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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


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: 1611
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