Russia must scrap or alter missiles U.S. says violate arms treaty

[webfact]

Russia must scrap or alter missiles U.S. says violate arms treaty

By Jonathan Landay and Arshad Mohammed

 

FILE PHOTO: Soviet armoured vehicles are seen in front of the St. Basil's cathedral during a rehearsal for a military parade to mark the anniversary of a historical parade in 1941 when Soviet soldiers marched towards the front lines, at the Red Square in Moscow, Russia November 5, 2018. REUTERS/Maxum Shemetov/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia must scrap its 9M729 nuclear-capable cruise missiles and launchers or modify the weapons' range to return to compliance with a key Cold War-era arms control treaty and avert a U.S. pullout from the pact, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.

 

"Either you rid the system, rid the launcher or change the system where it doesn't exceed the range" in a verifiable manner, said U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson.

 

On Tuesday, the United States announced it was giving Russia 60 days to end what Washington charges is the missiles' violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or it would begin to withdraw from the pact.

 

The possibility that the treaty might unravel alarms Washington's European allies, who fear its collapse would trigger a new U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons race with the danger that Europe itself could become a nuclear battleground.

 

U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman, who briefed reporters with Thompson, said that a U.S. withdrawal from the treaty "does not mean we are walking away from arms control."

 

"We remain committed to arms control, but we need a reliable partner and do not have one in Russia on INF or for that matter on other treaties that it’s violating," Huntsman said.

 

Sounding a similar theme on Thursday at a Washington Post event, the top U.S. military commander warned that Russia's continued breach of the INF pact could hamper extending the New START treaty, which limits U.S. and Russian offensive nuclear weapons deployments, beyond its Feb. 5, 2021, expiration.

 

"I will not obviously not make this decision. I’ll make recommendations," said Marine General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "But it's very difficult for me to envision progress in extending (New START) . . . if the foundation of that is non-compliance with the INF Treaty."

 

Unless the sides agree on a five-year extension provided by the pact, New START's expiration will end all restrictions on their deployments of offensive nuclear weapons.

 

Moscow denies the missile, which U.S. officials say can hit European targets with nuclear or conventional warheads, violates the INF Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday warned that Russia would develop missiles banned by the accord if the United States exits the pact.

 

The United States and its European allies charge that what Moscow calls the 9M729 Novator cruise missile - designated the SSC-8 by the NATO Western security alliance - breaches the treaty's range limit of 500 to 5,000 km (310 to 3,420 miles).

 

The treaty also bans the production and testing of missiles with such ranges and their launchers.

 

President Donald Trump on Oct. 20 said the United States would withdraw from the treaty after what U.S. officials said were dozens of meetings since 2013 in which their Russian counterparts first denied the 9M729's existence and then said it complied with the pact.

 

NATO leaders on Tuesday unanimously supported the U.S. charge that Russia has been violating the treaty. But they prevailed on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give diplomacy another chance and allow Russia 60 days to return to compliance.

 

The treaty, negotiated by then-President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and ratified by the U.S. Senate, eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers and reduced their ability to launch a nuclear strike at short notice.

 

(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay; additional reporting by Phil Stewart; editing by Lisa Shumaker and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-07

[1337markus]

Ahhhh the bully nation tries being the United Nations again?

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

we need a reliable partner and do not have one in Russia on INF or for that matter on other treaties that it’s violating

Thankfully, there's no American elections involved or this statement couldn't be made.

[bear wolf]

3 hours ago, 1337markus said:

Ahhhh the bully nation tries being the United Nations again?

Ahhh, the bully pays 22% for the upkeep of this woofer called the UN.  And carries the NATO free-loaders in the face of the Russian aggression.

[farcanell]

36 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

Ahhh, the bully pays 22% for the upkeep of this woofer called the UN.  And carries the NATO free-loaders in the face of the Russian aggression.

Ahh... the bully helped make the rules, way back in the beginning, and were happy with that, so individual contribution, based on each countries wealth, and ability to pay, should not be an issue to score points on, and is therefore irrelevant, because all contribute equally per national wealth

 

besides, in recognition, it gets veto powers over everything, unlike other nations who contribute less. And.... those nations in Europe, with similar veto powers, are recognized as the likely battleground... they are mortgaging their sovereignty.

