Russians, released from treaty by Trump, promise newmissile system in next two years

[Vol737]

Sorry hog a Country that is less that $1T in debt is in better shape than a country that is $22T + in debt. Shouldn't Putin at least get a nickname at this point?

Well, back of the napkin math suggests that if the USD is worth about 66 Russian rubles, their $1T USD debt works out to be 1.51225e+15 rubles. I'd say they're considerably more F'd than we are. And we're F'd.

 

[Grand Vol]

You really are a special kind of stupid. We didn't gain anything by abandoning the treaty, we place our allies in a more precarious situation. Your assessment of the situation is FUBAR. Where do we go from here genius?

lol

What do we have to gain by abiding by a treaty the other party is ignoring? More security? That feeling of moral victory?

Good job, Chamberlain. Peace in our time!

 

[Mick]

lol

What do we have to gain by abiding by a treaty the other party is ignoring? More security? That feeling of moral victory?

Good job, Chamberlain. Peace in our time!

Where do we go from here, Back to a treaty or the build up of nukes in Europe? Can we at least get a catchy nickname for putin in retaliation for his latest threat?

 

[Grand Vol]

Where do we go from here, Back to a treaty or the build up of nukes in Europe? Can we at least get a catchy nickname for putin in retaliation for his latest threat?

Doesn't matter. You won't be intelligent enough to comprehend it regardless. You'll just froth at the mouth and blame Trump for whatever it is.

 

[FLVOL_79]

So Romney was wrong? You brought him up as an illustration of Obama being wrong. So which is it?

BUT MUH ROMNEY!

 

[Mick]

Doesn't matter. You won't be intelligent enough to comprehend it regardless. You'll just froth at the mouth and blame Trump for whatever it is.

Sure it does. Surely Trump had a plan that didn't involve nukes in Europe. Trump makes you look like a fool with you constant praise you bestow upon him..

 

[volinbham]

You really are a special kind of stupid. We didn't gain anything by abandoning the treaty, we place our allies in a more precarious situation. Your assessment of the situation is FUBAR. Where do we go from here genius?

FYI - NATO was bent about Russia's treaty violations. Can you show me where our allies didn't support the move?

Russia breaching missile treaty - Nato

 

[Matt2496]

Did LG'S other thread get deleted?

 

[Mick]

FYI - NATO was bent about Russia's treaty violations. Can you show me where our allies didn't support the move?

Russia breaching missile treaty - Nato

The INF Treaty: European Perspectives on the Impending U.S. Withdrawal | Arms Control Association

European responses to Trump’s termination announcement reflect this variation. On one end of the spectrum, allies that support strengthening NATO in a manner that deters but does not threaten Russia prefer to remain in dialogue with Moscow. For example, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was the first to express regret about Trump’s announcement.8 Despite sympathy for U.S. frustration in dealing with Russia, he called the decision a “mistake” and pledged diplomatic engagement with Moscow and Washington to save the accord.9 Maas also made it clear that Germany has no appetite for an arms race in Europe.10 Similarly, immediately after the withdrawal announcement, French President Emmanuel Macron picked up the phone and reminded his counterpart in the White House of the importance France ascribes to the treaty, in particular for European security and strategic stability.11

On the other end of the spectrum, some European allies believe that strength is the only currency that the Kremlin understands and put very little trust in a dialogue with Moscow. Standing “absolutely resolute” with the U.S. president, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Russia of “making a mockery” of the INF Treaty.12 Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz declared “a similar” stance on and “understanding” for the U.S. decision.13

The announcement of an impending U.S. withdrawal has yet another dimension exposing the deterioration of NATO cohesion. By threatening withdrawal, Washington is acting against NATO’s official stance. At the July 2018 summit in Brussels, 29 heads of state and government of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s most senior decision-making body, declared their commitment to the “preservation of this landmark arms control treaty” and pledged to “engage Russia on this issue in bilateral and multilateral formats.”14

 

[GAVol]

Did LG'S other thread get deleted?

