US withdraws from Open Skies Treaty

US withdraws from Open Skies Treaty

The United States withdraws from the Open Skies Treaty (DON). The reason for this decision in Washington called the actions of Russia, write the American media.


US President Donald Trump confirmed earlier information about the US withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty. According to him, the reason for this was Russia, which "did a lot of bad things." At the same time, the American leader, as always, did not explain his words.

At the same time, the head of the US State Department, Mike Pompeo, expressed US claims to Russia under this agreement. As it turned out, the main claim put forward by Washington is that Russia allegedly uses the information received under the treaty to direct conventional weapons to the infrastructure of the United States and European NATO members, thereby undermining the central function of the Don and creating a "threat to US national security."

Russia uses the images taken under the Open Skies Treaty in the interests of the aggressive new Russian doctrine of striking critical infrastructure in the United States and Europe using high-precision conventional ammunition

- he said.

Among other claims that allegedly violate the provisions of the agreement, Pompeo voiced: refusal of observation flights in a 10-kilometer corridor along the border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia; establishing refueling as an airport under an aerodrome in the Crimea; "unlawful restriction on the range over Kaliningrad."

In addition, Pompeo emphasized that Russia in 2019 "unreasonably refused to conduct an observation flight over large-scale Russian military exercises."

In turn, Russia is not going to withdraw from the treaty, and the EU intends to convene an urgent meeting to discuss the consequences of such a US decision. At the same time, Washington promises to reconsider its decision if "Russia corrects its behavior."

It should be noted that DON allows the United States, Russia, and another 32 countries of the world to conduct reconnaissance flights over each other’s territories and is one of the most important components of the security system in Europe and the modern world as a whole.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil 22 May 2020 11: 27 New
    • 36
    • 12
    +24
    All these old contracts are worthless. A powerful USSR was negotiated, and now the partners do not consider it necessary to comply.
    1. Olgovich 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
      • 29
      • 4
      +25
      Quote: Civil
      All these old contracts are worthless. A powerful USSR was negotiated, and now the partners do not consider it necessary to comply.

      The contract is signed 24 March 1992 year in Helsinki representatives 23 statesto increase security in conditions of increasing confidence in each other.

      Everyone needs a contract.

      The Americans are destroying the entire structure of global security, bringing a military threat to peace ...
      1. NordUral 22 May 2020 11: 52 New
        • 12
        • 12
        0
        Everyone needs a contract.
        Besides us, we do not need him.
        1. Abbot 22 May 2020 11: 55 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          "Russia uses the images taken under the Open Skies Treaty in the interests of the aggressive new Russian doctrine of striking critical infrastructure in the United States and Europe using high-precision conventional ammunition," he said.

          Everything is fine in the statement. Pompeo admitted that the military infrastructure in the United States and Europe has flaws that Russians do not need to know about. He also admitted that the Abrams "burn kerosene" over Russia for nothing - you can not see nicherta. And experts with analysts in the United States have stupefied to such an extent that they can be fed a similar mess about the pictures. Interestingly, ours have already answered or continue to troll refueling in the Crimea?
          1. NordUral 22 May 2020 11: 58 New
            • 6
            • 4
            +2
            Think, as always. But we do not need this contract, but the optimal constellation of satellite surveillance. And something like "Spiral" a few pieces, as opposed to their "X".
            1. Shurik70 22 May 2020 22: 19 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The question is not who needs it (very many people need it to reduce tension)
              The question is who does NOT need it.
              If the United States abandons it, it is not just that. There must be a reason.
              They are hiding something. Getting ready. And, it seems, went to the finish line.
          2. rich 22 May 2020 12: 38 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Abbot (Abbot): He also admitted that the abrams "burn kerosene" over Russia in vain - not a damn thing is visible

            abrams? belay Maybe all the same Boeing OC-135B Open Skies
            1. sabakina 22 May 2020 12: 49 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              Dima! I, too, was surprised to learn that Abrams can fly! I'll check on my cat! wink
              1. rich 22 May 2020 13: 00 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Glory, my respect hi
                Do not check, you will burn kerosene in vain wink
            2. figwam 22 May 2020 12: 59 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Rich
              abrams? Maybe all the same Boeing

              And for normal boys and abrams)))
            3. Abbot 22 May 2020 13: 11 New
              • 0
              • 7
              -7
              abrams? belay Maybe all the same Boeing OC-135B Open Skies

              Quote: sabakina
              I, too, was surprised to learn that Abrams can fly!