 

meanwhile, this Russian aggression you talk of, is a threat to the US as well. The US “wealth and prosperity” will be impacted by a world war, and as such, it’s contribution to the UN can be seen as insurance for its economy, with the premium for this insurance, being a percentage of its income ( you know, like tax), just like all countries contribute a percentage of its income

 

if y’all want to be the richest country in the world, with the most power, y’all have to make some concessions somewhere.... and preferably act responsibly.... vs crying about how much it costs to be the richest and most powerful economy

 

i understand the concept of wanting everything for nothing, and acknowledge that this sentiment might be more prevelant in a flawed democracy, but if you make the rules, it’s beyond childish to complain about the rules.... man up and follow the rules.

 

edit.... or perhaps begin a process to change the rules.... acting multilaterally, vs the current trend to act unilaterally.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by farcanell

[bear wolf]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Ahh... the bully helped make the rules, way back in the beginning, and were happy with that, so individual contribution, based on each countries wealth, and ability to pay, should not be an issue to score points on, and is therefore irrelevant, because all contribute equally per national wealth

 

besides, in recognition, it gets veto powers over everything, unlike other nations who contribute less. And.... those nations in Europe, with similar veto powers, are recognized as the likely battleground... they are mortgaging their sovereignty.

 

meanwhile, this Russian aggression you talk of, is a threat to the US as well. The US “wealth and prosperity” will be impacted by a world war, and as such, it’s contribution to the UN can be seen as insurance for its economy, with the premium for this insurance, being a percentage of its income ( you know, like tax), just like all countries contribute a percentage of its income

 

if y’all want to be the richest country in the world, with the most power, y’all have to make some concessions somewhere.... and preferably act responsibly.... vs crying about how much it costs to be the richest and most powerful economy

 

i understand the concept of wanting everything for nothing, and acknowledge that this sentiment might be more prevelant in a flawed democracy, but if you make the rules, it’s beyond childish to complain about the rules.... man up and follow the rules.

 

 

 

You wouldn't want the bullied to make the rules now would you?  And what a gracious bully that pays 22% - the bully should simply pay what the other veto-holders pay, peanuts.

Are you begging the bully to make concessions because he is the richest by far and strongest by far? 

 

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, bear wolf said:

You wouldn't want the bullied to make the rules now would you?  And what a gracious bully that pays 22% - the bully should simply pay what the other veto-holders pay, peanuts.

Are you begging the bully to make concessions because he is the richest by far and strongest by far? 

 

Wow... that’s not even a decent spin.

 

the UN is a multilateral instrument, with all signatories supposedly having equal obligations and benefits.... which is why the US pay more money, yet the same percentage of its economy, as others.... and obviously they are not paying graciously... far from it... they are complaining like refugees. (So in reality, they are paying the same as other countries, by the agreed standard... you just want to use a different standard today)

 

Meanwhile, I’m more than happy to have the bullied be a significant contributor to any new or changed rules... far more happy about that than having the bully determine the rules, as they do on the schoolyard.

 

as to begging... I beg nothing beyond holding to your word.. your oath... it’s all that’s left at day’s end, and is integrally linked to honor... is honor something bad?

[bear wolf]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Wow... that’s not even a decent spin.

 

the UN is a multilateral instrument, with all signatories supposedly having equal obligations and benefits.... which is why the US pay more money, yet the same percentage of its economy, as others.... and obviously they are not paying graciously... far from it... they are complaining like refugees. (So in reality, they are paying the same as other countries, by the agreed standard... you just want to use a different standard today)

 

Meanwhile, I’m more than happy to have the bullied be a significant contributor to any new or changed rules... far more happy about that than having the bully determine the rules, as they do on the schoolyard.

 

as to begging... I beg nothing beyond holding to your word.. your oath... it’s all that’s left at day’s end, and is integrally linked to honor... is honor something bad?

I thought yours was still born.

 

Are you begging a bully to keep his word?  Or is he not a bully?  You have gotta fix that spin.

And can you address something for nothing in the free-loading Euro area?

