Americans demanded from the Russian Federation to destroy the rocket 9М729

183
During the meeting on the INF Treaty, which was held in Switzerland, the US delegation demanded that Russia destroy the 9М729 (SSC-8) missile, reports RIA News with reference to the statement of US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Andrea Thompson.

Americans demanded from the Russian Federation to destroy the rocket 9М729




At the talks, we expressed clearly: Russia must destroy its missile that does not comply with the treaty,
said Thompson.

Commenting on the meeting, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov noted that the Americans had arrived at the meeting with a ready-made decision and did not intend to go into the arguments of the Russian side and constructively evaluate Moscow’s proposals.

Making sure that the Russians do not give in to pressure and ultimatum, the American colleagues said that Russia was allegedly not ready to fulfill its obligations under the treaty. What is completely wrong
said Ryabkov.

According to him, the Russian delegation arrived at the meeting to offer the Americans a "series of specific measures in the field of transparency with regard to the 9М729 rocket." But Moscow was ready to take this transparency only under the condition of reciprocal openness on the part of the United States to alleviate Russia's concerns.

Recall that in early December, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave Moscow an ultimatum, stating that she has the 2 of the month to think things over and return to the implementation of the INF. Moreover, during this time the Russians had to either abandon the 9М729 rocket, or modify it in such a way that its flight range "did not violate the provisions of the treaty."

Earlier, Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev stated that the test range of 9М729 did not exceed 476 km under the conditions allowed by the INF Treaty 500 kilometers.
  • https://twitter.com/mid_rf
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +41
    16 January 2019 08: 13
    Strange. And why didn’t they demand that the entire territory of Russia be given under US control?
    1. +6
      16 January 2019 08: 16
      Quote: Viktor Shpichak
      And why didn’t they demand that the entire territory of Russia be given under US control?

      Looks like the time has not come.
      1. +6
        16 January 2019 09: 01
        And we need to demand, from giving Alaska back to us!
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 09: 39
          Quote: Simon
          And we need to demand, from giving Alaska back to us!


          Let them at least not teach us how to conduct business in the Arctic


        2. +14
          16 January 2019 11: 17
          Quote: Simon
          And we need to demand, from giving Alaska back to us!

          Alaska, not Alaska, but it would be possible to demand the return of the situation on the deployment of NATO and its infrastructure in Europe to the borders that existed at the time the treaty was signed in 1987. Let them get out of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and drag out their missile defense hardware.
        3. -8
          16 January 2019 16: 10
          And we need to demand, from giving Alaska back to us!

          And Manchuria from China to take away with Dalian (Port Arthur).

          And the blue dream of the tsarist autocracy - the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits with Constantinople.

          After all, these are "primordially" Russian lands.
      2. +10
        16 January 2019 10: 23
        Required ?! belay The days of the humpbacked and drunk are gone - so, stick your demands in one smelly place! wassat Now we will demandbecause with our weapons Russia is able to erase the entire USA into powder with the least losses! So shut up like mice! am angry soldier
        1. +5
          16 January 2019 13: 08
          Quote: keeper03
          The days of the humpbacked and drunk are gone

          Mattresses are able to demand, but are not taught to abide by the contracts themselves. They violated almost all existing agreements, but they are modestly silent about this. Why don't we demand the disarmament of a full US fleet?
        2. +1
          16 January 2019 15: 09
          Quote: keeper03
          Russia is able to erase the entire US into powder with the least loss! So shut up like mice!

          The fact of the matter is that they know very well that Russia will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Here and cock, and suddenly ride, as before. In addition, they will once again accuse Russia of intractability, they say we are "with all our hearts", with "proposals", and they are "against the world."
          1. 0
            17 January 2019 06: 47
            nothing will remain of the retaliatory strike from us either
    2. +10
      16 January 2019 08: 17
      Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 08: 31
        Quote: Vlad 63
        They already get everything they want for $.

        Not right, GET. Present time.
        1. +7
          16 January 2019 09: 33
          Quote: Vlad 63
          Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.



          So they want not to pay $$, but to get everything for glass beads and make money on it


      2. +6
        16 January 2019 08: 32
        Quote: Vlad 63
        Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.

        Well, yes .. How are the Japanese with the Kuriles? Already "smoke" !!!!!
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 10: 15
          Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
          Quote: Vlad 63
          Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.

          Well, yes .. How are the Japanese with the Kuriles? Already "smoke" !!!!!

          Why do they need these territories when it is possible to put pressure on sanctions both on the channel and voila, a controlling stake in the Americans and the British. Russian aluminum belongs to the Americans, how do you like it?
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 10: 17
            Quote: Vol4ara
            Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
            Quote: Vlad 63
            Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.

            Well, yes .. How are the Japanese with the Kuriles? Already "smoke" !!!!!

            Why do they need these territories when it is possible to put pressure on sanctions both on the channel and voila, a controlling stake in the Americans and the British. Russian aluminum belongs to the Americans, how do you like it?

            You take an interest from them ... They require something. And advise. You look, they’ll listen to you.
          2. +4
            16 January 2019 10: 39
            Quote: Vol4ara
            and voila, a controlling stake in the Americans and the British.

            this is not true
            1. +1
              16 January 2019 10: 44
              Is now the majority of directors on Rusal’s board of directors not citizens of the United States and Great Britain?
              1. +5
                16 January 2019 11: 29
                Quote: bystander
                Is it on the board of directors of Rusal

                Does the board of directors own, not manage?
                1. -3
                  16 January 2019 14: 43
                  If it controls, then Rusal has now become controlled by the United States, not Russia.
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 14: 44
                    It is controlled by the owners, not by hired personnel.
                    1. -4
                      16 January 2019 14: 58
                      The owner of Deripaska is deprived of the opportunity to influence the decisions of the board of directors. Moreover, he cannot even manage the income from ownership of shares. He’s just a chairman who doesn’t influence anything else, and all decisions are made by American and British directors, whom he cannot fire.
                      1. -1
                        16 January 2019 15: 03
                        Quote: bystander
                        The owner of Deripaska is deprived of the opportunity to influence the decisions of the board of directors.

                        Deprived.
                        Quote: bystander
                        he cannot even manage the income from ownership of shares

                        Own, it can easily.
                        Quote: bystander
                        He’s just a zits chairman who no longer influences anything

                        He is the owner.
                      2. -3
                        16 January 2019 15: 21
                        Why are you lying, because the information that the dividends due to Deripaska are credited to the special account, to which Deripaska is denied access. As for the owner, the right of ownership implies the possession, use and disposal of property, which Mr. Deripaska is deprived of, which is why I call his zits chairman. Thus, Rusal came under the control of the US-British Board of Directors. Such are the things.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: bystander
                        The owner of Deripaska is deprived of the opportunity to influence the decisions of the board of directors.

                        Deprived.
                        Quote: bystander
                        he cannot even manage the income from ownership of shares

                        Own, it can easily.
                        Quote: bystander
                        He’s just a zits chairman who no longer influences anything

                        He is the owner.
                  2. +6
                    16 January 2019 14: 46
                    Quote: bystander
                    If it controls, then

                    Rusal is now even more "controlled by Russia" than it was before the redistribution of shares as a result of the sanctions. But you don't seem to understand it request
                    1. -6
                      16 January 2019 14: 59
                      Explain how you can be “controlled by Russia” if all decisions are made by American and British directors, which the shareholder cannot fire?
                      1. +7
                        16 January 2019 15: 25
                        Quote: bystander
                        Explain how ...

                        It is impossible for a person who does not know what is twice two to explain, for example, trigonometry. And from your questions, I clearly see that for the time being you are confusing the most basic concepts.

                        Once again, very popular: all the noise about the "striped control over Rusal" arose as a result of the fact that Deripaska lost 22% of the shares (out of 66 he owned) of En + Group. En + Group owns a 48,1% stake in RUSAL.

