U.S. says to withdraw from arms control treaty in six months

[rooster59]

U.S. says to withdraw from arms control treaty in six months

By Lesley Wroughton and Arshad Mohammed

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks to the media at the United Nations following a Security Council meeting about the situation in Venezuela in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., January 26, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States announced on Friday it will withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia in six months unless Moscow ends its alleged violations of the landmark 1987 arms control pact.

 

The United States would reconsider its withdrawal if Russia, which denies violating the treaty, came into compliance with the agreement, which bans both nations from stationing short- and intermediate-range land-based missiles in Europe.

 

Announcing the move, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States would cease to regard itself as being bound by the treaty starting Saturday, which is when Washington will formally inform Moscow of its intent to withdraw, a senior U.S. official told reporters.

 

The announcement may aim to pressure Russia to come to terms during the next six months but it also raised fears of a new U.S.-Russian nuclear arms race in Europe as well as one between the United States and China in Asia.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump repeated U.S. allegations that Russia had violated the INF treaty, which limited only U.S. and Russian arsenals, and he held out the prospect of negotiating a wider agreement, possibly including other nations.

 

"I hope that we’re able to get everybody in a big and beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better.

Certainly I would like to see that," Trump told reporters.

 

Trump's tenure has been dogged by allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to help his candidacy, which Moscow denies. The dispute over INF has contributed to U.S.-Russia frictions, now at their worst since the Cold War ended in 1991 despite Trump's stated desire for better ties.

 

"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," Pompeo told reporters.

 

To see a graphic on the U.S. nuclear arsenal, click here: https://tmsnrt.rs/2sYZOpw

 

RUSSIA SEES FALSE PRETEXT

 

Russian officials accused the United States of inventing a false pretext to exit a treaty that it wants to leave anyway so it can develop new missiles.

 

Speaking before the announcement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia regretted the expected U.S. move and accused Washington of failing to negotiate to avoid such an outcome.

 

"The unwillingness of the Americans to listen to any arguments and to hold substantive negotiations with us shows that the decision to break this treaty was taken in Washington a long time ago," Peskov told reporters.

 

The United States alleges a new Russian cruise missile violates the pact. The missile, the Novator 9M729, is known as the SSC-8 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

 

The treaty required the parties to destroy ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 km (310 to 3,420 miles). Last week, the head of Russia's military's missile and artillery forces said the new missile's maximum range fell short of the treaty's lower limit.

 

Russia has rejected the U.S. demand to destroy the new missile.

 

NATO "does not have any intention to deploy new land-based nuclear weapons to Europe," Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told Reuters on Friday, saying the Western security alliance had intelligence from the United States and other allies confirming that Russia had violated the treaty.

 

"We don't have to mirror what Russia does. But at the same time we have to make sure that we maintain credible and effective deterrence," he said, without giving specifics on military options NATO is considering.

 

France and Germany both emphasized the importance of using the six-month window to keep talking.

 

Formal U.S. withdrawal could give the Pentagon new options to counter Chinese missile advances but experts warn the ensuing arms race could greatly escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific.

 

The United States will notify Russia on Saturday of its plan to pull out in six months, a senior U.S. official said, describing this as "one final chance" to comply with the agreement but saying Washington doubted Moscow would do so.

 

He said the administration is weighing whether to extend the "New Start" arms control treaty, which went into effect in 2011 and required both nations to cut deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades.

 

That treaty, which also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers, expires in February 2021, can be extended by five years if both sides agree.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-02

[Somtamnication]

This guy is itching for WW3. I will stay in Thailand, hoping the winds of nuclear fallout do not reach me.

[Cryingdick]

10 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This guy is itching for WW3. I will stay in Thailand, hoping the winds of nuclear fallout do not reach me.

 

The nuclear winds couldn't cut through the smog.

[Odysseus123]

19 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This guy is itching for WW3. I will stay in Thailand, hoping the winds of nuclear fallout do not reach me.

Yes-he certainly appears to want to experience "the rapture"

 

I prefer good honest sex myself.