              Amazing There are still people in Runet who do not know what I call Americans Abrams? Are you generally in hens that this tank is named after an American general, and not vice versa? Here, I inform you to know.
              1. Piramidon 22 May 2020 13: 40 New
                • 9
                • 0
                +9
                Quote: Abbot
                There are still people in Runet who do not know what I call Americans Abrams?

                I learned the first from you. "Yankees", "gringo", "p ..." (a word that moderators do not like), I know. But the "abrams" is something new.
                1. Abbot 22 May 2020 13: 58 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Oh, how many wonderful discoveries are to us ... Do you also understand that in koment tanks are flying over Russia? Ahem ... Okay, my cant. I burn with shame.
          3. Starover_Z 22 May 2020 20: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Pompeo emphasized that Russia in 2019 "unreasonably refused to conduct an observation flight over large-scale Russian military exercises."

            Do not let the plane fly over the training area ?! What really is disgrace ?!
            Immediately outline the exercises for air defense units in the near future and invite American observers to fly freely over the training area! You can not just one plane and at different levels! To not complain another time!
        2. figwam 22 May 2020 12: 18 New
          • 20
          • 0
          +20
          It turns out that we will not fly over FSA, and Europeans will fly and transmit all FSA information, it won’t do that.
          1. NordUral 22 May 2020 12: 20 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            So we must close our sky.
        3. Sergey39 22 May 2020 12: 30 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: NordUral
          Besides us, we do not need him.

          In its current form, all these agreements are outdated and are not needed by anyone. Including many international organizations such as the UN, WHO, WADA, etc. Everything goes to a new redivision of the world, as after WW2, and the conclusion of new treaties and the creation of new organizations.
      2. halpat 22 May 2020 12: 13 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        It would not have happened that the United States left, and Russia remained, "yielding" to the entreaties of the American vassals who remained in the agreement, who would merge any information to the overlord.
        Well, that’s how it was with Iran. The US came out, and the whole crowd began to persuade Iran to remain "within" ... and even tried to threaten, so that Iran remained to fulfill the destroyed agreements, having previously curtailed its investments in Iran (just in case).
      3. ccsr 22 May 2020 12: 47 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        Quote: Olgovich
        Everyone needs a contract.

        We did not need an open skies agreement either when it was concluded, and even more so now. Our top military leaders opposed him, but the drunk loved the West and the USA so much that he agreed to the Treaty, which was extremely unprofitable for us, which is why he appeared in 1992 - the Americans insisted on his conclusion.
        At that time, the US military doctrine was aimed at creating a huge number of sea and air-based cruise missiles, which made it possible to covertly launch a massive preemptive strike against our military missile defense and strategic missile forces. And after that, ballistic missiles and other strategic nuclear forces were to strike. And they needed detailed data on our terrain and radar operations, and getting them from a satellite constellation would cost a lot of money. That's why they imposed this agreement and almost for a penny got the information that would cost them tens of billions of dollars without the agreement.
        For us, such information about the territory of the United States was not needed at all, because we planned to use the strategic nuclear forces, and for them such information was not needed. And we had no cruise missiles at that time, so that they could massively attack targets in the United States.
        So the current breakdown of this Treaty will not bring us any particular harm, unlike those concluded on strategic offensive arms, which is why we should not worry too much about it. I am sure that the US military themselves will request the conclusion of such an agreement from Trump - they then well know what he gives them.
      4. Same lech 22 May 2020 14: 01 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Everyone needs a contract.


        Who is it for everyone?
        Personally, I don’t see the need for this agreement ... if there are NATO and US troops at our borders it smacks of profanity ... what we will observe ... the accumulation of NATO troops and the equipping of their military infrastructure for a new campaign to the east ... well so our intelligence is enough for this.
    2. Vlad.by 22 May 2020 11: 51 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      At the time of the signing of the treaty, the states had tangible superiority in intelligence systems. Now the situation is rather the opposite. After the loss of superiority for the "gentleman", it is a holy thing to take the words back.
      Does FIG need a dividend-free agreement?

