He ordered their ministers not to initiate talks with US regarding the salvaging of the treaty.
But Arrow said the Russians were begging the Americans to keep this treaty... are you suggesting he was wrong?
I have doubts in the translation in the last sentence is medium-range hypersonic missiles and short range ballistic missiles? Is bigger Zirkon or bigger iskander, or both?
If some Russian can help...
The problem is that the treaty actually covers intermediate and short range missiles... short range missiles are 0km to 1,000km range ballistic or cruise missiles, while medium/intermediate are 1,000km to 5,500km range missiles... missiles with ranges beyond 5,500km are considered intercontinental.
High flying scramjet Zircon could easily have a range that fits inside the 500-5,500km range limit... its range could be 600-900km or so with a high altitude flight profile relying on speed and non ballistic trajectory over flying low and stealthy, so a land launched model could easily violate the INF treaty if it is in place... now it is not an issue...
Land based Zircon and extended range Iskanders... ballistic and cruise missile models can go ahead...
...So... No ballistic in the actual translation and intermediate-range instead of medium-range...
Giant Zirkon if they mean real hypersonic, iskander 2 or rubzeh if its ballistic
The US is building ABM systems in Europe, which Russia opposes... it would make little sense for Russia to then build up a force that justifies having an ABM defence system...
Iskander is not ballistic... it manouvers in flight and its flight speed make interception difficult.
I guess some posters are willfully trying to be ignorant (if not dumb, stupid etc) to the fact that having IRBMs closely parked near Russia and pointed towards Russia increases the potential practicality of a decapitating nuclear first strike
The US could use air launched and sea launched missiles to the same effect right now and a decapitating first strike has been their goal for the last 3-5 decades so it is not really a new development.
Much more so than an IBM shield ever could (although they're meant to work together of course). In the same token, since Russia lacks strategic allies near or around the United States, it's incapable of exerting the same pressure and maintaining strategic parity in this regard by mirroring a response.
The Ukraine could start making IRBMs right now without violating the INF treaty... so could France, Germany, and the UK, so any protection or safety offered by the INF treaty was purely based on trust... and in this environment I think Russia has less reason to trust than the US does.
That concept is unbreakable given the current geopolitical configuration of today - in which Russia is significantly worse off than the Soviet Union of the time (decimated abroad and in Europe down to Belorussia - not saying much really).
The US is clearly determined to end the INF treaty, much like it was determined to end the ABM treaty.... there is very little Russia could do to stop it... let alone stop it from being their fault...
For the U.S, parking the missiles in Europe won't be an issue. Plenty of countries within NATO to choose from - one or several will crack and host them voluntarily... whatever the reservations of some EU members (simple divide and conquer).
I would suggest even the most cowardly worm in europe would object to being made a nuclear missile target of the Russians, but either way Russia is better protected from the weapons the INF treaty bans than Europe ever could be...
Even with the INF treaty in place, the US could base B-1Bs with air launched cruise missiles with any flight range they need to hit anything in Western Russia and the INF treaty would simply prevent Russia from using cheaper land based systems to target their airfields with similar weapons.
The future placement of these missiles also constraints Russia's expansion, and ability to maneuver in the European theater in a short lived military confrontation - in essence, delimiting Russia's options substantially (aka freezing/taming and in effect containing).
If you are saying that it limits Russias ability to invade and conquer European state... who cares... Europe is a threat to Russia... come a conflict Russia does not benefit from occupation... obliteration is quicker and easier and cheaper to achieve... and those in Europe that keep beating the drums of war claim it is because of the threat of Russian invasion and occupation of Europe... putting that little myth to an end would be a good way to stop those drums.
If we think Putin's a patient man....the patience of current and future Russian leaders will become infinite and not by choice. Given Russia's inability to prevent color revolution coups, or successfully create them and go on the offensive; this again places Russia at a significant disadvantage in shaping political currents in Europe and the world.
I don't understand your point... the INF treaty was in force during all the coloured revolutions the west experimented with these last 20-25 years... why do you think that has anything to do with this?
Actually being able to station some long range cruise missiles in Russia that don't need to be located anywhere near its borders that can hit Kiev or Tiblisi without even moving out of their base with conventional warheads is a much more valuable thing to Russia than any negative.
Now to top it all off, the U.S has a significant advantage in its ability to acquire and field these weapons number$ wi$e (there i$ quality in number$), on top of the strategic areas it can place them, in effect, encircling and choking Russia. The Missile Shield was part of the strategy, now comes the offensive part (IRBMs), then comes the de-limiting factor (START pullout).