Just de-trolled the thread title a little. It's still out there.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[volinbham]

The INF Treaty: European Perspectives on the Impending U.S. Withdrawal | Arms Control Association

European responses to Trump’s termination announcement reflect this variation. On one end of the spectrum, allies that support strengthening NATO in a manner that deters but does not threaten Russia prefer to remain in dialogue with Moscow. For example, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was the first to express regret about Trump’s announcement.8 Despite sympathy for U.S. frustration in dealing with Russia, he called the decision a “mistake” and pledged diplomatic engagement with Moscow and Washington to save the accord.9 Maas also made it clear that Germany has no appetite for an arms race in Europe.10 Similarly, immediately after the withdrawal announcement, French President Emmanuel Macron picked up the phone and reminded his counterpart in the White House of the importance France ascribes to the treaty, in particular for European security and strategic stability.11

On the other end of the spectrum, some European allies believe that strength is the only currency that the Kremlin understands and put very little trust in a dialogue with Moscow. Standing “absolutely resolute” with the U.S. president, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Russia of “making a mockery” of the INF Treaty.12 Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz declared “a similar” stance on and “understanding” for the U.S. decision.13

The announcement of an impending U.S. withdrawal has yet another dimension exposing the deterioration of NATO cohesion. By threatening withdrawal, Washington is acting against NATO’s official stance. At the July 2018 summit in Brussels, 29 heads of state and government of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s most senior decision-making body, declared their commitment to the “preservation of this landmark arms control treaty” and pledged to “engage Russia on this issue in bilateral and multilateral formats.”14

Check your dates. The highlighted quote is from July 2018

The article I linked is from December 2018 and includes this statement:

Russia, the Americans claim, has now deployed multiple battalions of new missiles threatening targets in Europe. And they have now decided enough is enough, giving Moscow a clear deadline of 60 days to come back into compliance or the US will itself cease to honour its terms.
Nato allies here share Washington's concerns and have backed the US position, thankful perhaps that it includes this short grace period during which Russia might change its mind.

Also from your source:

If Russia does not agree to mutual verification, the United States and its NATO allies could reclaim the moral high ground by demonstrating that Moscow, not Washington, is scrapping arms control treaties. This seems like a pragmatic offer because the United States is convinced of its own compliance and because, in other spheres, military transparency is such a point of pride for the United States and NATO.

Initiating goodwill on NATO side, however, will be no a small feat. Allies predominantly blame Russia for the current state of the INF Treaty. After countless unsuccessful attempts to reach out to Moscow, they consider the ball to be in Russia’s court.24 Also, winning NATO unanimity on such a proposal will be politically challenging. Furthermore, allies endeavor not to create any impression of getting back to what they call “business as usual” with Moscow, and any offer going beyond the current agenda could be seen as crossing this line. Yet, apart from the INF Treaty, NATO has nothing to lose.

 

[Electric Orange]

February 14, 2019 - New American “Bill From Hell” Pushes Massive Russian Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Firmly Behind China

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A scathingly worded new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that at the same time US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Philip Davidsonwarned the US Congress that Chinaposes the greatest long-term threat to the United States, and Republican Party US Senator James Inhofefurther warned his US Congresscolleagues that China is preparing forWorld War III, this now completely dysfunctional lawmaking body for the American people has decided to completely ignore these warnings with their, instead, pushing for a new “bill from hell” which imposes sanctions on Russia’s banking and energy industry—an insane move which the main consequence of will see Russia placing its largest in the world nuclear weapons arsenal firmly behind Chinawhen war comes—and is why the Chinese are celebrating and declaring that these sanctions now open doors for Russian companies in their nation.
According to this report, while the United States and China are succumbing to an inexorable, invisible force prodding them to almost inevitable war, and that any inadvertent miscalculation or unforeseen event could ignite at any moment—that US Commander Admiral Davidson warned the US Congress this week was due to US-China competition representing “two incompatible visions of the future”—the only hope for survival the Americans have is Russia’s nearly 7,000 strategic nuclear weapons—as China’s 280 nuclear weapons are no match for the 6,550 possessed by the US—but with Russia and China fighting against the US together, formerEuropean Commander US Army Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges has warned will destroy the United States.

Article continues in link
*Very Pro Russian Site

 

[Mick]

Check your dates. The highlighted quote is from July 2018

The article I linked is from December 2018 and includes this statement:

Russia, the Americans claim, has now deployed multiple battalions of new missiles threatening targets in Europe. And they have now decided enough is enough, giving Moscow a clear deadline of 60 days to come back into compliance or the US will itself cease to honour its terms.
Nato allies here share Washington's concerns and have backed the US position, thankful perhaps that it includes this short grace period during which Russia might change its mind.

Also from your source:

If Russia does not agree to mutual verification, the United States and its NATO allies could reclaim the moral high ground by demonstrating that Moscow, not Washington, is scrapping arms control treaties. This seems like a pragmatic offer because the United States is convinced of its own compliance and because, in other spheres, military transparency is such a point of pride for the United States and NATO.