[Ahab]

So pulling out of a treaty that one side isn't following has somehow come to mean a desire for nuclear war? Neville Chamberlain would concur.

[sirineou]

I really don't know much about this, What I know is when listening to Bloomberg financial news, That iI trust, earlier , , they were saying that the Russians  have a particular intermediate weapons system that they are fudging the numbers to subvert the agreement.

Not everything the Trump administration does is bad, let's learn a litle more about this before we have an opinion.

[Chomper Higgot]

Pulling out of this agreement without first negotiating is extreme.

 

Of course Trump could have discussed this during his multiple face to face meetings with Putin.

 

But then he’s hidden the content of those meetings from Congress, the Senate and the State Department.

 

The time for some explanations has long past.

[nausea]

Well, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, I guess the Doomsday Clock has just ticked a second or two closer to Midnight.

[Emdog]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pulling out of this agreement without first negotiating is extreme.

 

Of course Trump could have discussed this during his multiple face to face meetings with Putin.

 

But then he’s hidden the content of those meetings from Congress, the Senate and the State Department.

 

The time for some explanations has long past.

Negotiations have been going on since Obama administration with no change in Russian behavior.

I am NO FAN of Trump, I despise him as a matter of fact, along with his gang of thieves. IMO pulling out right thing to do.

If one side does not keep up their side of treaty, the agreement is null and void

However, if we follow this line, then Iran (who has been keeping up their end of nuke deal) should be within legal rights to go back to developing nukes.

I understand there are other signatories (UK, Russia, German, China, etc) that are still doing their part regarding treaty, so it is "complicated". Plus Trump is itching to get into a shooting war with Iran, looking for any excuse.

[Ahab]

I thought Trump was supported by the Russians, allegedly the Russians colluded with Trump during the election so that Putin would have a puppet in charge of The United States. Why is Putin's puppet not following Russian desires? Maybe because the whole Russian collusion tale is just that, a tale. Not a very good one at that.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I thought Trump was supported by the Russians, allegedly the Russians colluded with Trump during the election so that Putin would have a puppet in charge of The United States. Why is Putin's puppet not following Russian desires? Maybe because the whole Russian collusion tale is just that, a tale. Not a very good one at that.

 

If Russia is in violation of the agreement, it implies they have a certain military advantage on this front. The US will take some time to develop similar capabilities. During this time, the Russians may further develop their own (with the benefit of a head start), and/or capitalize on painting the US as the warmongering side.

 

What Russian mouthpieces spew for media and public consumption is immaterial.

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If Russia is in violation of the agreement, it implies they have a certain military advantage on this front. The US will take some time to develop similar capabilities. During this time, the Russians may further develop their own (with the benefit of a head start), and/or capitalize on painting the US as the warmongering side.

 

What Russian mouthpieces spew for media and public consumption is immaterial.

This is assuming US is telling the truth and Russia is lying, which may or may not be true .

 

US does not really have a clean record of telling the truth when it suits a variety of agenda’s

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I really don't know much about this, What I know is when listening to Bloomberg financial news, That iI trust, earlier , , they were saying that the Russians  have a particular intermediate weapons system that they are fudging the numbers to subvert the agreement.

Not everything the Trump administration does is bad, let's learn a litle more about this before we have an opinion.

 

Quite a bit of what Trump does is flawed because of the way he goes about things, and the sentiment he helps fostering - that the US commitment to international agreements is questionable. Even if the US is in the right on this particular score, the backdrop of Trump's presidency is still present.

 

As for learning more - same story, basically. Trump's presidency created severe issues for US credibility. He constantly lies and issues untruths over multiple issues, even contradicting and belittling his own security chiefs when it suits. 

 

 

[ballpoint]

The real reason for this lies closer to home (our home, if you live in Thailand):

 

"But while the United States has insisted Russia’s actions sank the treaty, the Trump administration’s real aim is to broaden its prohibitions to include China.

Constrained by the treaty’s provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China’s efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and keep American aircraft carriers at bay."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html

 

I wonder what would happen if the US asked Thailand whether it could install short range nukes in the country?

