Russian official: Another nuclear pact with US in trouble

[TU Curmudgeon]

From ABC News

Russian official: Another nuclear pact with US in trouble
​

Another U.S.-Russian nuclear pact is in danger following the U.S. move to withdraw from a Cold War-era arms control treaty, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov charged that the U.S. refusal to negotiate an extension to the New Start treaty signals Washington's intention to let it expire in 2021. He warned that time is running out to save the pact, which was signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Ryabkov said that the U.S. has shown "no readiness or desire" to engage in substantive talks on extending the pact, which limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson argued in Wednesday's phone call with reporters that there is enough time to discuss the treaty's extension.

"We have until 2021," Thompson said. "It is a relatively simple treaty to extend, so we have time with that."

COMMENT:-

If the Russians want the treaty extended and are willing to extend it now, why wait to start talking about extending the treaty.

Unless, of course, the US government doesn't want the treaty to be extended.
​

 

[jmotivator]

From ABC News

Russian official: Another nuclear pact with US in trouble
​

Another U.S.-Russian nuclear pact is in danger following the U.S. move to withdraw from a Cold War-era arms control treaty, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov charged that the U.S. refusal to negotiate an extension to the New Start treaty signals Washington's intention to let it expire in 2021. He warned that time is running out to save the pact, which was signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Ryabkov said that the U.S. has shown "no readiness or desire" to engage in substantive talks on extending the pact, which limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson argued in Wednesday's phone call with reporters that there is enough time to discuss the treaty's extension.

"We have until 2021," Thompson said. "It is a relatively simple treaty to extend, so we have time with that."

COMMENT:-

If the Russians want the treaty extended and are willing to extend it now, why wait to start talking about extending the treaty.

Unless, of course, the US government doesn't want the treaty to be extended.
​

If the Russians are in material breech then what sense does an extension make?

 

[JustHanging]

If the Russians are in material breech then what sense does an extension make?

Good point.

And now is the time for them to do it. With their boy Trump in the Oval Office, Putin can do what he wants. Trump will huff and puff in public, his base will go crazy applauding him, and then he will end up doing nothing but watching tv and stuffing his face with junk food, just like he always does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If the Russians are in material breech then what sense does an extension make?

Actually no one is alleging that the Russians ARE "in material breach".

The allegation that the Russians are "in material breach" is in respect of the INF and the US government has rejected the Russian's offer to allow them to examine the missiles that the US government has alleged have caused the "material breach".

 

[jmotivator]

Actually no one is alleging that the Russians ARE "in material breach".

The allegation that the Russians are "in material breach" is in respect of the INF and the US government has rejected the Russian's offer to allow them to examine the missiles that the US government has alleged have caused the "material breach".

Clearly you are a Russian bot who is in Putin's pocket. :2razz:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Clearly you are a Russian bot who is in Putin's pocket. :2razz:

Oh sure.

I'm sorry that you don't like having the light of day shone upon you.

The fact is that NO ONE is alleging that the Russians are "in substantial breach" of SALT.

The fact is that the US government is alleging that the Russians are "in substantial breach" of the INF.

The fact is that the Russians have offered to make the missiles that the US government alleges are "in substantial breach" of the INF available for inspection and testing by the US government.

The fact is that the US government has stated that it will not accept the Russian offer to make the missiles that the US government alleges are "in substantial breach" of the INF available for inspection and testing by the US government.

How many times must one pound a steak into the heart of the matter?

 

[jmotivator]

Oh sure.

I'm sorry that you don't like having the light of day shone upon you.

The fact is that NO ONE is alleging that the Russians are "in substantial breach" of SALT.

The fact is that the US government is alleging that the Russians are "in substantial breach" of the INF.

The fact is that the Russians have offered to make the missiles that the US government alleges are "in substantial breach" of the INF available for inspection and testing by the US government.

The fact is that the US government has stated that it will not accept the Russian offer to make the missiles that the US government alleges are "in substantial breach" of the INF available for inspection and testing by the US government.

How many times must one pound a steak into the heart of the matter?

