Military Review

US may withdraw from the INF Treaty

92
According to information TASS, head of the Pacific Command (PACOM) of the United States Armed Forces (AF), Admiral Harri Harris announced that Washington was working on the issue of re-signing the Russian-US Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF).


US may withdraw from the INF Treaty


The admiral several times expressed regret about the non-participation of China in the INF. According to him, Beijing’s 95% missile arsenal does not comply with the terms of the treaty.

Congressman Hal Rogers (Republican, Kentucky) asked the military whether the US should "consider the possibility of re-concluding the INF / DIMM", taking into account the charges against Russia of violating this treaty.

Sir, this is a political issue that I know is being considered.

- explained H. Harris.

In his words, "Russia breaks the INF in terms of conventional "and not nuclear missiles. H. Rogers asked the admiral whether the treaty should be viewed as a factor that binds the American army.

I would say that we (that is, the United States) are not acting unilaterally creatively in terms of developing our own weapons.

- answered the military.

Of particular concern to H. Harris is the development of China hypersonic weapons.

What we (the USA) can do is to develop our own hypersonic armament and improve (systems) protection against them. However, one of the problems is the issue of the INF. The creation of hypersonic weapons capable of becoming equal to the Chinese weapons is excluded by the INF.


As the admiral explained, he is not aware of "discussions with a view to including China into the existing INF Treaty or concluding a separate agreement with China" on this matter.

As he believes, Beijing "is following the example of Russia in Ukraine and is applying aspects of this in the South China Sea."

The United States for the first time accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty in July 2014. Subsequently, Washington has repeatedly repeated this thesis, with which Moscow strongly disagrees. In this case, the Russian Federation makes US counter-claims relating to the implementation of the INF.

DRSMD was signed on December 8 1987 of the year in Washington. Entered into force 1 June 1988 of the year. In 1992, in connection with the collapse of the USSR, the Treaty acquired a multilateral character — Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine (before they eliminated the missiles of the corresponding class) became participants in addition to the USA and Russia. Deployed and non-deployed rockets of smaller (from 500 to 1000 km) and medium range (from 1000 to 5500 km) land-based fell under the action of the INF. Total USSR destroyed 1846 missiles, the US - 846. Launchers, launching sites, auxiliary equipment and other equipment at 117 Soviet facilities in the territory of the USSR, GDR and Czechoslovakia and at 32 US facilities in the USA, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands were subject to destruction. The parties also pledged not to produce or test new medium-range and shorter-range missiles. In order to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, each party was given the right to conduct inspections over 13 years. 31 May 2001, Russia and the United States have completed inspection activities.

The contract is indefinite. Each of the parties has the right to withdraw from it if it decides that "exceptional circumstances related to the content of the contract have put its highest interests at risk". Notice of withdrawal from the INF should be made within six months.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tolstoevsky
    Tolstoevsky April 27 2017 11: 57
    +2
    Do we need it?
    1. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall April 27 2017 12: 00
      +2
      Quote: Tolstoevsky
      Do we need it?

      We don’t, but how will the government behave?
      1. cost
        cost April 27 2017 12: 04
        +8
        The US does not want to withdraw its troops from Europe. But at the same time they are afraid that Russian missiles may also get them. In every possible way inflating hysterical remarks, they are trying to somehow influence the situation with our defensive missiles. That's right and they do that they are afraid. We still get it, no matter how they scream. A rocket destroy Russia is not worth it.
        1. elmi
          elmi April 27 2017 12: 13
          10
          in order to include China into the existing INF Treaty or conclude a separate agreement with China "

          China does not repeat the mistakes of others and will never enter into the INF Treaty ....
          1. raf
            raf April 27 2017 12: 34
            +1
            Are you part of the Chinese leadership?
            1. elmi
              elmi April 27 2017 12: 45
              +4
              Do you think any opinion about China’s proposed action counts the participants in HE to include the Chinese leadership?
              1. raf
                raf April 27 2017 19: 00
                0
                Quote: elmi
                in order to include China into the existing INF Treaty or conclude a separate agreement with China "

                China does not repeat the mistakes of others and will never enter into the INF Treaty ....

                What would be so positively stated, you must at least be close to the governing circles of the PRC! If not, then this is your fantasy! If you wrote: "I think ... etc" that would be an assumption. And the fact that you wrote this is a statement!
                1. elmi
                  elmi April 27 2017 23: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: raf
                  What would be so positively stated, you must at least be close to the governing circles of the PRC! If not, then this is your fantasy! If you wrote: "I think ... etc" that would be an assumption. And the fact that you wrote this is a statement!

                  How to express your opinion is not for you to teach me, here the freedom of speech, whether or not to agree is your right.
                  I will count me among the close circle of China as a compliment, because I did not refuse.
                  Why did you write like that? - because I consider it in the affirmative form of speech written on my behalf, and not from everyone and expressing my opinion. And you can understand this form of speech circulation in different ways.
                  1. raf
                    raf April 28 2017 12: 16
                    0
                    How to express your opinion is not for you to teach me
                    What would I teach someone, God forbid, this lesson is not thankful!
                    here is freedom of speech,
                    Wow cool! laughing And you could even bend about democracy! lol
                    Why did you write like that? - because I consider it in the affirmative form of speech written on my behalf, and not from everyone and expressing my opinion.
                    What would people understand you correctly write more clearly! Who is her? Especially in the affirmative form! wassat
                    1. elmi
                      elmi April 28 2017 12: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: raf
                      What would people understand you correctly write more clearly! Who is her? Especially in the affirmative form!

                      You do not write from everyone, if you do not understand, ask - I will clarify what I had in mind.
                      1. raf
                        raf April 28 2017 17: 39
                        0
                        You do not write from everyone, if you do not understand, ask - I will clarify what I had in mind.

                        Why did you write like that? - because I consider it in the affirmative form of speech written on my behalf, and not from everyone and expressing my opinion. And you can understand this form of speech circulation in different ways.
                        Something that reminds me .... And I remembered, the Kiev mayor!
                        “And today, tomorrow, not everyone can watch. Rather, not only everyone can watch, few can do it ”
                      2. elmi
                        elmi April 28 2017 20: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: raf
                        Something that reminds me .... And I remembered, the Kiev mayor!
                        All as not uymestes? And they decided to go? Well, try it ... There are such people who are hard to come by, so you are apparently apparently referring to them
            2. Okolotochny
              Okolotochny April 27 2017 14: 30
              +8
              Read the article:
              The admiral several times expressed regret about the non-participation of China in the INF. According to him, Beijing’s 95% missile arsenal does not comply with the terms of the treaty.
              .
              Do you think China will give up such a share of its missile potential?
              1. elmi
                elmi April 27 2017 15: 21
                +2
                I read Sathya, otherwise I would not write a comment. I believe that China will not give up its missile potential, even if these missiles do not comply with the treaty. Americans can not believe, lure, then turn everything.
                1. Okolotochny
                  Okolotochny April 27 2017 15: 23
                  +6
                  Sorry, answered your opponent. Which doubted that you are part of the Chinese leadership. wink hi
                  1. elmi
                    elmi April 27 2017 23: 56
                    +2
                    He just did not doubt but it seems to be quite seriously sure that I will enter the close circle of China laughing Do you seem to be in no doubt as well?
                    1. Okolotochny
                      Okolotochny April 28 2017 00: 33
                      +6
                      They were known only in person! bully
          2. dorz
            dorz April 27 2017 12: 39
            +2
            After the withdrawal or revision of the agreement of years through 5, the Americans will deploy Pershing missiles in Europe.
            1. DOCTOR ZLO
              DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 12: 47
              +2
              Quote: dorz
              After the withdrawal or revision of the agreement of years through 5, the Americans will deploy Pershing missiles in Europe.


