Whatever you want or need, Vlad, just ask:
(I'm with you all the way)
View of Trump's one-man rule — the more the merrier
(For Trump and his BFF Vlad Putin)
More on this INF Nuke Treaty story. This update offers a bit more clarity from Putin from Reuters here and below in part:
President Vladimir Putin warned today (Monday,
August 5, 2019) a bit more clarity on this issue saying that “Russia would be
forced to start developing short and intermediate-range land-based nuclear
missiles if
the United States started doing so” after the demise of a landmark INF
nuclear arms control treaty.
Trump formally left the treaty with
Russia after determining that Moscow was violating the treaty, an
accusation that the Kremlin has denied.
Previous update from Putin on this story: His short statement here
from AFP news (via MSN):
President Vladimir Putin on Monday said Russia would be forced to
develop new missiles if the U.S. does the same, after Washington (Trump) pulled
out of a Cold War-era INF nuclear arms treaty. His precise statement: “Russia will be forced to begin the
full-scale development of similar missiles if it receives information the
United States has completed new systems.”
The
Kremlin from Reuters (via MSN) said Russia would be forced to respond
in kind if the United States began developing new missiles after quitting a
landmark Cold War-era treaty.
Trump said Washington would
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF) because
Russia was violating the pact, triggering a warning of retaliatory measures
from Moscow. That treaty, was signed by then-President Reagan and former USSR
leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.
It required the elimination
of short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles by both
countries. Its demise would raise the possibility of a spiraling arms race.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters that the U.S. move would make the world a more
dangerous place and said Russia would be forced to act to restore the balance
of military power if Washington quit the pact and started developing new
missiles.
Peskov also said: “This is a question of
strategic security. Such measures can make the world more dangerous. It means
that the United States is not disguising, but is openly starting to develop
these systems in the future, and if these systems are being developed, then
actions are necessary from other countries, in this case Russia, to restore
balance in this sphere. Putin had repeatedly said that the demise of the
treaty would force Russia to take specific steps to protect its own security.”
Peskov added that
Trump's decision to quit the pact would obviously be a subject for discussion
and that Moscow was looking for a detailed explanation for why Washington had
decided to turn its back on the treaty.
Peskov also denied U.S. accusations
that Russia had breached the treaty and he alleged that the United States had
been steadily undermining it concluding saying: “Putin has said many times
said the United States de facto is taking measures that are eroding the
conditions of this treaty.”
(e.g., referring
to strike drones and anti-missile systems capable of destroying short- and
intermediate-range rockets).
He noted that there is a
six-month period for the United States to withdraw from the treaty after
Washington gave official notification it was leaving noted but it had not so
yet done. He implied that meant the question of Russia developing its own new
intermediate-range missiles that Washington already accuses it of doing “was
not for today or tomorrow.” He then said that President
Putin had repeatedly said that the demise of the treaty would force Russia to
take specific steps to protect its own security.
So, this is how Trump deals: He causes a mess or scandal and blames everyone
around him just not himself for the mess of his decision hoping they fix it and
then he takes full bragging rights and credit.
First of several updates on this
story follows: It seems that some GOP members of Congress are finally
waking up to Trump’s crazy-ass decisions regarding nuclear weapons.
This update with this headline comes from
The Washington Post (via MSN):
Key part of article from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) – then
retiring from the Senate said: “I hope we’re not moving down the path to
undo much of the nuclear arms control treaties that we have put in place. I
have heard that Trump wanted to pull out of not only the INF, but also from the
new START treaty. I think that would be a huge mistake.”
The original post on all this
comes
from this story (at TPM) and from the
Guardian.
This action by him also
beyond any doubt show that Trump does not seem to know or care that this “deal
breaking” is a Putin a long sought-after strategy that will enable him to once
again crank up his nuclear forces full force, and Trump gives him a “legal” way
out by playing right into his hands. This is very serious development folks,
and on many levels.
Key points and Trump’s weak excuse from the Guardian
and I felt that John Bolton, who hates nuclear deals and loves as much war as
possible, was behind all this:
1. Trump has
confirmed the U.S. will leave an arms control treaty with Russia dating
from the cold war that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three
decades.
2. Trump told reporters
following his recent Nevada rally: “We’ll have to develop those weapons.
We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.” (Thus
build more nukes not work to have less?)
Trump was referring to the
1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), which banned ground-launch
nuclear missiles with ranges from 500km to 5,500km, which was signed by former
president Ronald Reagan and for Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev.
