Military Review

US convinced allies in violation of the Russian INF Treaty

75
On Tuesday, a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers will open in Brussels, and last Friday the Americans for the first time presented data to the Europeans with their satellite intelligence, allegedly proving that a land-based cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty was tested in Russia, reports Kommersant.



According to the German press, the FRG and other countries have no doubts about this - everyone is ready to subscribe to the statement with harsh criticism of Moscow’s actions.

This is a rocket 9М729, it is she who is worried about Washington. The version of the US National Intelligence is as follows: the development of 9М729 began in the 2000-ies in the Novator Design Bureau (Yekaterinburg, part of Almaz-Antey). The tests ended by the year 2015. The missile can be equipped with both conventional and nuclear warheads.

According to intelligence director Daniel Coates, Moscow needed the rocket to be able to strike at European NATO countries, and its development suggests that Russia no longer wants to be bound by the terms of the INF Treaty. He also claims that the Russian military-industrial complex has already equipped several divisions with these missiles.

Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned of "unscrupulous attempts" to create the impression from the world community that Moscow’s non-compliance with the INF Treaty was an established fact. According to him, the aforementioned 9М729 is a modification of the missile for the Iskander complex, and its modernization affected only the warhead. Russia informed the West that it would launch its maximum range during the West-2017 exercise. The rocket flew 480 km.

Ryabkov also assured that this rocket, like all previous ones, was not developed or tested for the range prohibited by the agreement (from 500 km to 5,5 thousand km).

Recall, not so long ago, Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty of 1987, since Russia is violating its provisions. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg supported the American president, noting that the new Russian rocket "poses a threat to the entire North Atlantic alliance."
Photos used:
https://ru.depositphotos.com
75 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 3 December 2018 11: 24
    +13
    According to the German press, the FRG and other countries have no doubts about this - everyone is ready to sign a statement sharply criticizing Moscow’s actions.

    ... there is no doubt about it ...
    1. Yrec
      Yrec 3 December 2018 11: 28
      +12
      The methodology of the American conviction in action: a good word and a gun can do much more than just one good word.
      1. Conservative
        Conservative 3 December 2018 11: 31
        +9
        Almost all the key officials of all countries travel for internships and training in the United States. so accepted. (the military don’t know how it is accepted, but I think there is something similar. The whole structure of NATO is woven under the watchful eye of the United States). our country is no exception - I think not only officials tied to the economy were there on courses. there, in addition to compromising material and a whip, in each of the countries there are enough convinced. They don’t even know what could be different. Because their predecessors also went to the USA for courses

        Therefore, on any issue, the United States will have people sitting on the ground who will say what the State Department needs.
        1. vadson
          vadson 3 December 2018 11: 39
          +9
          NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg supported the American president, noting that the new Russian missile "threatens the entire North Atlantic Alliance." - Well, it’s good that NATO is a threat. I am pleased to
        2. Altona
          Altona 3 December 2018 12: 15
          +1
          Quote: Conservative
          Almost all the key officials of all countries travel for internships and training in the United States.

          -------------------------------------
          I agree with that. In addition, the United States has ideologically verified Hollywood, there is wiretapping and peeping of all communication networks in the form of PRISM and Echelon, there is control over all banking transactions. That is, the United States holds every person for the brain, for the wallet and the genital organ.
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 3 December 2018 18: 53
          0
          Quote: Conservative
          Therefore, on any issue, the United States will have people sitting on the ground who will say what the State Department needs.

          The release of mattresses from the RMND, I'm afraid the US will come out with a big surprise in the near future. Moreover, such an exit puts Europe at a greater risk.
      2. aszzz888
        aszzz888 3 December 2018 11: 58
        +1

        Yrec (Yuri) Today, 11: 28
        +2
        The methodology of the American conviction in action: a good word and a gun can do much more than just one good word.

        ... well, yes, yes ... stick under Colt's nose, not a lot of thoughts will come except one - agree ... wink
      3. Nyrobsky
        Nyrobsky 3 December 2018 13: 06
        0
        Quote: Yrec
        The methodology of the American conviction in action: a good word and a gun can do much more than just one good word.

