[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Putin: Maybe we should start new arms-control talks
Source: HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr ... -start-new-arms-control-talks/
Published: Aug 5, 2019
Author: Ed Morissey
Post Date: 2019-08-06 04:53:55 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1383
Comments: 16

Will this new arms race end before it begins? Faced with the prospect of the US catching up to both Russia and China in land-based intermediate missile systems, Vladimir Putin called for new arms-limitation talks. After repeatedly abrogating the now-defunct INF treaty, the Russian strongman now wants to avoid “chaos”:
“If Russia obtains reliable information that the United States has finished developing these systems and started to produce them, Russia will have no option other than to engage in a full-scale effort to develop similar missiles,” Putin said in a statement.

In the meantime, he said Russia’s arsenal of air and sea-launched missiles combined with its work on developing hypersonic missiles meant it was well placed to offset any threat emanating from the United States.

It was now essential, he added, for Moscow and Washington to resume arms control talks to prevent what he described as an “unfettered” arms race breaking out.

“In order to avoid chaos with no rules, restrictions or laws, we need to once more weigh up all the dangerous consequences and launch a serious and meaningful dialogue free from any ambiguity,” Putin said.

Forget the threat to escalate an arms race. For one thing, Russia triggered the arms race by already producing such systems. While our NATO partners might not have been enthusiastic about trashing the INF treaty, they all recognized that Russia has been ignoring it for years and that the US didn’t have much choice. All the US did in withdrawing from the INF was to adopt the same restrictions in theory that Putin has put into practice, which is to say none at all.

For another, the Russian economy can’t afford another arms race, especially with oil and gas prices as low as they are. The US pre-empted that option by becoming the world’s biggest oil exporter, and Russia’s now struggling to keep chaos from breaking out at home. Unrest over economic and political woes keeps rising, and Putin’s regime has to take tougher and tougher steps to keep its subjects in line.

And when Putin read this cheerleading for mass production of previously banned systems in the New York Times, that had to get his attention:
For six years, American diplomats patiently tried to persuade the Russians to honor the agreement, but Russia ignored the United States and NATO allies while building and deploying more than 100 of the banned missiles. Even more worrisome, China, which was never part of the bilateral treaty and repeatedly declined to join it, started in the 1990s to assemble a huge missile force explicitly designed to counter American strengths. China now has thousands of missiles armed with conventional and nuclear warheads. These precise and deadly missiles are capable of attacking ships at sea and bases ashore, not only throughout the territory of America’s allies in Asia, but also far out at sea and on American territory in Alaska, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Lacking conventionally armed, ground-launched missiles with which to attack enemy forces, or sufficient defenses against China or Russia’s conventionally armed, ground-launched missiles, American forces routinely lose war game simulations involving China or Russia, and could lose a real war.

So the United States needs to acquire its own conventionally armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles. These missiles could provide considerable operational benefits for United States forces and pose challenges to adversaries. If operated from American territory and the territory of allies, these weapons could quickly attack enemy targets once they are detected. Moreover, by using these missiles to strike heavily defended targets and the systems that protect them, the risks to manned aircraft and ships could be reduced.

This new capability would make American forces more effective and could deter Chinese, Russian or other adversary leaders from aggressive actions. Lastly, by arming these missiles with only conventional warheads, the United States could reduce the possibility that enemy forces would confuse these weapons with nuclear ones and mitigate the concerns that led to the original I.N.F. Treaty. It could also provide the United States with an opportunity to negotiate a treaty with China, Russia and other countries that would ban nuclear-armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles.

The game has already changed, and changed quickly. Before Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo scotched the INF treaty on Friday, the official Putin line was that there wasn’t anything to discuss. Now, suddenly, Putin’s worried about “chaos” and “no restrictions.” That’s at least one step toward realigning the incentives.

Furthermore, it’s worth pointing out how this is being received by the other major signal-target of that withdrawal from the INF. The South China Morning Post, largely seen as the voice of official Beijing, saw Putin’s statement as a plea for new talks:
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday urged the United States to begin new arms talks after the collapse of a cold war nuclear pact between the two world powers. …

Russia “will not deploy them in relevant regions until American-made missiles are deployed there,” Putin said.

Unless there are new talks about strategic security, “this scenario means restarting an uncontrolled arms race,” he added.