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

This is assuming US is telling the truth and Russia is lying, which may or may not be true .

 

US does not really have a clean record of telling the truth when it suits a variety of agenda’s

 

 

 

Or so you say.

What would be the US incentive to pull out of the agreement?

[Cryingdick]

Meanwhile Putin is boasting about super fast supersonic V 2.0 missiles that can't be defended against. I guess we should stay in the treaty.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

Meanwhile Putin is boasting about super fast supersonic V 2.0 missiles that can't be defended against. I guess we should stay in the treaty.

 

Do them supposed supersonic missiles come under the same treaty?

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do them supposed supersonic missiles come under the same treaty?

 

No because they violate it completely. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

No because they violate it completely. 

 

If they do not fall under the treaty, they can't "violate" it. Completely or otherwise.

[Pattaya46]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

What would be the US incentive to pull out of the agreement?

US weapons factories pressure group and its political & economical power?

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do them supposed supersonic missiles come under the same treaty?

They have to exist first.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

US weapons factories pressure group and its political & economical power?

 

If that was the case, the US would be out of any agreements long ago, and never sign into them to begin with. But if you want to go down this way, there's more money in conventional arms sales.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have to exist first.

 

These sort of treaties usually include sections on research and development limitations. As far as I understand, though, the supersonic weapons issue is not quite what the topic is about.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Quite a few, but feel free to provide actual evidence of Russia not abiding by the treaty

 

So you don't actually provide any support for your claims, but expect other posters to.

There was a previous topic in which the specifics and technicalities of the US complaint were detailed, as well as Russia's "response". May I suggest you look it up?

 

 

[GeoMill]

52 minutes ago, BestB said:

This is assuming US is telling the truth and Russia is lying, which may or may not be true .

 

US does not really have a clean record of telling the truth when it suits a variety of agenda’s

 

 

And Russia does? If there is one nation that stick to their lies even when the evidence against them is overwhelming it's Russia... The MH17 case being a good example. 

 

Not a fan of Trump, but Putin is pure scum.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

So pulling out of a treaty that one side isn't following has somehow come to mean a desire for nuclear war? Neville Chamberlain would concur.

Let those amongst you who have no sin, cast the first stone

 

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/26/how-have-moscow-and-washington-violated-the-agreement-what-s-so-dangerous-about-intermediate-range-missiles

 

at the very least, the US has done an end run around the goal posts by deploying Sam missiles and tomahawks on drones and subs.... at the very least.

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The announcement may aim to pressure Russia to come to terms during the next six months but it also raised fears of a new U.S.-Russian nuclear arms race in Europe

Yer yer yer... stick more missiles in European bases... chalk it up to spending more money on NATO... then hang the do do on the Europeans for not matching NATO spending in their own defense of their own continent, even though we might blow the crap out of it... yer yer yer... winning winning... we’ll be alright behind our Great Wall.... MAGA!

[SteveB2]

There is some weapons grade Bullshit and utter lack of situational awareness going on around here.

 

This treaty was violated years ago with the building of the Romania Aegis and other intermediate range missile/anti missile systems.

 

Putin nearly spit a tooth out in laughter when the reasons for its construction were announced:- 'an anti-missile system to prevent Iranian ICBM missiles reaching Europe'. ???? 

 

Here's the Romania system. A friend was working on the electrical systems integration. It is now operational.

and of course, Putins laughter at the declared reasons for its construction. 'A Classic'

 

 

 

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Yer yer yer... stick more missiles in European bases... chalk it up to spending more money on NATO... then hang the do do on the Europeans for not matching NATO spending in their own defense of their own continent, even though we might blow the crap out of it... yer yer yer... winning winning... we’ll be alright behind our Great Wall.... MAGA!

 

I don't think the US can "stick more missiles in European bases", without local governments' approval. At least no nuclear ones. The line of reasoning you suggest regarding NATO spending isn't, as far as I'm aware, supported by anything much. Unless mistaken, the UK actually backed up the US's position.

 

[Thingamabob]

Good move.