        It is not difficult to convince them, especially since they live as A.S. Pushkin says - "Oh, it's not difficult to deceive me, I'm glad to be deceived myself!"
    2. Svarog
      Svarog 3 December 2018 11: 29
      +4
      NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg supported the American president, noting that the new Russian missile "threatens the entire North Atlantic Alliance."

      I think there will not be a single person who would doubt ..
      1. SSR
        SSR 3 December 2018 11: 39
        +6
        Quote: Svarog
        NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg supported the American president, noting that the new Russian missile "threatens the entire North Atlantic Alliance."

        I think there will not be a single person who would doubt ..

        The United States and the gang are pressing us from all sides, OKHBZ, oil, gas, "poisoning", the DRSM, technology, finance, media, sanctions, pro-location - and we are all calling for legal methods of dialogue.
        It's hard to be honest.
        As for me, let the Gulf Stream set the Anolaxaxes in heat, let the ushlopki fight the climate, get warm.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 3 December 2018 12: 03
          +2
          US convinced allies in violation of the Russian INF Treaty

          Now, in order to deploy their missiles in Europe, they had to convince all the allies that in the event of retaliatory measures Russia would strike with all its nuclear power not against them ... But somewhere to the side ... Or even miss it ... belay And the first in this massacre, the "protective wall" will be the United States, located several thousand kilometers from Russia ...
          How such nonsense still passes - I do not understand ... request
          1. Altona
            Altona 3 December 2018 12: 17
            +2
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Now, to deploy their missiles in Europe, they had to convince all the allies

            ------------------------
            This is in addition to the fact that in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the USA actively flooded the Allied aviation with tactical means of nuclear weapons.
            1. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 3 December 2018 13: 44
              0
              ridiculous contracts, everyone works out quietly everything. examples are mass. (Around from nowhere, it seemed .......) they signed with the adik, with the omega too ... so what? paper in only one case is needed ....
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 December 2018 18: 56
            +1
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Now, in order to deploy their missiles in Europe, they had to convince all the allies that in the event of retaliatory measures, Russia would strike at all with its nuclear power.

            It is for this that they are installing missile defense systems in Europe. And the Europeans joyfully agree. But apparently no one told the Europeans that no missile defense can fully protect against a massive missile strike.
  2. Gray brother
    Gray brother 3 December 2018 11: 32
    +8
    But of course they will not show the "evidence" themselves)))
    1. GRF
      GRF 3 December 2018 11: 46
      +5
      If they were interested in the contract, then they would behave differently ...

      The Chinese began to respond mirror-wise and voila: FIG knows who the first hinted at, but here it is, a three-month-long trade truce, during which they look and the world begins ...

      And we need to start acting differently ...
      1. Altona
        Altona 3 December 2018 12: 18
        +1
        Quote: GRF
        during which they look and the world begins ...

        -----------------------------
        This is if the trade balance is not flashy negative for the United States. And then, not a fact.
        1. GRF
          GRF 3 December 2018 12: 52
          +2
          Yes, not a fact
          but now they know for sure that China will answer, and the world with China sees that it hurts ...
    2. Berber
      Berber 3 December 2018 12: 17
      +3
      Yes, they believed in what they wanted to believe.
  3. Proton
    Proton 3 December 2018 11: 34
    +3
    They don’t understand what kind of pig they put laughing they still need to develop missiles of a medium range, and we just need to put the “flag” on the existing complexes in the right location.
    1. Henderson
      Henderson 3 December 2018 11: 37
      -3
      Quote: Proton
      and we just need to translate the “flag” on existing ones into the necessary location.

      if so, then it turns out Russia really violates the INF Treaty.
      1. vadson
        vadson 3 December 2018 11: 40
        +5
        and launchers in the Baltic states under tomahawks do not break?
        1. Henderson
          Henderson 3 December 2018 11: 54
          -6
          I do not know. Just if this is all so, then why such a hysteria in the Russian media.
          1. Gray brother
            Gray brother 3 December 2018 11: 58
            +1
            Quote: Henderson
            Just if this is all so, then why such a hysteria in the Russian media.

            Do Americans baselessly blame us? Come on - why write about it, some kind of nonsense. laughing
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 3 December 2018 12: 29
            +5
            Quote: Henderson
            Just if this is all so, then why such a hysteria in the Russian media.

            You have some kind of selective justice, I know here, I don’t know here, but here I wrapped the fish .... You there do not earn half the rate at the State Department?
            For your information - the presence of basplotniks with a flight range of more than 500 km is a direct violation of the INF Treaty.
            1. Henderson
              Henderson 3 December 2018 12: 52
              -3
              I did not talk about justice and any kind of morality. In politics, there are only interests.
              If the presence of drones is a violation of the contract, then why Russia itself has not yet torn it up because of obvious violations by the United States?
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 3 December 2018 13: 29
                +4
                Quote: Henderson
                If the presence of drones is a breach of contract

                This is not an "if", it is a fait accompli.
                Quote: Henderson
                I did not talk about justice and any kind of morality.

                Well, this is understandable, seeing how you are lying here and perverting in favor of our (not your) enemies - it’s difficult to suspect the presence of morality.
                1. Henderson
                  Henderson 3 December 2018 13: 38
                  -2
                  I was sure that you would ignore the uncomfortable question.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 3 December 2018 13: 59
                    +3
                    Quote: Henderson
                    I was sure that you would ignore the uncomfortable question.

                    This is an easy question, I did not think that you need to chew the obvious.
                    Quote: Henderson
                    then why Russia itself has not yet torn it apart because of obvious violations by the United States?

                    The contract is beneficial to both the United States and Russia. Russia is vulnerable from land, the United States is vulnerable from the sea. Under the agreement, the United States cannot locate missiles on land, which is beneficial to Russia, Russia does not have a large number of marine carriers to threaten the United States from the sea, but the agreement prohibits from land. The United States does not want to tear this treaty, the United States wants to include China in the treaty and presses Russia so that Russia puts pressure on China.
                    Many bukof flax peachatti
                    1. Henderson
                      Henderson 3 December 2018 14: 10
                      -3
                      You yourself said that the USA already violated the contract because they are armed with UAVs with a range of over 500 km. Is not it?
                      So why then Russia itself was not the first to come out of it?
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 3 December 2018 14: 13
                        +3
                        Quote: Henderson
                        You yourself said that the United States has already violated the agreement because you have UAVs with a range of over 500 km. Is not it?

                        Not quite so, the violation is not actually the presence of such UAVs, but their location on land, which is why the Americans are trying so hard to learn how to use them from marine carriers.
                        Quote: Henderson
                        So why then Russia itself was not the first to come out of it?

                        Quote: Setrac
                        The contract is beneficial to both the United States and Russia.

                        You understand the first time. No, you don’t understand the third time.
                      2. Henderson
                        Henderson 3 December 2018 14: 53
                        -3
                        But they still violated. Why do you need a non-working contract then?
                        Or did they still not break?
                      3. Setrac
                        Setrac 3 December 2018 15: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: Henderson
                        Or did they still not break?

                        All the same, they violated, but the world is not black and white, as idealists see it.
                        For example, the Americans installed air defense launchers in Poland, into which tomahawks can be loaded. However, Russia cannot win a nuclear war with sixteen cruise missiles. Likewise, Russia, as long as Russia "violates" on its territory - an American does not care if Russia starts violating the INF Treaty somewhere in Mexico or Cuba - this is a completely different matter.
                        Quote: Henderson
                        Why do you need a non-working contract then?

                        Therefore, despite individual violations, the contract still works.
                        And yes - Trump is right, this agreement must be reviewed.
              2. DenZ
                DenZ 3 December 2018 13: 33
                +2
                Quote: Henderson
                In politics, there are only interests.

                In politics, there are also agreements restricting these very interests, since interests can be not only on one side (as is seen from the USA).
                1. Henderson
                  Henderson 3 December 2018 13: 39
                  -3
                  So contracts are mutual restrictions. Because without them, interests can suffer much more.
      2. Gray brother
        Gray brother 3 December 2018 11: 53
        +1
        Quote: Henderson
        if so, then it turns out Russia really violates the INF Treaty.