                        These shares were not transferred to anyone of the newly appointed directors. To whom exactly they went - there are different guesses, but this is not even the point.

                        The essence of what happened is precisely in the loss of control over the company by Deripaska. Americans are not so confident in themselves that like this, you live well, take and squeeze property in the Russian Federation. But they sent the signal to the local "elite" completely unambiguous, thus creating additional problems for the control over this "elite" to the leadership of the Russian Federation.

                        That's about it, in short.
                      2. -8
                        16 January 2019 15: 30
                        If there is a board of directors whose members are appointed by the United States and Great Britain, while Russian shareholders cannot dismiss them, i.e. cannot in any way affect the decisions made by these people in the framework of managing the activities of Rusal, this is called a loss of control. Do you think otherwise? Then explain who makes decisions in Rusal, if they are not members of the board of directors?
                      3. +7
                        16 January 2019 15: 39
                        Quote: bystander
                        If there is a board of directors whose members are appointed by the United States and Great Britain, while Russian shareholders cannot dismiss them, i.e. can in no way affect the decisions made by these people in the framework of managing the activities of Rusal, this is called a loss of control

                        You repeat this with tenacity worthy of much better use. First, learn what the Board of Directors is and what powers it has.

                        I suggest: to Control it has nothing to do with the company.

                        Quote: bystander
                        Who makes decisions in Rusal if they are not members of the board of directors?

                        Once again: learn the authority of the Board of Directors. Without this, the conversation is pointless and resembles a fairy tale about the White Bull.
                      4. -7
                        16 January 2019 15: 42
                        When there are no arguments and reasonable arguments, then they send the opponent there I do not know where to read, then I do not know what. I asked you a simple question, if not the board of directors, then who is making decisions in Rusal, and you are sending me to read what the board of directors is. I repeat once again, who, if not the board of directors, is now making decisions in Rusal and managing the activities of the company?
                      5. +3
                        16 January 2019 15: 53
                        Quote: bystander
                        I asked you a simple question

                        You asked ... stupid, sorry, question.

                        To correctly ask a question, you need to know half the answer

                        You do not yet know the tenth.

                        Quote: bystander
                        you send me to read what is the board of directors ...

                        ... just so that you understand what the Board of Directors can and cannot "decide". This, you see, is a necessary condition in order to be able to correctly ask questions. request

                        Quote: bystander
                        I repeat once again, who, if not the board of directors, is now making decisions in Rusal and managing the activities of the company?

                        Well, something like this:

                        Quote: Vika
                        General Meeting of Shareholders - the supreme governing body in a joint-stock company, consisting of shareholders-owners of registered ordinary shares of the company, and in some cases stipulated by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 26.12.1995, 208 No. XNUMX-ФЗ “On Joint-Stock Companies”, also from shareholders-owners of preferred shares

                        It is this very General Meeting that "decides".

                        Sha. If you want to speak objectively - understand, at least minimally, in the subject of conversation. But it’s not worth trolling me, I can troll myself Yes
                      6. -3
                        16 January 2019 16: 01
                        And what does your quote from the law on joint stock companies have to do with the situation with Rusal, when as a result of the sanctions imposed, the shareholder owning a controlling stake was deprived of the opportunity to vote at their own discretion, as a result of which the members of the Board of Directors of Rusal were not appointed shareholders of Rusal, and the US and the UK? I’m writing about this to you and that as a result of the sanctions imposed, Russian shareholders lost not only control over Rusal, i.e. the right to appoint members of a permanent executive body, but also the income from ownership of Rusal shares.
                      7. +5
                        16 January 2019 16: 18
                        Quote: bystander
                        the shareholder owning a controlling stake was deprived of the opportunity to vote at their own discretion

                        Not this way. I already wrote what really happened, see above.

                        Quote: bystander
                        were the board members of Rusal not appointed by the shareholders of Rusal, but by the United States and Great Britain?

                        Rave. No further comments laughing

                        Quote: bystander
                        Russian shareholders lost not only control over Rusal, i.e. the right to appoint members of a standing executive body

                        The right to "appoint" the Board of Directors does not equal control over the company. You are confusing the pedals again.

                        Quote: bystander
                        Russian shareholders lost ... income from ownership of Rusal shares

                        This applies only and exclusively to Deripaska. Materiel, materiel ...
                      8. -4
                        16 January 2019 16: 34
                        You talk so hard about the materiel without knowing it yourself. Answer the question, or will it be around the bush? Everything else that you wrote is absolutely not argued, except for the arguments of your cries of "delirium". Who pushed new directors to Rusal's board of directors? Deripaska? And it is precisely that the right to appoint a permanent executive body and receive dividends from ownership of shares is tantamount to control over the organization. Or what then, in your opinion, control over the organization, disclose the content of this concept, in your opinion?
                        Quote: Consultant
                        Quote: bystander
                        the shareholder owning a controlling stake was deprived of the opportunity to vote at their own discretion

                        Not this way. I already wrote what really happened, see above.

                        Quote: bystander
                        were the board members of Rusal not appointed by the shareholders of Rusal, but by the United States and Great Britain?

                        Rave. No further comments laughing

                        Quote: bystander
                        Russian shareholders lost not only control over Rusal, i.e. the right to appoint members of a standing executive body

                        The right to "appoint" the Board of Directors does not equal control over the company. You are confusing the pedals again.

                        Quote: bystander
                        Russian shareholders lost ... income from ownership of Rusal shares

                        This applies only and exclusively to Deripaska. Materiel, materiel ...
                      9. -2
                        16 January 2019 16: 03
                        Yes, and in the same law, read what the “supreme governing body” has the right to do, and what doesn’t and who will be controlled by the company, if the shareholders are silent about the right to appoint members of a permanent executive body.
                      10. +3
                        16 January 2019 16: 19
                        Quote: bystander
                        Yes, and read the same law ...

                        Man, I already said -

                        Quote: Consultant
                        I don’t have to troll, I can troll myself

                        Do not believe? Want to check it out? You will not like it, I warn you ...
                      11. -4
                        16 January 2019 16: 36
                        In the absence of arguments, all that remains for you is to say that you are being troll. You just answer the questions that I asked if you do not agree with me.
                      12. -4
                        16 January 2019 16: 06
                        And still answer my question, it is very simple, but you evade everything from a direct answer to it. It’s so easy to answer who makes decisions and who the company controls
                      13. +2
                        16 January 2019 16: 15
                        Quote: bystander
                        It’s so easy to answer who makes decisions and who the company controls

                        It is always difficult to answer incorrectly posed questions.

                        In this case, the key decisions are taken by the General Meeting of Shareholders. The board of directors is just an executive body.

                        The company is in no way "controlled" by the Board of Directors. This is, sorry, the alphabet.
                      14. -3
                        16 January 2019 16: 20
                        This is the alphabet when shareholders can appoint and dismiss members of the board of directors, which is essentially the key right of shareholders, and when shareholders are deprived of this right and, in addition to their will, are appointed by their permanent executive body, which shareholders cannot disperse, this means loss shareholders controlling the organization.
                      15. -1
                        16 January 2019 16: 26
                        I honestly just don’t understand why you are trying so hard to call black white. Russian shareholders lost control over Rusal, it is a fact, they simply took it from them and demonstrated to Russia that the fact of finding assets on the territory of Russia does not solve anything if these assets make it impossible to trade what they produce on the foreign market as a result of sanctions.
                      16. The comment was deleted.
                      17. The comment was deleted.
                      18. The comment was deleted.
                      19. The comment was deleted.
                      20. +1
                        16 January 2019 22: 17
                        Part of Deripaska passed to VTB.
                      21. 0
                        18 January 2019 04: 51
                        It has not yet been transferred, but it is planned that it will be transferred, however, apparently, VTB will also not be able to dismiss board members of the board of directors who are appointed by some who are citizens of the United States and Great Britain. A very dark story must be said. Today it is not clear in whose interests the operational management of Rusal is carried out and where did the new board members come from.
                    2. +2
                      16 January 2019 14: 59
                      Well, yes, they finally left offshore, now Russia will receive taxes
                      1. -4
                        16 January 2019 15: 22
                        What taxes will Russia receive now?
                      2. +3
                        16 January 2019 15: 29
                        Which I have not received before ... 8)))
                        You do not know that before it was not a Russian company, but registered on the island of Jersey, by the way, British.
                        And now, their place of registration will be Kaliningrad. With all the consequences.
                      3. -4
                        16 January 2019 15: 32
                        And what specific taxes did Russia not receive before? MET, personal income tax, VAT? Do you even know how they are calculated?
      3. +5
        16 January 2019 08: 33
        But Moscow was ready to go for this transparency only if it met with openness on the part of the United States to remove Russia's concerns.