Actually as we have seen in Syria the quality of US attack cruise missiles has not really changed much since Desert Storm and against todays air defence systems are actually pretty ordinary.
In comparison, the new hypersonic missiles with scramjet and solid fuelled rocket propulsion seem to be rather extraordinary... but at the moment are limited to aircraft and ship launch platforms... by moving them to ground based vehicles, those ships and aircraft are freed up for other roles like blunting any naval attack for instance...
Since China has become a serious target and a strategic threat to the U.S, militarizing Eastern Asia is a no brainer for them. China has been riding Russia's cocktails for years. The U.S has already started with the "ABM Shield" in Korea/Japan and eventually IRBMs will follow - pulling Australia is not in doubt - not in the least. They're already in line. I don't know what y'all are smoking - Australia ain't sovereign.
Australia isn't really close enough to be a serious threat to Russia, so why should Russia bother?
If there was no Russian ground based cruise missile they could point to and suggest it breaks the rules, they would simply point at all the Chinese missiles that also break the rules as the reason to break the treaty.
I think it is funny that you believe there is anything Russia could do to stop the US breaking the INF treaty...
The concept has not changed no matter how many fairy tales you all wish to suddenly digest to believe that things have "changed" because of this hyper/duper/super missile we got here... or this shiny object over there (as if they can't be mirrored)? lol1 Like I said when Putin unveiled his new toys... he only bought time and he better make the most of it (and I have serious reservations about his performance in that regard).
The simple fact is that Russia is up against the west and the INF treaty doesn't really mean a damn to Russia or to the US or the Chinese.
The only ones who have anything to worry about is the Europeans, but they clearly don't care enough to put their foot down and tell the US to pull their heads in and are happy to go along with the line that Russia is breaking the treaty anyway... well boo hoo... if Europe does not have the balls to stand up to Trump and Bolten then fuck them... Russia has been building an Aerospace defence force whose job it is to secure Russian airspace from outside threats and they have made a lot of progress and are continuing to move forward with S-350 entering service this year on land and at sea and the S-400 production expanding and of course the S-500 to enter service soon too... it is the Europeans that will have hypersonic missiles pointed at them first with little to no effective defencive systems to protect them. Eventually NATO will have capable missiles to point at Moscow... but what is new? They already have SLBMs pointed there so nothing changes really... and the Russians know this is not about theatre war... this is all out war... so the idea of a quick first strike to take out NATO and force a surrender or talks on their terms is not an option, but they know that is something the US actually wants to strive for, so having hundreds of hypersonic missiles that can take down US ABM systems in Europe and over Japan will actually make things much much easier in the case of WWIII to ensure more of their conventional MIRVS make it through... remember IRBMs in the arctic bases on land in cheap truck or fixed silo type launchers would be ideal for clearing the arctic ocean of AEGIS cruisers with manouvering hypersonic missiles... so it ticks those boxes too.
The only thing that can negate the strategic advantages the U.S has over its two major adversaries today is an economic collapse. So do pray for that. That's a much better tale to digest - an impending economic collapse. You can even ground it on several facts....but mostly as always -- the decadence and corruption of political life and the interdiction of economics and politics today in the U.S.
I am sure the US MIC is just drooling at the idea they can reopen development and production of a range of weapons they have not been allowed to sell to the US military for over three decades... and of course the corresponding defence systems needed will also not be cheap...
Other than that, they're very well off. Or you can pray they negotiate some treaties down the line but we're way way off that...... unless other powers make an offer the hegemon can't refuse - unconditional surrender perhaps? At the very least, when and if they come back to the table, it will be for a simple reason only - to sign a treaty that furthers their interests.
Exactly... this is either a convoluted way of renegotiating an existing treaty to better suit the US, or an attempt to make things harder for Russia... but I don't see any real down side for Russia... US SLBMs from safe areas in the med and even the indian ocean represent IRBM levels of flight times to Moscow, so in effect the INF treaty just stopped the Americans putting Pershing IIs and cruise missiles all over Europe.
Ironically that probably would have led to protests at being a target of Russian missiles that could have led to US forces getting kicked out of western europe faster than they have moved...