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, bear wolf said:

Ahhh, the bully pays 22% for the upkeep of this woofer called the UN.  And carries the NATO free-loaders in the face of the Russian aggression.

Actually those NATO freeloaders, which consists of most of the EU, pays over 30% of UN costs. And that with an aggregate GDP less than the GDP of the USA.

[talahtnut]

Russia is surrounded with US military bases.

Who is threatening who here?

How can Russia threaten the US which is

vastly superior in military strength?

 

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Russia is surrounded with US military bases.

Who is threatening who here?

How can Russia threaten the US which is

vastly superior in military strength?

 

 

The location and number of bases is more or less irrelevant when the discussion is about violating nuclear weapons agreements.

[bear wolf]

 

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually those NATO freeloaders, which consists of most of the EU, pays over 30% of UN costs. And that with an aggregate GDP less than the GDP of the USA.

That's great!  Euros are cheap - UN is cheaper that the NATO, so they can claim to be a BSD per GDP at the UN because they free-laoding NATO.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

 

That's great!  Euros are cheap - UN is cheaper that the NATO, so they can claim to be a BSD per GDP at the UN because they free-laoding NATO.

You're the one who brought the issue up to defend the USA. Turns out it wasn't nearly so supportive as you thought.

And what do you mean by the Euro being cheap in this context? That's just nonsense.

[bear wolf]

Just now, bristolboy said:

You're the one who brought the issue up to defend the USA. Turns out it wasn't nearly so supportive as you thought.

And what do you mean by the Euro being cheap in this context? That's just nonsense.

It's a woofer in my book; long past in utility.

I was responding to a post about bullying.  I was pointing out that the bully pays 22%, PAYS being the operative word.  And it is nearly a 1/4.

Euro pays what it does because it does not pay NATO.  That's like taking a Business Premier on EuroStar to Brussels and then coach on EasyJet to New York. 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, bear wolf said:

I thought yours was still born.

 

Are you begging a bully to keep his word?  Or is he not a bully?  You have gotta fix that spin.

And can you address something for nothing in the free-loading Euro area?

 

Um.... what? Still born.... I’m sure there’s meant to be humor there, somewhere, but it’s lost on me. If it’s meant as an insult... lol... well it’s still lost on me.... but then, most of the post above is a loser.

 

the bully in this context is the US... see post 1

 

that bully (the US) has demonstrated its word is unreliable... and internationally, it shouldn’t be up to other countries to beg the US to keep its word, it should be encumbent on them to do so.

 

not sure what spin I have to fix.

 

In addressing the “free loading euro area”... it’s not freeloading other than in trumps mind, and those prepared to believe his 6000 plus lies, even when they have been proven to be lies.

 

but once again.... it’s not the percentage of money going into the UN that is relevant, it’s the percentage of gross national product that’s relevant. This is how the UN charter was crafted, largely by US agents, and because of this, you can hardly critise others.

 

if you think it’s unfair on the US, that’s fine.... but really, as the major author of the charter, that’s the US’s own fault... no one else’s.

 

[bear wolf]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Um.... what? Still born.... I’m sure there’s meant to be humor there, somewhere, but it’s lost on me. If it’s meant as an insult... lol... well it’s still lost on me.... but then, most of the post above is a loser.

 

the bully in this context is the US... see post 1

 

that bully (the US) has demonstrated its word is unreliable... and internationally, it shouldn’t be up to other countries to beg the US to keep its word, it should be encumbent on them to do so.

 

not sure what spin I have to fix.

 

In addressing the “free loading euro area”... it’s not freeloading other than in trumps mind, and those prepared to believe his 6000 plus lies, even when they have been proven to be lies.

 

but once again.... it’s not the percentage of money going into the UN that is relevant, it’s the percentage of gross national product that’s relevant. This is how the UN charter was crafted, largely by US agents, and because of this, you can hardly critise others.

 

if you think it’s unfair on the US, that’s fine.... but really, as the major author of the charter, that’s the US’s own fault... no one else’s.

 

Yes, you are humorless, agreed.

 

Answer this - why does a bully (USA) agree to pay at all?  Why does the bully (USA) not simply tell the free-loaders to pay all, as in 100%.