      And we need science - to live with wolves howl like a wolf.
      It’s not sacred to execute unprofitable contracts imposed during a period of weakness, but to send “gentlemen” to the erotic walking route.
      1. syndicalist 22 May 2020 13: 38 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        It is precisely because the Americans have absolute superiority in satellite intelligence that they are breaking this agreement. Just aerial reconnaissance becomes technically irrelevant. Their possibilities remain the same, and in the foreseeable future we remain blind like moles.
        1. Piramidon 22 May 2020 16: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: syndicalist
          It is precisely because the Americans have absolute superiority in satellite intelligence that they are breaking this agreement. Just aerial reconnaissance becomes technically irrelevant. Their possibilities remain the same, and in the foreseeable future we remain blind like moles.

          Well, that is not intelligence either. In the "open sky" the parties showed only what they wanted to show the enemy.
        2. ccsr 22 May 2020 17: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: syndicalist
          It is precisely because the Americans have absolute superiority in satellite intelligence that they are breaking this agreement.

          The costs of satellite reconnaissance are much higher, and the quality of the reconnaissance materials received from the reconnaissance aircraft is not only higher in resolution, but the information is even more comprehensive and comprehensive. There are no such satellites of intelligence among the Americans, which would be able to accommodate as much various equipment as it fits in a reconnaissance aircraft.
    3. Lara Croft 22 May 2020 14: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Civil
      The powerful USSR agreed,

      Where did they get it? At the time of signing the Treaty of the USSR was no longer ....
      26 December 1991 g. The Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a declaration which stated that in connection with the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a state and subject of international law ceases to exist.

      https://tass.ru/politika/3850507
      and as said Olgovich (Andrey)
      The contract is signed 24 March 1992 year
  2. NEXUS 22 May 2020 11: 27 New
    • 17
    • 2
    +15
    Extra evidence that the US IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL PARTY. They gave the word, they took the word.
    1. iouris 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Most likely, Trump is sure: his terms will be accepted, he will “agree” without contracts.
      1. Interlocutor 22 May 2020 21: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Most likely, Trump is sure: his terms will be accepted, he will “agree” without contracts.


        But we don’t agree ... Let’s ask the Chinese to fill the island in one thousand kilometers and put a radar there. Let the imperialists go crazy hi
  3. Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 11: 27 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    US withdraws from Open Skies Treaty
    Then piss off. We also need to go out. All under the United States and Old will merge them. angry
    DON allows the United States, Russia and 32 other countries to make reconnaissance flights over each other's territories and is one of the most important components of the security system in Europe and the modern world as a whole.
    Well, let the Impudent fly over France, in the name of peace. repeat
    1. poquello 22 May 2020 11: 39 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      US withdraws from Open Skies Treaty
      Then piss off. We also need to go out. All under the United States and Old will merge them. angry
      DON allows the United States, Russia and 32 other countries to make reconnaissance flights over each other's territories and is one of the most important components of the security system in Europe and the modern world as a whole.
      Well, let the Impudent fly over France, in the name of peace. repeat

      I don’t understand what they’re pulling, it’s time to announce a mirror solution
      1. Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 11: 46 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: poquello
        I don’t understand what they’re pulling, it's time to announce a mirror solution

        That's just the point, I'm afraid that he will not be. As always. request
      2. Tzar 22 May 2020 12: 31 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        Yeah, so they announced. Here, admire, have already begun to reel snot on a fist: https://ria.ru/20200522/1571818609.html
        Moscow intends to comply with all clauses of the Open Skies Treaty as long as it is in force, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told RIA Novosti.

        Do they really not understand how shamefully it looks from the side ...
        1. poquello 22 May 2020 12: 44 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Tzar
          already started to wind snot on a fist

          what can you say
          1. Tzar 22 May 2020 12: 46 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            One can only hope that those who are above these talkers will show the same reaction that they showed in response to the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty ...
  4. Karaul73 22 May 2020 11: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What's next? What else will the states come out of? A repetition of the Caribbean crisis is not far off. Only instead of Cuba can you use Venezuela.
    1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 11: 30 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Quote: Sentry73
      A repetition of the Caribbean crisis is just around the corner.

      This is when the Americans had to withdraw missiles from Turkey and give guarantees of non-aggression to Cuba?
    2. figwam 22 May 2020 12: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sentry73
      What's next?

      And then everything will come out of NATO, otherwise we will see the deployment of American troops in Europe for a strike.
  5. Tuzik 22 May 2020 11: 30 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    It is expected that they, with a huge modern constellation of satellites, do not really need this, this agreement is primarily needed by Europe and partially by us. I think this is a signal to Europe, that's how you depend on us.
  6. Ravil_Asnafovich 22 May 2020 11: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Mr. Pompeo needs to go to a psychiatrist, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think he has paranoia.
    1. your1970 22 May 2020 12: 47 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
      Mr. Pompeo needs to go to a psychiatrist,I'm not a psychiatrist,but it seems to me him paranoia.
      -when it seems that someone has a mental illness is a sign of a possible mental illness laughing laughing laughing classic psychiatry
      1. Rusticolus 22 May 2020 18: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And when it seems to many on one thing, then this is already a classic of animation.
        If we were crazy, then not both at once. Go crazy one by one. It is only the flu that they all get together.
  7. Pvi1206 22 May 2020 11: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The United States seems to want to break up NATO from within without coordinating its actions with this organization ... We wish Trump success on this path ...
  8. prior 22 May 2020 11: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To conclude a contract is a huge work, breaking a contract is a great stupidity.
    Well, who is who?
    1. iouris 22 May 2020 23: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: prior
      To conclude a contract is a huge work, breaking a contract is a great stupidity

      An agreement is a product of non-resistance of parties with opposing interests.
      One of the parties considered that it would provide only its interests (at the expense of the other side). This means that the other party is more non-negotiable (it cannot ensure its interests through an agreement). Thus, (this) the other side will either have to secure its interests with force or retreat due to force majeure circumstances (what do you think?).
  9. KVU-NSVD 22 May 2020 11: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The United States withdraws from the Open Skies Treaty (DON). The reason for this decision in Washington called the actions of Russia,
    Trump confirmed earlier information about the US withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty. According to him, the reason for this was Russia, which "did a lot of bad things"
    The rationale is clear winked
    Russia uses the images taken under the Open Skies Treaty in the interests of the aggressive new Russian doctrine of striking critical infrastructure in the United States and Europe using high-precision conventional ammunition
    I especially liked it - they took pictures and they were needed for something - aggression is evident. But seriously - everything is in a long time understandable outline for withdrawing from all deterrent agreements. START and peaceful outer space are just around the corner.
  10. Hto tama 22 May 2020 11: 34 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Well, who’s talking about something, and the bald one is about a comb! fellow Something I don’t remember, if only recently, the mattresses would say at least once that they were not profitable, this or that contract was always poking a finger in the Russian Federation, blaming everything am And, yes, as always, our authorities will express regret and concern belay , it’s time to directly declare that it makes no sense for us to remain within the framework of this agreement when the owner comes out and his vassals remain, and the agreement is essentially just a fiction yes
  11. pmkemcity 22 May 2020 11: 37 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    The strongest party comes out of the contract first, because any contract is beneficial only to the weak side. The strong side always wants to dictate its will to the weak side.
    1. Swordserg 22 May 2020 12: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Not only the strongest, but also stupid ones can leave the contract first. The contract is a mutual document, and if it restrained all parties, now it is freeing everyone's hands. And far from the fact that they will benefit from this.
      1. pmkemcity 22 May 2020 13: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Swordserg
        The contract is a mutual document, and if it restrained all parties, now it is freeing everyone's hands.

        Hence the "second rule of Gleb Zheglov" - an agreement is possible only between equals.
        1. Swordserg 22 May 2020 22: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Then I’ll add the third rule: with adequate and negotiable. The US does not fully comply with this.
          1. pmkemcity 23 May 2020 12: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Swordserg
            Then I’ll add the third rule: with adequate and negotiable. USA does not fully comply with this

            The Americans are quite adequate - leaving the contract, they act within the framework of the contract. But the desire to draw China into the treaty is an obvious sign of weakness.
  12. knn54 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Or maybe you still give the key to the apartment, where the money is"?
  13. Knell wardenheart 22 May 2020 11: 49 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Nothing lasts forever - the world changes, and if you do not change with it, you remain on the sidelines of history.
    1. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Very poetic, but essentially true. good
  14. Well, excuse me - Russia is not a royal gold dagger, so that everyone likes it ... (I hope). It’s time to go to the grin, otherwise it will be too late.
  15. The comment was deleted.
    1. Swordserg 22 May 2020 12: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      so now people are not Stakhanovs, and Stalin is not at the helm, and indeed the sky used to be bluer, the grass is greener, the sun is warmer. You say about professionalism, as I understand it, on the basis that the pilot himself? And about the muzzles ... you are the chief doctor of the Ministry of Defense?
    2. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 00 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Misterfin
      On the other hand ... Russian pilots are quarantined in apartments in muzzles - why do they need an open sky, God forbid, they still get a runny nose. The current pilots are not Chkalov and not Gromov, both in terms of professionalism and moral character.


      Did you even understand what you wrote?
  16. svp67 22 May 2020 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Russia uses the images taken under the Open Skies Treaty in the interests of the aggressive new Russian doctrine of striking critical infrastructure in the United States and Europe using high-precision conventional ammunition
    The case when a hat is lit on a thief ...
    1. cniza 22 May 2020 12: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      So everyone uses it and if an object that poses a threat is detected, it becomes a target, and for this they fly.
      1. svp67 22 May 2020 13: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: cniza
        So everyone uses it and if an object that poses a threat is detected, it becomes a target, and for this they fly.

        This agreement was adopted in order to remove many security issues. And now an interesting situation arises if Russia remains faithful to the previously signed treaty and allows any of the European countries both NATO members and their partners to fly over its territory. This information will directly go to the headquarters of NATO and the USA, and we will be deprived of the opportunity to conduct such flights and collect intelligence over the USA
        1. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 08 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          We and the United States have enough satellites, it's just more expensive and the quality is worse. The United States has set itself the goal of drawing us into an expensive race, nothing new.
          1. svp67 22 May 2020 13: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: cniza
            We and the United States have enough satellites, it's just more expensive and the quality is worse. The United States has set itself the goal of drawing us into an expensive race, nothing new.

            We already need to restore our satellite systems, which were earlier.
            1. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 15 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              This and it will have to shell out, another factor plays here, the United States suspected that our new equipment, on observer aircraft, greatly exceeds the capabilities of their equipment ...
              1. svp67 22 May 2020 14: 30 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: cniza
                They suspected that our new equipment, on observer planes, greatly exceeded the capabilities of their equipment ...

                Why are you suspected? They specifically learned. Ours, for certification, showed them our new Tu-214ON.
  17. Svetlana 22 May 2020 12: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Against the background of the announcement of new negotiations on arms limitation between the US and Russia, this looks like a move to strengthen its position.
    1. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Maybe they think so, but doubtful.
  18. Aleksandre 22 May 2020 12: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I was offended by you, but for what I won’t tell you, guess the reasons yourself.
    Omega has a protracted PMS.
  19. Sova 22 May 2020 12: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Russia is not going to withdraw from the treaty" if the United States withdraws from this treaty, what is the point for us to remain in it? If everyone is divorced. they can receive data from their NATO partners, who will have the opportunity to fly around our territory.
    1. cniza 22 May 2020 12: 55 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Here, in fact, there are a lot of questions and the US election race can cost everyone a lot.
    2. cniza 22 May 2020 13: 04 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sova
      If everyone is divorced. they can receive data from their NATO partners, who will have the opportunity to fly around our territory.


      Here, in fact, the situation is a little twofold, for us and the United States, in principle, there are enough satellites, but this is not available to other participants.
  20. cniza 22 May 2020 12: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    At the same time, Washington promises to reconsider its decision if "Russia corrects its behavior."


    All these are pre-election mantras, but they are breaking a lot of firewood.
  21. Very smart 22 May 2020 13: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All these treaties are stillborn. "And you are to blame for the fact that I want to eat ...". Apparently, according to ASPnet, the Russian Federation should take off its pants and show everything. Otherwise, they do not know what is there ... They all went ... Far off ...
  22. steelmaker 22 May 2020 13: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If that fantastic weapon that we have is true !? It is we who must dictate the conditions of behavior, not us.
  23. aleksr2005 22 May 2020 14: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Russia is not profitable to act symmetrically with respect to NATO, and the United States knows this. The USA will get all the information from Europeans, and from whom will we receive information about what is happening on NATO territory?
  24. strelokmira 22 May 2020 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In turn, Russia is not going to withdraw from the treaty

    No brains?
  25. Polente the Wanderer 22 May 2020 15: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "In turn, Russia is not going to withdraw from the treaty"
    What prevents the allies, friends, satellite Yankees from transmitting all information about Russia to the USA
  26. NF68 22 May 2020 16: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To hegemon everything and everything to the light bulb. What they want is what they turn back.
  27. Radikal 22 May 2020 16: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: Olgovich
    Everyone needs a contract.

    We did not need an open skies agreement either when it was concluded, and even more so now. Our top military leaders opposed him, but the drunk loved the West and the USA so much that he agreed to the Treaty, which was extremely unprofitable for us, which is why he appeared in 1992 - the Americans insisted on his conclusion.
    At that time, the US military doctrine was aimed at creating a huge number of sea and air-based cruise missiles, which made it possible to covertly launch a massive preemptive strike against our military missile defense and strategic missile forces. And after that, ballistic missiles and other strategic nuclear forces were to strike. And they needed detailed data on our terrain and radar operations, and getting them from a satellite constellation would cost a lot of money. That's why they imposed this agreement and almost for a penny got the information that would cost them tens of billions of dollars without the agreement.
    For us, such information about the territory of the United States was not needed at all, because we planned to use the strategic nuclear forces, and for them such information was not needed. And we had no cruise missiles at that time, so that they could massively attack targets in the United States.
    So the current breakdown of this Treaty will not bring us any particular harm, unlike those concluded on strategic offensive arms, which is why we should not worry too much about it. I am sure that the US military themselves will request the conclusion of such an agreement from Trump - they then well know what he gives them.

    I agree, only why the Kremlin is so tense on this topic, as if one of the spouses who were abandoned, but he still promises to love his former half to the grave? lol hi
    1. ccsr 22 May 2020 18: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      I agree, only why the Kremlin is so tense on this topic, as if one of the spouses who were abandoned,

      Everything is probably simpler - it is beneficial for us that Europeans write in their pants from the actions of Trump, which is why we are fanning this story so that they bite with each other more. Europeans are well aware that the Americans have at least some chance of surviving after an exchange of nuclear strikes, and they have none at all. It is they who are affected in the first place - maybe the EU will fall apart faster.
    2. iouris 23 May 2020 12: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      why the Kremlin is so tense on this subject, like one of the spouses who were abandoned

      That seems to be the case. The "establishment" suddenly turned out to be naked. And then they thought that they had agreed on everything. Gentlemen ....
  28. Radius 22 May 2020 17: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Another wagging of mattress covers! Anglo-Saxons like to make terrible faces and grin their teeth in order to frighten the enemy. Trump simply does not like this agreement and he goes all-in to fool out a new one on favorable terms for himself.
    Shchazz! Risking ...
  29. Kestrel 23 May 2020 00: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    So it’s time for Russia to close its skies for the United States and its NATO sixes!
    1. D16
      D16 24 May 2020 10: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So it’s time for Russia to close its skies for the United States and its NATO sixes!

      The affairs of the sixes are much more interesting for us than the hegemon. They are at our side. Therefore, they remained in the contract. And the Americans ... It's their choice. They just once again showed the world their incompatibility.
  30. nikvic46 23 May 2020 06: 37 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A purely personal opinion. The 1992 agreement took us away from creating reconnaissance satellites. Why invest when you can just control it from an airplane. Departure of an airplane from a given aerodrome. And the time is surely agreed. And the satellite controls for a long time. What they weave, Chapaev said that they didn’t give a damn and forget. It just so happened that besides the USA their satellites are developing. And you need to look at them. We are primarily interested in France, Great Britain and a little Japan. China, of course.
  31. 1536 23 May 2020 09: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The worst thing is that Russia will abide by this treaty. Consequently, NATO aircraft, for example, some Danes and various other Swedes, will spy openly over our heads, transmitting all the information to the Americans. And our military in relation to American territory will be deprived of such an opportunity. It’s not Belarusian planes that send the United States to the sky ...
    In my opinion, all these agreements of the 1990s with the Americans should be reviewed. And at the time of the "review" their action must be suspended. And the initiative in this should come from our side, and not from these furious cowboys, who, whatever the ranch, have their own law and order.