I find t funny how on the same forum I can have people of roughly the same ideology attacking me for being a Putin Stooge AND for being too harsh on Russia.... :roll:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I find t funny how on the same forum I can have people of roughly the same ideology attacking me for being a Putin Stooge AND for being too harsh on Russia.... :roll:

You are in roughly the same position as I was when "The Whacko Left" was prone to describe me as a "Raving Fascist" and "The Whacko Right" was prone to describe me as a "Raving Commie".

In other words, you've got it more right than wrong more often than not.

 

[apdst]

Good point.

And now is the time for them to do it. With their boy Trump in the Oval Office, Putin can do what he wants. Trump will huff and puff in public, his base will go crazy applauding him, and then he will end up doing nothing but watching tv and stuffing his face with junk food, just like he always does.

If President Trump was "their boy", he would leave the treaty in place and ignore it when the Russians break bad.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If President Trump was "their boy", he would leave the treaty in place and ignore it when the Russians break bad.

There is also the possibility that Mr. Trump doesn't want the US to continue to comply with the treaty and, rather than simply breaking the treaty and lying about it, has decided that you cannot be in "non-compliance" with a treaty that you are no longer a party to.

Since Mr. Trump has already taken the position that the US doesn't have a sufficiency of nuclear weapons and wants to build more, that possibility appears to be the more likely one.

 

[Godric1970]

If the Russians are in material breech then what sense does an extension make?

i'll think you'll find the US are in material breach of the INF with their onshore Ageis system in Romania it uses the same MK 41 VLS as the naval version that can launch Tomahawk missiles and the US has tested the on shore version firing Tomahawks missiles

America refused to even visit when the Russians gave evidence of their so called INF busting missile .... we have heard the real reasons why America wants to pull out .... because INF does not include China

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

i'll think you'll find the US are in material breach of the INF with their onshore Ageis system in Romania it uses the same MK 41 VLS as the naval version that can launch Tomahawk missiles and the US has tested the on shore version firing Tomahawks missiles

America refused to even visit when the Russians gave evidence of their so called INF busting missile .... we have heard the real reasons why America wants to pull out .... because INF does not include China

Strangely enough, the only one of America, China, and Russia that has formally committed to a "No First Use" policy is China.

Now I will agree that the simple fact that China has said that it is formally committed to a "No First Use" policy is no guarantee that it wouldn't do just that, but it is a lot closer to it than "We are keeping all options, including "First Use", on the table." (essentially the American position) or "We'd have to be a whole lot stupider than you think we are to resort to "First Use"." (essentially the Russian position) is.

 

[Moderate Right]

From ABC News

Russian official: Another nuclear pact with US in trouble
​

Another U.S.-Russian nuclear pact is in danger following the U.S. move to withdraw from a Cold War-era arms control treaty, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov charged that the U.S. refusal to negotiate an extension to the New Start treaty signals Washington's intention to let it expire in 2021. He warned that time is running out to save the pact, which was signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Ryabkov said that the U.S. has shown "no readiness or desire" to engage in substantive talks on extending the pact, which limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson argued in Wednesday's phone call with reporters that there is enough time to discuss the treaty's extension.

"We have until 2021," Thompson said. "It is a relatively simple treaty to extend, so we have time with that."

COMMENT:-

If the Russians want the treaty extended and are willing to extend it now, why wait to start talking about extending the treaty.

Unless, of course, the US government doesn't want the treaty to be extended.
​

What would be the purpose of having talks with a country that we already know won't honor the other one?

 

[Godric1970]

What would be the purpose of having talks with a country that we already know won't honor the other one?

exactly why would any country hold talks with America when they just tear it up a couple of years later ... signing a deal/treaty with America when it's not worth the paper it's written on

 

[jmotivator]

i'll think you'll find the US are in material breach of the INF with their onshore Ageis system in Romania it uses the same MK 41 VLS as the naval version that can launch Tomahawk missiles and the US has tested the on shore version firing Tomahawks missiles

America refused to even visit when the Russians gave evidence of their so called INF busting missile .... we have heard the real reasons why America wants to pull out .... because INF does not include China

Wrong. INF is about deployment of missile types not missiles in general. An SM-3 is not a Tomahawk.

US refutation.