That led to nearly 2,700
short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated, and an end to a dangerous
standoff between U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles and Soviet SS-20 missiles
in Europe. (Now, under Trump it’s “Back
to the Future”).
The Guardian reported and as I suspected, John Bolton, Trump’s
third national security adviser and a longstanding opponent of arms control
treaties, was pushing for this withdrawal.
The U.S, says Russia has been
violating the INF agreement with the development and deployment of a new
cruise missile – well this makes it official – have at it Vlad – the door
is now open, yours truly: Donald J. Trump.
Then add this from
The AP via MSN here and this related from Plough Shares here: “A new nuclear arms race brewing???”
(My short answer: Yep).
The agreement has constrained
the U.S. from developing new weapons, but America will begin developing them
unless Russia and China agree not to possess or develop the weapons, Trump
said.
(Note to Mr. Trump: China is not currently party to
the INF pact).
Trump added: “We'll have to develop those
weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to
us and say let's really get smart and let's none of us develop those weapons,
but if Russia's doing it and if China's doing it, and we're adhering to the
agreement, that's unacceptable.”
NSC Adviser John Bolton headed to Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. His first stop is Moscow
to meet with senior Russian officials at a time when Moscow-Washington
relations remain frosty over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria and
allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential race and upcoming U.S.
midterm elections.
There was no immediate
comment from the Kremlin or the Russian Foreign Ministry on Trump's
announcement, but Dmitry Oreshkin, an independent Russian political analyst
says (and this is part that should wake
up everyone to Trump’s mentality – he is causing all this mess and turmoil and that’s
my main point):
“We are slowly slipping back to the situation of cold war as it was at
the end of the Soviet Union, with quite similar consequences, but now it could
be worse because Putin belongs to a generation that had no war under its belt.
These people aren't as much fearful of a war as people of Brezhnev's epoch.
They think if they threaten the West properly, it gets scared.”
Under the terms of the
treaty, it would take six months for US withdrawal to take effect. So, what
will this Congress do? GOP: not much and DEMS: no can do.
More up-to-date: Article
mankind failed itself today (from RTE News Ireland).
The INF treaty is kaput,
dead, finis, no more. And Trump and GOP sit on their hands – why?
(FYI: Related INF fact sheet
is here from Arms Control Association).
Background: Early
in 2019, Moscow has announced the formal end of a major Cold War-era nuclear
arms deal, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF) after
Trump promised to pull out of the treaty totally this year.
Historical Background: The original INF signed on December 8, 1987 by then President
Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev following their conference
agreement in Iceland. It basically limited the Cold War powers ability to develop
more medium-range missiles, both conventional and nuclear.
Russia's Deputy foreign
minister Sergei Ryabkov called on the U.S. to implement a moratorium on
deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles, but now that the deal is dead,
adding: “On August 2, 2019, at the
initiative of the US side, the treaty between the Soviet Union and the US on
the elimination of their medium-range and shorter-range missiles... was
terminated. We have suggested to the US and other NATO members to consider
announcing a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles. This moratorium
would be comparable to one already announced by Vladimir Putin, saying that if
the United States does not deploy this equipment in certain regions, then
Russia will also refrain from doing so.”
That 1987 agreement (now nearly
33 years ago) was not a total and full disarmament agreement, but it was
ratified by our Senate in a whopping 93-5 vote. Ever since Trump took office,
he along with John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have all pushed to cancel it.
That treaty eliminated an
entire class of nuclear weapons (over 2,600 nukes from both sides to date).It required
the parties to destroy all ground-launched missiles with ranges from 500 to
5,500 kilometers (from 300 to 3,500 miles approximately). The significance of
this achievement cannot be overstated. It created a foundation for arms control
that rolled back nuclear stockpiles that had threatened the globe.
Now in an all too familiar mess of garbled talking points mostly
citing Russia’s ongoing violation of the treaty, Trump stated his intention to
withdraw from the agreement and potentially build a new generation of the
missiles it prohibited and now it is a dead treaty.
The Russians were in violation of the INF Treaty, having produced, flight-tested, and deployed
the Novator 9M-729, a missile that is designed to travel within the restricted
range. It was a reckless move by the Russians and they still deny it. It
is also part of a larger pattern of the Russians fraying the edges of
international agreements to suit their needs.
The Obama administration tried
and failed to get Russia back into compliance, having been constrained by the
sensitive nature of the violation and Russia’s refusal to acknowledge the very
existence of the missile.
Russia in turn leveled its own charges about US
compliance with the INF Treaty. The charges do not
hold up to scrutiny, but they do represent obstacles to repairing the
treaty.
