From: allmyslotties@gmail.com

The threat from a senior US diplomat to "take out" Russian missiles that Washington believes are in breach of an important Cold War arms control treaty looks set to cause additional tensions with Moscow, just ahead of a meeting of Nato defence ministers
that opens in Brussels on Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45723952

The US ambassador to Nato, Kay Bailey Hutchison, was speaking ahead of that meeting and brought up once again Washington's contention that Russia is in breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement of 1987.

This treaty banned a whole category of weapons: ground-launched medium-range missiles, capable of striking targets at distances between 500 and 5,500km (310-3,100 miles).

Now, the Americans insist, despite Russian denials, that Moscow has a new medium-range missile in its inventory - the Novator 9M729 - known to Nato as the SSC-8.

This would enable Russia to launch a nuclear strike at Nato countries at very short notice.

Ambassador Hutchison said the US wants to find a diplomatic solution to this problem.

But she appeared to indicate that the US might consider military action if Russia's development of the 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 said, adding counter-measures
(by the US) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia
in violation of
the treaty.

"They are on notice."

At first sight, this seems to be a fairly blunt warning from President Donald Trump's Nato ambassador.

But it is not exactly clear what she is saying. Is she threatening a pre-emptive strike out of the blue? Surely not.

Is she warning that if the Russian development of these weapons goes ahead then
the US will find systems to target them in the event of a crisis?

Indeed, other US experts have sometimes suggested that a more likely US response might be to throw over the INF treaty itself and deploy a similar category of weapon.

That would be very bad news for arms control.

Back in the Cold War, the US was alarmed at the then Soviet Union's deployment of the SS-20 system.

Some of Washington's allies agreed to receive US Pershing and Cruise missiles in response. The move prompted widespread protests and huge political tensions.

The resulting INF treaty swept this whole category of weapon away and significantly reduced tensions.

But now, once again, the INF Treaty is back in the news.

Russia has said little about its new missile other than to deny that it is in breach of the agreement.

It has not answered any of the Nato countries' concerns.

Indeed, in his pre-ministerial press conference, Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that "the most plausible assessment would be that Russia is in violation of the treaty".

"It is therefore urgent," he went on, "that Russia addresses these concerns in a substantial and transparent manner."

He also added that, according to US intelligence, Russia had started to deploy the new missile.

Exactly what the Americans know is still not clear.

For a long time experts were not even certain which specific missile was being talked about. Is this just an extended range version of the Iskander-M - an existing Russian weapon?

Or could it be a new variant of the sea-launched Kalibr land attack missile that has been used by the Russian navy against targets in Syria?

Whatever the details, the US insists the Russians are in breach of the INF agreement. That matters.

Ambassador Hutchison may have spoken a little loosely. Russia's foreign affairs
ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said: "It seems that people who make such statements do not realise the level of their responsibility and the danger
of aggressive
rhetoric."

But if the deployment of the weapon continues, then the US could well make some
equivalent move in response.

The issue is bound to be high on the agenda when Nato defence ministers meet in
Brussels.

### - old trumpy didn't like it, got outraged he did! (at least publicly anyway
heh) when king ding-dong of korea did it to them, so why wouldn't russia feel the same? oh we'll just come & bomb your shit if we thinks it's a threat just like we did in
syria?? riiiight... ya might get away with shit like that in syria but russia's
another thing altogether? like how might the US react if russia openly threatened to come and blow up a couple of american silos 'coz they didn't like
them and/or were
suspicious of them??? riiiight... even jokingly!)

perforce mr-T didn't announce this himself heh, that would have been too much, and it can thus always be blamed on some scapegoated misguided official talking
shit, but nevertheless the damage is still done? that: WE don't like it! plus, from the timing
of it, is maybe even trying to indirectly influence some internal 'russian' election currently involving putin himself lol (wouldn't that be a blast/utterly-ironic? hahaha, or just evidence that they ALL do it and HAVE been doing it for decades! hah!
which is absolutely true btw! something almost completely 'covert' during the cold war but now being used as a weapon! both at home 'and' abroad!)

what we needs folks is a world that is unified and cooperates? - cooperation rather than competition! - and 'coz then we can 'share' the planet (the resources) and all get-along instead of continually being at each other's throats? it's common sense to
do so! and then we can have an american part of the world, a russian part of the world, an oriental part of the world; differeing communities all living together; an italian quarter, a muslim quarter,an oriental quarter, a britt quarter & whatever and so
on... and because everyone playing king of the castle is all so yesterday/last century? and dangerous!

i.e., we have an opportunity to be 'big' here? to maybe even lead the way! to begin setting that 'example' anyway; similar perhaps to the british empire getting tired of empire-building and thus creating a common-wealth system? (you
lot all go rule
yourselves from now on, we're fed-up of the responsibility of it all, of having
to murder so many people in the process so please all just fuck off and govern yourselves from now on? it sickens us & we're sick of it! - nice one gandhi! hehehe...)

but who's gonna be 'our' gandhi (or our mandela) NOW though??

WHO have WE gots???

fuckin' no one that's who! lol :)

justin beiber maybe? tom fuckin cruise?

we ain't got shit in that dept!

that if 'ever' we needed a jc to put in a timely appearance, it might just be around about now?

and 'coz IF trump is all we gots then lol god help us we're screwed!

"the prince of peace is back! and this time he's pissed-off!!!" --bill hicks hahaha :)))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)