 

I do not see any unfairness.  Presumably that is all you see and you are whining that is it.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, bear wolf said:

Ahhh, the bully pays 22% for the upkeep of this woofer called the UN.  And carries the NATO free-loaders in the face of the Russian aggression.

 

26 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

Yes, you are humorless, agreed.

 

Answer this - why does a bully (USA) agree to pay at all?  Why does the bully (USA) not simply tell the free-loaders to pay all, as in 100%.

 

I do not see any unfairness.  Presumably that is all you see and you are whining that is it.

If you see no unfairness, please explain your first post and how it relates... I included it here for ease of reference.

 

i see no unfairness...  and am positing that the payment structure is actually fair... it is beyond my ken, as to how you can imply that I am intimating that it’s unfair... lol... or that I’m whining, in fact, let me refer you for a second time, to your first post, as an example of whining

 

now... as to your sensical contribution in your last post... ie... your question.

 

the US pays, in part, what it does because they agreed to contribute to these alliances and organizations, to provide mutual security to its interests on both sides of the Atlantic, whilst actively preventing a global power bloc which could challenge US dominance.

 

of significance is the fact that the US willingly and unasked, ramped up its contributions post 9/11. If you can get your head around why your country did that, then perhaps you can better understand the answer to your question in the post above.... or at least reconcile the why of it.

Edited December 7, 2018 by farcanell

[farcanell]

27 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

Yes, you are humorless, agreed.

 

Answer this - why does a bully (USA) agree to pay at all?  Why does the bully (USA) not simply tell the free-loaders to pay all, as in 100%.

 

I do not see any unfairness.  Presumably that is all you see and you are whining that is it.

Out of pure curiosity.... regardless of who pays what... why do you think your country belongs to various alliances and treaties?

[bear wolf]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

 

If you see no unfairness, please explain your first post and how it relates... I included it here for ease of reference.

 

i see no unfairness...  and am positing that the payment structure is actually fair... it is beyond my ken, as to how you can imply that I am intimating that it’s unfair... lol... or that I’m whining, in fact, let me refer you for a second time, to your first post, as an example of whining

 

now... as to your sensical contribution in your last post... ie... your question.

 

the US pays, in part, what it does because they agreed to contribute to these alliances and organizations, to provide mutual security to its interests on both sides of the Atlantic, whilst actively preventing a global power bloc which could challenge US dominance.

 

of significance is the fact that the US willingly and unasked, ramped up its contributions post 9/11. If you can get your head around why your country did that, then perhaps you can better understand the answer to your question in the post above.... or at least reconcile the why of it.

It's a passion for the Euro to be whining about Americans - has been for decades.   Perhaps you feel that you have just discovered bashing the USA.

 

Why did the bully agree to pay?  Shouldn't the bully tell the slimy Euros pay all?  Can you answer that?

 

Again. 

[bear wolf]

8 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Out of pure curiosity.... regardless of who pays what... why do you think your country belongs to various alliances and treaties?

No regardless - USA pays 80% of NATO and 22% of the UN.

I thought you knew that a bully "belongs to various alliances and treaties" simply because he can have Euros beg him to stay in them, have the Euros complain that he is not honoring them and have the Euros label him unreliable. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, bear wolf said:

Ahhh, the bully pays 22% for the upkeep of this woofer called the UN.  And carries the NATO free-loaders in the face of the Russian aggression.

How much military and professional killers does the world need?

 

The 2% NATO commitment is easily done. Raise the salaries of each military person to $1.000.000 and place a 95% tax to their salaries. In paper everything looks good again?

 

Perhaps each and every country should build 200-300 nukes, which is enough to cause a nuclear winter. That way there would be a worldwide MAD agreement. Each country would use the nukes if they are being attacked. Nobody would afford to start a war as it would mean 95% destruction of their own county (along with other countries).

 

This current arms race and the fear it causes is simply stupid. When there is more fear, there is more possibilities of miscalculations and simply mistakes. It takes about 30 minutes to destroy this planet. 

 

The time is: 23:58. Two minutes to midnight. Closest it has ever been. Think about it for a while.

