Military Review

The United States accused Russia of violating the terms of the INF Treaty

The Ukrainian crisis continues to worsen the situation in the international arena. The United States and European states are trying to put pressure on Russia, which does not share their views on the Ukrainian events. Until recently, the only instrument of such pressure was sanctions imposed against individuals and organizations. Now it seems that official Washington is forced to resort to "trump cards" and accuse Russia of violating one of the international agreements - the Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Small-Range Missiles (INF).

On the morning of July 29 (Moscow time), domestic media, citing their American colleagues, reported on new charges from the United States. At first, it was reported that the American leadership had sent a special letter to Moscow, in which claims were made regarding certain violations. A few hours after this, the official representative of the Washington White House Josh Ernest explained the situation. According to him, the information provided by American intelligence made it possible to determine that Russia is violating the obligations assumed when signing the INF Treaty.

The official recalled that in accordance with this agreement signed in 1987, the United States and the Russian Federation as the successor of the USSR are not allowed to develop, test and operate ground-based missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 kilometers. The agreement imposes similar restrictions on launchers and other developments related to missiles of forbidden classes. According to the New York Times, the current statements of official Washington are connected with the testing of a certain Russian cruise missile. Allegedly, during one or several recent test launches, the rocket (s) was launched at a distance of less than 5500 km, which was interpreted as belonging to the class of medium-range missiles.

It should be noted, the version of the tests of an unnamed cruise missile, which entailed a specific reaction from the United States, has not yet been confirmed. On July 29, the US State Department published a report entitled “Participation in Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Compliance Agreements”, on which J. Ernest’s speech was based. The report indicates that Russia violates the INF Treaty, but does not provide any facts and evidence of such a violation.

From the words of the representative of the White House, it follows that official Moscow has already responded to the letter from the American capital. At the same time, Ernest called the answer “completely unsatisfactory”. Details of the letter and the answer to it have not yet been disclosed. It is quite possible that US officials did not make a claim on the part of Russia regarding the absence of any concrete facts pointing to alleged violations.

An interesting fact is that the United States is no longer trying to blame Russia for the development and testing of medium and short-range missiles. Similar statements were made last year, and the first predictions about a possible violation by Russia of the existing treaty appeared even earlier. Probably the reason for such reasoning was the proposals of the Russian leadership to revise the terms of the contract and their possible changes in accordance with the existing international situation. In particular, it was proposed to open the contract for signature by all willing states. A few years later, Russian high-ranking officials began to note the ambiguity of the terms of the contract and its ambiguity under current conditions. Not even excluded Russia's withdrawal from the agreement.

Recall, the agreement on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles was signed in December 1987. In accordance with this document, the USSR and the USA rejected the existing and future ballistic and cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km. For several years, the Soviet Union destroyed more than 1800 missiles and assistive technology, the United States - more than 800. It should be noted, at the initiative of some high-ranking officials, the Soviet side included in the contract and later destroyed all the OTR-23 Oka tactical missile systems available to it, which, according to their characteristics, were not subject to the document.

The text of the official Russian response to the letter from the administration of Barack Obama has not yet been published. Nevertheless, it is possible to present the general meaning of this document. In addition, a number of Russian experts have already commented on the American charges. All experts, whose words cite the media, remind us that Russia has long fulfilled all its obligations under the treaty and has been complying with them to this day. In this case, all the recent accusations look strange, aggressive and even senseless.

It should be noted that in recent months, the United States has repeatedly accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty. The first such statements were made last year, after which they were repeated several times. However, so far everything has been limited to words, since no evidence of violations has ever been presented. Thus, recent statements by US officials and relevant fragments of the State Department report can be considered another attempt to put pressure on Russia in the context of the events surrounding the current Ukrainian crisis.

On the materials of the sites:

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    RESEARCHER 31 July 2014 08: 45
    It’s just time for us to restore parity, which was violated by the inept and treacherous actions of the perestroika leaders. If the NATO ring shrinks despite numerous promises, then there is nothing left for us to do.
    1. armageddon
      armageddon 31 July 2014 09: 30
      Hmm ... Cancel the contract! Let Europe know WHO will be the first ... If God forbid WHAT ... !!!
      1. Muadipus
        Muadipus 31 July 2014 09: 39
        Who are they crumbling on? We will respond to any of their tricks with unpredictable stupidity. For "this is not for you and we will not allow disturbances there!"
        Let the Kremlin's special agent Psaki be digested first. And then they will type "salad", there is no one to serve with.
        1. mark7
          mark7 2 August 2014 18: 26
          Quote: Muadipus
          Who are they crumbling on? We will respond to any of their tricks with unpredictable stupidity. For "this is not for you and we will not allow disturbances there!"
          Let the Kremlin's special agent Psaki be digested first. And then they will type "salad", there is no one to serve with.

