Trump wants to pull the United States out of the Open Skies Treaty

In the 28 year of the Open Skies Treaty, the United States decided to withdraw from this agreement. According to The Wall Street Journal, US President Donald Trump has already signed a document of intent to withdraw from the treaty.

US Air Force Monitoring Flight Aircraft - Boeing OC-135B "Open Skies"

Recall that on the basis of the Open Skies Treaty, signed in Helsinki in March 1992, aviation participating countries can carry out announced flights over the territories of other countries for monitoring, including military activity. At present, 34 states are parties to the Agreement, including Russia, the USA, Turkey, Georgia, the Baltic countries, Belarus, Germany, Ukraine, etc.

Allegedly, the United States intends to withdraw from the agreement due to the fact that Russia allegedly violates the terms. This is despite the fact that in the 2014 year, the United States itself denied Russia a monitoring flight in its airspace. Previously, the Russian military was accused of using aircraft with “advanced intelligence equipment, including infrared cameras and sensors.”

If the United States withdraws from the treaty, then, for obvious reasons, Russia can make a reciprocal move, which will close the airspace of our country for monitoring flights carried out by NATO aviation today.

The United States itself has called Trump’s initiative “pro-Russian,” noting that if the United States cannot control Russian territory from the air, it will be “a bad moment for the interests of the United States.”

Recall that earlier the United States withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.

Comments

[Cut Samshitov]

Well, the last carrot, for the collapse of the country, is taken away. Now Misha the Marked one will be indignant, Judas.

[Civil]

He counted everything, ginger Trump. Nowadays, all this can be checked perfectly through satellites. And then Rogozin and sanctions lurked. That's the whole layout.

[sir.jonn]

Quote: Civil

He counted everything, ginger Trump. Nowadays, all this can be checked perfectly through satellites. And then Rogozin and sanctions lurked. That's the whole layout.

And why then are so many different UAV scouts being developed? Not so simple with satellites.

[Tatyana]

US President Donald Trump has already signed a document of intent to withdraw from the treaty.

Who would doubt that after the United States withdrew its INF Treaty, the Washington / Pentagon would naturally leave the Open Skies Treaty as well!
This is an emphasis on direct steps to prepare the United States for war with Russia!
It's not even Trump. Trump is just a deep state official in the United States.

And someone else - in the same West - naively thinks that the USA will not start a war. Untie - and how!
Russia needs to change its military strategy from defensive to offensive.

[Lelek]

Quote: Tatiana

And someone else - in the same West - naively thinks that the USA will not start a war. Untie - and how!

, Tatyana.
Yes, they can and even loudly announced this with the mouth of State Department Speaker Morgan Ortagus:

[hydrox]

Do you really think that after the defeat of 08.08.08, the BRAVE Georgians will once again try our Armed Forces "by the teeth"?
They are, of course, "frivolous", but not to the extent of complete Down syndrome

[Lelek]

Quote: hydrox

They are, of course, "frivolous", but not to the extent of complete Down syndrome

It seems that they can try again out of a desire to please their Western leaders. The servility has become the credo of the elite of the once proud people. Starting Operation 08.08.08, Georgia-2 secretly understood how it could end for her, but to please the US and NATO advisers she committed suicide (not the common people, namely the elite, led by the "tie-expert"). But even after the defeat, the tone of the Georgian "establishment" has not changed, and the "aliens" are still at its head. So they can, they can try again, but then the fate of Georgia as a state will be at stake.

[hydrox]

Perhaps you are right if you take into account the state structure of Zhorika, as a result of the work of amersky little hands in the presence of the Varangians in hand.

[Lexus]

Tatyana
For a long time, we ourselves have no sense in participating in this project. Of our allies, only Belarus is in it. The remaining 28 are NATO countries and sympathizers. Another 2 countries are observers. Georgia refused to fulfill the terms of the Treaty. Yes, and Americans, often, do not coordinate inspection routes and are denied to fly over some objects.
In the end, we get 27 states (minus the United States), half of them are dwarf ones, which will regularly "monitor" in the interests of the Pentagon, no doubt, our strategic objects, but we will not be able to control our main military-political opponent. What is the reason for us to inspect Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and others?

[Tatyana]

Quote: lexus

What is our reason for inspecting Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and others?

But what a! Namely.

The Open Skies Treaty also includes Russia’s control of the territories of the United States itself, and not just Pentagon control of the territories of the Russian Federation.

On the one hand, Washington’s refusal of the Treaty by Washington impedes Russia's control of US territory.
And on the other hand. This frees up the hands of the Americans against the Russian Federation, without demand, to control the territory of Russia by the Americans along all our borders. Especially regarding the Russian Crimea and the Kaliningrad region.

[Lexus]

On the one hand, Washington’s refusal of the Treaty by Washington impedes Russia's control of US territory.

Planned ahead inspection flying on an agreed route, the coordination of which is constantly sabotaged - this is not control!

This frees up the hands of the Americans against the Russian Federation without demand, to control the territory of Russia by the Americans along all our borders. Especially regarding the Russian Crimea and the Kaliningrad region.

Is something stopping them now? Not so much as on drones, they fly on strategic bombers. Sorry, but "pomErla"

[Tatyana]

Quote: lexus

A pre-planned inspection flight along an agreed route, the coordination of which is constantly sabotaged - this is not control!

This is true, but still, Russian control of the US territory was periodically anyway!

And now, the complete refusal of Washington from the Open Skies Treaty by the United States suggests that the United States prudently, when ready for war with the Russian Federation, is redeploying and building up its weapons on its territory.
And this is an absolutely frank hostile act against the Russian Federation.

And then you can understand the Pentagon. Why would the Americans need Russian planes to hang out in the skies over the United States and look for something there, while they already know everything about standard strategic locations in the Russian Federation?

Such an act of the United States is an elementary strategy for preparing a US war against the Russian Federation and nothing else!

[Lexus]

And now Washington’s complete rejection of the Treaty

We are writing about the same thing, only in different words.

[Tatyana]

Quote: lexus

We are writing about the same thing, only in different words.

I just assess the US rejection of the Open Skies Treaty with Russia in a more categorically condemning form than you.
This is the difference with you.

[Lexus]

I just assess the US rejection of the Open Skies Treaty in a more categorically condemning form than you

For me, this is not news, but a fait accompli. Everything went to that. And we, without the USA, have nothing to do in that Treaty, because he will work exclusively against us. If I rush too condemn on the US demarche, it will not become easier.

[hydrox]

This OHM Treaty was beneficial for us only as long as we had weak control over the airspace, allowing us to look through the Treaty into those places that remained a gap for our leaky radars.
Now we have two-layer CONTINUOUS control of the air production, including even over-the-horizon capabilities, and with the advent (in the case of emergencies) of the A-100, we will also choose targets at a distance of several hundred km.
This will be a real defense and a real defense.

[dauria]

He counted everything, ginger Trump.

Of course I did. China is not included in this treaty. Nobody flies over it.
In light of our "friendship" with China, why would the Americans let us fly over the United States?

[oldzek]

and what can be expected from them if a woman with a pirated name and conviction is no better at the State Department ...

[Andrey Chistyakov]

Well yes. The United States again withdraws from the treaties, and Russia is to blame ...

[bessmertniy]

The United States does not just withdraw from this treaty, they essentially pronounce a sentence on it, since then neither Russia nor other countries will make much sense in it.

[Andrey Chistyakov]

Quote: bessmertniy

The United States does not just withdraw from this treaty, they essentially pronounce a sentence on it, since then neither Russia nor other countries will make much sense in it.

Yes, let it go. Extra confirmation of how they relate to US contracts ...

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Andrey Chistyakov

Extra confirmation of how they relate to US contracts ...

As there is a classic - you are to blame for the fact that I want to eat. This is necessary to pay attention once again to those whom the staff call their “allies”

[Mainbeam]

Trump wants to pull the United States out of the Open Skies Treaty

So, now this agreement brings more minuses than pluses.

They want to hide the deployment of their weapons?
Do you understand the futility of mobile systems?
Or do they have space intelligence using new algorithms?

[hydrox]

With good space equipment, "clear skies" are just a crutch for conventional reconnaissance methods: just a common, but ideological factor, which basically carries only a moral load to the imperative "NO !!!"

[bessmertniy]

If there were no sense in these flights, then neither the United States nor we would raise our planes to better examine the territory of others.

[venik]

Quote: hydrox

With good space equipment, "clear skies" are just a crutch for conventional reconnaissance methods: just a common, but ideological factor, which basically carries only a moral load to the imperative "NO !!!"

=========
Well, it’s not quite like that! There are not so many satellites in orbits, change their orbits so that the days fly exactly where you need - It’s a troublesome and expensive business ... An airplane is much more effective in this regard!

[askort154]

venik ....Airplane in this regard is much more effective!

That's right. The quality of satellite intelligence largely depends on the number of differential correction stations. American GPS has 22 such stations in Russia. Our GLONAS stations in the United States do not exist. Somewhere, 4-5 years ago, we requested permission to install our stations on their territory,
in response received a categorical - NO. We in response - threatened to remove their stations from our territory (delivered in the 90s). We found supporters - do not clean their stations, otherwise it will affect the accuracy
GPS work on our territory. How did this confrontation end? I have not met reliable information. So, withdrawal from the contract is worse for us. Therefore, they raised this issue.
We have GLONAS stations abroad in:
Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Antarctica, South Africa, India, Cuba, Spain, Venezuela, Vietnam, Indonesia, Ecuador, Sweden, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, China. In China, together with their "Beidou".

[venik]

Quote: askort154

Our GLONAS stations in the United States do not exist. Somewhere, 4-5 years ago, we requested permission to install our stations on their territory,
in response received a categorical - NO.

=========
Oh, Alexander! I am tormented by the same "vague suspicions" - that ALL of this is started, only in order to get "ONE-SIDE benefit"!
Standard "cunningly ... crap""sworn American "friends"

[hydrox]

Flights under the "Open Skies" program are made only a few times a year, and then in different regions, while the route is being laid, agreed and approved within several months, therefore, by the time this aircraft enters the route, it is guaranteed that on that the route will be cleaner and cleaner than cat belongings.
So the effectiveness of the data on the "ON" program is ZERO.

[hydrox]

The Yankees NEVER agreed on the routes on which there was something delicious for us ...

[Mainbeam]

Quote: hydrox

With good space equipment, "clear skies" are just a crutch for conventional reconnaissance methods

Quote: venik

There are not so many satellites in orbits, changing their orbits ... a troublesome and expensive business. The plane is much more efficient in this regard!

Quote: askort154

That's right. The quality of satellite intelligence largely depends on the number of differential correction stations.

At VO there was an article about disguise. So it (or comments) said that the Yankees are developing intelligence algorithms that track landscape changes. With such garbage, it will be quite problematic to hide mobile systems and tanks with a simple camouflage network.

There was a second article, which described the creation of a large-scale space network to track the launches of hypersonic weapons (the truth was said about the problem of transferring large amounts of data simultaneously)

Maybe they have a breakthrough in space intelligence?

[Fedorov]

So there is something to hide. Or their most likely failing flaws, well, maybe new developments. But Russia I think on the drum.

[lucul]

And here is our handsome man, because of which the contract was actually canceled:

Tu-214ON is the first aircraft in the history of the Open Skies Treaty equipped with all types of permitted observation equipment. cameras, side-looking radar, on-board digital computer complex and navigation support system Resolution limitation for digital cameras - 214 cm, infrared - 30 cm.

The aerial photo complex is represented by digital and film cameras located in the bow of the fuselage on the lower deck. Side-view radar is also located in front of the fuselage. The radar capture range is from 4,7 to 25 km, and the field of view is up to 50 km. Infrared monitoring equipment is located in the center section. The range of viewing angles of infrared equipment is 130 °, the scanning bandwidth on the ground is 4,6h (where h is the flight altitude by radio altimeter). The television surveillance system includes three cameras: the central wide-angle KTSH-5 and two side KTBO-6. The viewing angle of KTSh-5 reaches 148 degrees, the scanning width on the ground is 6,6h. The viewing angle of the CTBO-6 is from 8,5 ° in narrow focus to 20,1 ° in wide focus with a range of viewing angles of 60 °.

The aircraft is equipped with an onboard computing complex. BTsVK is designed to control the operation and control of the monitoring means of observation, as well as to display information in real time from the means of observation and its recording. The BTsVK consists of 5 automated workstations (AWS), united in a local network: AWS of the aerial photo complex operator, AWS of the radar operator, AWP of the operator of infrared equipment, AWP of the TV equipment operator and AWP of the senior flight representative. "

Let me remind you that ALL equipment on board the Tu-214ON is strictly domestic production.

