This quote shows how Russia is understanding very well the situation in Europe, country by country. Obviously these words are not compatible with a rupture by Russia of the INF Treaty that is very oriented to Europe. GarryB is just understanding not it, or just ignoring one of the most important points of the Russian strategy.
I am not suggesting Russia wants to start WWIII... that is the Americans.
What I am suggesting is that America is trying to push a wedge between europe and Russia and China and Russia and China and europe etc etc.
Their tactic is to turn everyone against everyone else to maintain its advantages over everyone else including russia, china and europe.
Russia wont leave the INF treaty and New START treaties so they can massively arm up and intimidate the west.
The US does not listen to Russia and the only way Russia can get the US to listen is bold initiatives and even then they ignore or show as proof of Russian aggression.
The US is moving military forces east and is building and ABM system east as well... system that is pretty basic in its early stages but in its later developments will likely become more and more capable against a wider range of threats.
As it gets improvements a wider range of deterrents are needed to counter it... I am suggesting exiting new Start because that will push buttons in America... not so much a reset as a "WTF".
If the US builds an ABM system then a simple solution is to step away from an agreement limiting your ballistic missiles.
The reason I suggest stepping away from the INF treaty as well is that it will allow russia to rapidly build up small cheap land launched cruise missiles in enormous numbers that are capable of killing a wide range of targets... even without using nuclear warheads in some cases.
This will not be all roses for Russia... the US can produce lots of missiles with its money printing machines but after they destroy you once the second and tenth times are not so important, but making sure they know if they start something they are dead is very important.
The most dangerous thing in the world is the US thinking it can win a nuclear war because it has limited Russian nuclear weapons and it has a missile shield to launch an attack from behind.
It does not matter if the shield will work or not... the only way to know is after an attack and by then it is too late for everyone.
because the rupture of this Treaty would make most of the European governments to enter in panic (real or fictitious), would make them to increase significantly their defense budgets and would make them to allow far bigger amounts of US weapons and military forces of all the types in Europe. This also would help to the US to distract a good number of Russian nuclear warheads from the US to Europe.
More US bases in europe will cost the US more money for little to no gain in safety.
The Russians can have as many IRBMs as they like with as many nukes on them as they like if they withdraw from the INF treaty. New Start deals with strategic weapons only so IRBMs are not counted... if Russia withdraws from new Start they can have as many nukes of any kind as they like. If they only withdraw from INF they are limited to 1,500 warheads in February 2018.... before and after that date they can have as many as they want.
They can have 10,000 deployed warheads on January 2018, come february they could withdraw from service 8,500 and put them back into service in march 2018 and fully comply with new Start.
But unlike in the case of the rupture of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, that costed them the rupture of the START II Treaty by Russia the following day, they want to blame someone else (Russia) in the case of the INF Treaty.
The INF treaty is like the ABM treaty... either side can withdraw with proper warning of their intention to do so.
The first step against the ABM Treaty was the initial plan of GW Bush with Poland and the Czech Republic, what Obama stoped in 2009. Thanks to it, in 2010 was signed the START III Treaty. Now Obama is going forward by the GW Bush way on Anti-Ballistic missiles, which means that the START III Treaty is likely death.
Russia is not silly, Russia knows very well who is trying to make to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. Russia knows that is the US who is back of all it. And the result of these policies of the US against Russia, will be very likely to have more Russian nuclear warheads looking at the US. While the START III restricts it, the INF has not effect on it.
Without the ABM treaty limiting ABM defences the START treaties have very little meaning.
As the US spends more and more on ABM systems around the place the new start treaty becomes a liability.
ABM treaty is like an agreement not to wear body armour, while the starts are agreements on dueling... how many pistols you are allowed and what magazine capacities you can have etc etc
A real pistol is nothing like what you see in the movies or computer games they are dreadfully inaccurate and low powered... they trade range and power and accuracy for small size and low weight.
You dont aim for the other guys heart with a pistol... you aim centre of mass and hope for a hit.
The US is demanding Russia only have a five round pistol mag as it is slipping on a bullet proof vest and a helmet.
It doesn't realise the Russians have developed guided bullets, so it is rather keen to start a gun fight it thinks it can win...
Russias goal is not to get the fight started... it is to set up conditions where the US knows everyone loses if the fight is started by either side.
If the US puts on its ABM shield that might require Russia to withdraw from the INF treaty and Start treaties and just say I am going to have thousands of rounds so no matter how effective your vest and helmet are you are going to bleed to death and die like me if we start anything... so don't start anything.
MAD = Mutually assured destruction.
BTW seph, cruise missiles with flight ranges of more than 5,500km are considered strategic weapons and subject to new Start in terms of numbers of warheads and launch platforms.... but I do agree a 5,000km range cruise missile would be very useful to russia for targets in ME and europe and even northern US.