Posted on 03/08/2017 12:39:26 PM PST by elhombrelibre
WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. general on Wednesday accused Russia of deploying a land-based cruise missile in violation of "the spirit and intent" of a nuclear arms treaty and charged that Moscow's intention is to threaten U.S. facilities in Europe and the NATO alliance.
"We believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility," Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...
As much as I dislike Russia, I don’t see how a treaty made with a different and defunct country (the U.S.S.R) applies to them now.
Ping
Since these missiles are aimed at the former Europe, this actually IS a Muslim Ban.
Right. And they’re not keeping the Minsk Agreement either. So old treaties and new agreements just don’t apply to them. It’s nice to be able to be situational in our ethics. It’s kind of like Liberal ethics.
Who can blame them with the way the democrat party and their media are behaving...we are threatening them...
Yeah, so their proper response is to point nuclear cruise missiles at NATO. Good point. They’re so threatened that they should actually shoot some at the USA, I suppose, to prove they’re the good guys.
The article fails as a complete report.
While the report uses the term “return to compliance” with the 1987 treaty, now, and cited as hoped by the previous administration, it fails to disclose if any separate Russian government had agreed to, or was previously complying with the agreement.
It presents no time frame as to when compliance with the 1987 treaty ceased on the part of Russia. Is it that there was compliance, for some time after 1987, but it ended, on the part of subsequent Russian government later? When? Why else would the operative phrase be “return to compliance” with the treaty?
Has there been any subsequent U.S.-Russia agreements that pledged to honor the 1987 agreement made with the Soviets? That too you would think a complete report would either mention or mention it never happened.
You apparently don't know very much about Putin. The guy has been in the process of restoring the evil empire for over a decade now. Only this time it will include positions in the strategic oil/gas-rich Middle East. The Russians are pretty good chess players, while most of us, it seems, suck at simple checkers.
Thanks for the ping.
Here is the legal problem.
When someone tells you a certain act or omission violates the “the spirit and intent” of any agreement, that means the other side didn’t violate the written agreement, which usually means the other side outsmarted you in the original negotiation.
gee gomer
da ya thank its in response to OUR MISSLE DEPLOYMENT,,,,?????
DUH
I agree with you, sort of....
The current government are the successor government who assumed all of the liabilities of the previous as a condition of taking control of the armed forces.
Not communist though, as religious freedom - at least within Christian orthodoxy - has been allowed to flourish.
I’m fair at openings, but usually lose into the middle game.
In other words, it doesn't really violate the agreement. That's why the actual words on paper matter.
Does that mean we wouldn't be violating the treaty if we deployed Pershing and Cruise in Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary? Lots of old mines in the Carpathians to stash missiles in.
It would depend on the interpretation of the wording of the treaty.... in English, and in Russian, and after about 10,000 billable hours of Senior Partner time, you would have an answer.... probably..... er, possibly.
Anyone find odd that sea based cruise missiles are allowed but not land based ones?
It is called the Flexible.
Good point. We deploy anti-ballistic missiles to strike incoming missiles from rogue states like Iran, and Russia deploys cruise (potentially nuclear) missiles to the area around Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. And Putin sure appreciates you seeing things his way. Good for you.
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.