Second, the assumption that Russia has some significant advantage over the U.S due to missile technology is false. If you look at it in a practical sense it's not true. The advantage Russia has in development time of hypersonic glide vehicles and rockets will sooner or later evaporate (hence why I've said Russia just bought time). One way or another the U.S will catch up...stealing secrets, brain drain, etc... they have the programs in the works, focusing the money and brain power into it as we speak (and this didn't just get off yesterday (the process of modernizing the U.S nuclear triad and building the next generation of offensive nuclear weapons)).
Do you think the INF treaty prevents this in any way?
The US will eventually get hypersonic weapons... big deal.
The point is that they are trying to achieve a first strike superiority and are trying to knock down what they think are impediments to them regaining superiority in technology and capability... getting rid of the INF treaty will just isolate them further from their western allies and make those western allies easier and cheaper to target for the Russians.
More importantly as I mentioned.... having 5,000km range missiles is very useful because US bases are moving closer and closer to Russia so when you draw a 4,000km line around Russian territory including the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean you start including a lot of US bases and ships that were difficult to attack with conventional weapons... because all their ICBMs are nukes... but now they can have 5,000km range anti ship missiles to take out carriers and AEGIS ABM ships.
If they are smart... and they are... they will make these new missiles compatible with the UKSK-M launcher so a sub like an ex SSBN like the Deltas could be sent to the southern Pacific and the southern atlantic oceans and launch a missile strike on the AEGIS cruisers they will have operating off their coasts as their ABM system... with a range of 5,000km they could base them in the Arctic to cover the entire arctic ocean and also hit targets like airfields and major radar bases and command and communication centres in Canada from land bases in the Russian far north...
The Soviets had a much more significant headstart in the space race and eventually they caught up. The areas we're talking about today are not even that research intensive, nor is the gap anywhere near as big. They'll be there sooner than you think - and when they get there, they'll be able to use that tech much more effectively and with significantly more impact than the Russians - not to mention the procurement numbers (it's a numbers game - always is).
What are you babbling about?
What has any of this got to do with whether the INF treaty exists or not?
So the idea that the only threat Russia will see from the U.S will be a "few" "old" nuclear-tipped Tomahawks is not a serious assessment. The U.S may deploy some (their latest) as a stop-gap but that won't stay for long (and it will not be a few).
Hilarious... so it is all Russias fault again... who gives a fuck what the US deploy.... getting rid of the INF treaty means Russia can develop and deploy a wide range of very effective systems that can target anything the US puts in Europe, plus the ABM systems they are building as we speak with high speed weapons that can rapidly destroy these systems (radars and missiles) before they can do anything useful.
Wasting avangard missiles to hit ABM sites in europe was going to be a waste... now they can be used against targets in the US and much cheaper and lighter systems can be used in Europe instead to ensure all of their ICBMs have a much better chance of getting through.
Moreover, the idea that Russia's air defences and the S-500 (600 or 1000) will be able to stop or significantly reduce the destruction of a decapitating nuclear first strike (wherein a saturation attack will be in order on all of Russia's defenses at a shortened noticed and at a new shortened range) is a big fat joke.
Components of their IADS seemed to work fine in Syria... add the OTH radars and a lot more ground and air based radars and defences including aircraft and I suspect it will work even better... but it does not have to be 100% effective... it will be enough to prevent a first strike decapitation move... strategic nuclear missiles will be launched... ground based missiles of intermediate range aimed at Brussels and Paris and Berlin and London will be nigh on impossible to target because they could be anywhere and there could be hundreds or thousands of them... it is Europe that should be worried because their IADS does not even exist... and their basic air patrolling and defence is based on fighter planes which would have little to no chance against hypersonic missiles at 40km altitude flying at mach 8 or faster.
These defensive systems however are much more effective the less targets they need to engage, and the more so with anticipation (in defense of a second strike retaliation of the enemy), which is why a decapitating first strike is so crucial and so dangerous.
They can barely hit an airfield in Syria and you think they will wipe out Russia?
Even assuming a single nuke missile managed to get through and putin is killed... do you think that is it?
The nuclear weapons of Russia would be automatically launched with a nuclear explosion over Russia... how many Russian ICBMs do you think these US weapons can take out before they are launched?
This attack would be on an enormous scale... do you think all NATO members would stay quiet?
Or would they send in Chuck Norris with some duct tape and a sharpened stick to take down the entire Russian nuclear weapon capacity...
In effect it has the ability to encircle Russia within its borders, without even having to use U.S mainland to host a massive ICBM force (which they could if they wanted to). There is really no advantage at all today for Russia to speak off in my pov. That's an outdated cliche - of many espoused here on the daily.
