Military Review

Russia will reduce the number of airfields for the United States

47
From January 1 2018, the number of airfields in Russia that Americans are allowed to use under an open sky contract will be reduced, reports RIA News message from a diplomatic source.




It is about bringing the list of airfields in line with the contract. Such a step is a mirror one in response to the measures declared by the USA with regard to Russia, which are also planned to be introduced in January,
said the agency interlocutor.

He explained that we are talking about Washington’s intention “to close the airspace over Alaska, Hawaii for Russian observers, and also to limit the range of flights”.

As the Wall Street Journal earlier noted, the preparation of restrictions on flights over the United States was a response from the authorities to tightening flight rules over Kaliningrad. The publication reminds that within the framework of the agreement, the range of the reconnaissance flight can be up to 5,5 thousands of kilometers, while over Kaliningrad Russia has imposed a limit of up to 500 kilometers.

The Kremlin called on Washington to make any claims under the treaty in strict accordance with the document.

The Open Skies Treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24 1992 by representatives of the OSCE OSCE 23. Russia ratified the treaty in May 2001. The parties to the treaty may fly over each other’s territories in order to control military activities.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Theodore
    Theodore 27 December 2017 08: 30 New
    13
    In general, close the sky!
    1. Login_Off
      Login_Off 27 December 2017 08: 34 New
      +8
      Not! They will immediately say that this is not democratic!
      We just need to conduct joint exercises with Cuba and Venezuela.
      1. Hoc vince
        Hoc vince 27 December 2017 08: 36 New
        +3
        It seems to be preparing for the events in Korea.
        1. Hoc vince
          Hoc vince 27 December 2017 08: 48 New
          16
          "The Open Skies Treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24, 1992 by representatives 23 states OSCE "
          Restrictions are imposed for the United States, and the United States has already scheduled flights together with Denmark and the United States with England. What to do with NATO member countries? Will fly as before? How can an aggressor be allowed to do reconnaissance on its territory? To withdraw from the contract in general, it is not needed.
          Limitations only the United States - this is not even a mirror answer.
          1. Hagalaz
            Hagalaz 27 December 2017 09: 27 New
            +2
            Here it is! It would be wiser to implement such an agreement within the framework of Russia-NATO. One hell most of the euro. Countries members. So let them receive information from their single center.
            1. Hoc vince
              Hoc vince 27 December 2017 09: 37 New
              +3
              “... to implement within the framework of Russia-NATO”
              Do they at least observe something? First, they will quietly prepare the missiles until they are ready and “withdraw” from the treaty: on medium and short-range missiles, and then they will also exit through the open sky.
              1. Hagalaz
                Hagalaz 27 December 2017 10: 33 New
                +3
                Well, here it is. It is easier for them to get out of an interstate agreement. Information will still be received through third countries. If one of the NATO countries does not fulfill the agreement, then it is possible to block oxygen for the entire alliance.
                This is the policy of openness of the 90s to us.
                1. Hoc vince
                  Hoc vince 27 December 2017 10: 35 New
                  +1
                  “This is an open-minded 90s open policy.”
                  Your truth.
    2. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 27 December 2017 10: 13 New
      +3
      Quote: Theodore
      In general, close the sky!

      That's right, let them fly bypassing ...
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 27 December 2017 10: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        Quote: Theodore
        In general, close the sky!

        That's right, let them fly bypassing ...


        Why bypass?
        They need to inspect the territory of Russia, as well as to us in the USA
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 27 December 2017 10: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: bulvas
          They need to inspect the territory of Russia, as well as to us in the USA

          Will cost. These reciprocal scans give no useful exhaust. What is the use of these views if they, claiming Russian aggression against Urkaina, have so far been unable to provide evidence of the presence of countless "hordes and armads of Russian troops" in the dill territory? If they are not, then they are not. Yes, we were in Syria - the result is on the face, the bearded run around the desert like sheep in small flocks. If we went into the dill, then there would banderlog already dug caches in the Carpathian forests. And so, if they don’t see anything, then there’s nothing to smoke our sky with mattress kerosene.
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 27 December 2017 11: 11 New
            +4
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            Will cost.


            You probably know better.

            Let's immediately close ourselves from everyone, drive out all the ambassadors, close the borders, and observe each other at the border through binoculars.
            At the same time, turn off the Internet, ban mobile communications, computers and everything else.

            Quote: Nyrobsky
            there’s nothing to smoke our sky with mattress kerosene.


            By the way, you did not say anything about our flights over the USA and NATO countries
            Do we get along too?
            1. Nyrobsky
              Nyrobsky 27 December 2017 11: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: bulvas
              By the way, you did not say anything about our flights over the United States and NATO countries. Do we get along too?
              Probably get along. Today there are other means of exercising objective control. From the same satellite, relocation can be tracked normally. Well, if the war begins, so what? Will we pay politeness to each other and exchange observing flights? We will not.
              1. bulvas
                bulvas 27 December 2017 11: 53 New
                +1
                Quote: Nyrobsky
                Today there are other means of exercising objective control. From the same satellite, relocation can be tracked normally.

                And ... so, the improvement of optical intelligence is no longer needed?
                It is strange that then, recently, the Americans made a fuss over the fact that our reconnaissance aircraft were equipped with new surveillance systems.


                Quote: Nyrobsky
                Well, if the war begins, so what? Will we pay politeness to each other and exchange observing flights? We will not.

                Amazes your knowledge and confidence.
                Not otherwise, how did they graduate from the Military Diplomatic Academy?
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 December 2017 13: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Theodore
      In general, close the sky!

      This had to be done a long time ago.
  2. jolly deckhand
    jolly deckhand 27 December 2017 08: 30 New
    +8
    Symmetric answer? Pinch me !!! good
  3. svp67
    svp67 27 December 2017 08: 46 New
    +1
    Russia will reduce the number of airfields for the United States under the "Open Skies"
    It is high time....
    1. Hoc vince
      Hoc vince 27 December 2017 09: 39 New
      +1
      Given NATO, it turns out that the States we fly many times more.
      1. Login_Off
        Login_Off 27 December 2017 09: 52 New
        +4
        I would also add to the point that aircraft should be light-engine with a radius of flight of not more than 500 km, and give airfields only on Novaya Zemlya.
        And as a bonus, to say that they can take equipment unlimited in weight.
        Let them fly at least.
  4. pvv113
    pvv113 27 December 2017 08: 50 New
    13
    It seems to me alone that from this "open sky" we do more harm than good?
    1. Jedi
      Jedi 27 December 2017 09: 19 New
      +5
      Volodya, hello! hi You're not alone. wink Send them to a well-known address, otherwise the borzometer rolls over at the "exceptional" ones.
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 27 December 2017 09: 37 New
        +7
        For too long we went on their occasion with Humpback and Yeltsing, so they got used to and believed in their exceptionalism
        1. Jedi
          Jedi 27 December 2017 09: 47 New
          +4
          You, as always, correctly grasped the meaning of my words. I respect drinks
    2. katana
      katana 27 December 2017 09: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: pvv113
      It seems to me alone that from this "open sky" we do more harm than good?

      And what’s the harm? Now, for how long I remember, under this agreement, a Russian plane was bartering right above the White House and dozens of Russian media were proudly writing about it! wassat Don't fly anymore - the “damned Fashington” must have taken this circumstance into account.
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 27 December 2017 09: 44 New
        +4
        And what is the use? Moreover, no one hides the White House
  5. shura7782
    shura7782 27 December 2017 08: 50 New
    +3
    "Open sky" is a sound. empty. For those who like to cheat. Allegedly, we have a confidential dialogue.
  6. Alexander S.
    Alexander S. 27 December 2017 09: 03 New
    +2
    That's right ... Tolmachevo cut ... they have nothing to fly over Sib here.
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 27 December 2017 09: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexander S.
      That's right ... Tolmachevo cut ... they have nothing to fly over Sib here.

      Allow them to use only two airports - Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon, and only in January.
  7. Rostislav
    Rostislav 27 December 2017 09: 08 New
    +1
    It is necessary to leave the contract. It is enough to form a common picture and satellites, but why provide detailed information to the enemy?
  8. cannabis
    cannabis 27 December 2017 09: 14 New
    +1
    Interestingly, do Americanos often launch reconnaissance containers by rail from Nakhodka to Kaliningrad?
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 27 December 2017 09: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: cunning
      and reconnaissance containers by rail from Nakhodka to Kaliningrad do Americans often launch?

      Everything is on schedule, the Russian counterintelligence is also interested in the fact that the mattresses have a new technique
      1. cannabis
        cannabis 27 December 2017 09: 31 New
        +2
        You there do not damage the main seal ....
        1. Suhov
          Suhov 27 December 2017 10: 10 New
          0
          Quote: cunning
          You there do not damage the main seal ....

          And then WADA will get excited and disqualify our counterintelligence? smile
          1. cannabis
            cannabis 27 December 2017 10: 27 New
            +1
            Well, how, for what? Well, they don’t snarl inside, they don’t click and write with chalk on the wall "Checked. Mr. Petrishchev." The main thing is the fillings!
  9. Altona
    Altona 27 December 2017 09: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: Hoc vince
    Limitations only the United States - this is not even a mirror answer.

    --------------------
    Of course, it’s impossible. How will Shuvalov carry the dog? Sasha Zhukov to his son fly to London. And other officials in the same way. We have the same "elite" it is all sold, resold.
  10. Bulrumeb
    Bulrumeb 27 December 2017 09: 21 New
    +4
    It is about bringing the list of airfields in accordance with the contract.

    to provide airfields to a potential adversary is generally delusional, as they were also provided with airfields in larger quantities than provided by the contract. That's really like in the saying: Give your wife to uncle, and go to b ... di
  11. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 27 December 2017 09: 56 New
    +2
    The time has come to respond to any US rudeness with adequate measures, especially since it was a long time ago to ban flights in our skies. And often to poke this "shy public" into their vital products, otherwise our Foreign Ministry behaves like an intellectual in a gang of thieves! With wolves live like a wolf howl!
  12. K-50
    K-50 27 December 2017 10: 01 New
    +3
    over Kaliningrad, Russia imposed a limit of up to 500 kilometers.

    Maybe because there is no over five and a half thousand over Kaliningrad. There probably are not five hundred. what
  13. Dormidont
    Dormidont 27 December 2017 10: 01 New
    0
    I am embarrassed to ask: why will it only reduce, and not completely destroy?
  14. Old26
    Old26 27 December 2017 10: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Hoc vince
    "The Open Skies Treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24, 1992 by representatives 23 states OSCE "
    Restrictions are imposed for the United States, and the United States has already scheduled flights together with Denmark and the United States with England. What to do with NATO member countries? Will fly as before? How can an aggressor be allowed to do reconnaissance on its territory? To withdraw from the contract in general, it is not needed.
    Limitations only the United States - this is not even a mirror answer.


    Yes, you read IN - the only way you hear it - EXIT ALL TREATIES !!!! IMMEDIATELY!!!!

    And why are you sitting here after that, and not in the government or not at all in the place of the President ??? You all know better than him where to go and with whom to conduct exercises.
    Damn, one of the exercises with Venezuela was going to be carried out - but what, because it’s not for the money you need to send ships there. And the Venezuelans then asked if they want to conduct exercises with us or not ???? Another proposes to withdraw from the open skies agreement and doubts that this MIRROR RESPONSE. . Do not doubt MIRROR

    Quote: Hoc vince
    “... to implement within the framework of Russia-NATO”
    Do they at least observe something? First, they will quietly prepare the missiles until they are ready and “withdraw” from the treaty: on medium and short-range missiles, and then they will also exit through the open sky.

    Complied, unfortunately for you. Quietly prepare the missiles for withdrawal from the INF Treaty - of course, it's so simple. The President told them - to prepare - and they will prepare. And they need neither develop medium-range ballistic missiles nor conduct their tests. Everything is simple, as in the children's song about the house - "draw - we will live"

    Damn, Russia what, so Stupidto voluntarily abandon an absolutely official way of conducting intelligence ??? And not from a satellite, but from an airplane ???

    And the ban on inspections in their specific areas has led to the fact that certain areas of interest to us will also be closed.
    REALLY IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND??? Or the main thing is to show your cheers-patriotism ??? From year to year, the level of comments on VO from a serious discussion of topics (problems) with a small dissemination agitation rolled down to almost continuous lulling slightly interspersed serious discussion
    1. vasya.pupkin
      vasya.pupkin 27 December 2017 13: 17 New
      +1
      It all came up with Churchill in 18-th year ...
  15. Egorovich
    Egorovich 27 December 2017 10: 36 New
    +2
    In addition to Kaliningrad, you need to close the sky over the Crimea. Let them scratch themselves.
  16. Old26
    Old26 27 December 2017 10: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Bulrumeb
    It is about bringing the list of airfields in accordance with the contract.

    to provide airfields to a potential adversary is generally delusional, as they were also provided with airfields in larger quantities than provided by the contract. That's really like in the saying: Give your wife to uncle, and go to b ... di

    Are you sure that in a larger quantity than was supposed under the contract? Give an example of how much you relied and how much they represented. And about the provision of airfields to a potential enemy. You forget only separately. They also presented their airdromes to us, their potential adversary, and nothing. No one in this high treason sought from them. And we are already trying to bring it to this - they provided airfields to the enemy
  17. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 27 December 2017 13: 11 New
    +1
    it is not necessary to introduce restrictions for the United States, but for NATO and NATO candidates. and then the meaning is 0.
  18. Doliva63
    Doliva63 27 December 2017 19: 00 New
    +4
    "The publication recalls that within the framework of the agreement, the reconnaissance flight range can be up to 5,5 thousand kilometers, while Russia imposed a limit of 500 kilometers over Kaliningrad."
    How were they going to fly over Kaliningrad 5 thousand kilometers ?! Either laugh or cry belay drinks
  19. Old26
    Old26 27 December 2017 19: 38 New
    0
    Quote: K0
    it is not necessary to introduce restrictions for the United States, but for NATO and NATO candidates. and then the meaning is 0.

    Do you know, for example, how many inspection flights over Russian territory has the right to conduct, well, for example, Ukraine (although it is not in NATO)? Or such Youngonatsevs as Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Or Greece? You will be surprised - NOT ONE. Italy can spend 2 flights a year over the territory of Russia-Belarus. We are similar. With serious countries, approximate parity in quantity
  20. Tolik_74
    Tolik_74 28 December 2017 10: 32 New
    0
    Generally drive p.i.s.d.s.a.s.v. in three necks behind a large puddle.