Neocons’ Strategery

Feb 25, 2023

Ukraine Russia War – What’s Next with Scott Ritter

Feb 25, 2023

US Hypersonic Missile Test Fails

June 30, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

Bloomberg reported that “An American hypersonic missile test flight ended in a failure in Hawaii on Wednesday.”

The US military department offered few details of what happened, stating only that “an anomaly occurred following ignition of the test asset.”

“While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman was quoted as saying by the news agency.

The botched test was part of the Conventional Prompt Strike [CPS] program, under which Lockheed Martin is trying to develop weapons capable of flying at speeds of Mach 5 and above, for the use of submarines and surface ships.

It suffered another setback in October 2021, when a booster rocket failed to deliver its hypersonic glide vehicle during a test at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska. The booster was not part of the weapon system, defense officials stressed at the time.

Despite the failure of both tests, the Pentagon said it remains confident that it is on track to field offensive hypersonic capabilities in the early 2020s.

The US has been struggling to keep up with China and Russia in the development of hypersonic weapons. There have been a number of successful tests under various American programs, but the country is yet to have a modern system in service.

The fog of war and the global paradigm shift

April 13, 2022

Source

By Fabio Reis Vianna

Perhaps the maxim of the Brazilian thinker José Luís Fiori that “expansionism and war are two essential parts of the machine that produces power and wealth in the interstate system” has never been so pertinent and seems to be confirmed at the exact historical moment we are witnessing.

The extraordinary events that resulted from the Russian intervention in Ukraine, which began on February 24, leave indelible marks and confirm some of the perceptions that have already been mentioned in other articles by us.

The western-led international order is clearly being questioned in its hierarchy of power, and the war in Ukraine is a clear symptom of this questioning.

What really causes astonishment, however, is the perception that this war aims at something much bigger than it might seem at first sight, because it would not be a regional war, but a war of global proportions: a hegemonic war.

The paradigm shift represented by the Russian intervention in Ukraine consolidates, therefore, the path of a new international system, more fragmented, and where Western power is weakened. In this scenario, the tectonic plates of the international system are slowly moving in the face of the new, and unprecedented, world that is unfolding.

Therefore, like it or not, the elites of countries like Brazil, so subservient to the security strategy of the United States, are being pushed towards a consensual solution in the direction of the Eurasian experience through the BRICS. In this way, the brazilian military, so reactionary and obedient to Washington, is facing a new world, apparently already understood by the diplomatic tradition of “Itamaraty”, and even by the powerful Brazilian agrobusiness lobby.

In the opposite direction, the blindness of the European elites causes astonishment by feeding a game that plunges Europe back into what it has always been: the great stage of military interstate competition of the last 500 years.

Therefore, taking this terrible premise into consideration, the armistice that made possible the creation of the European Union, as well as the common currency, would have been a mere interregnum of peace, until the next war.

Retaking its tragic place in the classical international system, Europe is once again the scene of the old theater of death, and the maxim that “peace is almost always a truce which lasts for the time imposed by the expansive compulsion of the winners, and the need for revenge of the losers,” has never been more apposite.

In this context, the german humiliation represented by the American veto of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline is paradigmatic. On February 7, in the middle of the White House, and even before the Russian intervention in Ukraine, Joe Biden publicly disavows the newly appointed german chancellor Olaf Scholz, stating categorically that the Nord Stream II pipeline would be stopped.

This attitude could be considered the trigger for Russian intervention and the opening of Pandora’s Box for the new world that is opening. Besides representing, in symbolic terms, the humiliation of Germany as a sovereign country, it consolidates the definitive “Coup d’Etat” in the European integration project.

With Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky being a kind of spokesman of a script written in Washington – or, who knows, Hollywood – the repeated attacks on European leaders who have worked so hard for the normalization of Russian-European Union relations, as is the case of the recent attack on former chancellor Angela Merkel, indicate that the instruments of fourth generation war, already used by the United States in other regions of the planet, are intensifying in the heart of the western alliance.

Not only the maintenance, but the deepening of the continuous and unlimited reproduction and expansion of the American military empire is a reality that became even clearer after the first Russian tank entered Ukrainian territory, even if this meant destabilizing, or even destroying, old and loyal allies.

In this sense, the old premise carried by many scholars of the “realist” school of International Relations, as well as by great thinkers of the World System, that the concentration of global power in a single state would be an essential condition for lasting world peace, falls to the ground.

The “Hyperpower Paradox” is confirmed as a slap in the face of the enormous theoretical consensus developed since the mid-1970s of the last century.

In other words, since the first minute of the US bombing of Iraq in 1991, which followed the 48 military interventions of the 1990s, and the 24 interventions in the first two decades of the 21st century – which in turn culminated in 100,000 bombings around the globe – the International System is immersed in a somber process of permanent, or infinite, war, which contradicts the Kantian utopia of perpetual peace reflected in the idea of hegemonic stability.

Thus, it was a mistake to consider that the unipolar global power that emerged with the victory in the cold war could exercise its hegemony in the name of peace and global stability, assuming, therefore, a responsible leadership and in the name of a great global governance.

On the contrary, what we have witnessed over the last 30 years is the escalation of interstate competition, with the reaction of other states to the insane and inconsequential process of power expansion carried out by the American military empire.

As a result, we find ourselves before a world that seemed to belong only to the history books; where the national interests of the great powers return with the force that, as it turns out, they never stopped having, but were only dormant.

This new (old) geopolitics of nations, therefore, leaves its clearest mark with what Russia imposes in its intervention in Ukraine: contesting the primacy that only westerners have the legitimacy to impose their will through war.

This is the novelty that shakes the structures of the International System.

In the face of this imminent war of global proportions, resulting from the Russian challenge and the intensification of the arms race – with the alarming return of Germany and Japan to the game – we are inexorably heading for a deepening of the interstate systemic chaos, as well as the escalation of systemic social conflict, particularly in Europe.

As in other moments in the history of the World System, Europe is once again the nerve center of the global power struggle. And as in other tragic moments in history, the behavior of European leaders is once again irrational; in the midst of a negative-sum game. The Europeans lose.

---

Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.

Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapons States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races

January 03, 2022

Source

The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons – for as long as they continue to exist – should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments. We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons. We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.

We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all. We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all. We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.

Russian Navy Does 1st Exercises in the Pacific Ocean Since Cold War (Ruslan Ostashko)

July 07, 2021

Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.

The Russian Navy organized training exercises in the center of the Pacific Ocean for the first time in recent history. On June 21, our Pacific Fleet deployed up to 20 vessels and the same amount of aircraft for the training. By the way, take note of the maneuvers’ date, on the eve of the Memory and Mourning Day when our people remember all those who perished as a result of the treacherous attack by the Western ‘partners’ on the USSR.

Russia has long made itself into a ship distributor, strenuously modernizing its navy and upsetting its geopolitical adversaries with that. Navy ships don’t get launched in order to rust at the pier, as is customary in the ‘independent’ Euro-Ukria. The Russian sailors keep training constantly in the near combat conditions, in order to be able to repel the aggressor, in case of an attack on our country, regardless of whether such an aggressor attacks from the de-facto occupied by the US European Union or from another Eastern direction.

Source: RIA News – “Combat vessels of the Pacific Fleet, together with the navy aircraft, are conducting naval exercises in the central part of the Pacific Ocean for the first time in recent history. The exercises take place in an area situated 2.5 thousand miles (approx. 4.6 thousand kilometers east of the Kuril Islands.”

As our fellow countrymen joke, 2.5 thousand miles east of the Kuril Islands is almost Hawaii. It is obvious that the ocean regions in question are those that the USA has been regarding for a long time as the exclusive zone of their interest. Now Russian missiles and aircraft are flying there. Naval vessels are also sailing over there.

Source: RIA News – “The exercises brought into play up to 20 surface vessels, submarines and support ships. The Flag Ship of the Pacific Fleet Missile Cruiser ‘Varyag’, the Frigate ‘Marshal Shaposhnikov’, the Corvettes ‘Aldar Tsydenzhapov’, ‘Sovershenny’ and ‘Gromky’, as well as a submarine are taking part. Additionally, the exercises involved a number of the Naval Aviation Tu-142M3 anti-submarine aircraft that undertook a 14-hour flight to the overall distance of 10,000 km. Overall 12 aircraft are involved in the exercises. Apart from the Tupolevs, these are Il-38 anti-submarine aircraft, MiG-31BM fighter-interceptors, an IL-78 refueling aircraft and deck helicopters Ka-27.”

The program for the training is also worth a note. Our Defence Ministry is not trying to conceal whom the sailors are training to sink.

Source: RIA News – “The vessels and aircraft have already worked through a few tasks, namely, destruction of an aircraft carrier strike group of a mock enemy, as well as a mock cruise missile strike on the enemy’s onshore targets.”

Which openly hostile towards Russian state cuts the waves of the Pacific Ocean with its aircraft carrier strike groups? There’s only one – the USA. Other aircraft carrier groups exist in possession of the British sworn ‘partner’s and of the French ones. But those don’t poke their heads into the Pacific Ocean. And we are not in conflict with the Chinese who build aircraft carriers at a higher rate. It is very significant that the training began on 21 June, on the eve of the most tragic date in our country’s history when we remember everyone who gave their lives in fight with Hitlerism. Now Hitlerism has been de facto rehabilitated in the territories of the independent limitrophe states that diligently serve the USA. The SS veterans march in the Baltic states. Recently in Kiev, the presidential guard regiment took part in a funeral service for an SS member.

“In the Ukraine, the former member of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the SS Division “Galicia” (both organizations illegal in Russia) Orest Vaskula was buried with presidential honors. This is not a figure of speech. The regiment of the presidential guard named under Bogdan Khmelnitsky took part in the ceremony.”

With the background of the blunt resurrection of Nazism under the patronage of the State Department, the exercises of the Pacific Fleet in the zone of American geopolitical interests hints, as it were, to the Washington hawks who lost the last sense of reality: Russia will not allow the tragedy of 22 June 1941 to be repeated. The means for that are available. Late in May, the media wrote about the alarm in the USA caused by a discovery of a foreign drone, presumably the Russian device ‘Poseidon’ capable of causing a tsunami by an underwater nuclear explosion and washing away the American coastal cities.

In a word, welcome into the multipolar world, America, who is used to moving its troops to the borders of others but who is not used to military exercises of other countries near her own border. Russia has returned to the great geopolitical game and continues increasing its weight. And the dollar printing press turned to max power is not helping the Americans to reduce their arrears in armament, despite the fact that their military spending is comparable to the Russian and Chinese spending combined.

Source: RIA FAN – “The combined defense spendings of Russia and China have increased the military budgets of the USA, stated the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. Senator Jim Inhofe cited this reason for the need of greater military spending in the United States. According to him, the buying power of currencies must be taken into account during drafting the budgets. As a result, it turns out that the CPR spends $604 billion dollars and Russia spends around $200 billion.”

Where is the limit of increase? The USA have already spent $780 billion dollars on defense in 2020. It didn’t help. The Americans still could not design a breakthrough weapon. While Russia did it. The hypersonic missiles can be deployed next time during the exercises somewhere near Hawaii. On which occasion I congratulate us all, dear fellow countrymen. The Pacific Ocean is ours.

A “Cruise Missile Revolution” Took Place in Russia

March 05, 2021

Source: Sonar 2050 – В России состоялась «крылатая революция» 

Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.

As it usually happens in Russia, the most important information passes unnoticed. This time too only specialists noted that Russia has achieved a truly revolutionary progress in the field of missile arms, which allows us to review our defeat in the technological race on one of the important fronts of the Cold War. Details to follow.

“The Result Is Impressive”

The March 1983 introduction of BGM-109 Tomahawk to the American arsenal marked the arrival of a new epoch. Although cruise missiles had existed since the mid 70s, the Tomahawk was first to ‘learn’ to fly at a then fantastic distance of 5,500 km and to carry a nuclear payload. The United States imposed a missile arms race on the Soviet Union and won it. Just 32 ‘Los Angeles’ nuclear submarines carried 384 ‘Tomahawks’, while the surface ships had another 3,600 missiles.

The USSR looked rather pale against this background. Our cruise missiles were mostly designed to attack surface vessels and were carried by the strategic bombers. Since such aircraft could carry only a limited amount of missiles and there were only 76 of them, we could launch no more than 600 cruise missiles at a time. Not many. But within the framework of the general war strategy this level was regarded as sufficient.

A victory in Europe was supposed to be achieved on dry land, where tanks and artillery decided the battle. As for the destruction of the enemy on the other side of the Atlantic, the intercontinental nuclear missiles were to do the job. However in the beginning of the 21st century, it became apparent that the world and the character of the battlefield have changed significantly. Cruise missiles became a necessity, and in 2011 the Russian military was given a task to increase the missile count 30 fold.

“The Breakthrough”

The development followed two directions: the perfection of the missiles and the diversification of their carriers. The first one lead to the creation of products Kh-55, Kh-101 and ZM-54 ‘Kalibr’. [Ed. – Usually called 3M-54. The Cyrillic letter ‘3’ is the Latin ‘Z’.] The second one considerably changed the types and the count of the carriers. Specifically, the TU-95MS16 is now capable of carrying 6 cruise missiles in its internal bay and 10 on the external consoles. However, since the overall number of strategic bombers is limited by international treaties, their share in the salvo has increased only marginally, to 768 missiles.

The situation is very different in the navy. While in 2010 it didn’t have vessels carrying cruise missiles, in 2014 the MRK ‘Dagestan’ with 8 ‘Kalibr’ missiles appeared in the Caspian Sea. Next another 5 ships like that were built. This was followed by the ‘Buyan-M’ and ‘Karakurt’, the new frigates like the Project 22350 and the deeply modernized ships like BPK ‘Marshal Shaposhnikov’. The submariners picked up the baton, having ‘calibrated’ all the ‘Varshavyankas’ and the ‘Ladas’, the ‘Antheuses’ and the ‘Shchukas’. Even the not so modern Project 877 ‘Paltus’ submarines, upon their modernization, receive 18 ‘Kalibrs’ each, which raised the size of the navy’s salvo to over 1000 cruise missiles.

This way in autumn of 2020, along with the ground forces ‘Iskander’ systems capable of carrying 2-4 cruise missiles, the overall Russian salvo already exceeds 2,350 missiles. Nominally it is still less than what is available to the USA. However, firstly, the combat effectiveness of the newest Russian missiles surpass by far that of the old American ‘Tomahawks’, and secondly, let us remember that back in 2010 the Russian salvo had only 600 missiles. So the progress in the course of 10 years is truly revolutionary. And who said that we want to stop there.

‘Mysterious’ Russian weapon is capable of defeating any US air attack: Soho

Source

By News Desk -2020-06-25

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:00 P.M.) – The Chinese newspaper, Soho, revealed a Russian weapon capable of repelling any American air attack on Russia.

According to the newspaper, Russia’s possession of the S-500 air defense system will lead to serious consequences for the United States, should the latter send strategic bombers to launch an attack on Russia.

The Chinese newspaper described the Russian weapon S-500 as the “real treasure” of the Russian army, noting that Moscow is able to help it build the strongest air defense system on the planet, due to the system’s ability to track and intercept all existing air targets and repel any American air attack, in the event of a dispute.

The newspaper added that the S-500 is the most mysterious system, due to the lack of information about it and its unknown characteristics.

It is noteworthy that the S-500 “Prometheus” air defense missile system belongs to a new generation of air defense (“surface-to-air” missile systems). It is a missile system with a large launch range and has the ability to intercept targets at high altitudes in addition to its increased ability to carry out tasks related to anti-missile defense and intercept ballistic missiles.

This promising system is capable of destroying not only ballistic targets, but also aerodynamic targets (aircraft, helicopters, and other air targets), as well as winged missiles.

According to previous reports, the radius of the S-500 system is about 600 km. In addition, this system will be able to simultaneously discover and destroy up to ten hypersonic ballistic targets flying at speeds of up to 7 kilometers per second, as well as being able to destroy the destructive warheads of hypersonic missiles.

In terms of its properties, the S-500 missile system will significantly outperform the S-400 air defense missile system and its advanced American rival, Patriot.

An interesting comparison of the US F-22 and the Russian MiG-31BSM

May 03, 2020 

Note by the Saker: I usually don’t like direct comparisons between weapons systems, mostly because I find them highly misleading and because their conclusions are totally dependent on the assumptions you make.  Furthermore, comparing the F-22 to the MiG-31 is really talking about apples and oranges.  However, sometimes, it *does* make sense to compare apples and oranges (depending on what you want to cook).  In this case, I see this video not so much as a direct comparison of aircraft as much as a (rather interesting and well made) comparison of design philosophies.  So, when watching this video, don’t imagine 1×1 or even 2×2 or any other kind of direct engagements between these two very sophisticated aircraft, but just try to get a sense of the immense differences in aircraft design philosophies of the two producing countries.
Enjoy!
The Saker

Why The End Of The INF Treaty Will Not Start A New Arms Race

Source

August 03, 2019

Yesterday the U.S. left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. The end of this and other treaties that eliminated or restricted the deployment of nuclear systems is seen by some as the beginning of a news arms race:

William J. Perry – @SecDef19 – 7:37 PM · Aug 2, 2019The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty today deals a great blow to nuclear arms control and global security, we are sleepwalking into a new arms race.

The former Secretary of Defense is wrong. The race will not happen because Russia (and China) won’t run. Or said differently, they already won.

To understand why that is the case we have to look at the history if the nuclear treaties and their demise.

In 1976 the Soviet Union started to deploy nuclear armed SS-20 (RSD-10 Pioneer) intermediate range missiles in Europe. The west-Europeans, especially Germany, feared that these missiles would decouple the U.S. from western Europe. The Soviet Union might tell the U.S. that it would not use its intercontinental nuclear missiles against the U.S. mainland as long as the U.S. would not fire its intercontinental missiles into the Soviet Union. It could then use the SS-20 to attack NATO in Europe while the U.S. would refrain from nuclear counter strikes on the Soviet Union. Europe would become a nuclear battle field while the U.S. and the Soviet Union would be left untouched.

The German chancellor Helmut Schmidt urged the U.S. to station nuclear armed intermediate range missiles in western Europe to press the Soviets to eliminate the SS-20. In 1979 NATO made the double track decision. It would deploy U.S. made Pershing IImissiles in Europe and at the same time offer the Soviet Union a treaty to ban all such intermediate range weapons. The effort was successful.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia) banned all of the two countries’ land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310-3,420 mi). All SS-20 and Pershing II missiles were withdrawn and destroyed. A nuclear war in Europe became less likely.

Another successful treaty was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It prohibited both sides from deploying more than one ABM system. It was necessary because the side that thought it had a working anti-ballistic missile defense could launch a massive first strike on the other side, destroy most of its forces, and defend itself against the smaller retaliation strike that would follow. Both sides were better off with prohibiting ABM in general and to rely on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) for the prevention of a nuclear war.

In June 2002 U.S. President George W. Bush, under the influence of one John Bolton, withdrew from the ABM treaty which led to its termination. The U.S. deployed ABM system in Alaska and California but during tests the systems proved to be unreliable.

The U.S. claimed at that time that ABM was needed to defend against nuclear missiles from North Korea and Iran. That was always obvious nonsense. At that time North Korea had no missile that could reach the United States and Iran has no nukes and limits the range of its missiles to 2,000 kilometer.

Russia saw the U.S. step as an attempt to achieve a first strike capability against it. It immediately started the development of new system that would make the U.S. anti-missile defense irrelevant.

The U.S. also pressed NATO to deploy ABM systems in Europe. Iran was again cited as the main danger. Plans were developed to deploy Patriot and THAAD anti-missile system in Poland and Romania. These did not immediately endangered Russia. But in 2009 President Obama canceled the deployment and came up with a more devilish plan. The AEGIS system used on many U.S. war ships would be converted into a land based versionand deployed in an alleged ABM role. AEGIS consist of radar, a battle management system and canister missiles launchers. The big issue is that these canisters can contain very different types of missiles. While the Standard Missile-2 or 3 can be launched from those canisters in an ABM role, the very same canisters can also hold nuclear armed cruise missile with a range of 2,400 kilometer.

Russia had no means to detect which type of missiles the U.S. would deploy on these sites. It had to assume that nuclear intermediate range nuclear missiles will be in those canisters. In 2016 the U.S. activated the first of these AEGIS ashore systems in Romania. It was that step that broke the INF treaty.

That Obama had earlier signed a nuclear agreement with Iran that made sure that Iran would never build nukes made it obvious that Russia is the one and only target of those system:

During a visit to Greece intended to repair ties with the EU, Vladimir Putin said that Russia has “no choice” but to target Romania, which has recently opened a NATO missile defense base, and Poland, which plans to do so within two years.“If yesterday people simply did not know what it means to be in the crosshairs in those areas of Romania, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security. And it will be the same with Poland,” Putin said during a joint press conference with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras in Athens on Friday.
…
“At the moment the interceptor missiles installed have a range of 500 kilometers, soon this will go up to 1000 kilometers, and worse than that, they can be rearmed with 2400km-range offensive missiles even today, and it can be done by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians themselves won’t know,” said Putin, who is in Greece for a two-day tour.

Russia urged the U.S. to negotiate about the issue but the U.S. rejected that. A year after the U.S. deployed its system in Romania it alleged that Russia itself was in breach of the INF treaty. It claimed that Russia deployed the 9M729 missile, an extended range version of a previous missile, with a range that exceeds the limits of the INF treaty. Russia says that the missile is just a technical upgrade of an older one and has a maximum range below 500 kilometers. The U.S. never provided evidence for its claim.

In January 2019 the U.S. rejected a Russian offer to inspect the new Russian missile and started to pull out of the INF treaty. It gave a six month notice on February 2 and yesterday the INF treaty terminated.

Neither the New York Times obituary of the treaty nor the CNN write-up mention the ABM system in Romania and Poland that were the first to breach of the treaty. Both repeat the unproven claim that Russia deployed new intermediate range systems as fact.

The Europeans in NATO are not happy about the treaty’s end:

The official demise of a landmark arms control pact between the US and Russia is a “bad day” for stability in Europe, the military alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN Friday, hours after the US withdrew from the pact.Speaking to CNN’s Hala Gorani, the Norwegian politician called the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Moscow a “serious setback.”

“I’m part of a political generation that was shaped during the 1980s, where we all were concerned for the risk of nuclear war and where we were actually able to reach the INF treaty that didn’t only reduce the missiles but banned all intermediate range missiles and weapons,” he said.

Stoltenberg went on to blame Russia without mentioning the fake U.S. “ABM” sites in Romania and Poland.

It was John Bolton who was behind the demise of the ABM treaty and it was John Bolton who convinced Trump to terminate the INF treaty. With Bolton in the lead the New Start treaty, which limits intercontinental systems but ends in 2021, will likely not be renewed. Soon the whole system of treaties that limited U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and delivery means will be gone.

Why is the U.S. so eager to end all these? It is known John Bolton hates anything that restricts the U.S., but there is also a larger strategy behind it. The U.S. believes that it defeated the Soviet Union by creating an arms race that the Soviets lost. It hopes that it can do the same with a recalcitrant Russia. But that calculation is wrong. President Putin has long said that Russia will not fall for it:

Moscow will not engage in an exhausting arms race, and the country’s military spending will gradually decrease as Russia does not seek a role as the “world gendarme,” President Vladimir Putin said.Moscow is not seeking to get involved in a “pointless” new arms race, and will stick to “smart decisions” to strengthen its defensive capabilities, Putin said on Friday during an annual extended meeting of the Defense Ministry board.

As Patrick Armstrong explains well:

Putin & Co have learned: Russia has no World-Historical purpose and its military is just for Russia. They understand what this means for Russia’s Armed Forces:Moscow doesn’t have to match the US military; it just has to checkmate it.

And it doesn’t have to checkmate it everywhere, only at home. The US Air Force can rampage anywhere but not in Russia’s airspace; the US Navy can go anywhere but not in Russia’s waters. It’s a much simpler job and it costs much less than what Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were attempting; it’s much easier to achieve; it’s easier to plan and carry out. The exceptionalist/interventionist has to plan for Everything; the nationalist for One Thing.

