• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Warns Russia It Could ‘Take Out’ Missiles for Treaty Breach

Doesn't matter if the EU supports it or not. The US cannot let Russia push us around. If the intent is not to ever attack their missiles then we should have kept our mouth shut. (our meaning the United States) It is stupid to make an empty threat.

I agree with your point about bluffs and idle threats, the hallmark of the US government, but don't you suppose that the Russians feel the same as we do? That they cannot let the US push them around?

It seems to me the rest of the world has become quite resentful of the US pushing them around.
 
I agree with your point about bluffs and idle threats, the hallmark of the US government, but don't you suppose that the Russians feel the same as we do? That they cannot let the US push them around?

It seems to me the rest of the world has become quite resentful of the US pushing them around.

Be that as it may, once the threat is made it needs to be followed through on. Perhaps our government shouldn't have threatened anything but they did.
 
Nato is on board....


US Puts Russia ‘On Notice’ Over Treaty Violation; NATO Agrees

US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison sent a warning to Moscow about violating the INF treaty -- one that NATO allies appear prepared to back up.


NATOJens-768x511.jpg

Left to right: Jim Mattis US Secretary of Defense with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison who is the US Permanent Representative to NATO.


“We have looked into this intelligence and we are extremely concerned,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters at the kickoff of the two-day meeting of NATO allies at alliance headquarters in Brussels. The treaty “is in danger because of Russia’s actions,” Stoltenberg said, adding, “all Allies agree that the most plausible assessment would be that Russia is in violation of the treaty. It is therefore urgent that Russia addresses these concerns in a substantial and transparent manner.”


Hutchison’s comments Tuesday were the first time a high-ranking US official indicated that the Pentagon might consider anything more than diplomatic action, should the Russian missiles become operational. “We need to demonstrate to the Russians that we’re serious about them coming back into compliance with INF and that perhaps they need to be reminded why they signed the INF treaty in the first place,” Greg Weaver, the Joint Staff deputy director of strategic capabilities, told reporters when releasing the report.

Some critics of the treaty complain that it doesn’t include other countries, like China, who remain free to build nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Then- Pacific Command chief — and now Ambassador to South Korea — Adm. Harry Harris told Congress earlier this year that the treaty is “self-limiting,” particularly since “over 90 percent of China’s ground-based missiles would violate the treaty.”


https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/us-puts-russia-on-notice-over-treaty-violation-nato-agrees/



The statement makes Putin look bad in Moscow, the Kremlin and with the Russian high command. That is, here we have the USA led by Donald Trump talking about taking out Russian missiles on Russian soil while Nato defense ministers hammer Russia for its missile treaty violation. It is clear Trump has turned this over to the Pentagon to direct and manage. This is also a statement to Iran and Beijing. There's now a major rethink in all three capitals about crossing the US in military treaty obligations. The direct negative impact however is on Putin who just got slapped in the face by Amb. Hutchison with SecDef Jim Mattis standing there handing her the slapping gloves.

i never mentioned NATO i said the EU Jens Stoltenberg is a yes man for the USA as NATO is US centric
 
Be that as it may, once the threat is made it needs to be followed through on. Perhaps our government shouldn't have threatened anything but they did.


Russia needs advance notice. Now Putin has his notice in advance. Putin has to think twice now about deploying the missile once it's been fully developed and tested successfully in so far as it might become a finished product.

Putin meanwhile looks bad to the Russian general staff and throughout the Kremlin with the Pentagon in charge of this issue and talking about demolishing a Russian missile on Russian soil that violates a missile treaty. As was also pointed out, ninety percent of Beijing's ground based missiles would violate the treaty. Except that Beijing does not make arms control treaties. So this is a message to Beijing too concerning its arms buildup and their closed attitude toward arms control treaties.

Like it or not brinkmanship is back. We know that from early on in the Cold War Nato fully intended to use low-yield nuclear weapons to counter a Soviet Russian armor assault across Europe that would have been preceded by a massive Russian artillery/missile bombardment of the continent.
 
the USA attacks Russian missile sites the response will be nuclear


the fact is America is acting on the hoof it will receive very little support from EU countries

This is your post, i.e., what you said.



i never mentioned NATO i said the EU Jens Stoltenberg is a yes man for the USA as NATO is US centric

Your post said nothing about Jens Stoltenberg who is formerly the long term prime minister of Norway (2005-2013).

