U.S. THREATENS THE WORLD BY PULLING OUT OF TREATIES CREATING A CHAIN REACTION
2002: U.S withdrawals from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty
2019: U.S withdrawals from the INF Treaty Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
2020: U.S. ignores renewal of SNV-III: New START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires 2021.
Oleg Morozov, member of Federation Council:“It’s obvious that terminating one treaty will cause a chain reaction a collapse of the control system over the future system of global security, that’s why it is so dangerous.”
Igor Korotchenko, Editor-In-Chief of Natsionalnaya Oborona magazine: Washington has made a political decision to terminate the INF treaty and deploy the American nuclear arsenal in Europe pointed at Russia. That’s our reality.
Vladimir Putin: “Today, we are also going to discuss the measures to parry potential threats that arise from the USA’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). I’d like to emphasize once again that Russia is not interested in the start of the Arms Race and deployment of missiles in places where they are not deployed now. It is well-known that we have declared a unilateral moratorium for the deployment of such rockets and have proposed to our colleagues in Europe and in the USA to join. For now, we have only received an answer from the President of the French Republic, Mr. Macron. There hasn’t been any response from the other partners. It forces us to take measures to counteract the above-mentioned threats. By the way, let me remind you, as we all know well, in 2002, the United State made a unilateral withdrawal from another crucial treaty, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty). Truth be told, back then, they did it in a straightforward manner, taking up the responsibility for this move, and they didn’t even try to shift this responsibility on to Russia. And, well, it was hard for them to do it, as it seemed back then. Now they made a unilateral withdrawal again. But as it turns out, now, we see them making attempts to shift the responsibility on to us. Such a position has no grounds, but nevertheless, they are making these attempts. There’s one more aspect to this disarmament agenda, it’s SNV-III New START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty whose terminating date is coming. Our proposals are all on the table, to extend this treaty. We haven’t yet received any reaction from our partners. In this regard, I would like once again to confirm the Russian Federation’s position. Russia is ready, immediately, as soon as possible, before the end of this year, without any preconditions, to extend the SNV-III Treaty. So that there can’t be any two-fold, three-fold interpretation of our position. I’m officially stating that. We’re going to discuss today what we could counterpose to all these unfriendly moves, which operational solutions would be the most adequate and the least expensive.”
Putin Meets With Military Top Brass! US Expected to Withdraw From SNV-III Arms Treaty As Well
Igor Korotchenko, Editor-In-Chief of Natsionalnaya Oborona magazine: Unfortunately what is happening today is really pushing the world towards a third world war. It’s not our choice. It’s a deliberate policy by the US, the UK, and their closest allies. America’s goal is clear, they want to terminate the INF treaty and execute their first strike concept. Because after lifting all of the restrictions America will reply its intermediate-range missiles in Europe.
America's Goal Is Clear, Neocons Wants To Exit The INF Treaty And Carry Out The First Strike Concept
Yakov Kedmi, Israeli statesman: “What’s the point to dealing with them? (America) What’s the point? Those agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. At any moment, any American president can say, ‘American law doesn’t oblige me.’ International commitments by the United States can be cancelled by the U.S. President if they jeopardize U.S. security or contradict American interests. That’s it. As long as this system exists, it doesn’t matter what they sign.
For example, there’s the non-proliferation treaty. One can’t supply nuclear arms to a third country. But what does America do? Danish, German, and Dutch pilots have been learning from them of how to drop nuclear bombs for several years. There’s no way to hide it because in order to drop a nuclear bomb an aircraft has to stick to a certain flight pattern that can be clearly recognized. They’re training them, but they haven’t broken anything. They haven’t supplied nuclear weapons to the Netherlands. Dutch pilots will simply use their nuclear weapons as part of some joint operation led by the United States. And everything is fine. But the main issue is that our assessment of short-range missiles shouldn’t be based on today’s models alone. Every type of missile and their delivery means is approaching supersonic speeds. Distance plays a critical role. A Tomahawk flying at 550 mph is one thing. But what if it gets ten times faster? The notion of territory is becoming something entirely different. Previously, Russia could say: ‘That’s fine, go deploy your missiles in Poland. There’s no way that Poland could threaten us.’ Today if Poland, Georgia, or some Baltic state stations missiles with a speed of two or three times greater than the speed of sound and which can reach any spot in Russia within seconds it would be dangerous to counteract them with other technical means. Nobody would take the risk. Here’s my question: Can a state be truly independent if it allows other states to threaten Russia with weapons stationed on its territory?
Russia will try to answer this question. if the treaty is violated and altered opening an opportunity to produce intermediate-range missiles. Russia will have to revise its attitude towards the Eastern European states. Ukraine, the Baltic states, and the Caucasus to avoid a potentially fatal scenario.”