        In other words: in the morning chairs - in the evening money, in the evening chairs - in the morning money!
        Translated into American: remove the missile defense systems from Europe and Asia - we destroy our missile. But not the other way around!
        1. +6
          16 January 2019 08: 49
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          remove missile defense systems from Europe and Asia - we destroy our missile.

          They believed with the GDR and the Warsaw Treaty ... Enough ...
          1. +4
            16 January 2019 09: 18
            Everything is correct! Gorbachev ruined the "Warsaw Pact", followed the lead of the Americans, but so what! Now all these countries are in NATO and on our borders.
        2. 0
          16 January 2019 10: 56
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          we destroy our rocket

          Under no circumstances do we need to destroy a rocket. Its design is such that it is possible to increase the warhead elementarily in the same dimensions, which will lead to a decrease in range. It's enough. Reverse is always possible, in which case, the overall layout and balance of alignment is almost unchanged.
      4. +4
        16 January 2019 08: 53
        The time for ultimatums has passed. With the commissioning of new types of strategic weapons, Russia gained superiority over the United States in the strategic nuclear forces.
        Late to drink Borjomi when the kidneys refused.
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 09: 26
          With the commissioning of new types of strategic weapons, Russia gained superiority over the United States in the strategic nuclear forces.
          Late to drink Borjomi when the kidneys refused.
          Weapons still need iron eggs .....
      5. -4
        16 January 2019 09: 25
        Quote: Vlad 63
        Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.

        Strange, why not get it?
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 09: 51
          So. do not want to pay !! ours to you. with a brush! hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      16 January 2019 08: 45
      Strange. And why didn’t they demand that the entire territory of Russia be given under US control?
      As it is not required belay , "Light Western Elves" (I mean not specifically the United States, but the collective West) have been demanding this for more than one hundred years ...
    4. -1
      16 January 2019 09: 21
      As long as we live according to their liberoid Costitulation, we will be surprised for a long time to come. In the same occupied US, Japan is allowed to have its own state issuing bank, and not an American branch. Something like this. winked
    5. 0
      16 January 2019 09: 33
      Quote: Viktor Shpichak
      Strange.

      It is strange that in general negotiations are being conducted in this vein ... you never know what was cut in "perestroika"?
    6. +1
      16 January 2019 09: 56
      And we need to say, MEET EUROPE !!!
    7. +1
      16 January 2019 10: 00
      Quote: victor spicak
      Strange. And why didn’t they demand that the entire territory of Russia be given under US control?

      Not all at once, don't get too ahead of yourself. They are ready to take part in management, and not all at once, otherwise admirers of the "talents" of GDP may also start to worry, ahead of time (source yktimes.ru): "Oleg Deripaska managed to achieve the lifting of US sanctions on his key assets - En +," Rusal "and" Eurosibenergo ". For this, the businessman had to not only sharply reduce the shares in the companies (part of the shares of the parent En + will have to be given to VTB, Glencore and a charitable foundation), but also to give almost full control over them through the boards of directors of Rusal and En + US and UK citizens, reports Kommersant. Mr. Deripaska himself remains on the black list and will not be able to receive income from his assets ...
      As a result, TOR conditions look much like a transfer of control over Oleg Deripaska's assets USA"
      So nothing strange, the appetite comes with eating.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 12: 37
        Quote: Leshy1975
        “Oleg Deripaska managed to achieve the lifting of US sanctions on his key assets - En +, Rusal and Eurosibenergo. For this, the businessman had to not only sharply reduce his shares in companies (part of the shares of the parent En + would have to be given to VTB, Glencore and a charitable foundation), but and to give almost complete control over them through the boards of directors of Rusal and En + to the citizens of the United States and Great Britain, Kommersant reports. Mr. Deripaska himself remains on the black list and will not be able to receive income from his assets ...
        As a result, the TOR conditions look a lot like the transfer of control over Oleg Deripaska's assets to the United States. "

        The bestial grin of capitalism - whoever is stronger is right. And for me, they just squeezed the business out as in the memorable 90s. In general, as it came for free, it was gone. Nobody has canceled karma.
    8. +2
      16 January 2019 10: 04
      And do not give an example WHAT in Russia do not control the Americans?
      No jokes or foolishness. What the Americans are up to with this missile, that they are up to the fact that we saved the Crimea or are helping Donbass, etc. - Yes, they wanted to do it and shit it all. But what’s really important is the killing of our economy through governance - and so it’s done at full growth by 146% belay am negative
      The country has a surplus - and we raise taxes that ALWAYS repeat for those who are stupid - ALWAYS lead to a decrease in growth or directly to a decrease in the economy and living standards !!
      Instead of investing in Russia, taxes are taken away in insane amounts as a gift to the United States through "treasury", do not even stutter that "we got rid of them", because maybe they were officially sold. WHERE IS THE MONEY? am If on the same accounts only in other "banks" in the United States, then they are also "frozen" at the click of a button, but in fact they are stolen from Russia. am negative
      And there are plenty of such examples. Listen to how on fingers it explains to you Delyagin, Khazin, Satanovsky and others. Do not believe it - no problem, challenge their allegations but with FACTS !!!
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 10: 38
        Yeah. We sell oil at 60 and above, and officially believe that at forty. Well, where's the stash? The fact that past the budget is unambiguous. But it’s as if bashing about it. winked
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 10: 40
          In the Naglov palaces in Londonograd, in yachts worth under half a billion, in the islands in the Caribbean, and much more that under the Americans and any war, oh excuse the "respected Oligarch" can be selected (and will be) at any time.
      2. 0
        16 January 2019 12: 51
        You're not right. No one but the native leadership kills the economy. Raising VAT and mineral extraction tax, from which we will see inflation, inaccessibility and high cost of loans, falling incomes of the population. This is not all Americans do.
        1. -1
          16 January 2019 12: 54
          And what is the "native" government really native? Maybe according to your logic, Vlasov, after putting on a fascist uniform, fell behind as a "Soviet general" and his ki as "Russian patriots"? am
          If some half-shot scum in the ministerial chair in the Russian government obeys the orders of the United States, then this is NOT a "native leadership", this is either a spy or a traitor to the Motherland, and they deserve only a polonium ice ax in the head with a handle. am soldier
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 18: 01
            What are you doing now? The fact that Putin is beautiful is simply not in the government without a freak.
    9. -4
      16 January 2019 10: 06
      Quote: victor spicak
      Strange. And why didn’t they demand that the entire territory of Russia be given under US control?

      and by whom is it (territory) in your opinion controlled?
  2. +1
    16 January 2019 08: 14
    The American delegation demanded that Russia destroy the 9M729 missile (SSC-8)


    Destroy the territory of America))
    Will arrange? laughing
    1. -4
      16 January 2019 08: 17
      Quote: Lieutenant Senior
      Destroy the territory of America))
      Will arrange?

      And when our rulers, tail-tailing, agree to destroy in the presence of American representatives, how will you react?
      1. +10
        16 January 2019 08: 19
        Just like in the 80s.

        But this will not happen, I am sure.
        And you?
        1. +5
          16 January 2019 08: 24
          Hello, hello! hi
          Quote: Lieutenant Senior
          Destroy the territory of America))

          Does this mean detonation of warheads at the final point of the trajectory? lol
          In general, the borzometer for mattresses has been going off scale for a long time, so something like that from these "negotiations" was to be expected ...
          1. +4
            16 January 2019 08: 54
            Paul, hi !
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            In general, the borzometer for mattresses has been going off scale for a long time, so something like that from these "negotiations" was to be expected ...

            In 90 it was necessary to demand. It was then that America said "Cut!" - cut ... "Blow up!" - blew up ...

            What have they got there in America - the 21st century has not come yet? Still live in 90's?
            1. +4
              16 January 2019 09: 03
              Alexey, hello! hi
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              In the 90s it was necessary to demand. What have they got there in America - the 90st century has not come yet? Still live in the XNUMXs?

              Everything is simpler: mattresses think that if it rolled in the 90s, then it will ride now. They need to master such a device:
          2. +3
            16 January 2019 09: 08
            Let's say a milder definition - we will recycle, although the actions do not change. Good time! hi
          3. +1
            16 January 2019 10: 20
            Hello Pasha hi
            That is detonation. And then the Yankees are very fat, have not fought on their territory for a long time))
            1. +2
              16 January 2019 10: 26
              Quote: Lieutenant Senior
              have not fought on their territory for a long time))

              A very long time: since the war of the North with the South. Fear lost ...
        2. -8
          16 January 2019 08: 29
          Quote: Lieutenant Senior
          But this will not happen, I am sure.
          And you?

          I am sure they will give the back. The alternative is to deploy American MRBMs near Kiev, and this is Putin's "pistol at the temple".
          Or do you doubt that the Ukrainian government will be against it?
          1. +3
            16 January 2019 09: 03
            Quote: Puncher
            I am sure they will give the back. The alternative is to deploy American MRBMs near Kiev, and this is Putin's "pistol at the temple".
            Or do you doubt that the Ukrainian government will be against it?

            they don’t mind, but nobody asks their opinions. This decision (before its implementation) will be the beginning of the resolution of the whole problem of Ukraine, from the Russian Federation, and its rather quick resolution. The weight is too different, the infantry fighting line near Kiev and the howl of the whole world about the aggression of Russia, it is clear that they will choose the howl. But the placement itself is in question. In the Baltics, what is stopping you from placing? Or are they already standing BRDS?
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 09: 10
              INF Treaty and interferes. After all, while he is still acting. So, nowhere can there be any American SLBMs.
          2. 0
            16 January 2019 09: 16
            Quote: Puncher
            I am sure that they will give the back.

            Confident that Putin would give the Kuril Islands yap, yesterday they were afraid to tail their tail into the topic of zaiti. And you will do the same soon
          3. +3
            16 January 2019 09: 16
            Quote: Puncher
            I am sure they will give the back. The alternative is to deploy American MRBMs near Kiev, and this is Putin's "pistol at the temple".

            Fulfillment of the ultimatum will in no way eliminate this threat, but, on the contrary, will strengthen it.
      2. -5
        16 January 2019 09: 07
        Quote: Puncher

        And when our rulers tail-tailing agree to destroy

        Yours will not come to power, do not hope. Hello hot with smoked
      3. Fat
        +2
        16 January 2019 10: 09
        Quote: Puncher
        And when our rulers, tail-tailing, agree to destroy in the presence of American representatives, how will you react?

        Adequately, that is, no way! Because suddenly there was confidence that we have different rulers ...
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 08: 18
      Deliver on barges to the United States? Will you paddle with oars? Will you pull the invisibility cap?
    3. +1
      16 January 2019 08: 58
      Quote: Lieutenant Senior
      Destroy the territory of America))

      if you believe it, nevertheless - Earlier, Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Patrushev said that the 9M729 flight range in tests did not exceed 476 km under the permissible conditions of the INF Treaty 500 km and how would it reach America with such a range ??? .. ..conclusion?
  3. +2
    16 January 2019 08: 15
    They don’t talk like that with a great power.
    the Americans arrived at the meeting with a ready-made solution and were not going to go into the arguments of the Russian side
    Something I do not remember, that the Americans would go into the arguments of the Indians. Beads there, glass, green candy wrappers in the beginning, and then cut off the scalp.
    1. -5
      16 January 2019 08: 33
      Quote: Vlad 63
      They don’t talk like that with a great power

      You are right, do not talk. Judging by the fact that they talk with Russia like that, they don’t consider it great.
    2. +7
      16 January 2019 08: 35
      Quote: Vlad 63
      They don’t talk like that with a great power.
      the Americans arrived at the meeting with a ready-made solution and were not going to go into the arguments of the Russian side
      Something I do not remember, that the Americans would go into the arguments of the Indians. Beads there, glass, green candy wrappers in the beginning, and then cut off the scalp.

      How is Crimea in 2014? Good beads for the USA turned out to be? Already my eyes popped up !!!!
      1. -1
        16 January 2019 09: 03
        And what about Crimea for the United States? Donald says, since Russians live there, why shouldn't Crimea be Russian? They are violet to this Crimea. Rumor has it that the Americans are not against giving all of Ukraine to Russia. Only "ours" are afraid for their accounts in foreign banks.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 09: 07
          Quote: Vlad 63
          And what about Crimea for the United States? Donald says, since Russians live there, why shouldn't Crimea be Russian? They are violet to this Crimea. Rumor has it that the Americans are not against giving all of Ukraine to Russia. Only "ours" are afraid for their accounts in foreign banks.

          Ty Lord .. As with the answer that long tormented. Well, Crimea is such a bun for the United States, or even a cake, that if you don’t understand, then there’s nothing to talk about. In addition to Crimea, I will remind you of Georgia in 2008. Tell? Or do you know? They were so "afraid" that even the Hummers did not return the US with navigation.
          1. -4
            16 January 2019 09: 29
            Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
            As with the answer, they suffered for a long time.

            He has not succeeded with the Kuril Islands, now he will be whining. This sect of all-enforcers already really got
        2. +2
          16 January 2019 09: 13
          2014, what does Donald have to do with it?
        3. -3
          16 January 2019 09: 28
          Quote: Vlad 63
          ... Only "ours" are afraid for their accounts in foreign banks.

          Well, tell me, who and in which banks have accounts?
      2. -1
        16 January 2019 10: 15
        Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
        Already my eyes popped up !!!!

        from whom?
        1. -1
          16 January 2019 10: 20
          Quote: aglet
          Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
          Already my eyes popped up !!!!

          from whom?

          Abama's in 2014. Who "tore" the Russian economy to shreds.
          1. -2
            16 January 2019 10: 39
            Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
            Abama's in 2014. Who "tore" the Russian economy to shreds.

            Does Russia have an economy? or was it?
            1. -1
              16 January 2019 10: 43
              [quote = aiguillette] [quote = Andrey Chistyakov] Abama's in 2014. Who "tore" the Russian economy to shreds. [/ Quote]
              Does Russia have an economy? or was? [/ qu You ask Abama ...
              1. -1
                18 January 2019 08: 01
                Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
                You ask Abama ...

                Abama might not have looked at it from a distance, but you live in Russia. You don’t have to cheek, we have nothing but oil and gas production, unit production in the military industrial complex, screwdriver assembly of everything else, and import substitution in agriculture. and still the stability of price increases for everything. do you call it economics?
    3. +10
      16 January 2019 09: 02
      Quote: Vlad 63
      and then cut off the scalp.

      By the way, contrary to Fenimore Cooper, not the Indians came up with this. The colonists were paid money for the killed Indians - from 1 to 10 dollars. Only needed to have proof. So they proved it.
      They regarded the Indians as wild nomads, and this despite the fact that the Indian agro-cultures served them as food, while the Indians themselves constantly lived in villages and were engaged in farming. The British felt "their duty to God" to conquer these wild lands, destroying all the animals that they do not like, like the wolves and coyotes, which they called for, and, of course, the Indians. By encouraging the killing of these “wild” and “dangerous” animals, the colonial government instituted a reward system for this. To get the money, the hunter had to provide evidence: the skin of a coyote, a wolf and a “red-skinned” (scalp or head of a dead Indian). There were colonists who earned their living by doing just that.

      In January 1725, Captain John Lovewell organized a group of militias to hunt the Indians. Around two nights on February 20, the 62 bounty hunter was surrounded by the sleeping Abenaki camp of Piguocket (near present-day Friborg, Maine). Lavwell was the first to shoot; the rest of the British followed his example. One abenaki survivor rushed to run and dogs were allowed to follow him. All who were in the camp were killed and scalped. The British took guns (which were French-made and considered very valuable) and other souvenirs as trophies.
      Returning to Boston, Lavwell's squad proudly marched through the city streets with ten scalps on poles. They were greeted like heroes. They received 1000 pounds from the General Court and 70 they received for their booty. At that time it was a lot of money.

      And will these people teach me life and good behavior?
      1. -3
        16 January 2019 09: 08
        Yes. The Americans themselves recognized this fact and was repeatedly captured in their film-making.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 09: 19
          Quote: Vlad 63
          Yes. The Americans themselves recognized this fact and was repeatedly captured in their film-making.

          Tell me if you know. It is interesting to watch, because I have not seen any such films. But about the cunning, evil, bloodthirsty Indians - as many as you like. And when America recognizes the genocide of the indigenous population - I will applaud standing up to America.

          Yes, but I don’t have to strain my old knees and beat my palms with applause ....
          1. -6
            16 January 2019 09: 32
            Quote: Zoldat_A

            Tell me if you know.

            His task is to whine, not to give facts. Stupidly sits and crap Russia at every opportunity
            1. -1
              16 January 2019 10: 12
              And your task is to sit stupidly and talk about the greatness of the country in which children collect text messages for operations? Or in which retirees collect arrears from garbage cans from hypermarkets? Or maybe the next pension "reform" is greatness? Or the greatness in the snickering officials, who have gorged on their soup and say that the state owes me nothing? Or is it that I should be immensely grateful to the oligarchs and the authorities in Chubais, for the fact that I do not live like in besieged Leningrad? Well, you, I see, took Chubais's words properly, under the cap, and let's praise. And it just so happened that I’m not talking about the country. Lewdness with this country is performed by those for whom you are drowning here with stubbornness worthy of a better application.
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 10: 36
                Well said good Thank you for the truth and courage. You know, you are not alone, there are millions of us, the vast majority of us hi
                1. 0
                  16 January 2019 10: 43
                  Well, you don't need much courage))). Until they shoot for the truth, at least massively. Although, these adherents of the oligarchic "bright" future, even on this branch, are already calling for the execution of all those who disagree. Down and Out trouble started hi
              2. -7
                16 January 2019 14: 57
                Quote: Vlad 63

                And your task is to stupidly sit and talk about the greatness of the country in which they collect children for operations by sms?

                And in the superpower of the United States, millions live in tents, millions do not have health insurance at all. They are not able to get minimal medical help. AU wake up.
                Your task is to humiliate Russia, so you humiliate yourself below the baseboard
                1. -1
                  16 January 2019 16: 01
                  I basically do not care how they have it. I see what these authorities are doing with our people, and indeed with the country. Well, if you decide to compare with the USA .... if it’s so bad there, probably the population from the USA to Russia goes to permanent residence, and not vice versa? Probably the officials of the notorious State Department, on vacation, go to the Crimea and Sochi to pay their salaries paid by the people? American officials are probably buying property somewhere near Ryazan, and they are being treated to go to honey. institutions in Voronezh, and their children are attached to the universities of Novosibirsk. They open their accounts at Selkhozbank, and do their family members receive citizenship? Do the best US athletes dream of playing in VTB United League or KHL? It’s probably American officials who offer their children to take them to an orphanage while their parents pay mortgages and loans (probably they have a% higher than ours). And about the scraps .... Probably in the US Army, during the first and second Iraqi companies, the authorities massively sold the lives of their soldiers and officers, draining the necessary information to the enemy? So I woke up a long time ago. I can continue to ask questions of this kind for a very long time, but I'm afraid it is useless, it is difficult to part with pink glasses. And it is you who are humiliated by the fact that you justify the above, consider it to be the norm. And I’m not destroying this country, but those same authorities and sympathizers for them.
          2. -1
            16 January 2019 09: 41
            For example, the film "Foes". Quote from view starring K. Bale
            He devoted his life to killing people who defend their territory. In the end, he realizes that he is participating in the genocide. He is sincerely interested in learning more about Cheyenne, studying their language, their worldview.
  4. DPN
    -2
    16 January 2019 08: 16
    A WE RUSSIANS can demand something from the United States or weak in the knees?
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 08: 52
      It’s good to carry crap. It’s like an adult. Drop now on your knees and lick their ass. Would my will shoot such ..... together with the American ambassadors.
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 09: 14
      With the same result as they ... feel
    3. Fat
      0
      16 January 2019 10: 25
      Quote: DPN
      A WE RUSSIANS can demand something from the United States or weak in the knees?

      Hmm ... Be realistic, demand the impossible (c) The author is either Sartre or Chegevara ...
  5. +8
    16 January 2019 08: 17
    In short, all US diplomacy is "hands up," and then everything from pockets to the table, your money will be ours ... The saloon of the Wild West is resting.
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 09: 03
      Wild west saloon resting


      Why is resting, he did not go anywhere, he continues ...
  6. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 17
    oh this Pompeo, a protege of the Koch brothers
  7. +4
    16 January 2019 08: 17
    After making sure that the Russians did not succumb to pressure and an ultimatum, American colleagues said that Russia was allegedly not ready to fulfill its obligations under the treaty.

    Wow, Americans probably miss the time of Gorbi-Yeltsin)))
    We are Omeryka !! And our analysts say that you are Russian, the same as the Ukrainians! why say no !?
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 09: 01
      Yes, there was a shameful time when they walked in front of them half-bent ...
  8. +3
    16 January 2019 08: 17
    Earlier, Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev stated that the test range of 9М729 did not exceed 476 km under the conditions allowed by the INF Treaty 500 kilometers.

    The point is not in this rocket, but in the fact that the Americans themselves are not happy with the fact that they have rockets besides them. And Russia, as Nikita said, can show Kuzkin’s mother. But it makes no sense to justify oneself, not to respect oneself, because they don’t hear it.
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 08: 54
      The United States understands that something needs to be changed, but how it is not even imagined.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 09: 18
        If they understood ... although they may understand, but there is nothing to do, they have long gone bankrupt, it remains to bluff and try to intimidate.
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 09: 27
          What they are trying to do.
        2. 0
          16 January 2019 11: 24
          they have long gone bankrupt

          Well, they say it on our TV and the Internet, but they think differently. By the principle: To whom should we
          we forgive. The machine that prints "magic" papers from them.
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 11: 30
            In my opinion, everything is somewhat different ... there is the USA, there is the Fed, there is the World Financial System ... again I was drawn to conspiracy theories ... feel
            1. +1
              16 January 2019 11: 46
              Look at the US bankrupt, they definitely do not look yet and impose their conditions on the same FRS and IMF. Look at Ukraine, they have been predicting a default and a complete collapse of the economy for 5 years already, but they are "still" alive and receive recharge from the country of bankruptcy.
              1. 0
                16 January 2019 13: 29
                I'm not talking about ... everything is not what it seems. Is the USA not bankrupt? In the generally accepted sense - bankrupt, just those who can declare them as such receive and their own bankruptcy in the bargain. Ukraine is given the next "loans" to support the pants of the existing regime and to manage for many years to come with the help of debt obligations. I saw here a fragment of the Ukrainian broadcast on 112, and so in it they discussed the problems of the outflow of the able-bodied population and the collapse of the Ukrainian economy, mind you, they did not discuss on the Russian channel and not with the Moscow professors ... everyone understands that the process is going on, and for us in Russia it is a long way not the best scenario.
  9. +3
    16 January 2019 08: 19
    What I said: the United States does not want and can not listen and agree. They decided and now demand. They sneezed at arguments and evidence.
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 08: 53
      They will have to change, otherwise it will not.
  10. +2
    16 January 2019 08: 29
    How they used to demand. Normally resolve issues completely forgotten how.
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 08: 52
      At one time, Gorbachev conceded what happened we know - the collapse of the state ...
  11. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 35
    It’s high time to knock off the crown from their heads and cut off the wings! Bullied already!
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 10: 41
      That's right, it's time, BUT! the current state of the Russian economy does not allow this categorically! They know this very well and therefore, will continue to push further.
  12. -10
    16 January 2019 08: 43
    Someone can explain why the Russian Federation needs a 9m729 missile, if the same complex expander has a ballistic missile superior to it in all respects? What is the point in 9m729? The Americans are formally right ...
    1. +4
      16 January 2019 08: 52
      Different uses and different efficiencies.
      The Americans are formally right ...

      Why do Americans need ATACMS if they have Tomahawks?
      1. -6
        16 January 2019 08: 56
        Atacms is a ballistic missile. And 9m729 is winged. Don't you understand the difference? There are no questions regarding a ballistic missile under the agreement.
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 09: 09
          Don't you understand the difference?

          Iskander has the same garbage - there is ballistic, there is winged. Why then ask?
          Someone can explain why the Russian Federation needs the 9m729 rocket, if the same complex expander has a ballistic missile superior to it in all respects?
          1. -6
            16 January 2019 09: 16
            Something I do not catch the logic in your comment. Once again, I ask the question - why do we need an escander cruise missile if there is a ballistic missile that is better in everything?
        2. 0
          16 January 2019 09: 40
          Is there a point in contracts if they are performed by only one party? I haven’t read the INF Treaty, I will take your word for it, in fact - are we deploying military bases near the US borders? No. Are we expanding a military alliance hostile to the United States? No. Are we unfoundedly accusing the United States and its citizens of all mortal sins and crimes? No. US Destroyed Weapons-Grade Plutonium Stocks Under Another Treaty? No. And you can go on for a very long time, so, as the Ukrainians say - hi bude. Politics is, in my opinion. the search for compromises, otherwise it is already a diktat, as recent experience shows - the United States is now not even able to put Eun in its "place", and the Russian Federation (no offense is said to wake up) is still not North Korea.
  13. +4
    16 January 2019 08: 48
    If you don't respect yourself, why should others respect you? Before you occupy high posts, our government must be sent for an internship-in CHINA!
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 08: 51
      I do not know about China, there is a completely different system of psycho-work, but otherwise you are right.
  14. +3
    16 January 2019 08: 49
    Americans demanded from the Russian Federation to destroy the rocket 9М729


    As they already got ... let their wives in the kitchen require.
    1. Fat
      0
      16 January 2019 10: 37
      Quote: cniza
      let their wives in the kitchen require.

      This is whether "horacement" or family violence, in general, they can be imprisoned ... request , so they demand from anyone, from dissatisfaction ... But on the whole I agree - they got it ...
  15. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 52
    Such arrogant demands are being thrown in order to reinforce the bourgeois fear of that part of the elite that has already sent junk, money and kids to the West, wants to gain a foothold in this West in the future and must surrender those few strongholds of the country's security that are still nuclear and precision weapons, territories in disputed regions like the Kuril Islands, and so on.
    1. -5
      16 January 2019 08: 57
      Quote: Altona
      Such arrogant demands are being thrown in order to reinforce the philistine fear of that part of the elite

      These are not requirements, but an ultimatum. Do not destroy the missiles, they will withdraw from the INF Treaty. And these same elites know what this is fraught with.
      1. +5
        16 January 2019 08: 59
        Quote: Puncher
        These are not requirements, but an ultimatum.

        -------------------------
        It still does not pull on an ultimatum, pulls on show off more. The Americans understand that they are not yet ready to fight.
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 10: 25
          It is necessary to tear out the trebleman demanding there. The contract itself is tearing, and even morally mocking our rocket. negative
  16. +3
    16 January 2019 08: 59
    It seems to me that the task of making the Americans the initiator of a break with the INF Treaty and full of praise is almost complete. It remains to wait until the bridges burn out and show everyone that the "Zhiguli" physically could not go above 1000 km / h, since at that time they were standing at the service with the engine removed)))
    1. -10
      16 January 2019 09: 13
      It seems to me that cretins only mo RF sit. Or we just don’t know that our expanders are already rotten or they are easily beaten, if suddenly
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 09: 32
        Quote: My4there
        our expanders

        And who are you? request
        1. -4
          16 January 2019 10: 02
          Sorry, I meant 9m723, which is called Iskander. In general, I do not like these "proper names", such as "armata, Vladimir, boa constrictor, igol", etc. For me, the alphanumeric code is simpler and more accurate.

          Why do you need 9m729 if there is 9m723?
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 11: 03
            Quote: My4there
            Why do you need 9m729 if there is 9m723?

            We are not aware of the detailed performance characteristics of either one or the other. Perhaps one can do something that the second cannot, and vice versa. So they complement each other. IMHO.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 11: 52
              Wow, first adequate comment. Hurray-underdeveloped tired of the forums ...

              And what can the subsonic land version of the 9m729 "caliber", which the 9m723 cannot? Well, at least in theory?

              In my opinion, the 9m729 has only one advantage over the 9m723, which justifies its deployment - the launch range is up to several thousand km. Why did such a rocket have to be made precisely on the basis of the land OTRK? Because the Moscow Region does not believe in the possibility of the effective use of these missiles from sea and aircraft carriers (due to the limited number of these sea and air carriers and their low combat readiness). Why not deployed more than 9m723? because these missiles are not so unreceptible, moreover, they are expensive and complex. Why not make the new more effective 9m723-2 ?! Because they cannot, they do not know how, backward technologies do not allow this. There is no money. Therefore, they rely on cheap and mass subsonic KR 9m729. From hopelessness.

              Why is the RF Ministry of Defense doing such an emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons? Purely my opinion - in the case of a hypothetical limited military conflict with an enemy that has superiority in conventional weapons, the only limiting factor is the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons against advancing enemy troops. And there are more than enough of these enemies in Russia on any theater.

              9m729 is not a sign of superiority, but of backwardness and defenselessness against threats such as Turkey or Japan in a regional limited military conflict, as well as technical and economic problems in the matter of building up already tested and reliable advanced tactical missile weapons. Purely my opinion.
  17. +1
    16 January 2019 09: 19
    The cartoonish successes of the Daggers bear fruit.
    under their impression in the States after nuclear disarmament, Obama decided to radically renew nuclear forces, both tactical and strategic.
    In particular, in terms of tactics, to develop instead of Obama's destroyed nuclear Tomahawks, a new nuclear stealth cruise missile even larger than that of the Tomahawks range.
    And now, if the Medium-Range Missile Treaty is a thing of the past, then it will be in the land variant.
    1. -6
      16 January 2019 09: 32
      Well, what the hell is Russia? Why sculpt this cr for the escander? What's the point in it? Everyone is shouting "hurray, hell to coconuts, we won't give up 9m729", while no one knows the meaning of this rocket at all.

      And the meaning in her opinion is as follows: the Russian Federation is not able to develop its strategic nuclear weapons and is trying to maintain parity by increasing tactical ones. The eskanders are quite confused by the modern air defense systems of the NATO countries, and as an attempt to increase the firepower of the eskander complex when it is impossible to create a new effective ballistic missile - modeling 9m729. Make an expander 2, why did you need antediluvian subsonic cr for this complex? Or can our science and industry no longer make the required number of ballistic missiles?
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 09: 50
        Americans, judging by their report last year, see the problem elsewhere.
        Russia is far behind in conventional weapons, and this gap is constantly growing and therefore compensates for this with tactical nuclear weapons.
        Americans believe that in the event of a war in Europe in which Russia loses on conventional weapons, Russia plans to strike tactically with nuclear weapons at a pair of cities with the expectation that America would not dare to launch a full-scale nuclear war and Europe will retreat.
        here is a report
        https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
        but the conclusions from it in Russian
        https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872876/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-TRANSLATION-RUSSIAN.PDF
        As for the ballistic missile, the same problem will be - a range of not more than 500 km should be
        1. -4
          16 January 2019 10: 05
          And why the Russian Federation in the event of such a conflict cannot deliver a limited blow to strategic nuclear weapons? Because strategic yao is critically small? Why is my Russian Federation focusing on tactical nuclear weapons? As a citizen of the planet Earth, sorry, I don’t like this game from the Russian Federation ...
  18. +2
    16 January 2019 09: 24
    Quote: Puncher
    Quote: Lieutenant Senior
    Destroy the territory of America))
    Will arrange?

    And when our rulers, tail-tailing, agree to destroy in the presence of American representatives, how will you react?

    Gorbachev bent well in front of the Americans, many that he destroyed, starting with missiles and ending with submarines, already the Americans clapped their hands.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 10: 00
      Quote: Simon
      Gorbachev bent well in front of the Americans, many that he destroyed, starting with missiles and ending with submarines, already the Americans clapped their hands.

      And we at URBr spat on the ideas of this GMS-a ...
  19. 0
    16 January 2019 09: 27
    Well, if you demanded ...
    They demanded in writing, through the ambassador to Russia, or, as always - orally - through the press?
    And what will happen if their demands are ignored? And if in Cuba S-400 and "Calibers are placed (on underwater barges and surface pontoons? In order not to violate ..."
  20. +1
    16 January 2019 09: 29
    Quote: Puncher
    Quote: Altona
    Such arrogant demands are being thrown in order to reinforce the philistine fear of that part of the elite

    These are not requirements, but an ultimatum. Do not destroy the missiles, they will withdraw from the INF Treaty. And these same elites know what this is fraught with.

    And if we destroy these missiles, then we will be disarmed! They will demand the destruction of this field, so that we are defenseless.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 10: 33
      I don’t like the Pentagon building, but I don’t require the USA to demolish it and build another. So the American military official probably should not demand from us to reduce our missile potential.
  21. +1
    16 January 2019 09: 31
    Assault is the best defense. The Americans are therefore attacking. It is not clear why we did not put forward a counter-requirement to abandon missile defense launchers from which missiles falling under the INF Treaty can be used.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 09: 51
      of these, one cannot use such missiles.
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 10: 29
        of these, one cannot use such missiles.

        Can't use Tomahawks from launchers designed to launch Tomahawks? belay
  22. 0
    16 January 2019 09: 58
    Americans demanded from the Russian Federation to destroy the rocket 9М729

    fool Only in exchange for Alaska ... lol
  23. 0
    16 January 2019 10: 17
    ... either abandon the 9M729 missile, or modify it so that its range “does not violate the provisions of the contract.”

    ... Put a smaller tank for kerosene? bully
  24. 0
    16 January 2019 10: 21
    Instead, it would be necessary to demand that the United States equate the number of aircraft carriers with the Russian Federation. wassat And - so that Tram is repainted in brunet. tongue
  25. 0
    16 January 2019 10: 27
    We agree, only by launching on American bases wherever they are with the simultaneous start of rocket production around the clock.
  26. 0
    16 January 2019 11: 23
    Quote: My4there
    Atacms is a ballistic missile. And 9m729 is winged. Don't you understand the difference? There are no questions regarding a ballistic missile under the agreement.

    Who cares? Ballistic or winged? If it violates - it makes no difference what it violates. Ballistic or cruise missile. The principle of application is different, the goals are one

    Kh.renovo that the Americans rested like sheep, hoping that the Russian side will break. Most likely there is something in this rocket, some kind of highlight. It is possible that she, like the anti-ship missile, has a supersonic stage. Then this means that the probability of interception of such a missile becomes close to zero.

    IMHO, as usual, we act not in advance, but ex post. It would be possible even under Obama to show this rocket and remove all questions. However, secrecy brought to the point that there was a situation where we are accused, and we can not oppose anything to this. And the accusation is ultimatum. No options.

    Quote: My4there
    Something I do not catch the logic in your comment. Once again, I ask the question - why do we need an escander cruise missile if there is a ballistic missile that is better in everything?

    And why, for example, do you have fixed-route taxis in the city if there are buses (trolleybuses, trams)? A cruise missile can be in demand for delivering surgically accurate strikes against point targets, when the use of ballistic is unprofitable or impossible because of its high CVO (with respect to RC). In addition, when struck by ballistic missiles, they can be shot down, because spot them right after the start. The winged one will pass unnoticed ...

    Quote: Nikolay73
    Is there a point in contracts if they are performed by only one party? I haven’t read the INF Treaty, I will take your word for it, in fact - are we deploying military bases near the US borders? No. Are we expanding a military alliance hostile to the United States? No. Are we unfoundedly accusing the United States and its citizens of all mortal sins and crimes? No. US Destroyed Weapons-Grade Plutonium Stocks Under Another Treaty? No. And you can go on for a very long time, so, as the Ukrainians say - hi bude. Politics is, in my opinion. the search for compromises, otherwise it is already a diktat, as recent experience shows - the United States is now not even able to put Eun in its "place", and the Russian Federation (no offense is said to wake up) is still not North Korea.

    I will try to answer your questions

    1. There is always meaning. In any contracts. With this agreement, we removed the threat of using complexes in the event of a conflict that we could not intercept then. And which were extremely accurate.
    They removed the threat of the massive use of complexes, which at that time could not intercept either, namely the Pioneers (and in the future, the Speed ​​complexes). Both of these complexes, in contrast to the American Pershing, had a MIRV with 3 warheads. And then there was politics. Betrayal of the top leadership of the USSR and the destruction of complexes that do not fall under the restrictions. All this gave an impetus, our "partners", especially after the 90s and Bori-drunk, realized that it is possible to speak with the Russian side from the position of ultimatums. In addition, in contrast to the Brezhnev times, when all problematic issues were resolved within the framework of the commissions of the parties without using the media, in the past 20 years it has been the media that has been used to resolve such issues. And from our side, and from theirs. As a result, the problems that could be solved at the negotiating table migrate to the pages of newspapers, TV screens and the Internet. This is in particular with regards to the launchers on both sides. Which formally fit for violations, but in fact do not

    2. We do not place bases near the territory of the United States, although previously they had them in the same Cuba. Now there is no strength. In addition, the deployment of bases and the conclusion of such agreements are not interconnected.

    3. What about the Alliance? Legally no. Although practically the SCO is gradually acquiring the features of a political alliance, whose mission is to counterbalance America. So far, in economic terms.

    4. Do we blame Americans and their citizens for all mortal sins and crimes? Definitely. Read the media and watch TV, and go online. In addition to saying that the United States is nothing but a monster country and all its citizens are bastards - you will not find anything else, positive, in such publications. Moreover, the analytical materials that spoke of the "advantages" of the United States disappeared. Only the negative that works. Moreover, we are ready to cooperate with any regime, whatever it may be, the main thing is that it considers the United States as its enemy ...

    5. Have Americans destroyed stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium? Of course no. Since there has never been an agreement between Russia and the USA on this topic. From the word AT ALL.

    6. Politics is, in my opinion. compromise search.
    You are absolutely right. This is a search for compromises. As for the fact that the United States is not able to put Eun in his place, you should not pass off wishful thinking. Still, it is worth distinguishing between political pressure on this or that country and a military solution to the issue. Political pressure did not work, although the United States tried its favorite carrot and stick method. Did not work out. There was a military solution to the issue, but everything would have swayed from the one who started. China, on the other hand, once said that if Eun strikes first, they will not help him. If on it - China will provide assistance. And to get involved in hostilities with the participation of China, the Americans are somehow not with their hands. Although it is quite possible that some kind of provocation would have been arranged and Eun would have struck first.
    1. -2
      16 January 2019 12: 05
      Good answer. I agree with everything, but complement
      And why, for example, do you have fixed-route taxis in the city if there are buses (trolleybuses, trams)?

      Then, that buses are sorely lacking. Do you understand? I hope that 9m723 is still enough, and I'm wrong.

      I am not against the development of the CD as such, but what for is this ground-based CD, and even on the basis of the Iskander OTRK? Are there not enough planes and boats for the Kyrgyz Republic? That's it .... There I answered above why it was necessary. And not only for the "complex to be more flexible"
  27. +2
    16 January 2019 11: 23
    Quote: My4there
    Sorry, I meant 9m723, which is called Iskander. In general, I do not like these "proper names", such as "armata, Vladimir, boa constrictor, igol", etc. For me, the alphanumeric code is simpler and more accurate.

    Why do you need 9m729 if there is 9m723?

    It can be seen what is easier for you and what is not. Since the Iskander-M complex (aka 9K720) is equipped with 9M723 missiles with various types of BW, and 9M728 missiles
    Why you need a cruise missile in the complex has already been explained to you many times. The complex becomes more "flexible" in application

    Quote: My4there
    Well, the fig is Russia? Why sculpt this cr for an expander?

    Maybe for a change you will still write the name of the complex as it is called? ISKANDERAnd not Эscander

    Quote: My4there
    The eskanders are completely confused by modern air defense systems of NATO countries

    This can theoretically be done by two or three NATO countries under certain circumstances. And not always.

    Quote: My4there
    and as an attempt to increase the firepower of the expander complex when it is impossible to create a new effective ballistic missile - modeling 9m729.

    But what, an increase in the firepower of the complex is already a minus? For example, the 9M728 missile flies to a range of 480 km at a low altitude, with an envelope of the terrain and at a speed of 700 km / h. With a deeply layered enemy defense, there is a very high probability that such a missile can be shot down in the last kilometers of flight.
    Now imagine that instead of this 9M728 missile there will be a missile (let it be 9M729), which will fly just like 9M728, but at the last 40 km, without even entering the zone saturated with air defense systems, the combat stage is separated from it and accelerated to speed in 2,5M. And instead of the 3,5 minutes that were needed for 728, to overcome this space, a new one overcomes it in 40 seconds. All air defense systems multiply by zero, because they do not have enough reaction time. Why is this rocket bad for increasing the power of the complex ???

    Quote: My4there
    Make an expander 2, why did you need antediluvian subsonic cr for this complex? Or can our science and industry no longer make the required number of ballistic missiles?

    Without your suggestion, the designers would not know that a more perfect version of Iskander should be made. Take it easy. These works are already underway and for at least one year.

    Quote: Avior
    As for the ballistic missile, the same problem will be - a range of not more than 500 km should be

    Problems exist to solve them. And as painless as possible for yourself, at the lowest cost. Everything is decided. And quite simple ....

    Quote: My4there
    And why the Russian Federation in the event of such a conflict cannot deliver a limited blow to strategic nuclear weapons? Because strategic yao is critically small? Why is my Russian Federation focusing on tactical nuclear weapons? As a citizen of the planet Earth, sorry, I don’t like this game from the Russian Federation ...

    What for? No, if you are prepared in the event of a conflict for a local conflict to develop into a global one with the exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States, then yes, please use strategic nuclear weapons. But why use a strategic one at a distance of 1000 km, when you can use a tactical one. An example from life. You buy a refrigerator in the store. What kind of car do you use to transport this cargo? Are you hiring a KAMAZ or GAZelle weight? So it is here. Why strategic weapons when tactical is enough ????

    Quote: Simon
    And if we destroy these missiles, then we will be disarmed! They will demand the destruction of this field, so that we are defenseless.

    Well unarmed, we will not assume. They deployed only two divisions in the opinion of the same Americans. But why destroy?
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 12: 12
      About the gazelle and KAMAZ, about increasing the "flexibility of use" and just about the targets for tactical nuclear weapons - I wrote above. I agree with you, and I am for the development of the CD. But not on the basis of the OTRK Iskander, not instead of ballistic missiles, and even more so not instead of the sea-based and air-based CD. Moreover, tactical nuclear weapons should not replace strategic ones! 9m729 and any other land-based KR is a mistake, and withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a threat to the Russian Federation! There would be no sense in such missiles if it were not for the backwardness of our army, the aerospace forces and the fleet together.
  28. +1
    16 January 2019 11: 25
    They want to repeat the story with the 9k714 "Oka" complex. But the time of the traitor Gorbachev has passed.
  29. +2
    16 January 2019 12: 19
    I am very surprised that most Western countries are always demanding something from Russia: Japan - Kuriles, Poland - Kaliningrad, Ukraine - Crimea, Americans - the Arctic, and so on. to infinity. It would be good, finally, to develop an effective "response" that would forever discourage our "partners" from such claims.
  30. +1
    16 January 2019 12: 35
    We can only satisfy the request to destroy Washington, but not the rocket. If you agree - contact
  31. 0
    16 January 2019 16: 07
    It is necessary to withdraw from the INF Treaty.
    No matter how calm it was with him, but he acts only on the Russian Federation and the United States, without affecting other countries in which such missiles are far from outlandish.
    Well, or it is necessary to make a UN resolution from this treaty that applies to all countries of the world.
  32. 0
    16 January 2019 16: 10
    Stop stepping on a rake. "We swam - we know." Let the hunchback be thanked for the destruction of the Oka and Pioneer.
  33. 0
    16 January 2019 16: 54
    In response to this, should the US dump all its aircraft carriers?
  34. 0
    16 January 2019 20: 46
    Well, I do not. Enough once when the tagged one destroyed the Oka OTRK.
  35. 0
    16 January 2019 22: 03
    Americans demanded from the Russian Federation to destroy the rocket 9М729
    And if the Russians demand to destroy the United States, instead of their missiles.
  36. 0
    16 January 2019 22: 20
    It is possible, but only combat launches, agree? laughing
  37. 0
    17 January 2019 07: 35
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Quote: Vlad 63
    Why do they need these territories? They already get everything they want for $.

    Strange, why not get it?

    The beekeeper does not have to be in the hives himself ... He just has everything with them .. And the bees are convinced of their independence, we can even have a holiday that was appointed June on the 12th .. or the independence at the end of August .. and drone as president
  38. 0
    18 January 2019 03: 26
    Our HYPERSONIC rockets with a nuclear power plant, our GUARANTEE and a gift from Great Putin !!!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"