The US called the reason for criticizing Trump's decision to withdraw from the Open Skies treaty


It turns out that in the United States far from unanimous approval was adopted the decision of the administration of President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement. Recall that in the format of this agreement, Russian and NATO military experts had the right to carry out air monitoring of objects in the territories of countries that signed the agreement in 1992.


The beginning of the contract - 2002. Over 18 years, numerous monitoring flights of NATO aircraft over Russia and Russian aircraft over NATO countries have been completed. During the monitoring, the compliance parameters for the deployment of forces and assets relative to previously signed agreements were established. But Trump decided to withdraw from the Open Skies treaty, habitually accusing Russia of its violations.

Allegedly, Moscow does not provide opportunities for air monitoring of objects in the Kaliningrad region. Moscow denies the accusations against it, but for the United States this is no longer an argument.

Representatives of the Democratic Party also criticized Trump's withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty. Against the background of the election campaign, this is understandable. But what is the specific reason for criticizing Trump’s decision in the US?

The fact is that the United States withdrew from the treaty, but their European partners in NATO did not withdraw. In this regard, it is said that Russia has every opportunity to continue monitoring from the air the military facilities of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe. And if you take into account that dozens of American bases are located on European territory, many of which share the area with the bases of European armies, then the Russian military will be able to continue monitoring the locations of the American military.

In the US Democratic Party, noting that American inspectors would lose their right to conduct observation flights over the Russian Federation, Trump’s decision in connection with this situation was called "abuse of the interests of the US military stationed on the European continent."
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 10: 42 New
    • 19
    • 3
    +16
    It turns out that in the United States far from unanimous approval the decision of the administration of President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement was adopted.
    Who would doubt that. There is Trump and there is Antitramp, and logic is resting.
    In the US Democratic Party, noting that in this case, American inspectors will lose their right to conduct observation flights over the Russian Federation,
    And why fly, burn kerosene, NATO partners will give everything so that they will find it with us. angry We need to go out, but ours ... fool
    1. Civil 25 May 2020 11: 13 New
      • 9
      • 15
      -6
      Everything went to pieces ... if we go out, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world. And again, sanctions, the same as for START, are strangling us seriously.
      1. Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 11: 19 New
        • 13
        • 3
        +10
        Quote: Civil
        Everything went to pieces ... if we go out, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world. And again, sanctions, the same as for START, are strangling us seriously

        And do not leave cakes tossed? fool And they will continue to choke. “Sweetheart be patient, it can cost” (An ordinary miracle)
        1. Alekseev 25 May 2020 16: 41 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          'But do not leave cakes throw?
          Not necessary. But suspend flights, which is tantamount to a temporary withdrawal from the contract. And there will be no reason to stink.
          1. Alekseev 25 May 2020 21: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The reaction of the "public" is not clear. Why do we need to withdraw from the treaty if it collapsed with the withdrawal from the US DON? That is why "Europe" regrets in the historical memory of which, unlike the United States, the disasters of many wars still remained. They will either not be allowed to fly over the Russian Federation at all, or they will limit the flight, for example, to border areas on a reciprocal basis.
            And so all the responsibility on the Americans. This, of course, is a purely propaganda affair, but still ...
      2. Olgovich 25 May 2020 11: 34 New
        • 9
        • 1
        +8
        Quote: Civil
        Everything went to pieces ... if we go out, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world

        and what did the USA actually lose?

        And NOTHING, for the Angles, etc. NATOshval will continue to fly and shoot in Russia what the United States orders.
        And who said that there will be no amers on those NATO planes?

        That is, the USA of Russia will not be able to control, and the USA will continue

        So, I think, Russia will have to go out too or reduce the flights of NATO countries much.
        1. svp67 25 May 2020 12: 06 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          And who said that there will be no amers on those NATO planes?

          Only if they are citizens and military personnel of the country that requests such a flight ... These planes undergo preliminary control, when arriving at the territory intended for inspection, the crew members pass the same control, and there are also military representatives on board audited country.
      3. ccsr 25 May 2020 11: 52 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Civil
        Everything went to pieces ... if we go out, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world.

        So the Americans come out, not us, so it doesn’t depend on us at all. In general, this agreement is not beneficial to us in any way, and it is good that the Americans themselves are tearing it up - there will be fewer complaints to us. As for sanctions, this is a long-term program of the West, and there is nothing to do with breaking the agreement.
      4. Piramidon 25 May 2020 12: 24 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Civil
        if we leave, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world. And again, sanctions, the same as for START, are strangling us seriously.

        Yeah, the Yankees came out, and should we continue to live with the gates open? request There is more sanction, less sanction, it doesn’t matter anymore. Have you been strangled by these sanctions?
      5. Kuroneko 25 May 2020 15: 27 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Civil
        Everything went to pieces ... if we go out, a new round of bullying Russia will begin as a threat to the whole world. And again, sanctions, the same as for START, are strangling us seriously.