But if the INF treaty remains in effect everything is peachy right?
The INF treaty ties Russian hands and limits Russian options... it makes things easier for Russia to not have it.
For Europe the thought is terrifying... they will have to build an IADS that will cost trillions and take several decades... Russia has been through that and is probably close to being as safe as she could ever be... (no such thing as 100% effective air defence, but combined with the brutal ability to devastate your enemy it should be good enough).
While we have fun discussing all of this we haven't discussed the economics. The assumptions have been running wild but little time is paid to the fact that Russia can't outspend the U.S in procurement numbers if START goes kaput (and that's on pace). All these arguments being made assume that Russia can keep parity in the procurement of this offensive arsenal. That's just fantasy and a big fat wrench on the fairy tales (even accounting for the wasteful and corrupt spending of today's American MIC) but lets continue for a while......
Again you get the wrong end of the stick... it is America that wants superiority... Russia just needs enough weapons to ensure enough will get through and devastate the US and the west it doesn't matter if the US has more missiles or not... they are not expecting to survive anyway.
Europe and their Asian partners are all expendable patches of land in such a scenario. So no one cares about what Russia can do to those countries. It's all about what Russia can do to the U.S and to a lesser extent the Five-eyes family of nations. The Americans will fight the Russians to the last European/Asian.
Exactly, so getting rid of the INF treaty so Japan and Europe can be obliterated but save all those ICBMs and SLBMs for the US is a bonus for Russia... it means the US will get hit harder and with the early destruction of various radar sites in Europe (ABM sites and bases in Greenland and the UK) and Canada they will be less aware of what is coming... add to that anti satellite weapons and they could be blinded...
... perished doing so and are now under their jock.
I think you mean yolk...
You don't run Empires by being stupid - usually you run them because you outsmart others (aka they're the stupid ones). I do join the fun once in a while because they've become endemically corrupt but that's about it.
If they were smart they wouldn't be fighting Russia and China still... the British have been fighting the Russians and Chinese for centuries and you claim they have been brilliant at it... yeah right...
The subsequent comment says little (it's a vice versa comment - except worse). For Russia's missile systems will not only be within reach of American ICBMS, SLBMS, and U.S nuclear bombers but they'll also be targeted by a significant missile force right at their borders (which will eventually be hypersonic, non-ballistic, and in overwhelming numbers for Russia's defenses to be capable of handling).
Russia is not going for a first strike capability... they are building their forces for defence... any full scale attack by NATO on Russia is the end... they don't expect to win or to even survive, but having the defences they do and an attack force they have getting rid of the INF treaty means they are in a much better position to strike forces in Europe and to attack the US than they are now... it wont make them any less safe because the US could base bombers with JSSSM or whatever they fuck they call them in the Ukraine right now if they wanted and that would not violate the INF treaty...
In a vacuum, given today's geopolitical realities, Russia is at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States when its comes to the balance of power. If we run scenarios of all else being equal, the U.S will always come out on top.
But the point is that Russia might not be in a super advantaged position but it has never aimed for that position... the position it wants and currently has is that the US can start anything they want but they wont come out on top... when there is six feet of dirt on your head you are not on top.
Not to say Russia will win, but everyone will lose.
What Russia has is 1: hope, 2: room for maneuver while peace exist, 3: a chance to outsmart its opponent if it plays its cards right. Stumble, and they'll probably fall.... and who knows what comes out of it.
Russia has no choice on this issue... the INF treaty is dead and Europe is going to get missiles to point at Russia so they will feel really special, and in response Russia is going to build a lot of new missiles they can point at US bases and ABM systems and anything they like in Europe... and the European people will begin to realise that a nuclear war might happen and that they will be one of the first to die from it... perhaps that will make them grow some balls to tell the US to fuck off but they are such cowards and so easily brainwashed they will think that Britain and the US are all geniuses and know what they are doing and Russians are evil and it was all their fault anyway... so things will continue as normal.
This encirclement of Russia works realy great. If there weren´t this gapping holes in it, like the whole Arctic, China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, even Saudi-Arabia is working with Russia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Germany is buying more gas than ever. even Amiland is doing more business with Russia today than it did 10 years ago.
Can just imagine when Germany takes its American IRBMs and it demands that none of them target gas pipes delivering gas from Russia to Germany... and the Americans targeting only the pipelines bringing Russian gas to europe from the north and the south so ukrainian pipes would need to be used again...