Posted on 09/25/2016 7:33:54 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine
NATO continues to expand its missile potential in Europe and Moscow is concerned over the deployment of NATO infrastructure near its borders, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated.
“NATO members are continuing to expand their anti-missile capability in Europe in the framework of the so-called ‘phased adaptive approach.’ We have repeatedly expressed concern over the placement of elements of strategic infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of our borders, which directly affects our interests in the field of security,” he said at a session of the Russian Public Council on International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy in the Public Chamber.
Ryabkov added that the US’ plans to place new nuclear bombs with increased accuracy in Europe cause serious concern. According to Ryabkov, “this might indicate an intention to use them against military targets, including populated areas during specific military scenarios.”
In the deputy foreign minister’s words, the US’ creation of the European segment of its “missile defense system” is a factor for destabilization “insofar as, at once point, the so-called ‘European missile defense system’ could began to negatively effect the effectiveness of our strategic deterrence.”
“If this line is crossed and the US and NATO continue to expand their missile shield, then we consider this a symptomatic, demonstrative reluctance on the part of Washington and Brussels to adjust their missile defense plans despite the agreements on settling the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program,” the deputy foreign minister asserted.
He remarked that Moscow “will continue to closely monitor the situation and carry on solid work with the Europeans to demonstrate to them the inevitably undesirable consequences of this American project’s realization.”
Uh, not so. Russia is propping-up the Assad regime. It doesn’t care who is in the way.
Except U.S. national security is probably the very last thing obola is concerned about; so, why is he doing this now?
We have a translated RIA Novosti article (if no one knows who RIA is, just think, Kremlin). And we have anyone who finds objection to it labeled a "warmonger." On a conservative website, no less. The world turns.
The article seems to indicate this is an expansion of the missile capability, not replacing
I honestly think this came up on normal review. It was time to rotate the weapons.
In recent years our nukes have come under some question about just how operational they were.
This sort of thing needs to happen so that our deterrence remains operational.
Obama may not have even been in the loop on this. Sure he’ll get the blame by those who want us weak, but did he consciously make this decision, or was it merely time for our weapons to be swapped out?
Russia is playing it up just like the U.S.S.R. did in the 80s. And now some folks are objecting just like the Democrats and some Leftist did in the 80s.
Agreed. Putin has his fans.
The guy invades his neighbors who had no plan whatsoever to invade his nation, and he’s the good guy to them.
Yikes.
“Putin is fighting ISIS, so he wants good for America.”
No.
The United States and the Russians are still locked into the dynamic that Kennan write about in the Long Telegram.
Russians interests are not the same as ours and our interests are not the same as the Russians.
Virgil, I would be very very careful what you buy into with these reports. We’re talking about Leftist media doing what Leftist media does.
The U.S. is always the provocateur with them.
If you’ll go to the site and check out where the actually missiles are on the map, you’ll note that we are not setting them up on Russia’s border.
We’re talking France, Germany, and a few other places removed from Russia’s borders.
These were the same places we had nukes before.
I think this is over the top hype.
>Russians interests are not the same as ours and our interests are not the same as the Russians.
I think the problem here is our interests are the not same as the interests of the elites who are running the country. I fully support Russia’s effort to help the Syrian government reestablish control of Syria if for no other reason than the Syrian government protects their Christian minority.
You would defend Moscow, as there would be no need to defend the ICBM bases, as their missiles would have been fired.
Also, Moscow had an extensive railroad system running underground to evacuate the Sov leadership.
Doesn’t the Russian ABM use nukes, and depend on airbursts to destroy incoming warheads?
Remember reading something about it somewhere....but it could be outdated or could be science fiction. Was a long time ago.
Seems their ABM system would end up doing the work for the incoming warheads anyway if true...
The anti missile launchers could easily be switched over to an offensive capability.
Oh, yeah? What would they launch, candy?
Perhaps to get all the Russian diabetics into seizures? I suppose.
No, the actual launchers can be fitted with nuke warheads and be used for an offensive strike instead of being solely defensive in nature.
What missiles, specifically? Because you can’t just wave a magic wand and outfit an ABM launcher to launch strategic missiles. All sorts of logistics involved.
Can’t give specifics but I remember reading a Russian rebuttal to the deployments in Europe stating that they could be converted to an offensive capability without much effort. It was pretty recent, probably around the time of the latest deployments.
I was a nuke....but propulsion related. Not asplosion related.
Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, with duck and cover and all that. It seemed much more real of a threat back then. I can’t imagine anyone pulling the big trigger at this point.
True.
Also, Moscow had an extensive railroad system running underground to evacuate the Sov leadership.
Also true. The Metro-2 (or would that be the alt-Metro in current usage?). A parallel Moscow subway system with stops at the Kremlin, the KGB, and, most important, Khodynka Airport, right by the Aquarium (GRU HQ).
But the premise was that Moscow strikes first. In that scenario, there is no reason to depend on the Metro-2, nor upon an ABM system ringing Moscow.
It is really simple. You order the strike from somewhere else. And you have a backup in Argentina, should the war go south (which it will) (and never mind, Argentina is south, but you know what I mean).
So what if he is propping up Assad? How does ‘regime change’ by proxy make us right?
Doing what actually ? Go check the source. Russians set up dozens of “news websites” in English that (together with a chain of “well informed bloggers”) spread disinformation.
Russia never invades, they only defend and liberate, while in case of others, the sole fact that they “dare” to have an army is very provocative and Russophobic. If you don't agree with that, you are a “warmonger” and “all for WW3”, the whole crowd of useful idiots will tell you that, even here.
They went so far with it that even Obama the wuss is being presented as some sort of “hawkish warmonger”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.