        We will not leave, but the USA.
        And there are even more pros in this for us than minuses. Firstly, even the hedgehog understands that after the INF Treaty has died, the mattress will create and test new rockets - there is no need to burn fuel to see it again. Secondly, yes, we can still fly over Europe (but still, detect the replacement in Aegis-Ashore) of PRO-missiles at Tomahawks - the task of counterintelligence, here a chamolytic with cameras will not help much), thirdly, we successfully hide our objects (and after the DRSMD gasps and we have enough new products). Moreover, with our vast territory. The trajectories of American spy satellites have long been calculated, and something serious is always done in the "blind windows" between their flights.
  2. evgen1221 25 May 2020 10: 49 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    And at the same time, the little question is, we are no longer flying over the states themselves and China doesn’t seem to fly, but they can fly in the framework of NATO and have to share the info. In principle, it is clear what they want, but playing in the nuances and especially how they would be a shit would be entertaining, but we put up with the role and therefore can do little and (union) China the ambitions of our imbeciles are flat parallel.
    1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 25 May 2020 11: 28 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      but we endured in the role and therefore little can

      Do not judge others by yourself. How do you know what we can and cannot do? Do you work in this area?
      In my opinion, information on the state of American troops in Europe is more important for Russia than in America itself. Russia retains the opportunity to update such information.
  3. kulinar 25 May 2020 10: 55 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    But the European "partners" in NATO will continue inspections. What prevents them from “sharing” data with the “big brother”?
    In such circumstances, Russia should completely close its sky from outsiders. Since the United States and Russia, and with a big stretch, China is a promising theater. Europe, as always, is only a lamb in the slaughter.
    Died, so died ....
    It is impossible to be half pregnant.
    Here are just an unforgettable Brzezinski something spoke out about the Russian elite ....
    1. Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 11: 18 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: kulinar
      But the European "partners" in NATO will continue inspections. What prevents them from “sharing” data with the “big brother”?
      I hope that the technical capabilities and “contractual” inspection areas for “partners” are much smaller. I really hope so.
      1. Mavrikiy 25 May 2020 11: 28 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        I hope that the technical capabilities and “contractual” inspection areas for “partners” are much smaller. I really hope so.
        In vain, you hope that all the moves are recorded there, the control devices and their parameters are agreed. There are no fools.request
        1. Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 11: 44 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          In vain, you hope that all the moves are recorded there, the control devices and their parameters are agreed.
          Again misunderstood the comment. (((I meant that the opportunities for "partners" were less than the United States had.
          1. Piramidon 25 May 2020 12: 29 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            I meant that the opportunities for "partners" were less than the United States

            The equipment is the same (made in USA), the crews in one "bursa" were preparing. Why opportunities should be less.
            1. Vladimir_2U 26 May 2020 04: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Piramidon
              The equipment is the same (made in USA), crews in one "bursa" were preparing

              That and that, that the technique is different, only the USA has the 135th Boeing, the rest have a hodgepodge, I'm more interested in access to the sky for sixes US allies, how far they have the right to fly.
              1. Piramidon 26 May 2020 09: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: Piramidon
                The equipment is the same (made in USA), crews in one "bursa" were preparing

                That and that, that the technique is different, only the USA has the 135th Boeing, the rest have a hodgepodge, I'm more interested in access to the sky for sixes US allies, how far they have the right to fly.

                Equipment can provide. As for the range, under the contract it is possible to submit an application for flying around certain objects in any area, regardless of how far they are from the inspecting country. The main thing is to give permission to fly around them. Inspectors work from airfields closest to the inspected area, having previously flown there. hi
  4. rocket757 25 May 2020 10: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Oh, what a cool batch is planned !!!
    Elections, elections, all candidates ... will be changed! Cook popcorn and seeds, if sho ..... one BUT, but such! How will these grandfathers fool each other?
  5. Vasyan1971 25 May 2020 11: 06 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    at the same time, American inspectors will lose their right to conduct observation flights over the Russian Federation

    Nothing, the same Poles or tribalt will gladly share.
  6. KVU-NSVD 25 May 2020 11: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The fact is that the United States withdrew from the treaty, but their European partners in NATO did not withdraw.
    yes that's just the joke - now we don’t fly in the American sky and they seem to be de jure too, but we fly in the European sky and Europeans, respectively, in ours. Information collected by Europeans automatically goes to the USA. Bottom line - we are losing control of the Americans, and the Americans over our facilities retain. So think about whether in such a situation we cling to the rest of the contract in its European segment or also completely denounce the contract .. Although it’s probably worth it, since data on European countries are more important to us
    1. rocket757 25 May 2020 14: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Although it’s probably worth it, since data on European countries is more important to us

      That's right, the troops, if sho, should appear in the geyrop, i.e. NEARBY! And look, where and what positional areas are there, beyond the oceans ... a boom from satellites.
  7. Hydrogen 25 May 2020 11: 29 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    This treaty is not relevant, as in the case of nuclear weapons. China remains aloof from all the treaties on restrictions. They are quietly building up nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles. It is time for them to participate in all such treaties. Only the US alone is trying to attract them, and our sun-like one is only adjoining before narrow-eyed.
    1. apro 25 May 2020 12: 11 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Hydrogen
      and our sunlike one only adjoins the narrow-eyed.

      And what are his arguments for the Chinese? Military power? Economic power? Or what other?
      1. Hydrogen 25 May 2020 12: 22 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Without arguments. Principle is more important.
        1. apro 25 May 2020 12: 30 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Principle. Things are good. Especially in our sunshine. Very principled president.
    2. antivirus 25 May 2020 12: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      China versus Taiwan and Yap - here they must be included for inclusion in the treaty of China
  8. apro 25 May 2020 11: 58 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Americans take off their unnecessary obligations ... but there is nothing to put pressure on Russia.
  9. knn54 25 May 2020 12: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We have to go, for without the United States this treaty is like a one-goal game.
    Reinforcing the satellite constellation.
  10. cheburator 25 May 2020 13: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It turns out that we are forbidden to fly over Lamerstan, but there are no NATO allies over Russia. Will NATO airplanes continue flying, sharing with the cowboys the information they received? What is the logic?
    1. rocket757 25 May 2020 14: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: cheburator
      What is the logic?

      The Geyropa is closer, you can say at your side ... this is where you need an eye and an eye.