        You just need to increase the fuel tanks, about the "flag" is figurative. And you can also cut off a third of the "Poplar" and in general it will turn out beautifully.
        1. Vikxnumx
          Vikxnumx 3 December 2018 13: 39
          +1
          Or put a special warhead on Iskander ...
          The warhead is lighter, the range is greater ...
    2. Gray brother
      Gray brother 3 December 2018 11: 47
      +2
      Quote: Proton
      They don’t understand what kind of pig they put

      And they are not themselves, but the Europeans.
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 3 December 2018 11: 36
    +3
    Discuss and blame .... so what's next?
    They will be cobbling, straining about Russia, will roll the geyropu into a green Caliphate pancake - a flat cake.
    Not funny.
  5. kakvastam
    kakvastam 3 December 2018 11: 38
    +1
    When a gang is discussing what sauce it will use to beat its victim, is it worth whining about some kind of "right"?
    If all the channels of informing the world community belong to the enemy, there is no point in trying to look white and fluffy, it is better to prepare for the inevitable war.
    The position of the leadership of the Russian Federation under the current conditions looks surprisingly toothless and short-sighted.
    1. DenZ
      DenZ 3 December 2018 13: 36
      +2
      Quote: kakvastam
      The position of the leadership of the Russian Federation under the current conditions looks surprisingly toothless and short-sighted.
      What is their position? Maybe they are preparing for war, time is dragging on for you just don’t report on what they are doing. The defense in 3 shifts plows from your sofa this is not visible?
      1. kakvastam
        kakvastam 3 December 2018 15: 12
        -1
        I am a little aware.
        And the trouble is not even that with the "three shifts" not everything is cloudless, but that the population is not morally ready. "Sami-sami-sami" does not go in vain ...
  6. NordUral
    NordUral 3 December 2018 11: 45
    +1
    There is nothing to pay attention to. To do everything to strengthen the country's defense. With the illusions of friendship and cooperation, even in an organized criminal group it is necessary to end in power.
  7. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 3 December 2018 11: 49
    +2
    not developed and tested for range prohibited by contract (from 500 km to 5,5 thousand km).
    They entered this wording into the contract themselves and stepped on this rake.
  8. Ham
    Ham 3 December 2018 11: 51
    -1
    again show screenshots from which thread of a computer game
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 3 December 2018 12: 05
      +9
      Quote: Ham

      again show screenshots from which thread of a computer game

      No, everything is serious. It is really difficult to refute this.
  9. Fitter65
    Fitter65 3 December 2018 11: 53
    +1
    The United States convinced the Allies of Russia's violation of the INF Treaty ..... According to the German press, the FRG and other countries had no doubts about this

    I would like to look at those who “were not convinced”, or those who “had some doubts about this”. I wonder in what position they would be persuaded again?
  10. edeligor
    edeligor 3 December 2018 11: 58
    +1
    To be honest, the INF Treaty since its adoption was flawed for our country. I will not talk about the number of DESTROYED items, but the most interesting thing in the agreement is that the agreement only concerned the USSR (Russia) and the USA. What prevents Great Britain and France, within the framework of NATO, to deploy IRBM and MD in countries directly bordering with us? I do not even remember about the "matryoshka" of the American missile defense system. In short, it is simply necessary to renegotiate the agreement with the involvement of ALL countries!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 3 December 2018 12: 31
      0
      Quote: edeligor
      In short, it is simply necessary to renegotiate the agreement with the involvement of ALL countries!

      so the Americans are fighting for it - to include China in the treaty.
      1. Gray brother
        Gray brother 3 December 2018 13: 05
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        so the Americans are fighting for it - to include China in the treaty.

        And then get out of it.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 3 December 2018 13: 34
          -2
          Quote: Gray Brother
          And then get out of it.

          The agreement is beneficial to the Americans, they do not want to get out of it. This is just blackmail - exit threats.
      2. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 3 December 2018 13: 07
        +2
        Something I have not heard from the United States anything about Britain, France and Israel .. The lip does not crack the Wishlist to project?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 3 December 2018 13: 33
          -1
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Lip does not crack Wish to project?

          Wanting is not harmful, let them want it.
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Something I have not heard from the United States anything about Britain, France and Israel ..

