Welcome To The Cold War: The US Announces Pullout From INF Treaty With Russia

[pinto + 293]

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the U.S. is pulling out of a treaty with Russia that’s been a centerpiece of arms control since the Cold War. The American withdrawal had been expected for months. It follows years of unresolved dispute over Russian compliance with the 1987 pact, which bans certain ground-launched cruise missiles. Russia denies violating the treaty. Pompeo says the U.S. will suspend its obligations to the treaty on Saturday. Pompeo says that if Russia doesn’t come into compliance, the treaty “will terminate.” U.S. officials also have expressed concern that China, which isn’t part of the treaty, is deploying large numbers of missiles in Asia that the U.S. can’t counter because it’s bound by the treaty.
 

[damirUSBiH + 327]

Very sad news. The world is going backwards.

[50 shades of black + 254]

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave... Wake me up for the six month

[Pavel + 384]

“We’re playing Russian roulette with humanity” - Jerry Brown, the former Governor of California and chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

[rainman + 263]

Should I start digging a 10 ft abode on my ground? Apocalypse about to start or what?

[ThunderBlade + 231]

Crisis for crisis, crisis is permanent state... so, the only thing missing is the war. Who knows..

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, pinto said:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the U.S. is pulling out of a treaty with Russia that’s been a centerpiece of arms control since the Cold War. The American withdrawal had been expected for months. It follows years of unresolved dispute over Russian compliance with the 1987 pact, which bans certain ground-launched cruise missiles. Russia denies violating the treaty. Pompeo says the U.S. will suspend its obligations to the treaty on Saturday. Pompeo says that if Russia doesn’t come into compliance, the treaty “will terminate.” U.S. officials also have expressed concern that China, which isn’t part of the treaty, is deploying large numbers of missiles in Asia that the U.S. can’t counter because it’s bound by the treaty.
 

I would consider that last sentence as the most important, with Russian concerns secondary, if not equally concerning.  Chinese dominance is already said to be capable of knocking out ALL U.S. command & control, and airbases and ports in the Asia Pacific region.  That would include South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and all the rest.  The threat of China, at the moment, is that they could virtually shut down all defense of the Asia Pacific region.  If the U.S. remains in the agreement with Russia, it cannot adequately counter China and defend the region.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I would consider that last sentence as the most important, with Russian concerns secondary, if not equally concerning.  Chinese dominance is already said to be capable of knocking out ALL U.S. command & control, and airbases and ports in the Asia Pacific region.  That would include South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and all the rest.  The threat of China, at the moment, is that they could virtually shut down all defense of the Asia Pacific region.  If the U.S. remains in the agreement with Russia, it cannot adequately counter China and defend the region.

We would be fools to continue to allow Russia to get away with breaking the treaty while we follow it.

[John Foote + 1,135]

Remember Reagan's famous line, "Trust but verify'"

Withdrawing takes away much of the ability to verify. If they cheat call them out perhaps, cheat yourself, but don't take your away our ability to monitor. And we will not go head to head with China, or Russia.  More likely China and Russia shoot each other.

[TXPower + 643]

INF was weak and disadvantaged the US from the get-go, we knew this.  It hasn’t been effective for some time.  Thanks to the “Hope and Change” President, Russia capitalized.  This is of course to say nothing of the fact that China, a very real and emerging threat, was not bound by it.  Time for something new and effective.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/leaving-inf-treaty-right-policy-counter-russian-cheating/

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 7:06 PM, pinto said:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the U.S. is pulling out of a treaty with Russia that’s been a centerpiece of arms control since the Cold War. The American withdrawal had been expected for months. It follows years of unresolved dispute over Russian compliance with the 1987 pact, which bans certain ground-launched cruise missiles. Russia denies violating the treaty. Pompeo says the U.S. will suspend its obligations to the treaty on Saturday. Pompeo says that if Russia doesn’t come into compliance, the treaty “will terminate.” U.S. officials also have expressed concern that China, which isn’t part of the treaty, is deploying large numbers of missiles in Asia that the U.S. can’t counter because it’s bound by the treaty.
 

aaah, so the real reason the US is pulling out is not Russian non compliance but in fact the China situation...! Anyway, they are all out now on the race to the bottom, or is it the top.

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 2:35 AM, ronwagn said:

We would be fools to continue to allow Russia to get away with breaking the treaty while we follow it.

But the Russians state the US went out of compliance in 2002, so they followed suit in 2007. it helps to study the news sources available and take it all in, not just the politically motivated stuff. If our courts operated on the principal of judging by media then where would we be.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

24 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

But the Russians state the US went out of compliance in 2002, so they followed suit in 2007. it helps to study the news sources available and take it all in, not just the politically motivated stuff. If our courts operated on the principal of judging by media then where would we be.

If you have some link I would be happy to consider it. I have read many times that Russia broke the treaty, We may have rightly followed. The first to break it was responsible IMO. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

Russia is violating the treaty. Whether the USA does is subject to some interpretation.