EU and Nato are synonymous on the continent. Only US and Canada are off continent Nato members. (Turkey bridges Europe and Asia Minor.)

Dag Hammarskjöld of Norway was second secretary general of the UN. Three Nato member states have provided three secretaries general each: The Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy. Looks like it might be time for a Norwegian. It is the case anyway that a lot of American Conservatives are Putin centric.
 
This is your post, i.e., what you said.





Your post said nothing about Jens Stoltenberg who is formerly the long term prime minister of Norway (2005-2013).

EU and Nato are synonymous on the continent. Only US and Canada are off continent Nato members. (Turkey bridges Europe and Asia Minor.)

Dag Hammarskjöld of Norway was second secretary general of the UN. Three Nato member states have provided three secretaries general each: The Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy. Looks like it might be time for a Norwegian. It is the case anyway that a lot of American Conservatives are Putin centric.

Norway is not in the EU

likewise the US has been violating said treaty as well (stationing Mk-41 launchers, using missile "targets" with characteristics of banned missiles, investing in long-range strike drones).....Yet Russia hasn't exactly threatened the US with preemptive military attack in regards to this "treaty violation"...... in mid to late 2000s Putin warned the west about the dangers of a new arms race, did so publicly on countless occasions, and was completely ignored. (to no surprise) He also warned that if NATO will refuse to cooperate on expanding its European defense systems and strategies, Russia will be forced to respond. Again was ignored.
This is what you were trying to say.

And now, hence, if we read between the lines, this means that not only Russia, but also NATO, both fully acknowledge that there's a new arms race, but one side continues to feign innocence and pretend like there isn't one.
 
so trump is in love with russia, but he also hates russia.

you guys going to get this story straight one of these days?
I expect it'll all be nailed down in a few decades, except for the occasional new book about some detail or other.


Isn't that how it usually goes?

Actually, nevermind, they're still writing books about presidents from the 18th century on occasion.

But on the other hand, record-keeping has gotten better.
 
I expect it'll all be nailed down in a few decades, except for the occasional new book about some detail or other.


Isn't that how it usually goes?

Actually, nevermind, they're still writing books about presidents from the 18th century on occasion.

But on the other hand, record-keeping has gotten better.

it has. obama showed us that when he told russia hed be more flexible after the election.

oops
 
What could go right is Russia is afraid if the US takes them out, they are worth a lot less on the international arms market. The last thing Russia wants to do it shoot them and have the world see them defeated.

Another great idea.
 
Norway is not in the EU

likewise the US has been violating said treaty as well (stationing Mk-41 launchers, using missile "targets" with characteristics of banned missiles, investing in long-range strike drones).....Yet Russia hasn't exactly threatened the US with preemptive military attack in regards to this "treaty violation"...... in mid to late 2000s Putin warned the west about the dangers of a new arms race, did so publicly on countless occasions, and was completely ignored. (to no surprise) He also warned that if NATO will refuse to cooperate on expanding its European defense systems and strategies, Russia will be forced to respond. Again was ignored.
This is what you were trying to say.

And now, hence, if we read between the lines, this means that not only Russia, but also NATO, both fully acknowledge that there's a new arms race, but one side continues to feign innocence and pretend like there isn't one.


I said synonymous, not identical. That is, EU is synonymous with Nato, not its identical twin.

Norway and Denmark are in Nato but Sweden and Finland are not. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are in EU but Norway is not. That is the lineup in respect of Scandinavia thx for asking.

Presenting the Russian side is always interesting as well as revealing of the presenter. That's you. You present the Russian side only. So I will need to point out that Russia has a nuclear weapons bunker in its Kaliningrad domain amid the Baltic states situated 30 miles from the Polish border. Upgraded in June from its original construction in 2001.

The presenter hasn't any presents however for EU/Nato. Only grief. So Nato has existed since 1949 to deter or stop Russia invading Europe. Or seizing any part of Europe by military means. Given Nato is a strategic and geostrategic regional organization it has direct interests in matters pertaining to free and fair elections in its member countries, economic security, social and political stability against Russian spies, agents, operatives, assorted sympatico types, and in preserving the integrity of its officials and citizens.


baltics-kalin-narrow-e1449819569780-300x200.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom