraw from President Reagan’s intermediate missile treaty — opening the way to install NATO missiles in Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and so on. As Bolton flew home to Washington DC, a calm / stoic Vladimir Putin informed the Russian people that a nuclear exchange launched by the US would send the Americans to Hell and non-belligerent Russians to Heaven, as Martyrs.

    Like

    • 335blues says:

      Russia has not honored the INF treaty for 10 years. Obama did nothing to stop the deployment of the 9M729 (“I’ll have more flexibility after the election”).
      The 9M729 gives Russia a significant advantage in the event of a war in Europe
      as it allows the delivery of a low yield weapon at a distance of as little as 500 miles.
      This puts ground troops at a significant disadvantage wouldn’t you agree?
      Like all communist leaders Putin is a liar. But he is also stupid.
      Because now Russia will have the American version of the 9M729 pointed back at him.
      Only ours will be a lot better than his.

      Like

  24. 335blues says:

    In addition, Communist China has NEVER SIGNED THE INF TREATY.
    They have built and deploy many, many of these weapons, pointed at all of their neighbors
    and the disputed south china sea.
    The original INF treaty is outdated and dangerous as America was the ONLY COUNTRY IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT.
    Nuclear wars are best fought BEFORE any missiles are launched when countries are
    restrained from doing so because the mutual assured destruction would be useless.
    Right now Russia and china have nuclear capable missiles of 500-3000 miles,
    and America does not.
    This serious disadvantage MUST be addressed.

    Like

  25. Petrel says:

    335blues’ may be correct: US withdrawal from President Reagan’s agreement with the Russians concerning intermediate range nuclear missiles may have less to do with the Russians and everything to do with Chinese deployment of many such missiles in the eastern Pacific. But if so, why doesn’t the US Administration address the Chinese threat directly and not use Russia as a sort of unwilling decoy?

    The intermediate range nuclear missile treaty (INF) does not involve continental US security. It protects Europe from Russian missiles and Russia from US missiles stationed in Europe. President Trump’s announcement that he is breaking free of the treaty tells the Russians that they are going to have missiles located on their borders that allow them no verification / response time. The US announcement leaves the Russians no alternatives but 1) Unconditional Surrender or 2) Mutually Assured Destruction.

    As NeoCon John Bolton returned to Washington after telling Vladimir Putin of the US treaty withdrawal, the Russian President delivered his response. Russia would not originate a catastrophic nuclear exchange, but would respond to the threat of such. A nuclear exchange would cause immense death to both sides. In the circumstance created by US missiles deployed in Poland, the Ukraine, Latvia and so on, a launch — however accidental — will cause many dead Americans to go to Hell as aggressors, while many Russian dead will go to Heaven as martyrs.

    As for stupidity awards, why threaten Russia, when the threat is Chinese? Equally, shouldn’t Washington NeoCons be trying to separate the Russians from the Chinese? Why force a military alliance between these very different peoples?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s