In a small step forward, the
Russians have stated that the 9M-729 exists, but say that the system does not
violate the INF Treaty. At least now, Washington and Moscow can deal in
concrete terms. Unfortunately only one formal strategic stability dialogue has
taken place between the countries since President Trump took office, hardly
demonstrating a deep-seated commitment to finding a solution.
Related from NATO: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
said he does not expect a nuclear buildup in Europe as tensions rise over U.S.
threats to pull out of the INF over Russia violating the pact. The United States insists
that Russia's 9M-729 missile system contravenes the 1987 Intermediate-range
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), and NATO allies agree that is probably the case.
Stoltenberg told Financial Times reporters: “The treaty is not working if it's only being
respected by one side. The problem, the threat, the challenge is the Russian
behavior, which has been ongoing for a long time.”
Despite concerns about the
Russian missile capabilities, Stoltenberg said he does not “foresee that allies
will deploy more nuclear weapons in Europe as a response to the new Russian
missile,” but he added that the 29 member countries of the world's biggest
military alliance are now assessing “the implications of the new Russian
missile for our security,”
then he
added: “We don't want a new Cold War. We don't want a new arms race.”
Tensions between NATO and
Russia soared in the 1980s during the so-called “Euro-missiles crisis” when the
U.S. deployed cruise missiles in Europe. That was to counterbalance a
perceived threat from Russia's SS-20 nuclear warheads.
The EU has urged both the
United States and Russia to uphold the INF treaty, saying the pact is one of
the cornerstones of European security. But Stoltenberg stopped short of calling
on Washington, the biggest and most influential NATO member, to stay in the
treaty concluding: “The INF is a landmark treaty but the problem is that no
treaty can be effective, can work, if it's only respected by one part. U.S. is
in full compliance, and the most plausible explanation is that Russia is in
violation of the treaty.”
Abandoning the INF Treaty
without exhausting any and all possible solutions is a dereliction of duty. The
most alarming part of President Trump’s comments was his suggestion that the
onus was on Russia and China to “come to us” if we are all to avoid a new
nuclear arms race and that we have “a tremendous amount of money to play with
our military.” The first statement abdicates historical US leadership on the
most dangerous threat facing this world.
The second is a
misunderstanding of our budget at best and an outright lie, at worst. We don’t
have the money to fund an arms race, nor do we need intermediate-range
ground-launched missiles to protect our vital interests. We also have air- and sea-launched
capabilities that have and will get the job done. It is also odd that President
Trump, who has spent so much time telling the world of his incomparable
negotiating skills, has failed to make any progress on this challenge.
Bolton’s 2011 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, complete
with a sexist opening line, called for the destruction of the treaty on grounds
unrelated to any compliance issues. Bolton has been present at the destruction
of other treaties and agreements, including the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the 1994 Agreed
Framework, and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action with Iran.
It is quite reasonable to believe that other
nuclear agreements, like the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, could be next and it is also kaput.
Even Gorbachev once said: “There are still too many nuclear weapons in
the world, but the American and Russian arsenals are now a fraction of what
they were during the Cold War. At the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review
Conference in 2015, Russia and the United States reported to the international
community that 85 percent of those arsenals had been decommissioned and, for
the most part, destroyed.”
My 2 cents on all this: A key fact remains about this and all other treaties
that Trump happens to like or dislike: The Senate as we all know ratifies
all formal treaties but presidents can break them or pull out of them without
any Congressional approval or disapproval – a crappy deal for sure and shows
the need for any president to be both logical and rational – two traits that
Donald J. Trump lacks.
If Trump was not part of any treaty, then he wants to get rid of it. That's the spoiled little boy part of him.
This is a very bad move on Trump’s part but it does play well in Moscow
with Putin as part of his grand new world-wide scheme – believe it. Trump is a dangerous clown along with Bolton who always advocates more,
not less U.S. actions around the globe.
I say that anything that reduces nukes
is a good deal. Now Trump reverses that premise with new partner it seems,
Vladimir Putin. We should all be very concerned.
Stay tuned … it’s apt to get very ugly very soon and with this
statement from Putin and Trump’s total lack of experience and crappy advisers
(like Bolton and Pompeo, et al) soon apparently is right in our collective
face.
Now we all have to wait and see what’s next – that is if anyone is left
to wait and see what’s next? People around Trump will always agree with him, prop him up, and fluff him up; either that or out the door in short order — that list is very long that proves my point.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment