‘We’d
take out Russia’s nukes,’ US NATO envoy says, claiming ‘banned’
missiles are being developed
RT,
2
October, 2018
The
US would look into ways of "taking out" new Russian
missiles if they become operational, the US envoy to NATO said,
accusing Moscow of developing a weapon that “violates” the
Soviet-US nuclear arms treaty.
US
Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison didn’t miss an opportunity
to fire a warning shot in the direction of Russia when accusing it of
building new nuclear missiles that would allegedly be pointed at
Europe. Should such missiles be completed, she said at the Tuesday
briefing, “at
that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a
[Russian] missile that could hit any of our countries.”
Hutchison
then doubled down on the threat, saying: “Counter
measures [by the United States] would be to take out the missiles
that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty.” She
added: “They
are on notice.”
Hutchison
was referring to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF),
which bans the use of all nuclear and conventional missiles, as well
as their launchers, that have ranges of between 500km and 5,500km.
The US has claimed that Moscow is not complying with the INF treaty,
an accusation that Russia has repeatedly rejected.
“We
have been trying to send a message to Russia for several years that
we know they are violating the treaty, we have shown Russia the
evidence that we have that they are violating the treaty,” Hutchison
maintained.
The
Russian Foreign Ministry blasted the statements made by the US envoy
as “aggressive
and destructive,” adding
that they will get a detailed response from Russian military experts.
NATO doesn’t understand the degree of its responsibility and the
danger posed by such aggressive rhetoric, the ministry said.
Later,
though, Hutchison backed down on her statement as she said she did
not actually intend to threaten Russia with a pre-emptive strike. She
only wanted to point out that Moscow “needs
to return to the INF Treaty compliance” or
the US would be forced to “match
its capabilities to protect the US and NATO,” the
ambassador said in a Twitter post.
I was not talking about preemptively striking Russia. My point:needs to return to INF Treaty compliance or we will need to match its capabilities to protect US & NATO interests. The current situation, with
Her
comment still provoked a wave of criticism on Twitter as people said
that she was not fit for her job if she could not formulate her
thoughts clearly. Others accused her of carelessly risking World War
III.
If you cannot express a diplomatic opinion without inadvertently alluding to nuclear Armageddon, perhaps this job is not for you?
Hi. While you're trying to whip up hysteria about Russia, could you go check on the 200/400 nukes Israel has? Thanks. A worried humanitarian.
Dylan 
Hutchison's
comments came several weeks after President Donald Trump signed the
US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2019. The document
contains, among other things, allegations that Moscow violated the
INF Treaty.
Moscow,
in turn, accuses the US and “some
of its allies” of
knowingly violating the INF by deploying Mk-41 launching systems
close to Russian borders. These can be easily repurposed for firing
banned ground-based cruise missiles, it says, while Washington denies
the accusations.
Under
the 2019 NDAA, US legislators allocated $58 million to counter
Russia’s alleged non-compliance with the INF Treaty. The measures
to counter the alleged activities include a “research
and development program on a ground-launched intermediate-range
missile,” which,
somehow, should not itself violate the treaty.
Russian
lawmakers have also promised countermeasures. “If
the missile announced by Congress indeed makes it into the American
arsenal, we will have to develop and adopt the same thing. Russia has
the military and technical capacities for that,” Viktor
Bondarev, the head of the defense committee of Russia’s Federal
Council, has said.
US
Ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchinson said today that Russia must
cease development of a Treaty-Banned Intermediate Range Nuclear
Missile or
the United States will seek to destroy it militarily before it
becomes operational.
Russia
has denied for years it is developing any such missile, which is
banned under the INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces) Treaty.
(HT
Remark: The fact that a US official would openly and publicly
threaten Russia with a US Military attack upon Russian territory is
one of the most staggering developments in this writer's 56 years on
earth. It is reckless, arrogant, and terrifying in its
implications.)
The
United States believes Russia is developing a ground-launched system
in breach of the Cold War INF treaty that could allow Russia to
launch a nuclear strike on Europe at short notice. The treaty
bans medium-range missiles capable of hitting Europe or Alaska. The
United States and Russia celebrated its 30th anniversary in Geneva in
2017.
U.S.
ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison said Washington remained
committed to a diplomatic solution but
was prepared to consider a military strike if Russian development of
the medium-range system continued.
“At
that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a
(Russian) missile that could hit any of our countries,” she told a
news conference.
“Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty,” she added. “They are on notice.”
U.S.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said he would discuss the issue with
his NATO counterparts at a scheduled two-day meeting in Brussels
beginning Wednesday.
“I
cannot forecast where it will go, it is a decision for the president,
but I can tell you that both on Capitol Hill and in State Department,
there is a lot of concern about this situation and I’ll return with
the advice of our allies and engage in that discussion to determine
the way ahead,” he told reporters in Paris.
UPDATE 1:48 PM EDT -- RUSSIA RESPONDS
Russia
regards as dangerous a statement by Washington's envoy to NATO who
said Moscow must halt its covert development of a banned cruise
missile system or the United States would seek to destroy it before
it becomes operational.
The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, said on Tuesday Washington remained committed to a diplomatic solution but was prepared to consider a military strike if Russian development of the medium-range system continued.
"It seems that people who make such statements do not realize the level of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric," TASS news agency quoted Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.
The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, said on Tuesday Washington remained committed to a diplomatic solution but was prepared to consider a military strike if Russian development of the medium-range system continued.
"It seems that people who make such statements do not realize the level of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric," TASS news agency quoted Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.
Note To NATO - You Don't "Take Out" Missiles Without Having A War
2
October, 2018
The U.S. envoy to NATO on Tuesday said that Russia must halt development of new missiles that could carry nuclear warheads and warned that the United States could “take out” the system if it becomes operational.
The
U.S. and Russia have for some time disagreed about the INF treaty.
The Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty was
signed in 1987 between the Soviet General Secretary Gorbachov and
U.S. President Reagan. It prohibits land based (not sea based)
nuclear capable systems with a range of more than 500 kilometers and
less than 5,500 kilometers. The agreement came to pass after the
Soviets stationed SS-20 missiles in East Europe. NATO responded with
the Pershing II deployment. The problem with these missiles was
warning time. Fired at a relative short range they threatened to
overwhelm one side before it could respond. The missiles thus
destroyed the equilibrium of Mutual
Assured Destruction (MAD).
The INF treaty banned these missiles.
Russia said
for years that
the U.S. broke the INF agreement when it stationed missile defense
systems in Europe to allegedly take out North Korean and Iranian
intercontinental missiles. The missile defense missiles could
possibly be armed with nuclear warheads and could probably be used in
a surface-to-surface mode. (Previously deployed U.S. Nike-Hercules
air defense missiles had
such capabilities.)
The
U.S. denies that its missile defense systems break the INF and
accuses Russia of breaking the treaty by testing a
land launched version of
its sea launched Kalibr cruse missiles. Russia denies that it is
testing anything that is not compatible with the INF treaty. If there
is a land launched version it is likely confined to a range below 500
kilometers and thus in compliance with the INF. The sea launched
version has a reach of up to 2,500 kilometer. An export variant is
limited to 300 kilometer. The possibly land launched version, which
is said
to be shorter than the original Kalibr missile (see
comments), might well have a much shorter range than the sea launched
system. The missiles have, as
far as is publicly know,
non-nuclear warheads.
The
U.S. ambassador to NATO is Kay
Baily Hutchinson,
a long-term Republican politician with no military experience. Her
choice of words in
today's press briefing was
clearly unprofessional:
Question: [...] Ma’am, can you be more specific what kind of new information that you are bringing to the table regarding the breach of the INF Treaty? And more explicitly also, what kind of countermeasures that you are considering.
Ambassador Hutchison: The countermeasures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty. So that would be the countermeasure eventually. We are trying not to do anything that would violate the treaty on our side, which allows research, but not going forward into development, and we are carefully keeping the INF Treaty requirements on our side, while Russia is violating. ...
The
reporters in the room were in disbelieve over such aggressive wording
and followed up:
Question: Thanks, Ambassador. Lorne [Inaudible], Associated Press. Just to clarify a little bit when you said to take out the missiles that are in development, we are a little excited here. Do you mean to get those withdrawn? You don’t mean to actually take them out in a more [inaudible]?
Ambassador Hutchison: Well, withdrawing, yes. Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska. So it is in all of our interests, and Canada as well, I suppose. So we have our North Atlantic risk as well as the European risk.
So
what is the ambassador going to do? Bomb Russia over a disagreement
about the technical specification of a potential new missile that is
not even deployed yet?
This
nonsense comes just days after the U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan
Zinke suggested that
the U.S. Navy might blockade Russia because of its energy
trade.
When
the INF treaty was signed NATO was far from Russia's border. Now it
is directly at it. The Russian government takes such threats
seriously. Its spokesperson was not
amused (Ru, machine
translation):
The North Atlantic Alliance does not realize the degree of its responsibility and the dangers of aggressive rhetoric, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Tuesday when commenting on the words of US Permanent Representative to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison about the possibility of shooting down Russian missiles.
...
"It seems that people making such statements do not realize the degree of their responsibility and the dangers of aggressive rhetoric. Who authorized this woman to make such statements? The American people? Are the people in the US aware of the fact that so-called diplomats are paid aggressively and destructive? It is very easy to break and destroy everything. It is difficult to repair and repair. American diplomacy has a lot to do to recover from the consequences of its inherent errors, "Zakharova told reporters.
One
hopes that the ambassador erred in her "take out" response.
Otherwise Russia will probably consider to "take out" the
ABM assets the U.S. deploys over Europe. That would surely produce a
lot of content for the Express' "World
War3" category.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.