              And not only in Europe ....
            2. elmi
              elmi April 27 2017 12: 52
              +2
              This is if European countries agree, but I do not think that they will go for it, since they will automatically become targets. Then what will prevent us in return to place missiles in Cuba, Venezuela? I think Americans remembering the Caribbean crisis will not go to the extreme aggravation, although they can go, because the power under the USSR is different now
              1. DOCTOR ZLO
                DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 12: 57
                +3
                elmi Today, 12: 52 ↑
                This is if the countries of Europe agree, but I do not think that they will do so, as they will automatically become targets.

                And who asked them last time about the "Pershing", they are already targets, allowing them to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on their territory.
                If the Russian Federation withdraws from the INF, we still will not get the United States, but the United States having placed its RSM in Europe and Asia will get us ....
                1. elmi
                  elmi April 27 2017 13: 03
                  +2
                  Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
                  And who asked them last time about the "Pershing", they are already targets, allowing them to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on their territory.

                  Now European countries are more independent than before. Yes, in fact, the countries of Europe already have these rockets, as it were, their own, but those made in the United States, in fact, the treaty does not work — NATO countries have missiles and we don’t.
                  Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
                  If the Russian Federation withdraws from the INF, we still will not get the United States, but the United States having placed its RSM in Europe and Asia will get us ....

                  The United States will get on any-intercontinental missiles, range in 12000km enough with a margin. I repeat, American missiles are already in these countries under the label.
                  1. DOCTOR ZLO
                    DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 13: 20
                    +1
                    elmi Today, 13: 03 ↑
                    Now the countries of Europe are more independent than before.

                    I would like to believe, but I can’t believe for some reason ..... (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic countries will place MX in their mines on their territory) ..... will be placed in Eastern Europe, and all of Europe and Western Europe will suffer nothing with this will not do, because Eastern European countries are more obeyed by the United States, rather than Germany ....

                    European countries already have these missiles

                    everyone refused rockets of this class (ground-based), immediately after the dissolution of the police department (Lance, for example), France cut its own RSD .... this is understandably a possible front line moved thousands of kilometers away, due to new members and the collapse of the USSR. ...
                    RSD is much cheaper than ICBMs, so in Europe they will appear like mushrooms ........
                    1. elmi
                      elmi April 27 2017 13: 40
                      +1
                      Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
                      I would like to believe, but I can’t believe for some reason ..... (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic countries will place MX in their mines on their territory) ..... will be placed in Eastern Europe, and all of Europe and Western Europe will suffer nothing with this will not do, because Eastern European countries are more obeyed by the United States, rather than Germany ....

                      I don’t say for all countries, I don’t consider Poland, Romania, Bulgaria independent, in fact they are mongrels of the USA, you can add the Baltic countries and even Ukraine. Another thing is they have become dulled by impunity; we are taking a tough policy towards these countries, for example, an economic blockade, etc. they would have started singing differently, sooner or later the people of these countries would dare to have a pro-Western government, everyone would like to eat ....
                      Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
                      From the missiles of this class (ground-based) all refused, immediately after the dissolution of the ATS ("Lance" for example), France cut its RSD ...., this is understandably possible front line moved thousands of kilometers, due to new members and the collapse of the USSR. ...
                      RSD is much cheaper than ICBMs, so in Europe they will appear like mushrooms ........

                      Even if you do not take into account the countries of Europe, then six countries already have medium-range missiles of land-based. Among them, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan. Nevertheless, I believe that we should have medium-range missiles, especially in the sea version we already have. Yet we are a land power, not an island country like America, our neighbors have, but we don’t, and it’s profitable for them that we don’t have a medium-range missile
                      1. DOCTOR ZLO
                        DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 14: 10
                        +1
                        elmi

                        Even if you do not take into account the countries of Europe

                        I am concerned about the European countries, they are closer to our center, and
                        PRC, Iran, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan
                        threats do not yet represent for us and when leaving the United States INF Committee, we will have to place our RSM in the European part of the Russian Federation, and not on the border with the PRC ....
                        In addition, if the United States will place its RSD in Europe (I doubt that they will be with the usual CU) ....
                        The economic blockade against the countries of Eastern Europe is not possible because in fact, we have nothing in common in joint economies ... (I think we have lost Eastern Europe forever, just like the Balkans) ...
                        On the territory of Ukraine, the Russian Federation is unlikely to allow the deployment of the NATO WB ....
              2. Stiletto_711
                Stiletto_711 April 27 2017 22: 29
                0
                what will prevent us from deploying missiles in Cuba and Venezuela in response?

                Even if we succeed in convincing Cuba and Venezuela to accept our bases with medium-range missiles, how much will we place them there? Purely for economic opportunities, a couple of hundred?
                And I think pend * s and * geropiets stumble along our border a couple of thousand missiles that shoot all the way to the Urals, and they don’t give a damn that it will fly to the places of basing, the Poles and other rabble are not a pity.
                1. elmi
                  elmi April 28 2017 00: 04
                  +1
                  One thought that you on the sight of nuclear weapons well cools the hotheads. This applies both to us and to the vohor. In fact, we have long been within the reach of nuclear weapons in many countries, in other ways, just like them. What is more profitable, what is not there, you can argue for a long time, the result alone in the case of a big war will not be winners, maybe some countries will live longer, but this only postpones the end a little. I once heard that even if we would undermine all our charges in our own territory, the end of humanity will come anyway. So I think that in no case can we go for reductions in nuclear weapons
            3. NEXUS
              NEXUS April 27 2017 14: 18
              +3
              Quote: dorz
              After the withdrawal or revision of the agreement of years through 5, the Americans will deploy Pershing missiles in Europe.

              So what? Well, our hands will be untied for the adoption of the ICBM Rubezh (Vanguard), for some missiles in the Iskander nomenclature ... for a minute, the declared range of Rubezh is up to 6 km for example ... and there is still a big question who will be the biggest winner .
              1. dorz
                dorz April 27 2017 14: 40
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                Quote: dorz
                After the withdrawal or revision of the agreement of years through 5, the Americans will deploy Pershing missiles in Europe.