When Russia signed it they had eastern Europe as a buffer. Now much of eastern Europe is fully armed NATO. We sort of violated the spirit of not going further east with NATO, but if they hadn't been such dicks to their "allies", they might still be allies, and the governments by and large wanted in NATO. 

Back in the day the ground based cruise missiles for the USA were largely a bargaining chip. The bulk of the USA cruise missile capability is sea or air launched.  So we can deploy them just about anywhere, just reflashing the memory for guidance and targeting. And another factor that gets overlooked. Most of NATO didn't want them on their soil. Ground based systems are high priority targets. I don't think Germany allowed them on their soil, viewing them as targets on their country and increasing the odds of going nuke. Same thing killed the neutron bomb.The US ground based cruise missiles were in England, I think Molesworth and Alconbury. The Russian air and sea launched cruise missile capability is much, much, less than ours.

[JR EWING + 123]

7 hours ago, TXPower said:

INF was weak and disadvantaged the US from the get-go, we knew this.  It hasn’t been effective for some time.  Thanks to the “Hope and Change” President, Russia capitalized.  This is of course to say nothing of the fact that China, a very real and emerging threat, was not bound by it.  Time for something new and effective.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/leaving-inf-treaty-right-policy-counter-russian-cheating/

INF treaty had very little to do with US security and everything to do with Europeans, and this effort by the US to force a higher contribution and tighter adherence to NATO is all this is about + China. The US was not threatened by low to intermediate range missiles that in any even the Russian are capable of launching from sea without violating any treaty. This is about China and a scape goat and of course the absolute necessity of putting the Europeans in a box wrt what will happen when Russia start deploying these new missiles on Europe's door step, of course after the US starts same. Which is now as the US are deploying missiles to Poland as we speak, so Russia wont miss an opportunity to place a wall of missiles pointed at every European capital. Thanks America, a true friend and ally of Europe.  

[Sukumar Ray + 52]

Both Russia and US have leveled allegations against each other for violating the treaty in recent  past. At current geopolitical situation , the treaty seems outdated and needs to be redefined to counter China's aggression. At current obligations to the treaty , its compliance by US will not allow it to counter China who has been aggressively planting its missiles all over Asia and emerging as the biggest bully in the region . It's a real threat to the stability in the region and USA must end the INF treaty to come out with a new treaty forcing China and Russia to come under similar treaty .

[JR EWING + 123]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If you have some link I would be happy to consider it. I have read many times that Russia broke the treaty, We may have rightly followed. The first to break it was responsible IMO. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/russia-inf-nuclear-treaty-aegis/

hadn't planned to get into this discussion but I will try find the link to the article which I think was in the observer about the Russian claims going back to the early 2000,s. here is a more recent argument about the aegis.

 

[JR EWING + 123]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If you have some link I would be happy to consider it. I have read many times that Russia broke the treaty, We may have rightly followed. The first to break it was responsible IMO. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

[TXPower + 643]

7 hours ago, JR EWING said:

INF treaty had very little to do with US security and everything to do with Europeans, and this effort by the US to force a higher contribution and tighter adherence to NATO is all this is about + China. The US was not threatened by low to intermediate range missiles that in any even the Russian are capable of launching from sea without violating any treaty. This is about China and a scape goat and of course the absolute necessity of putting the Europeans in a box wrt what will happen when Russia start deploying these new missiles on Europe's door step, of course after the US starts same. Which is now as the US are deploying missiles to Poland as we speak, so Russia wont miss an opportunity to place a wall of missiles pointed at every European capital. Thanks America, a true friend and ally of Europe.  

NATO Security is US Security.

Edited February 4, 2019 by TXPower
Spelling

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 2/2/2019 at 4:35 AM, ronwagn said:

We would be fools to continue to allow Russia to get away with breaking the treaty while we follow it.

Yes, that is a consideration.  However, if that were the only consideration then it would make clear sense to renegotiate and/or retaliate.  My point is that the time has come for the United States to fight fire with fire and counter the China threat; and the only way to do that is to step away from this treaty and focus on the China threat first.  Russia's infractions (to use a term lightly!) give the U.S. a good excuse to do so.  It also allows Europe to come to terms with the very real threat they face to their north/northeast.  After a period of readjustment, the administration can go back to the negotiating table with the Russians.

[entertenter + 24]

This is no cold war. Russia is twice as smaller than USSR. With much less scientific and economic potential, depending on selling oil, gas and other resources. It is rather like a big North-Korea. Unpredictable, unreliable, agressive. There is no big point why we should trust Russia after breaking so many treaties and rules, lieing and conducting hybrid war, publicly poisoning citizens of another country. How can we be sure, that a new treaty is not going to be broken very soon?

Edited February 5, 2019 by entertenter

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

"speak softly and carry a big stick"

- Theodore Roosevelt

It seems to me the softest speaker is China. Hmm...