Russia already has all the weapons it needs to defend itself. U.S. warfare depends on satellite communication, air superiority and missiles. But Russia’s air defense and electronic warfare systems are first class. They demonstrated in Syria that their capabilities exceed any U.S. systems.

When the U.S. left the ABM treaty Russia started to develop new weapons. In 2018 it was ready and demonstrated weapon systems that defeat any ABM system. The U.S. can not longer achieve first strike capability against Russia no matter how many ABM systems and nukes it deploys. There is no defense against hypersonic systems, nuclear torpedoes or nuclear powered cruise missiles with unlimited reach.

If the U.S. wants to start a new arms race with Russia or China it will be the only one to run. It will have to run fast to catch up.

Unlike the U.S. neither Russia nor China try to achieve world wide hegemony. They only have the need to defend their realm. The U.S. threat against both of them made them allies. If China needs more defense capabilities Russia will be happy to provide these. A U.S. nuclear attack against either of them, from Europe, Japan or the U.S. itself, will be responded to with a nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland. As the U.S. has no ability to defend itself from the new Russian systems it will continue to be deterred.

Posted by b on August 3, 2019 at 18:55 UTC | Permalink

Excerpt from the Presidential Address to Federal Assembly

Source

The President of Russia delivered the Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took place in Gostiny Dvor.

February 20, 2019

The unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the INF Treaty is the most urgent and most discussed issue in Russian-American relations. This is why I am compelled to talk about it in more detail. Indeed, serious changes have taken place in the world since the Treaty was signed in 1987. Many countries have developed and continue to develop these weapons, but not Russia or the USA – we have limited ourselves in this respect, of our own free will. Understandably, this state of affairs raises questions. Our American partners should have just said so honestly rather than make far-fetched accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty.

It would have been better if they had done what they did in 2002 when they walked away from the ABM Treaty and did so openly and honestly. Whether that was good or bad is another matter. I think it was bad, but they did it and that is that. They should have done the same thing this time, too. What are they doing in reality? First, they violate everything, then they look for excuses and appoint a guilty party. But they are also mobilising their satellites that are cautious but still make noises in support of the USA. At first, the Americans began developing and using medium-range missiles, calling them discretionary “target missiles” for missile defence. Then they began deploying Mk-41 universal launch systems that can make offensive combat use of Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles possible.

I am talking about this and using my time and yours because we have to respond to the accusations that are leveled at us. But having done everything I have just described, the Americans openly and blatantly ignored the provisions envisaged by articles 4 and 6 of the INF Treaty. According to Item 1, Article VI (I am quoting): “Each Party shall eliminate all intermediate-range missiles and the launchers of such missiles… so that… no such missiles, launchers… shall be possessed by either party.” Paragraph 1 of Article VI provides that (and I quote) “upon entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, neither Party may produce or flight-test any intermediate-range missile, or produce any stages or launchers of such missiles.” End of quote.

Using medium-range target missiles and deploying launchers in Romania and Poland that are fit for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, the US has openly violated these clauses of the Treaty. They did this some time ago. These launchers are already stationed in Romania and nothing happens. It seems that nothing is happening. This is even strange. This is not at all strange for us, but people should be able to see and understand it.

How are we evaluating the situation in this context? I have already said this and I want to repeat: Russia does not intend – this is very important, I am repeating this on purpose – Russia does not intend to deploy such missiles in Europe first. If they really are built and delivered to the European continent, and the United States has plans for this, at least we have not heard otherwise, it will dramatically exacerbate the international security situation, and create a serious threat to Russia, because some of these missiles can reach Moscow in just 10–12 minutes. This is a very serious threat to us. In this case, we will be forced, I would like to emphasise this, we will be forced to respond with mirror or asymmetric actions. What does this mean?

I am saying this directly and openly now, so that no one can blame us later, so that it will be clear to everyone in advance what is being said here. Russia will be forced to create and deploy weapons that can be used not only in the areas we are directly threatened from, but also in areas that contain decision-making centres for the missile systems threatening us.

What is important in this regard? There is some new information. These weapons will fully correspond to the threats directed against Russia in their technical specifications, including flight times to these decision-making centres.