"The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System does not have an offensive ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile capability. Specifically, the system lacks the software, fire control hardware, support equipment, and other infrastructure needed to launch offensive ballistic or cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk. Moreover, the defensive nature of the Aegis Ashore sites is documented in U.S. basing agreements with the host nations of Romania and Poland."

Russia's intelligence would need to provide evidence that any of that actually exists beyond their membrane-thin equivalency argument.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What would be the purpose of having talks with a country that we already know won't honor the other one?

You have been TOLD (by people who have not examined the missile system they are talking about, and who have refused to examine the missile system they are talking about) that that missile system breaches the terms of the treaty.

Does the missile system breach the terms of the treaty?

Right now I don't know, but I'd take the word of someone who has actually examined the missile system over the word of someone who has not examined (and refuses to examine) the missile system - wouldn't you?

Do you find it rather strange that, whenever "the experts" say something that __[fill in the blank]__ wants to hear "the experts" are 100% accurate and reliable (as far as __[fill in the blank]__ is concerned) but whenever "the experts" say something that __[fill in the blank]__ DOES NOT want to hear "the experts" are totally unreliable?

I do.

 

[Deuce]

If President Trump was "their boy", he would leave the treaty in place and ignore it when the Russians break bad.

Nah, the military-industrial complex benefits from an arms race in both nations.

 

[Grand Mal]

What would be the purpose of having talks with a country that we already know won't honor the other one?

Pretty much the position anyone who enters trade negotiations with the US is in.

 

[Moderate Right]

You have been TOLD (by people who have not examined the missile system they are talking about, and who have refused to examine the missile system they are talking about) that that missile system breaches the terms of the treaty.

Does the missile system breach the terms of the treaty?

Right now I don't know, but I'd take the word of someone who has actually examined the missile system over the word of someone who has not examined (and refuses to examine) the missile system - wouldn't you?

Do you find it rather strange that, whenever "the experts" say something that __[fill in the blank]__ wants to hear "the experts" are 100% accurate and reliable (as far as __[fill in the blank]__ is concerned) but whenever "the experts" say something that __[fill in the blank]__ DOES NOT want to hear "the experts" are totally unreliable?

I do.

Pretty much everyone in Europe with knowledge of this agrees with the US.

 

[Moderate Right]

Pretty much the position anyone who enters trade negotiations with the US is in.

Russia has been violating the agreement since before Trump took office.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Pretty much everyone in Europe with knowledge of this agrees with the US.

And, they too, have not examined the missile system - right?

 

[pamak]

What would be the purpose of having talks with a country that we already know won't honor the other one?

Things are more complicated than "Russians bad," "US good."

Even if we accept that the Russians violated the treaty, I said in a different thread that the withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty is the root of such Russian action. As a cold war kid, I do recall the arguments in the 1980's that an attempt to build a missile defense (SDI program was called at the time) would trigger an attempt by the adversary (Soviet Union then) to retain his nuclear deterrence by taking measures to improve his missile capability and ensure that he can still penetrate the US missile defense. So, while trying to defend yourself has good intentions, it does not change the fact that good intentions may bring unintentional consequences and a new arms race.

When the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001 and the US started making agreements with countries near the Russian border for the installment of anti-ballistic missile defense radars, it was expected that Russia would not remain inactive

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake - The New York Times

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake

DEC. 13, 2001


In a move that reflected what he said was "a vastly different world," President Bush formally announced today that the United States was withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Things are more complicated than "Russians bad," "US good."

Even if we accept that the Russians violated the treaty, I said in a different thread that the withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty is the root of such Russian action. As a cold war kid, I do recall the arguments in the 1980's that an attempt to build a missile defense (SDI program was called at the time) would trigger an attempt by the adversary (Soviet Union then) to retain his nuclear deterrence by taking measures to improve his missile capability and ensure that he can still penetrate the US missile defense. So, while trying to defend yourself has good intentions, it does not change the fact that good intentions may bring unintentional consequences and a new arms race.

When the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001 and the US started making agreements with countries near the Russian border for the installment of anti-ballistic missile defense radars, it was expected that Russia would not remain inactive

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake - The New York Times

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake

DEC. 13, 2001


In a move that reflected what he said was "a vastly different world," President Bush formally announced today that the United States was withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972

"Who knew that international affairs could be so complicated."?