                So what? Well, our hands will be untied for the adoption of the ICBM Rubezh (Vanguard), for some missiles in the Iskander nomenclature ... for a minute, the declared range of Rubezh is up to 6 km for example ... and there is still a big question who will be the biggest winner .

                The time for the Pershing to reach the target was 10 minutes. and that was 30 years ago.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS April 27 2017 14: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: dorz
                  The time for the Pershing to reach the target was 10 minutes. and that was 30 years ago.

                  So what? The arrival time of our ICBMs may be even shorter if they are launched off the coast of the USA ... then what? If the United States begins to place Pershing in Europe, I won’t be surprised if our Frontiers appear in Cuba and Vietnam unexpectedly ...
          3. Stas157
            Stas157 April 27 2017 12: 52
            +5
            Quote: elmi
            China does not repeat the mistakes of others and will never enter into the INF Treaty ....

            The fact that the USSR went to sign the INF Treaty was by no means a mistake, but rather an achievement! After all, exactly after that, the Americans did not place their RS and MD in Europe and Turkey (a gun at the temple!). After leaving it, the United States will be able to deploy missiles, for example in the Baltic states, or even worse in Ukraine, what then will you sing?
            1. elmi
              elmi April 27 2017 12: 55
              +1
              Quote: Stas157
              After leaving it, the United States will be able to place rockets, for example in the Baltic states, or so much the worse in Ukraine, what then will you sing?

              I don’t have vocal data, so I’m hardly intoxicated. In response, we can deploy missiles in Cuba and Vinesuela. Then, as a matter of fact, this treaty is more profitable for the United States since it is far away, and NATO countries, in fact, already have short-range and medium-range missiles, but we do not. The contract was signed when such missiles were only in the USA and the USSR, and now in NATO countries
              1. Eine andere meinung
                Eine andere meinung April 27 2017 13: 32
                +4
                ... and break bricks with your head and eat more into it? Who will invite you to Cuba? They lost American sanctions and are happy. Can Venezuela be your reliable ally? US wave $ and ask you to collapse what else and do not have time to deploy
                1. elmi
                  elmi April 27 2017 15: 28
                  +1
                  Already familiar head breaking bricks? I don’t need it, your experience is not interesting to me. Well, how did the USSR win Cuba at one time? With a great desire, everything can be done, even without placing rockets there, it is possible to agree on the constant presence of our navy in Cuba, and there too there are rockets that can easily reach the United States. Believe us, the United States is not as omnipotent as you think, we also have pressure levers, from which the United States will be uncomfortable ...
        2. Evil Elf
          Evil Elf April 27 2017 20: 20
          0
          Once already drank the Tu-160, nuclear submarines, BZHRD, KR ...... enough. Ate democracy
    2. Slovak
      Slovak April 27 2017 12: 47
      +1
      you need to have Russian bases as close to the USA as possible. Or dozens of nuclear submarines patrolling off their coast. It seems to the Americans that they can threaten Russia from Europe and from the south, remaining in relative safety, and this illusion must be destroyed.
    3. keeper03
      keeper03 April 27 2017 14: 28
      0
      The head of the Pacific Command (PAKOM) of the US Armed Forces, Admiral Harri Harris, announced that Washington was considering a renegotiation of the Russian-American Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).
      They are working on how, as it were, to renegotiate the treaty so that the United States withdraws and the Russian Federation remains in it. angry
    4. RussianRoulette
      RussianRoulette April 28 2017 11: 58
      0
      Sentenced arrangements in all their American glory.
  2. tiredwithall
    tiredwithall April 27 2017 11: 58
    +1
    They are afraid of Russian rockets.
    1. cost
      cost April 27 2017 12: 05
      +6
      read the congressional statement carefully: In addition, congressmen intend to facilitate the transfer to the US allies of the missile systems covered by the INF Treaty. By this statement, the United States recognized that they are in violation of the INF Treaty. it is forbidden to manufacture and develop this class of missiles, even for transfer to third parties. And the accusations of the Russian Federation in this, which would later be otmazatsya, they say we were engaged because the Russian Federation did something there.
  3. Satum
    Satum April 27 2017 11: 59
    +3
    How do they puff))). With this agreement .Our ss-x-8 gives no peace. Well just a headache for the Yankees bully
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 27 2017 12: 06
    +1
    Each of the parties has the right to withdraw from it,

    If this is laid down in the contract, then what are the problems, and even more so the constant claims on the American side? Or ours wait when the United States the first to withdraw from the contract? But there are also enough tricky ones.
  5. Lenya Panteleev
    Lenya Panteleev April 27 2017 12: 09
    0
    All the worse for the mattress.
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 27 2017 12: 11
    +1
    I think this is not beneficial for the United States and especially Europe.
    NATO has a lot of medium-range high-precision weapons with conventional and nuclear warheads. Now the advantage in them is total. Well, they will withdraw from the agreement, the fact that they will increase the number will not become much worse for us, and for Europe we will legally have ballistic missiles with a range of up to 5000 km (made taking into account missile defense systems and modern concepts of air defense) and ground-based missile defense. As a result, our backlog in tactical aviation in units and in the number of aircraft will be relatively cheaply eliminated.
    1. ssergn
      ssergn April 27 2017 12: 22
      +1
      Well, right now, nothing prevents us from LEGAL Wailing in Europe.
      From somewhere because of the Urals.
      Just the flight time will increase, respectively, and the time for a decision by them.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 27 2017 12: 28
        0
        First, the flight time is different, and secondly, the cost of the rocket. Accordingly, the number will increase
  7. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx April 27 2017 12: 11
    +3
    from the point of view of the layman - I don’t see any sense in this agreement for us. Pro system in Vost. Europe theoretically (xs as practically, but nonetheless) neutralizes our mbr to the Center. Russia; accordingly, we need to neutralize these “pro” in the event of a NATO attack; better than medium- and short-range hypersonic missiles with a ground-based nuclear warhead, nothing can neutralize them. namely, they are limited by the contract.
  8. K-50
    K-50 April 27 2017 12: 15
    +2
    The admiral several times expressed regret about the non-participation of China in the INF. According to him, Beijing’s 95% missile arsenal does not comply with the terms of the treaty.

    And how many missiles does NATO and the allies of the mattress not comply with the Treaty?
  9. Masya masya
    Masya masya April 27 2017 12: 15
    +6
    The admiral regretted several times that China did not participate in the INF Treaty.

    Here is China well done! And no headache !!!
    1. adept666
      adept666 April 27 2017 13: 35
      +1
      Here is China well done! And no headache !!!