We know how to do this and will implement these plans immediately, as soon as the threats to us become real. I do not think we need any further, irresponsible exacerbation of the current international situation. We do not want this.

What would I like to add? Our American colleagues have already tried to gain absolute military superiority with their global missile defence project. They need to stop deluding themselves. Our response will always be efficient and effective.

The work on promising prototypes and weapon systems that I spoke about in my Address last year continues as scheduled and without disruptions. We have launched serial production of the Avangard system, which I have already mentioned today. As planned, this year, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Troops will be equipped with Avangard. The Sarmat super-heavy intercontinental missile of unprecedented power is undergoing a series of tests. The Peresvet laser weapon and the aviation systems equipped with Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missiles proved their unique characteristics during test and combat alert missions while the personnel learned how to operate them. Next December, all the Peresvet missiles supplied to the Armed Forces will be put on standby alert. We will continue expanding the infrastructure for the MiG-31 interceptors carrying Kinzhal missiles. The Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile of unlimited range and the Poseidon nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicle of unlimited range are successfully undergoing tests.

In this context, I would like to make an important statement. We did not announce it before, but today we can say that as soon as this spring the first nuclear-powered submarine carrying this unmanned vehicle will be launched. The work is going as planned.

Today I also think I can officially inform you about another promising innovation. As you may remember, last time I said we had more to show but it was a little early for that. So I will reveal little by little what else we have up our sleeves. Another promising innovation, which is successfully being developed according to plan, is Tsirkon, a hypersonic missile that can reach speeds of approximately Mach 9 and strike a target more than 1,000 km away both under water and on the ground. It can be launched from water, from surface vessels and from submarines, including those that were developed and built for carrying Kalibr high-precision missiles, which means it comes at no additional cost for us.

On a related note, I want to highlight that for the defence of Russia’s national interests, two or three years ahead of the schedule set by the state arms programme, the Russian Navy will receive seven new multipurpose submarines, and construction will begin on five surface vessels designed for the open ocean. Sixteen more vessels of this class will enter service in the Russian Navy by 2027.

To conclude, on the unilateral withdrawal by the USA from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, here is what I would like to say. The US policy toward Russia in recent years can hardly be called friendly. Russia’s legitimate interests are being ignored, there is constant anti-Russia campaigning, and more and more sanctions, which are illegal in terms of international law, are imposed without any reason whatsoever. Let me emphasise that we did nothing to provoke these sanctions. The international security architecture that took shape over the past decades is being completely and unilaterally dismantled, all while referring to Russia as almost the main threat to the USA.

Let me say outright that this is not true. Russia wants to have sound, equal and friendly relations with the USA. Russia is not threatening anyone, and all we do in terms of security is simply a response, which means that our actions are defensive. We are not interested in confrontation and we do not want it, especially with a global power like the United States of America. However, it seems that our partners fail to notice the depth and pace of change around the world and where it is headed. They continue with their destructive and clearly misguided policy. This hardly meets the interests of the USA itself. But this is not for us to decide.

We can see that we are dealing with proactive and talented people, but within the elite, there are also many people who have excessive faith in their exceptionalism and supremacy over the rest of the world. Of course, it is their right to think what they want. But can they count? Probably they can. So let them calculate the range and speed of our future arms systems. This is all we are asking: just do the maths first and take decisions that create additional serious threats to our country afterwards. It goes without saying that these decisions will prompt Russia to respond in order to ensure its security in a reliable and unconditional manner.

I have already said this, and I will repeat that we are ready to engage in disarmament talks, but we will not knock on a locked door anymore. We will wait until our partners are ready and become aware of the need for dialogue on this matter.

Related Videos

Related Articles

• Putin: Russia to Make Tit for Tat Response against US Missiles Deployment in EU
• Russia Says European Security Is Hostage to US Policies
• Putin: Russia to Take Steps if US Deploys Its Short, Medium Range Missiles in EU
• Iran decries US ‘hypocrisy’ over planned nuclear sale to Saudi Arabia
• Rouhani: Iran-US tug of war at maximum level

Russia accused of new arms race & Salisbury attack “recklessness” – UK’s Defence Minister

February 15, 2019