[Fedorov]

Here he is handsome at Max 2013

[V1er]

That's it. Because they wanted us to use this

[Prisoner]

And ideally, this.

[Fedorov]

Somehow they took me on a visit. Ukrainian like AN-26. We flew to the geyrope, there the floor moved and a huge camera came over. My friends later analyzed the pictures in Borispol near Kiev. There was no question of any sensors. True, it was 15 years ago.

[Zaurbek]

The camera, it seems, is German.

[rotmistr60]

for monitoring including military activity

Let's take this objectively. That there are no other means, primarily satellite, to monitor military activity? This agreement implied exclusively, supposedly, complete confidence in the so-called. "partners" and no more. You will recall how the Americans did not allow our aircraft to fly over their territory, motivating this with photographic equipment not provided for by the United States. Therefore, Russia loses practically nothing when the United States withdraws from this treaty.

[SOF]

Quote: rotmistr60

Therefore, Russia when the United States withdrew from this treaty loses nothing.

.... oh? .... the fact that the states, with our answer, will stop flying over us, does not mean that other countries party to the treaty will stop flying, most of which are NATO countries ....

[rotmistr60]

If the United States leaves, then what "joy" is it for us that the remaining 32 countries (34 under the treaty) fly over our territory. By the way, except for the United States, Great Britain and a couple of other countries, no one has flown.

[bouncyhunter]

Gene, hello! All according to the pattern:

Allegedly, the United States intends to withdraw from the agreement due to the fact that Russia allegedly violates the conditions.

Bored, girls ...

[abc_alex]

Quote: SOF

does not mean that other countries party to the treaty will stop flying

For example, who? Georgia or Estonia?
And if Russia withdraws from the treaty, will they continue to fly over each other?

[SOF]

Quote: abc_alex

And if Russia withdraws from the treaty

.... this is only if we get out of it, and do not close the sky for the United States, as a mirror measure ....

[abc_alex]

Quote: SOF

it is if only we get out of it, and do not close the sky for the United States, as a mirror measure ....

And what's the point in such a half-hearted decision? If initially the agreement existed in the logic of NATO-NATO, then later the only bonus for us was the possibility of flying over the United States. If he is gone, what's the point of revealing the sky to NATO?

[aleks26]

Quote: SOF

Quote: rotmistr60

Therefore, Russia when the United States withdrew from this treaty loses nothing.

.... oh? .... the fact that the states, with our answer, will stop flying over us, does not mean that other countries party to the treaty will stop flying, most of which are NATO countries ....

Well THERE are also not stupid, and most likely it will be so.

Russia can make a return move, which will close the airspace of our country for monitoring flights carried out today NATO aviation

[Azazelo]

Interestingly, the Pentagon saw more than it showed under this agreement.

[Prisoner]

In this case, there is no silver lining. Pino scam to the dump, Trump is an agent of the Kremlin.

[venik]

"... US President Donald Trump has already signed a document of intent to withdraw from the treaty ......
"earlier, the United States withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. ...."
=========
Well, everything is correct - international agreements and treaties - in fig ... "I am in the house (the world) - OWNER!"
It looks like "untie their hands" .... You can wait for anything!

[7,62x54]

Toothless MFA

[Herman 4223]

They are withdrawing from the agreement, and we hope too. Otherwise, they will check us through their vassals, but we do not.

[Ros 56]

The main thing is that we need to be prepared for the most negative circumstances, up to the betrayal of Luke, and we will somehow deal with the obvious enemies.

[Zaurbek]

Strange move. The contract is beneficial to the West. We fly to the country once, and each of them once and exchange information.

[Sapsan136]

So the Russian Federation needs to withdraw from this treaty so that the United States, through the hands of its NATO allies, will not be able to conduct reconnaissance flights over the Russian Federation

[Old26]

Quote: Tatiana

Who would doubt that after the United States withdrew its INF Treaty, the Washington / Pentagon would naturally leave the Open Skies Treaty as well!
This is an emphasis on direct steps to prepare the United States for war with Russia!

Preparing for war while eliminating the control of the other side is very creative.

[Berkut154]

It is strange that the Tu-154m and An-30 do not appear on the issue of excess noise)))