[farcanell]

5 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

It's a passion for the Euro to be whining about Americans - has been for decades.   Perhaps you feel that you have just discovered bashing the USA.

 

Why did the bully agree to pay?  Shouldn't the bully tell the slimy Euros pay all?  Can you answer that?

 

Again. 

I’m not euro.... and it’s you that’s whining about paying funds to a mechanisms that the US signed up for... no one else has yet complained about this, on this thread, have they?

 

why should the euros pay all of the costs incurred in maintaining a treaty or organization that includes the US? How is that fair?

 

mind you, as bullies do steal the lunch monies of others, I can see why you might be confused about why the US is contributing

 

And.... Why do I have to answer the same question again? Refer my post above.... if you don’t understand , then rephrase your question.... or google either “UN” or “NATO”, and read the “history of “ section, which will answer your question... ( noteworthy... a bully would demand another do his homework... I’m wondering which way you will lean)

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

No regardless - USA pays 80% of NATO and 22% of the UN.

I thought you knew that a bully "belongs to various alliances and treaties" simply because he can have Euros beg him to stay in them, have the Euros complain that he is not honoring them and have the Euros label him unreliable. 

How much are those F-35 fighters? How much money should other NATO members and other militaries to spend to buy those? How much USA:s military manufacturers are going to make a nice profit for USA? Same applies to many other equipments. 

 

 

[bear wolf]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

 

 

why should the euros pay all of the costs incurred in maintaining a treaty or organization that includes the US? How is that fair?

 

If you are not a Euro why do you care?

Does a bully have to be fair?

Why does the bully not make the Euros pay 100%.

 

He is a bully afterall!

[bear wolf]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

How much military and professional killers does the world need?

 

The 2% NATO commitment is easily done. Raise the salaries of each military person to $1.000.000 and place a 95% tax to their salaries. In paper everything looks good again?

 

Perhaps each and every country should build 200-300 nukes, which is enough to cause a nuclear winter. That way there would be a worldwide MAD agreement. Each country would use the nukes if they are being attacked. Nobody would afford to start a war as it would mean 95% destruction of their own county (along with other countries).

 

This current arms race and the fear it causes is simply stupid. When there is more fear, there is more possibilities of miscalculations and simply mistakes. It takes about 30 minutes to destroy this planet. 

 

The time is: 23:58. Two minutes to midnight. Closest it has ever been. Think about it for a while.

Needs the Euro to live upto the 2%.  Only the UK, Poland, Turkey and Greece meet the 2%.  All others free-loaders.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

Needs the Euro to live upto the 2%.  Only the UK, Poland, Turkey and Greece meet the 2%.  All others free-loaders.

Why not make it 1% and put the rest to for example education?

[bear wolf]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

How much are those F-35 fighters? How much money should other NATO members and other militaries to spend to buy those? How much USA:s military manufacturers are going to make a nice profit for USA? Same applies to many other equipments. 

 

 

Why don't you make those and sell it to NATO.  Why do you not make a "nice profit" for you?  Why do you not buy shares in those companies that are making that "nice profit"?  Are you opposed to "nice profit'?  Have you never made a "nice profit"?   Only made loses?

[farcanell]

20 minutes ago, bear wolf said:

No regardless - USA pays 80% of NATO and 22% of the UN.

I thought you knew that a bully "belongs to various alliances and treaties" simply because he can have Euros beg him to stay in them, have the Euros complain that he is not honoring them and have the Euros label him unreliable. 

So you admit to not knowing why the US belongs to various treaties then.... as that was the question that this repose is too

[Guest]

1 minute ago, bear wolf said:

Why don't you make those and sell it to NATO.  Why do you not make a "nice profit" for you?  Why do you not buy shares in those companies that are making that "nice profit"?  Are you opposed to "nice profit'?  Have you never made a "nice profit"?   Only made loses?

I personally would not buy shares of companies, which manufactures devices to kill other people. But we all live by our own principles, don't we. 

[bear wolf]

Just now, oilinki said:

Why not make it 1% and put the rest to for example education?

Perhaps you are a bit soft.  We are talking about sticking o what is agreed, not an ideal %