      Such complexes are not a priori threatened by China, but to us completely. Placed near our borders, even ordinary CRs such as axes are not very pleasant, and even if there is something hypersonic ... Our capital and industrial centers are too close - they will be flying for a few minutes. Another problem is that on earth you can cheaply and angrily cram such systems of spaced 100500 pieces and are difficult to control. Therefore, the appearance of such weapons at our borders of pain will add a headache to us, and not reduce it. But actually it has already appeared in Europe, only as a missile defense system simply our "partners" are modestly silent that in MK41, besides missiles, axes are loaded ...
  10. segamegament
    segamegament April 27 2017 12: 18
    +2
    Iskander and Caliber interfere with them? The lads do not want to coexist peacefully and build, and not destroy, apparently the time has come to get the calculus, and to customize it, because the PEACE will not last long apparently ...
  11. AlexTires
    AlexTires April 27 2017 12: 19
    +1
    And I like these guys !!! They turned everything upside down to accuse Russia of violating the treaty, while they themselves are trying to fit types of missiles not provided for by the treaty, and even frankly violating the missile defense treaty. And the Kremlin, seeing an outright violation of the DPRO, as always escapes with a statement of obvious facts and "regrets" that the "partners" behave this way .... Not if they happen, they will definitely let us go for meat ...


    ,
  12. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan April 27 2017 12: 26
    +3
    We need to take an example from the United States and declare that we will launch preemptive strikes against Europe if American missiles are deployed there. If we hit the first, then we will break the whole game of the Americans, because they will have to choose between a full-scale nuclear war with us and a retreat from our borders. We can’t be allowed to put a gun to our temple.
    Today's situation fully copies the beginning of the 60s, when the United States deployed rockets in Turkey.
    1. AlexTires
      AlexTires April 27 2017 12: 28
      0
      Are you laughing, chtoli? We cannot 404 threaten that we will outweigh the entire junta on Khreshchatyk, but we will stutter about Europe ....
  13. Operator
    Operator April 27 2017 12: 28
    +7
    Americans should be thanked for their planned withdrawal from the RMND treaty.

    Having withdrawn from this treaty, we will finally be able to compensate for the lag in this type of armaments from China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Medium-range missiles such as the Soviet "Pioneer" will allow thermonuclear charges to be thrown from Anadyr to Los Angeles at a distance of 5500 km, i.e. to jeopardize the entire Pacific coast of the United States.

    This will result in big savings in finances and charges placed on expensive ICBMs and SLBMs, which can be redirected to the central regions and the Atlantic coast of the United States.

    In addition, the Pioneers located in Western Siberia will allow you to keep track of all of Europe, Asia and North Africa from one place, while also saving the ICBM and SLBM charges limited by START-3.
    1. corporal
      corporal April 27 2017 12: 45
      0
      The Pershing analogue in the Baltics is a nightmare of any Kremlin chief.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 27 2017 12: 49
        0
        The American submarines have long worked out the launch of the Trident along a gentle trajectory over a range of 3000 km with a flight time of 15 minutes.

        Those. Russia is constantly at risk of being hit by analogues of medium-range missiles. The presence of Pershing is optional.

        This is what the head of the State Armed Forces of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Viktor Pozniqir, needs to take care of, and not the mythical weapons of the "instant global strike."
        1. corporal
          corporal April 27 2017 13: 12
          0
          Quote: Operator
          on a gentle path to a range of 3000 km with a flight time of 15 minutes.

          With pershing - 8 minutes, is there a difference?
          1. Operator
            Operator April 27 2017 13: 30
            +1
            The flight time of Pershing-2 to the maximum firing distance in 1850 km is equal to 10 minutes.
  14. Valtsmanyuga
    Valtsmanyuga April 27 2017 12: 33
    0
    To negotiate with the mattress what to play with a sharpie, you need to strengthen your defense without turning the mattress into screams, let suicide bombers from Europe deal with them.
  15. DOCTOR ZLO
    DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 12: 51
    +1
    There is one plus point to all this. If the INF Treaty is terminated, property prices in Europe will fall unambiguously.
  16. iouris
    iouris April 27 2017 13: 01
    0
    If the starting positions of the missiles are already 800 km from Moscow, then why the US agreement on INF, and, most importantly, what will stop them? But to keep the bases and cities in Europe under the gaze of Gibraltar inclusive is very important (purely psychologically).
  17. Vita vko
    Vita vko April 27 2017 13: 31
    0
    The United States is systematically breaking all treaties holding back their plans to militarize countries bordering Russia and China. This is not beneficial for them now, the only criterion regulating the policy of the main international terrorist. Consequently, China, Russia and a number of other countries must, by joint efforts, achieve that it is beneficial for the United States to adhere to international law.
  18. NUR
    NUR April 27 2017 14: 07
    0
    That's because of the sausage how many problems have arisen.
  19. elmi
    elmi April 27 2017 14: 31
    +1
    DOCTOR ZLO,
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    I am concerned about the European countries, they are closer to our center, and

    I, too, but the Europeans are also worried about our possible deployment of missiles in the European part, so they are not sure whether they will allow the deployment of American missiles
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    PRC, Iran, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan
    threats do not yet represent for us and when leaving the United States INF Committee, we will have to place our RSM in the European part of the Russian Federation, and not on the border with the PRC ....

    Not yet, you should not discard them, especially relations with Israel can be badly deteriorated in the light of the war in Syria. And China can not be discounted, the conflicts of the USSR and China also remember

    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    In addition, if the United States will place its RSD in Europe (I doubt that they will be with the usual CU) ....

    If in response to this we achieve the deployment of our missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, then our warheads can also be retooled for nuclear ones, in America they understand this ...
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    The economic blockade against the countries of Eastern Europe is not possible because in fact, we have nothing in common in joint economies ... (I think we have lost Eastern Europe forever, just like the Balkans) ...
    On the territory of Ukraine, the Russian Federation is unlikely to allow the deployment of the NATO WB ....

    Why then? -To take the same transit of our goods, having deprived the Baltic of the ranzit through our ports, we greatly worsen their economy, many countries are dependent on the supply of natural minerals, gas, oil, etc. Of course, it will not be profitable for us, but in war as in war, even if it is economic. Then these measures will be temporary, until the rhetoric of these countries changes and they go to a meeting.
    But after all, foreign mercenaries are in Ukraine, and military equipment is already being delivered, which prevents them from deploying missiles? How can we stop them? Is that give a flick of the Donbas on the offensive
    1. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 15: 07
      +2
      elmi

      How can we stop them? unless to give the go-ahead for Donbass offensive

      When deploying air defense / missile defense bases in Ukraine and the Baltic states, the Russian Federation will be forced to organize a “referendum” throughout the entire Right-Bank Ukraine and the Baltic states, even under the threat of expelling the Russian Federation from the UN and the threat of war with NATO, otherwise the Russian Federation will always be on a short leash with the United States. ..
      When the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty, the first step the RF should take is:
      - stop all contacts in the Russian Federation - NATO;
      - withdraw from the Treaty on the Nuclear-Free Zone of the Baltic Sea;
      - withdraw from the Agreement on the Restriction of the Transfer of Rocket Technologies.
      For the first stage, this is enough.
      1. elmi
        elmi April 27 2017 15: 33
        +1
        Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
        When deployed in Ukraine and the Baltic air defense / missile defense bases, the Russian Federation will be forced to organize a "referendum" throughout the right-bank Ukraine and the Baltic states, even under the threat of exclusion of the Russian Federation from the UN and the threat of war with NATO,

        Hard to believe. In Donbas, I still believe that it is possible to arrange a referendum, especially since they have long been asking for membership in Russia, but as in Ukraine, if their special services are strangling pro-Russian leaders in the bud, especially in the Baltic States. Although I agree that Russia will come up with a response
        Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
        When the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty, the first step the RF should take is:
        - stop all contacts in the Russian Federation - NATO;
        - withdraw from the Treaty on the Nuclear-Free Zone of the Baltic Sea;
        - withdraw from the Agreement on the Restriction of the Transfer of Rocket Technologies.
        For the first stage, this is enough.

        There is a lot more to be added, even cooperation, termination of cooperation in the space program, for example, to stop selling our rocket engines.
  20. Old26
    Old26 April 27 2017 18: 29
    0
    According to TASS, the head of the Pacific Command (PACOM) of the U.S. Armed Forces (US) Admiral Harri Harris announced that Washington is considering a renegotiation of the Russian-American Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).

    Delusional information. So the Americans are going to:
    - renegotiate the contract
    - or get out of it.

    With regards to the second - easily. This is provided for by the provisions of the contract.
    Regarding the first, and with whom and how are the Americans going to renegotiate the contract? In fact, contracts are concluded between two countries or between several. This takes into account weapons systems on each side. With whom are the Americans going to renegotiate the INF Treaty? With China? So China just sends the United States on a long erotic journey and does the right thing. What, in response to the reduction of medium-range missiles in China, are the United States ready to cut back? What are medium-range missiles? Those that they don’t have ???
    Nonsense, Nonsense, And Nonsense.

    ,
    Quote: elmi
    Now European countries are more independent than before. Yes, in fact, the countries of Europe already have these rockets, as it were, their own, but those made in the United States, in fact, the treaty does not work — NATO countries have missiles and we don’t.

    Is it possible in more detail? What missiles do these countries have, as you say, as if theirs, but made in the USA ??? More details can be ???

    Quote: elmi
    The United States will get on any-intercontinental missiles, range in 12000km enough with a margin. I repeat, American missiles are already in these countries under the label.

    Damn, one about Thomas, the other about Yerema. This is a medium-range missiles. We will not get the United States with them, even if we turn inside out, and they, having placed these missiles in the same Estonia ... I think it’s not worth saying what meta such missiles can reach?

    Quote: elmi
    I do not have vocal data, so I vryatli a binge. In response, we can deploy missiles in Cuba and Venezuela.

    But they were not interested in whether Cuba and Venezuela would like to deploy our missiles ???

    Quote: elmi
    Then, in essence, this agreement is more beneficial to the United States since it is far away, and NATO countries essentially already have short- and medium-range missiles, but we do not. The agreement was signed when only the USA and the USSR had such missiles, and now NATO countries

    In fact, the presence of an agreement on the INF Treaty is primarily beneficial to RUSSIA. Because even having deployed such missiles in Sukhotka (and this will not happen), the maximum that MCH will be able to hit is Alaska. If they place in Estonia - the goals in Moscow and St. Petersburg will be hit a couple of minutes after the start (it was 7-10 minutes more)
    Once again I ask the question: what medium-range missiles do the NATO countries have. And at the same time what short-range missiles. Better "by name"

    Quote: K-50
    And how many missiles does NATO and the allies of the mattress not comply with the Treaty?

    But they are not

    Quote: Operator
    Having withdrawn from this treaty, we will finally be able to compensate for the lag in this type of armaments from China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Medium-range missiles such as the Soviet "Pioneer" will allow thermonuclear charges to be thrown from Anadyr to Los Angeles at a distance of 5500 km, i.e. to jeopardize the entire Pacific coast of the United States.

    The only plant in Russia that produces this type of missile is Votkinskiy. In a year it produces about 50 missiles, of which about 20-35 are ICBMs, and the rest are infantry-ballistic missiles. How can we compensate for the lag from several countries at once. To do this, it will be necessary to produce such rockets (BRRS) in the amount of several hundred pieces. And what to do? Put an end to the rearmament of our strategic missile forces and submarines? Or release all at once? Only such a release will drag on for decades. And our “friends” will need a very short time to launch several hundred ballistic missiles and repurpose their ground “tomahawks”. And who would be better off from this? Russia? I doubt very much
    1. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 18: 56
      +2
      Old26

      Delusional information. So the Americans are going to:
      - renegotiate the contract
      - or get out of it.
      With regards to the second - easily. This is provided for by the provisions of the contract.
      Regarding the first, and with whom and how are the Americans going to renegotiate the contract? In fact, contracts are concluded between two countries or between several. This takes into account weapons systems on each side. With whom are the Americans going to renegotiate the INF Treaty? With China? So China just sends the United States on a long erotic journey and does the right thing. What, in response to the reduction of medium-range missiles in China, are the US ready to cut back?


      Again you are for the old ....
      The agreement on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles from 08.12.1987 was concluded between the USSR and the USA, the Russian Federation, the successor of the USSR, therefore, after the termination of the existence of the USSR, it automatically became a party to this Treaty.
      According to Article 15 of the Agreement - is perpetual, therefore, we can only talk about the withdrawal of one of the Parties to the Agreement, the Agreement ceases to operate through 6 months warning about the withdrawal of one of the Parties.
      Admiral Harris Harris announced the study of Washington issue of renegotiation of the Russian-American Treaty on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty) and exit from it
      said nonsense.
      However, the Agreement may be amended (Article 16 of the Agreement) with the consent of both Parties, for example, determine the duration of the Agreement or change the number of its participants.

      What are medium-range missiles? Those that they don’t have ???
      Nonsense, Nonsense, And Nonsense.


      If you carefully read the subject of the Treaty (Art. 1), then everything will become clear to you - "........ each of the Parties will eliminate its medium-range and shorter-range missiles, does not have such funds in the future......... "
      Everything seems clear and understandable. The types of missiles subject to elimination and their characteristics are also indicated in the Treaty.
      Go to the Library anyway.
  21. Giants
    Giants April 27 2017 19: 22
    +2
    Quote: NEXUS
    If the United States begins to place Pershing in Europe, I won’t be surprised if our Frontiers appear in Cuba and Vietnam unexpectedly ...

    Looking at how Israel attacks targets in Syria, absolutely not bothering with some kind of Russian air defense, I personally doubt very much that, for example, Cuba will agree to be our ally and provide its territory for our borders. The conclusions are simple: since Putin allows Jews to bomb Syria, where is the guarantee that he will not do the same with Cuba?
    1. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 19: 35
      +3
      Quote: Giants
      I personally strongly doubt that, for example, Cuba will agree to be our ally and provide its territory for our borders. The conclusions are simple: since Putin allows Jews to bomb Syria, where is the guarantee that he will not do the same with Cuba?

      I agree. In addition, trade between the Russian Federation and Cuba is virtually absent. We have forgiven them, debts and therefore nothing binds them to us, although we could forgive them under any conditions. Now Cuba is quicker to agree to deploy PLA bases on its territory than ours.
      The current generation of Cubans probably does not even know where the Russian Federation is located.
  22. Old26
    Old26 April 27 2017 19: 43
    0
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    The agreement on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles from 08.12.1987 was concluded between the USSR and the USA, the Russian Federation, the successor of the USSR, therefore, after the termination of the existence of the USSR, it automatically became a party to this Treaty.
    According to Article 15 of the Agreement - it is unlimited, therefore it can only be about the withdrawal of one of the Parties to the Agreement, the Agreement ceases to exist after 6 months on the warning of the withdrawal of one of the Parties.

    Did I write something else? In my opinion the same thing as you. But the Americans are proposing either to withdraw or renegotiate the contract. With the exit, everything is clear. But with the switch? How do you understand the renegotiation of the contract? With whom? With Russia - so how to renegotiate an agreement regarding what none of the parties has (Russia, USA).
    Reconnect with China? How do you imagine this? Let’s imagine that you are China, and I am the USA. I suggest that you eliminate medium-range missiles (even if less) from both sides. Only here is bad luck. You have these missiles, and medium and shorter range, but I do not. You must agree to reduce your missiles without receiving anything from me in return. I can’t cut anything, unlike you, because I don’t have what to cut? Will you go to such a "renegotiation of the contract"? I think no.

    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    However, the Agreement may be amended (Article 16 of the Agreement) with the consent of both Parties, for example, determine the duration of the Agreement or change the number of its participants.

    Undoubtedly. But how does the third party agree to this?

    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    If you carefully read the subject of the Treaty (Article 1), then everything will become clear to you - "........ each of the Parties will liquidate its medium-range and shorter-range missiles, does not have such funds in the future ....... .. "
    Everything seems clear and understandable. The types of missiles subject to elimination and their characteristics are also indicated in the Treaty.

    I read the contract and many times. There are no questions from the Soviet and American sides. How will the Americans conclude (renegotiate) this agreement with the Chinese? When some have them, others do not. And those who do not have offers to cut them? Do you see the logic in this? Me not. That's bullshit...
    1. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 20: 02
      +2
      Old26

      I just answered your questions and nothing more.
      But with the switch? How do you understand the renegotiation of the contract? With whom?

      I replied that the American comrade was not in the subject ... (I think he meant to amend the agreement or terminate it, and not renegotiate or terminate) ...

      With Russia - so how to renegotiate an agreement regarding what none of the parties has (Russia, USA).

      The agreement provides not only for the liquidation of the INF Treaty, but also a ban on their production and deployment in the future I gave you a link to Article 1 of the Agreement. If the Parties to the Agreement liquidated the INF, this does not mean that the subject of the Agreement has disappeared (since any of the Parties, in violation of the Agreement, will be able to establish production of the INF again, and then this will be a violation of the Agreement). By your own logic, if the Parties liquidated the INF, then the subject of the Agreement is no longer there.

      I did not write anything about the PRC at all, I only said that the Treaty allows for amendments (Article 16 of the Treaty) including the inclusion of a third party (theoretically and with the consent of the PRC itself), then the Treaty becomes tripartite.
    2. rudolff
      rudolff April 27 2017 20: 20
      0
      Old26, all right, but there are nuances. The contract is renegotiated (or an additional agreement is concluded) if individual conditions of the contract are changed or new ones are added. For example, the contract may limit the minimum range of ICBMs / SLBMs (at least 5500 km), which the Americans actually propose. We also have complaints. For example, regarding target missiles. If you agree on everything amicably, renegotiation on other terms is quite possible. The Americans ’withdrawal from the INF Treaty is akin to disaster for us.
      It's harder with China. It is basically possible to make a treaty multilateral. But ... China will remember India, India about Pakistan, all together they will talk about North Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Some link will be weak.
      1. DOCTOR ZLO
        DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 20: 28
        +1
        I mean the same thing, and the American military apparently meant it. This discussion topic is more for lawyers.
        If the United States and ours have claims to the Treaty, then it is easier to amend it. Termination of his action, like death to us.
        We can include conditions for strategic UAVs and the territory of the Treaty (for example, to Eastern Siberia, if you are so afraid of the PRC), etc.

        It is clear that the PRC does not agree to "be third", but theoretically it is possible ....
  23. Old26
    Old26 April 27 2017 22: 20
    0
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    If the Parties to the Agreement liquidated the INF, this does not mean that the subject of the Agreement has disappeared (since any of the Parties, in violation of the Agreement, will be able to establish production of the INF again, and then this will be a violation of the Agreement). By your own logic, if the Parties liquidated the INF, then the subject of the Agreement is no more ..

    Have I written such a thing somewhere? I said that such an interpretation of the old treaty will not yield any results. The subject was and will be if there is a violation. But the stupidity of the American side lies in the very formulation of the question - "renegotiation."
    We have an agreement with them, “fastening someone else’s right now is nonsense, because this man’s third will not reduce, when others are not going to cut something.

    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    I did not write anything about the PRC at all, I only said that the Treaty allows for amendments (Article 16 of the Treaty) including the inclusion of a third party (theoretically and with the consent of the PRC itself), then the Treaty becomes tripartite.

    And I did not write that these are your words. These words belong (to the text to the Americans). The contract allows for amendments to the contract. Amendments, not changes. The introduction of a third country is a complete change. Well, in any case, I can’t imagine the subject of bargaining for introducing a third country into the contract.
    I repeat.
    Imagine that you are China. I am the USA. I do not have medium-range missiles, you have one. What could be the subject of bargaining in our agreement. How can I “force” you to cut medium-range missiles if I don’t have the same ones that I can cut?

    Quote: rudolff
    For example, the contract may limit the minimum range of ICBMs / SLBMs (at least 5500 km), which the Americans actually propose. We also have complaints. For example, regarding target missiles.

    The contract, Rudolph, may limit the range of medium-range missiles. But not an ICBM / SLBM. The minimum range of intercontinental missiles can be artificially limited. But this will lead to a fall not only in range, but also in accuracy.
    Yes, the Americans tried to squeeze us with the same “Frontier”, arguing that this was a violation of the contract due to the fact that the flight range on the short route was a little over 2000 km. And they would be right if this rocket did not fly to a range of more than 5500 km. More than 5500 is already an ICBM, no matter how much it could fly artificially.

    Russia's claims to missile interceptors ....
    We just do a good face on a bad game. The Americans created these targets as part of the treaty. We missed this article, and when we realized that we were lousy - it was too late. In fact, with our permission, the Americans created medium-range missiles, which they had previously destroyed. And now for us a way out of the contract is fraught. We will receive missiles with a range of about 2000 km at our borders. And very fast.

    But the whole problem is that right now we cannot make any amendments to the contract. It remains only to mutually accuse each other of violating the "spirit" of the treaty, then the "letter".

    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    If the United States and ours have claims to the Treaty, then it is easier to amend it. Termination of his action, like death to us.
    We can include conditions for strategic UAVs and the territory of the Treaty (for example, to Eastern Siberia, if you are so afraid of the PRC), etc.

    It is clear that the PRC does not agree to "be third", but theoretically it is possible ....

    In principle, both parties have no claims to the contract. And on the implementation of this agreement to amend it will not work. They could be introduced during the execution of the contract. And about the termination - I absolutely agree with you and always talked about it when comrades suggested breaking it.
    It’s impossible to include conditions for strategic UAVs. The thing is that any cruise missile is a UAV, but not any UAV is a cruise missile. At one time, there were explanations regarding the details of the difference between the RS and the UAV. But there is a difference between them and therefore UAVs cannot be made up for the contract.
    As for the territories of operation of the Treaty, alas, but it has already passed. At one time, we tried to limit the territory of the treaty, but the Americans did not agree. Therefore, the territory of the contract were
    From the USA - the territory of NATO countries
    From the USSR - the territory of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty countries
    1. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO April 27 2017 22: 37
      +2
      Old26

      I see you are talking to me, pouring empty and empty, look at least the beginning of the discussion thread ...
      And on the implementation of this agreement to amend it will not work.

      Where this is written in the Agreement, there are the rules of the Agreement (Art. 16) which indicate that the Agreement may be amended by agreement of the Parties, no time frame or stages for the execution of the Agreement is limited to amending the Agreement.
      They could be introduced during the execution of the contract.

      He is now in the execution stage, as the parties comply with Article 1 of the Agreement both on liquidation (executed) and on non-production (execute).
      You have a substitution of concepts, so you will not understand the subject of the Agreement.
      About the absence of claims to the Agreement from the Russian Federation and the USA, we will remain in our opinion .....
      I answered all your questions (see discussion thread).
    2. rudolff
      rudolff April 27 2017 23: 21
      +1
      Stary26, Vladimir, most often I agree with you, but I will not support it here. Sergey (Zlo) is right, the contract is valid and subject to the will of the parties is subject to change or addition. Any contract is the result of bargaining. Now the bidding is on the classification of missiles, that is, they returned to where they started. To limit the minimum range of ICBMs with the INF Treaty is just one sentence: consider ICBMs with the possibility of launching at a range of up to 5,5 thousand km falling within the scope of this agreement as an INF. And that’s all! If such an item appears, there will simply not be any Frontier in service. In the end, we are all adults and we are well aware that Boundary is a banal ploy to circumvent the contract. Once Topol was called the RSD-overgrowth, now here is the new ICBM-inexpensive. The same trick is the placement of the Kyrgyz Republic on the Buyan river-sea class. In a couple of days, a small arsenal of KR / RSD on inland waterways can be virtually anywhere in the European part of Russia. But if we agree to the recognition of Rubezh as being within the scope of the INF Treaty, then, accordingly, we are entitled to demand something in return. For example, the same target missiles. I fully admit that Boundary for bargaining was created.
      1. DOCTOR ZLO
        DOCTOR ZLO April 28 2017 12: 27
        +1
        rudolff РћРіСЂР ° РЅРёС ‡ ить РјРёРЅРёРјР °Р ° Р »СЊРЅСѓСЋ РґР ° Р» ьность РњР'Р РґРѕРіРѕРІРѕРСР °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °Р °РЃРЃР °РЃР °Р °РЃРЃРЃР °РЃРЃР °РЃРЃР °РЃРЃРЃРЃРѕР ° Р ° ть РњР'Р СЃ РІРѕР · можноЁстью РІСѓСЃРєР ° РЅР ° РґР ° Р »СЊРЅРѕСЃС‚СЊ РґРѕ 5,5 ты СЃ. РєРј РІРѕРґРїР ° РґР ° СЋС ‰ РёРјРё РїРѕРґ действия РЅР ° СЃС‚РѕСЏС ‰ его РґРѕРіРѕРІРѕСЂ, РєР ° Рє РЎ РЎР. Р РІСЃРµ! P • SЃR "Ryo S,R ° RєRѕR№ RїSѓRЅRєS, RїRѕSЏRІRoS,SЃSЏ, RЅRoRєR RєRѕRіRѕ ° F ± SѓR RμR¶R ° RЅR RІRѕRѕSЂSѓR¶RμRЅRoRo RїRѕRїSЂRѕSЃS,Sѓ RЅRμ ° F ± SѓRґRμS,.

        Р ”СЏРґСЊРєР ° РїРѕ видео РЅР ° этом СЃР ° йте СЃРєР ° Р · Р ° Р”, СЗ С‚Рѕ Сѓ Р РЎ-26 "Р СѓР ± еж" имдее ьность РѕС ‚6 ты СЃ. RєRј РґРѕ 11 С‚С ‹СЃ. РєРј https://topwar.ru/114130-s-takimi-rubezhami-rossi
        ya-mozhet-spat-spokoyno.html
        Рё РѕРЅР ° РІСЂРёРґРµС ‚РЅР ° Р · Р ° мену (вместе СЃ енР° СЂР ° кетнР° СЏ РґРёРІРёР · РёСЏ РїРѕРґ Рркутском РЅР ° Р РЎ-26 "Р СѓР ± еж".
        RўR ° C Rє S,Rѕ RІSЂSЏRґ ‡ P "P Ryo R¤ F ± SѓRґRμS, RјRμRЅSЏS,SЊ P" PI RѕRіRѕRІRѕSЂ SѓS ‰ ± RμSЂR SѓR¶Rμ RїSЂRoRЅSЏS,S <Rј RЅR ° F RІRѕRѕSЂSѓR¶RμRЅRoRμ RЎ-26 "P SѓR ± еж "Рё скорее уже РїСЂРѕРёР · РІРѕРґРёРјС‹ Рµ .....
        1. rudolff
          rudolff April 28 2017 13: 31
          0
          P • СЃР »Рё РґР ° Р» ьность Р СѓР ± ежР° Р ± СѓРґРµС ‚РѕС‚ 6 С‚С ‹СЃ. РєРј, то РЅРёРєР ° РєРёС ... РїСЂРѕР ± Р »РµРј СЃ принятием этой РјР ° С € РёРЅС‹ РЅР ° вооружедедееееееееееенененененененРНо если РѕС‚ 2 С‚С ‹СЃ., Рѕ С З РµРј СЂР ° нее РіРѕРІРѕСЂРёР» Рё, тогдР° ... ПоживРРРј, СѓРІРј
          1. DOCTOR ZLO
            DOCTOR ZLO April 28 2017 13: 44
            +1
            Quote: rudolff
            P • СЃР »Рё РґР ° Р» ьность Р СѓР ± ежР° Р ± СѓРґРµС ‚РѕС‚ 6 С‚С ‹СЃ. РєРј, то РЅРёРєР ° РєРёС ... РїСЂРѕР ± Р »РµРј СЃ принятием этой РјР ° С € РёРЅС‹ РЅР ° вооружедедееееееееееенененененененРНо если РѕС‚ 2 С‚С ‹СЃ., Рѕ С З РµРј СЂР ° нее РіРѕРІРѕСЂРёР» Рё, тогдР° ... ПоживРРРј, СѓРІРј

            РџРѕ "Р · РѕРјР ± Рё-СЏС ‰ РёРєСѓ" СЏ СЃР »С‹ С € Р ° Р », С З С‚Рѕ РћРўР Рљ" Р СЃРєР ° ндер "можно сдел Р ° С‚Њ , РґРѕР ± Р ° РІРёРІ РѕРґРЅСѓ ступень РёР »Рё постР° РИРёРІ РґСЂ. РґРІРёРіР ° тель Рё РґР ° Р» ьность увеР»РёС ‡ ится РґРѕ 1 ты СЃ. РєРј., С‚РµС ... РЅРёС ‡ ески СЏ РЅРµ готов это РѕР ± суждР° ть, С‚.Рє. РіСѓРјР ° нитР° СЂРёР№.
            1. rudolff
              rudolff April 28 2017 13: 58
              0
              Maybe. Only if one more step is added, then another machine will be needed. But there is a variant of Iskander with cruise missiles, but with CR, as in that proverb about a good dog, for which seven miles is not a hook.
          2. Ascetic
            Ascetic April 28 2017 22: 58
            +2
            Quote: rudolff
            P • СЃР »Рё РґР ° Р» ьность Р СѓР ± ежР° Р ± СѓРґРµС ‚РѕС‚ 6 С‚С ‹СЃ. РєРј, то РЅРёРєР ° РєРёС ... РїСЂРѕР ± Р »РµРј СЃ принятием этой РјР ° С € РёРЅС‹ РЅР ° вооружедедееееееееееенененененененРНо если РѕС‚ 2 С‚С ‹СЃ., Рѕ С З РµРј СЂР ° нее РіРѕРІРѕСЂРёР» Рё, тогдР° ... ПоживРРРј, СѓРІРј

            Only the maximum declared range is taken into account, so nothing threatens Boundary
            1. rudolff
              rudolff April 29 2017 09: 17
              0
              Ascetic. Stanislav, let's be objective. If a ballistic missile has a maximum range of ICBMs, then this is an ICBM, regardless of what its minimum range is. This is our point of view and we seem to be right. The Americans argue that if the BR corresponds to the maximum ICBM and minimum RSD, then such a missile has the characteristics of both an intercontinental and a medium-range missile, and in general that is also right. Such a machine on mobile installations located in the European part of Russia covers the whole of Europe with a relatively short flight time. So who is right? The INF Treaty does not provide an unambiguous interpretation. We missed this point, and there was no such problem at that time. More puzzled how to combine the American and Soviet classifications of missiles into a single one and what to do with our operational / tactical missiles. There are two solutions to the problem. Or a renegotiation of an agreement with additional conditions regarding classification, here we also have claims against the Americans and quite weighty arguments for bargaining, or denunciation of the agreement (withdrawal of one of the parties). It is very unlikely that the Americans will just bark and swallow the appearance of the Frontier (or whatever flew 2 km with a tail) without sudden movements. They can come to an amicable and gentlemanly agreement without touching the INF Treaty. Or discuss this issue when extending the START treaty.
            2. DOCTOR ZLO
              DOCTOR ZLO April 29 2017 13: 41
              0
              Ascetic

              Only the maximum declared range is taken into account

              You are not right:
              In p.p. 5 and 6 Art. 2 of the RSD and RMD Agreement are defined by the terms:
              RSD (these are BRNB and KRNB) with a range of 1 000 km. to 5 500 km. (Clause 5, Art. 2 of the Agreement);
              RMD (these are BRNB and KRNB) with a range equal to or greater than 500 km. to 1 000 km. (Clause 6, Art. 2 of the Agreement).
              Accordingly, the minimum and maximum values ​​of the range of missiles are determined.
        2. Ascetic
          Ascetic April 28 2017 23: 01
          +1
          Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
          has a range of 6 thousand km to 11 thousand km https://topwar.ru/114130-s-takimi-rubezhami-rossi

          The uncle is incompetent. The minimum range for the same "hundred" 1000km. Max. 11000km. The boundary is a small-sized ICBM declared range \ under the START treaty \ no more than 6000km
  24. Old26
    Old26 April 28 2017 07: 37
    0
    Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
    I see you are talking to me, pouring empty and empty, look at least the beginning of the discussion thread ...

    I don't chatter you. We are largely similar in opinion, but it seems that for some reason we don’t understand each other, what does everyone mean. Or not? Can we repeat thesis?
  25. elmi
    elmi April 28 2017 20: 23
    +1
    raf,
    Quote: raf
    Something that reminds me .... And I remembered, the Kiev mayor!

    All as not uymestes? And they decided to go? Well, try it ... There are such people who are hard to come by, so you are apparently apparently referring to them
  26. Etsma
    Etsma April 28 2017 22: 52
    0
    Does anyone know if the C500 comes under INF or not?
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic April 28 2017 22: 56
      +2
      Quote: etsma
      Does anyone know if the C500 comes under INF or not?

      The Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF), which entered into force on June 1, 1988. The parties to the contract pledged not to produce, test, or deploy ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles medium (from 1000 to 5500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1000 kilometers) ranges.
      S-500 is armed with missiles and anti-missile defensive weapon not limited to any contracts
  27. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander April 29 2017 22: 45
    0
    The situation is such that get out or not get out of the treaty, but all the same war cannot be avoided ... Therefore, it would be better if these missiles WILL be. BUT! Then it is necessary to notify that if the United States withdraws from this treaty, then Russia withdraws from ALL NUCLEAR treaties with the United States (especially on strategic missiles). It is unlikely that this will stop the nuclear war, but on the other hand, GUARANTEED will not leave anyone any chance of survival (primarily in the United States and Hero). And this is at least some kind of consolation with a general collapse. All the same, the West WILL NOT LEAVE AN ATTEMPT TO Eradicate Slavic Civilization NEVER. Better a terrible end than horror without end.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff April 29 2017 23: 40
      +1
      You can’t go out now! And especially from START! For us, this is a handicap in time. In terms of the number of carriers, we are already below the established limits, and given the upcoming rearmament, we will not reach these limits for a long time. Need replacement and weave and governor. Sarmat is only at work. Barguzin at work. For Mace, too, not all questions have been removed. It takes another ten years at least.
  28. The comment was deleted.