          The new treaty should apply to all countries.
          1. g1washntwn
            g1washntwn 3 December 2018 13: 52
            +1
            This will never happen, as this is contrary to Washington’s interests. Their position is that you disarm into cowards, and we will simply hide our uranium with chemical weapons. The existing format is also not particularly suitable for Russia due to the presence of RSD among its neighbors, but this is still better than living with pistols openly attached to each other's heads. However, I am becoming more and more convinced that most likely the shadow backstage is already ripe for a man-made apocalypse and she simply puts her gun in someone else's hand, while we remain, even in paradise, but in fools.
  11. Skay
    Skay 3 December 2018 11: 59
    +2
    Germany and other countries had no doubts about this - everyone is ready to sign a statement sharply criticizing Moscow’s actions.

    Open Day at the Suicide Club.
  12. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 3 December 2018 12: 01
    0
    US convinced allies
    Today, the Americans do not even need to convince their "allies"; these "allies" are happy to see for themselves what the Americans are saying. In the west, everything is according to plan - we push Russia while there are forces, tomorrow it will be too late. But even today it is too late, so they themselves will suffer economic and strategic losses until they run out of steam, or they start a war.
    1. Hypersound
      Hypersound 3 December 2018 15: 40
      0
      It’s time for us to conclude with China a full-fledged agreement on a military alliance and prescribe the obligations of each side to deliver a nuclear strike against NATO if NATO strikes on either side of the Russian-Chinese alliances. And to cooperate economically even more closely. Alone, we just can’t survive. The PRC has a strong economy, but weak / relatively / nuclear forces, the Russian Federation has a weak / relatively / economy, but strong nuclear forces. The perfect match for the union
  13. Mouse
    Mouse 3 December 2018 12: 03
    0
    Convinced ??? have they ever bothered with this? a test tube in front of the nose will shake and business ...
  14. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 3 December 2018 12: 03
    +1
    How many more similar "revelations and other evidence of violations" will be. But the essence is already clear - the INF Treaty was sentenced.
  15. Rostislav
    Rostislav 3 December 2018 12: 16
    0
    It seems that the penguins have two factors, there are good prospects in creating complexes with a range of 5000 km. and there is an agreement on their placement near the borders of Russia near the Psheks, Balts and Romanians. Hohlofuhrer will happily sign it. Without the possibility of placing missiles near our borders, such a range is not interesting to amers.
  16. Operator
    Operator 3 December 2018 12: 21
    +3
    The flight range of the Kyrgyz Republic is determined by the volume of the onboard fuel tank - a specific 9М729 has a specific volume corresponding to a range of 480 km.

    Another thing is that other modifications of this cruise missile with a different index and a large tank volume (due to the use of a lighter and more compact special warhead) will fly a much larger distance, but these modifications have not yet been tested - which would be a violation of the INF Treaty.

    Therefore, American accusations are a classic attempt to pull an owl on a globe.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 3 December 2018 13: 02
      +3
      The Pentagon needs RSD in Europe against Russia. They will be there without evidence, reasons and desire of Europe. It was clear from the beginning. Another question: will our politicians, diplomats and the military have enough gum fortitude from cowards to actually demonstrate that jokes with sweeping accusations have ended?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 3 December 2018 13: 52
        0
        Quote: g1washntwn
        The Pentagon needs RSD in Europe against Russia.

        The Pentagon needs the Chinese to join the INF Treaty.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 3 December 2018 14: 01
          0
          But I need new boots and a third string for balalaika ..
          Americans need no one to resist their bloated financial hegemony.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 3 December 2018 14: 15
            -1
            Quote: g1washntwn
            Americans need no one to resist their bloated financial hegemony.

            Financial hegemony follows from military hegemony.
            1. g1washntwn
              g1washntwn 3 December 2018 14: 47
              +2
              No. The army is a tool of politicians to achieve their goals. The gun shoots, but does not argue where, for what and for what.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 3 December 2018 15: 53
                0
                Quote: g1washntwn
                No.

                Very yes.
                Quote: g1washntwn
                The gun shoots, but does not argue where, for what and for what.

