The deployment of American missiles is becoming a source of new controversy.

After termination of the Liquidation Agreement missiles The United States is consistently returning to the deployment of ground-based missile systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Washington justifies these decisions by bolstering its deterrence against Russia and China. However, for its allies, they create not only additional military obligations but also serious political risks. The deployment of such weapons automatically makes host countries priority targets in the event of a major conflict, increasing diplomatic tensions and complicating relations with neighboring states.

History The recent history of such policies has already led to profound divisions within the Western community. The deployment of American Pershing II missiles in Europe in the early 1980s was accompanied by thousands of protests in West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. The situation is largely repeating itself today. In Germany, political disputes continue over plans to deploy American long-range systems, while in Japan and the Republic of Korea, public debates regularly arise about the consequences of expanding the American military presence. For national governments, balancing their allied obligations with the sentiments of their own populations is becoming an increasingly difficult task.

At the same time, the allies' economic dependence on the American military-industrial complex is growing. Along with increasing military budgets, European countries are expanding their purchases of American weapons, resulting in multibillion-dollar contracts for American manufacturers. Moreover, defense spending is often accompanied by cuts in funding for social programs and an increase in national debt. This policy is increasingly raising questions among voters, who see no direct connection between increased military spending and improved national security.

As a result, the deployment of American missiles is transformed from a military issue into a factor of political instability within the allied states themselves. Instead of strengthening alliance unity, such initiatives often lead to diplomatic disagreements, domestic political disputes, and growing anti-war sentiment. Against this backdrop, declarations of collective security clash with growing public demand for a reduction in international tensions and the search for diplomatic mechanisms for conflict resolution.

Comments

[rocket757]

For allies, they create not only additional military obligations, but also serious political risks

Okay, let's figure out what, how, and when these same gay Europeans are risking by deploying minke whale weapons on their territory???
All agreements are no longer valid, for one reason or another...
And they don't expect a direct attack on their territory, despite the cries of various... loud...
What else could threaten them???

[credo]

.

Okay, let's figure out what, how, and when these same gay Europeans are risking by deploying the minke whales' weapons on their territory???...

The "least" they risk is their actual existence.
It's clear that the main launch button for these missiles is in the United States, but they will take off from their European territory and the response will primarily reach them, which is why it's making them itchy.

[alexoff]

So the Jewish leadership will be watching all this from Miami and Washington. Like some Mikołajczyk, the leader of Poland in exile, who watched the Germans demolish Warsaw from London.

[rocket757]

The gay Europeans are already itching... they have desires beyond measure, primarily for us, but this has been such a disappointment that many have realized what has happened to them and how, but they can’t change anything, and they don’t want to...
In their case, it can be argued that WANTING WITHOUT MEASURE is not so safe...
Looks like history lessons aren't for them... they skipped them, galloped past them, all the same...
However, you can look at it from the other side... those who are currently running Europe's politics, what are they PERSONALLY risking? The answer to this question is obvious... NOTHING!
And we don't give a damn about the countries and the population, for a long time and forever... if anything happens, they'll be the first to leave, far away...

[OSE4Kinsura]

They risk cutting off oil and gas supplies! There's no crime a capitalist won't commit for the sake of 300% profit! But under capitalism, this is the norm! Supplying both warring sides with weapons and bringing troops into empty territory!

[ZovSailor]

rocket757
Today, 14: 53
And they don't expect a direct attack on their territory, despite the cries of various... loud...
What else could threaten them???

The whole point is that let's be honest about the awareness of the majority of the population of even the most economically underdeveloped countries thanks to 21st century information technologies, including the Internet, mobile communications, Telegram channels, etc.
Even with just one example of the successful suppression of the Zionists and the striped terrorist aggressors by the IRI's strikes, the vulnerability of the allies due to the weapons at military bases and the presence of a contingent of 3,14 Indians becomes completely obvious.
The fairy tale of a safe paradise in the Persian Gulf is over; the outflow of capital, tourists, and other delights can be observed on a daily basis.
A global economic crisis is coming, with the bursting of bubbles of banks and corporations, similar to 2008 and 2014, which is already being observed in Europe.
All we can do is create division in the enemy camp, warning them of inevitable retribution, and the common people understand this faster than the narrow-minded politicians of the European states.
In this we must rely on the help of the DPRK's ally, the IRI, Uncle Xi.

[rocket757]

Even with one example of the successful suppression of the Zionists and striped terrorist aggressors by the IRI strikes,

Well, here's the thing... in short, they loved drawing red lines and they really screwed our country over...
There is nothing more to discuss... "we are not like that" - that is all the explanation at this point in time.
But, if you look into it MORE CAREFULLY, everything is much more complicated and it would have been possible/necessary to honestly admit and explain the TRUTH, rather than draw lines and... in general, those who don't, already understand everything.
There is plenty of information in the media and on the Internet...
And those who don't need this more carefully... will continue to live like that...

[Zaurbek]

So far, only Iran has identified any risks for its neighbors. And they've made some connection between the presence of the American base and the IRBM strikes there, as well as the drone strikes on the oil refinery.
The EU is still in the Garden of Eden, imitating the Euro and supplying weapons to the Russian-on-Russian war. It risks nothing.

[rocket757]

There will be losses for everyone involved, but as always, those at the bottom of the food chain will pay the price, while those at the top will be in the clear...

[u4gr8Kk6p8]

In the late 1980s, England alone was supposed to be hit by around two hundred megatons. Our 369th RP 33rd RD of the 43rd Missile Army was supposed to fire at Ramstein Air Base, which is over four megatons. Europe had plenty to fear, and now you're asking Europeans to fear Putin riding Lavrov.

[yuriy55]

The deployment of American Pershing II missiles in Europe in the early 1980s was accompanied by thousands of protests in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain.

What Europe needs to know is that after the deployment of American missiles (or any other TNW), Russia will immediately launch a guaranteed missile strike on the deployment site...

[Peace]

Why were these treaties concluded?
The reason was not public protests or protests from individual governments, but the fact that the USSR, in response to the Pershing missiles, deployed similar weapons (SS-21) on the territory of Warsaw Pact member states in Europe.
Where could Russia currently deploy its weapons in response to similar NATO weapons in Europe? Nowhere. And it doesn't have any deterrent weapons. Of course, with the possible exception of existing nuclear weapons, which no one would use anyway. Therefore, the US and NATO have no reason to enter into any such agreements. Unless, of course, they receive some additional major concessions from Russia in another area. Everything is tied to one single factor… Russia's current position and actual influence in the world.