Initiating goodwill on NATO side, however, will be no a small feat. Allies predominantly blame Russia for the current state of the INF Treaty. After countless unsuccessful attempts to reach out to Moscow, they consider the ball to be in Russia’s court.24 Also, winning NATO unanimity on such a proposal will be politically challenging. Furthermore, allies endeavor not to create any impression of getting back to what they call “business as usual” with Moscow, and any offer going beyond the current agenda could be seen as crossing this line. Yet, apart from the INF Treaty, NATO has nothing to lose.

From the block quoted, that is a reporter saying that. Can you show me where a NATO member wanted the US to back out of the treaty?

 

[volinbham]

From the block quoted, that is a reporter saying that. Can you show me where a NATO member wanted the US to back out of the treaty?

LOL.

 

[Mick]

LOL.

I know you are desperate for a spin.

 

[volinbham]

I know you are desperate for a spin.

You're killing me man. 5 star work. Orange man bad forever.

 

[Velo Vol]

If Russia does not agree to mutual verification, the United States and its NATO allies could reclaim the moral high ground by demonstrating that Moscow, not Washington, is scrapping arms control treaties. This seems like a pragmatic offer because the United States is convinced of its own compliance and because, in other spheres, military transparency is such a point of pride for the United States and NATO.

I looked into this treaty a bit a couple weeks ago and was surprised how little I could find on compliance/verification procedures.

The U.S. doesn't want to disclose specifics on the alleged violations, for that will give away intelligence. Given that, how do you prove something one way or another?

 

[volinbham]

I looked into this treaty a bit a couple weeks ago and was surprised how little I could find on compliance/verification procedures.

The U.S. doesn't want to disclose specifics on the alleged violations, for that will give away intelligence. Given that, how do you prove something one way or another?

From Mick's article it's clear that NATO agrees across the board that Russia is and has been for quite a while violating the treaty. Do you suppose they are all making it up?

If Trump made the comment you just made it would be considered another example of him being a Putin puppet...

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Exceed his bluster and force him to outspend his resources.

He would have a long way to go to catch up with the US. We probably outspend Russia 10:1.

 

[Velo Vol]

From Mick's article it's clear that NATO agrees across the board that Russia is and has been for quite a while violating the treaty. Do you suppose they are all making it up?

No. The Obama administration alleged violations in 2014. I don't have a reason to doubt the intelligence. As far as other NATO countries go, though, I don't know for sure they've seen the evidence.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[Mick]

Putin to U.S.: I'm ready for another Cuban Missile crisis if you want one | Reuters

President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is militarily ready for a Cuban Missile-style crisis if the United States is foolish enough to want one and that his country currently has the edge when it comes to a first nuclear strike.

Is it time for a nickname yet?

 

[Grand Vol]

No. The Obama administration alleged violations in 2014. I don't have a reason to doubt the intelligence. As far as other NATO countries go, though, I don't know for sure they've seen the evidence.

We tend to work closely with the British Intelligence as well as areas of mutual concern with other major members of NATO. I would be shocked if other nation's intelligence services weren't briefed or didn't have a part in generating the report on the alleged violations.

The problem is, at this point, is many in Europe are ready to blast Trump (especially Merkel) for anything they'd likely not mention they know the intelligence to be true. Not unless directly asked of course. Which, to my knowledge, they haven't been.

 

[tennvols77]

Putin to U.S.: I'm ready for another Cuban Missile crisis if you want one | Reuters

President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is militarily ready for a Cuban Missile-style crisis if the United States is foolish enough to want one and that his country currently has the edge when it comes to a first nuclear strike.

Is it time for a nickname yet?

Yeah, moron.

I tell him as plainly as possible, the talk of nuclear war wins nothing. But, we aren't going to stand for any type of threat concerning the end of the world, because that is what you are pushing for, and if the end of the world is what you seek then we will go out on our terms then.

The threat is China, and if we were smart we would have taken the Russians and made them an ally, regardless of anything else other than to keep them from being China's new pet.

I would have placated Putin and let him have at the middle East, let him deal with all the crap and costs and allow them all the pipelines they wanted (counter this with the EU regulations/restrictions) and let them deal with the mess. Win for us.

Having Russia as an ally allows the USA to have, on the border with China, well, just that. No price can be placed upon having access to the Russian interior, and better, if things begin to go bad, they are the first strike area for China as they....are on the border.

We screwed up 20 years ago, and after 2001, by not figuring out a way to have them as a closer ally. The fear was to not make them bigger and more capable by doing so in the case things didn't work out, and maybe they wouldn't have, but, it was a risk that should have been considered more.

Instead, we made China the goliath, and to me, they are far more prepared to challenge us than Russia would have been. JMO.