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper said at the weekend that he would like to deploy the new intermediate-range missiles in Asia, but denied that this would spark an arms race as the weapons are not nuclear.

China has been developing similar systems all along as it was not a party to the INF treaty. The Trump administration wants China bound in any new compact, however, and it’s clear that the dispute has Beijing’s attention. A threat to deploy such systems in Asia will have Xi Jinping looking for containment of the US threat, and might lead him to put pressure on Putin to eliminate the 9M729 system that triggered the US withdrawal. That’s precisely the leverage the US sought, and it’s in everyone’s best interest to have Xi deploy it — even Putin’s.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Peace through strength. Like you basically said yesterday or the day before.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-06   8:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)

A little better details in this article.

We either need to rope Russia and China into a new treaty or re-arm ourselves.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-06   8:32:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)

We either need to rope Russia and China into a new treaty

What is the guarantee that Americans will keep their side of the treaty? They can say that Russians or Chines violated it, then quit and expect them to adhere to their obligations.

Why not?

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-06   9:19:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A Pole (#3)

What is the guarantee that Americans will keep their side of the treaty?

With Trump as President? The Democrats and the MSM.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-06   9:36:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A Pole, A K A Stone, misterwhite (#3)

What is the guarantee that Americans will keep their side of the treaty? They can say that Russians or Chines violated it, then quit and expect them to adhere to their obligations.

Do you ever miss an opportunity to bash America?

There are easy answers to your "questions" but those weren't actually questions.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-06   10:21:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative (#5) (Edited)

Do you ever miss an opportunity to bash America?

You disappoint me. It looks that your best arguments are personal attacks.

Yet the question remains. What guarantees can be put in place, so the other sides will be able to consider the treaty you think about? Perhaps you have some idea?

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-06   11:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A Pole (#6)

What guarantees can be put in place, so the other sides will be able to consider the treaty you think about? Perhaps you have some idea?

Certainly, we could reinstitute the previous verification protocols of the old INF treaty. No one complained that they didn't work well. Russia just wanted to build new missiles more than it wanted to stay compliant with the treaty. And 0bama did nothing to stand up to them on treaty cheating and they had no reason to believe that Hitlery was going to otherwise. They made the decision to build up these IRBMs back in 2014 and 2015.

The details on how Russia and America verify their nuclear treaty compliance is no secret. Go look it up.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-06   13:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Tooconservative (#7)

Certainly, we could reinstitute the previous verification protocols of the old INF treaty.

You did not understand my question. Oh, well ...

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-06   14:16:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A Pole (#8)

You did not understand my question.

What answer were you looking for?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-07   10:10:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

Post #3

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-07   10:30:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A Pole (#10)

Post #3

Post #3 is a question. I'm asking you what answer you're looking for.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-07   11:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#11) (Edited)

"Post #3 is a question. I'm asking you what answer you're looking for."

An answer to my question.

Are you drunk?

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-07   11:55:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A Pole (#12)

An answer to my question.

Tooconservative gave you "an" answer in his Post#7 which was unsatisfactory to you.

I'm asking you what answer you're looking for. For the umpteenth time.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-07   12:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#13) (Edited)

I'm asking you what answer you're looking for. For the umpteenth time.

OK, I will try to be patient and rephrase the question.

TC proposed "to rope Russia and China into a new treaty".

It requires that Russia and China will trust that later the USA will not revoke such treaty unilaterally. TC mentioned mutual inspections, but these can only verify that treaty is not violated, it does not prevent the withdrawal.

So I asked "what is the guarantee that Americans will keep their side of the treaty?"

Using an analogy to define the world, "guarantee" in a financial contract is a collateral. Inspections is the ability to monitor a given account, and that might be insufficient.

So the answer I was looking for was, "what such a collateral could be". In other words, what America could offer and do, to persuade Russia and China to be "roped". Negotiating big treaties and big contracts is complicating and subtle.

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-07   14:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A Pole (#14)

… it does not prevent the withdrawal.

Why would either side withdraw from a treaty that was accepted by both sides and is working?

What is your question? You're all over the place. First you ask how we "rope" Russia and China into a treaty, then you ask how America(?) will keep their side of the treaty, then you ask what's to prevent a withdrawal from the treaty.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-07   15:31:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15)

What is your question?

You are just trolling and boring. Go away, please.

A Pole  posted on  2019-08-07   15:41:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com