                This is all meaningless demagogy. The United States established its hegemony by military means, not economic. And those who disagreed were also punished by military force, those whom they could.
                1. g1washntwn
                  g1washntwn 4 December 2018 06: 12
                  0
                  It is useless ... Im out
  17. Bypassed
    Bypassed 3 December 2018 12: 34
    +1
    The Foreign Ministry urgently needs to reread the speeches of Mr. Gromyko. Mr. No knew how to put presumptuous Anglo-Saxons, along with their European lizobolyudami in the stalls.
  18. Vlad 63
    Vlad 63 3 December 2018 12: 40
    0
    Ugh, but this is serious. The worst thing is that all the Eurosavings, as it were, began in unison
    with sharp criticism of the actions of Moscow.
  19. Hypersound
    Hypersound 3 December 2018 15: 28
    0
    Yes, to score already on everything and rivet the weapons that we need to guarantee the destruction of all potential opponents
  20. Old26
    Old26 3 December 2018 20: 40
    +1
    I read all the comments and honestly most of all these comments have signs of a jingoistic and capricious trend. But in vain. The question is very serious and still unsolvable. We blame the Americans for violating the INF Treaty by deploying MK-41 launchers in Europe. Of course it is moezhno to blame them for this. Although launching MK-41 is not mentioned in the contract. And we cannot say with a 100% guarantee that the Americans violate the contract only because they deploy these launchers in Europe.
    Yes, they may also contain Tomahawk-type cruise missiles. They can. But as long as they are not there (and not only because now the Americans do not have cruise missiles of this type with nuclear warheads. From a word at all) - the violation is ephemeral. Likewise, Russia can be accused of violating the INF Treaty (which is what the Americans are doing). But just like we do them. It can be said that the range of Iskander's ballistic missiles is not 500 km, but for example 800 or 900. Again, everything is ephemeral. As well as the talk in the blogosphere that Iskander cruise missiles fly 2500 km. Even the radii are drawn.
    But I will repeat all this - ephemeral. But as for the 9M729 cruise missile, there are continuous misunderstandings. Judging by certain, indirect data, its length is more than the length of 9M728 by about a meter and a half. Iskander launchers (9P78-1) do not fit. Several years ago, chassis for EMNIP 8 launchers and 8 TPM were purchased in Belarus. With an extended base.
    But all this is at the level of circumstantial evidence. We continue to assert that this rocket is "Treaty Not Breaking". They don't believe us. And what is she - HZ. Theoretically, this missile has dimensions approximately equal to the Kh-55 missile, which has a range of 2500 km. Whether this is true or not is unknown. So the recrimination begins. We "do not want" to declassify what 9M729 is, but they are playing on it, accusing us of this.
    And what would seem easier. Arrange a public display. "Cartoons" were shown on TV on March 1, which makes it difficult to put the Americans in their place once and for all by staging a public show.

    By the way. There was an interesting idea regarding this rocket. Its range does not really violate the parameters of the agreement, but this missile is essentially a ground version of the 3M54 missile with a supersonic warhead. That is, it flies about 400 kilometers at a speed of sound, and then, at a distance of 60-80 km, the supersonic step separates from it and strikes the target at a speed not of 0,9 * M, but of 2,9M. The idea is interesting, but alas, not confirmed by anything ...
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 5 December 2018 22: 03
      0
      We also had complaints about the UAV (in addition to MK41), which, in our opinion, also violate the agreement. Unfortunately, despite the obvious benefits for us from the contract, we were unable to extend it. Reasons: "You are Aegis offshore - we are the new missiles."
      Well, the flight over the White House, the Capitol and several other interesting places within the framework of the "open skies" with the subsequent refusal to fly over the Kremlin and the territories near Ossetia / Abkhazia and Kaliningrad. You can look at a neighbor's house through an optical tube, but if you attach a military thing to it, then do not be surprised at the consequences. If the goal was to knock out the legislative power in the United States at the same time (never before have the Republicans and Democrats been so united on the issue of "what else to do for the Russian Federation") together with the executive, (the CIA, the White House and the Pentagon ... wassat ) and create a united front against the Russian Federation, then the goal is achieved.
  21. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 4 December 2018 13: 28
    0
    Well, Russia cannot justify itself to the Anglo-Saxons, well, who needs it — the Americans or British grandmother Teresa? They do what they see fit and that's it, they lie and slander! This is some kind of kindergarten - it's not me who broke the toy.
  22. noct
    noct 4 December 2018 19: 38
    0
    Hmm, what the hell for us. We can, from the Far East, with the usual permitted treaty on Europe, if you have something to gasp for. Ile from the sea with the same borea from the quiet or Arctic. What for?