          Thanks, laughed, reminded the service
      2. atarix
        atarix 31 July 2014 11: 15
        Americans are precisely what they are seeking — they want to annul this treaty. but they want the initiative to come from Moscow, then they remain white and fluffy, and the Russian Federation, as always, is in shit.
        1. volodyk50
          volodyk50 31 July 2014 11: 49
          they themselves violated it a hundred times already

          In the "anti-missile" GBI, shock functions were originally incorporated, which is almost impossible to deny. Just as at one time our Pioneer medium-range missile was created on the basis of an intercontinental missile, so the basis of the GBI "anti-missile" was the Minuteman intercontinental missile. In fact, it is a medium-range missile, which was also tasked with intercepting missiles. The Americans did not even give up silo launchers. The GBI "anti-missile" stationed in Poland would be capable of reaching even Novosibirsk. The information on the American missile defense system in Europe does not even mention the most important element of the system - the paired radio control and radio communication points for GBI interceptor missiles and their homing heads included in the IFICS (In-Flight Interceptor Communications System) system. Although, without the IFICS system, none of the other missile defense systems have the technical capability to accurately target interceptor missiles at a ballistic target. Therefore, silo launchers with GBI missiles in Poland cannot solve the ABM problem in any way. Hence, they are intended for other purposes.
      3. pravednik
        pravednik 31 July 2014 13: 49
        Simply, in Russian send them in three letters :. Since already got it.
      4. Rus2012
        Rus2012 31 July 2014 14: 03
        Quote: Armagedon
        Cancel the contract!

        Just assume that the Russian Federation is free from the Treaty on the RMND. And the preamble - any placement of the RMNS-outside national territories - is considered an act of aggression.
        RMSD include shock drones, medium-long-range missile defense missile defense missile defense.
        And Ales!
    2. Canep
      Canep 31 July 2014 09: 33
      The Americans somehow withdrew from the ABM treaty and nothing, and even under Reagan they withdrew from the OSV-2 treaty and also nothing, though after that all the treaties with the USA are not worth the paper on which they are written, and they also promised not to move NATO to the East.
      1. Juborg
        Juborg 31 July 2014 23: 46
        The only question is, well, will we get out of all the agreements and what next ?! Exit, we will leave, but the development and production of new missile systems will take at least ten years, and we don’t have any new developments in enrichment, but you understand that a missile without it (I / B) is a dummy. Another question, but where to get the money ?! In addition to everything, we have drilled specialists, and young people still need to be trained and prepared, and this is not a year or two, they forged specialists in the union for decades. So for the time being it’s not important for us to withdraw or not to withdraw from restriction treaties. The bulk of the population in Russia, it is an inert mass. Great construction sites are alien to us and we are afraid of them like a homeless person in our stairwell, we are afraid to mess up. Our children should not go to universities, though after them 90% are on wounds or in guards. Without a base, without new productions, nothing will happen (the old ones were cut and ruined!).
        1. Timur
          Timur 1 August 2014 03: 11
          Get out, we'll get out, but the development and production of new missile systems will take at least ten years

          when you need to start
        2. artalex32010
          artalex32010 3 August 2014 19: 42
          I completely agree with you; our only hope for the R-500 cruise missile with a range of more than 2 thousand km.
    3. 222222
      222222 31 July 2014 12: 04
      and NATO accuses ..
      Rasmussen entered on July 30: "The United States informed at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in its determination that the Russian Federation is in breach of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Missile Treaty (INF Treaty): not to possess, produce, or conduct flight tests of land-based cruise missiles with ranges range of 500 to 5500 kilometers ... and

      The INF Treaty, which entered into force in 1988, was signed to reduce threats to security and stability in Europe, in particular threats with a short flight time to facilities of strategic importance.
      The treaty has a special place in history, as required by the verifiable elimination of a whole class of missiles, which the United States and the Soviet Union possessed. This remains a key element of Euro-Atlantic security - which benefits our mutual security and must be maintained.
      Russia must (???) work constructively to address critical issues of the Treaty and maintain the viability of the INF Treaty by returning to full compliance with its provisions. verifiable ... Continuing to uphold the Treaty strengthens the security of everyone, including Russia. "
      1. 222222
        222222 31 July 2014 12: 16
        On July 23, 2014, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Forces of the United States Congress held a hearing on the topic: "Adapting US Missile Defense for Future Threats: Russia, China and Modernization of the ABM Law." Modernizing the NMD Act. "
        On the wound Phil Coyle (
        Senior Science researcher at the Center for the Study of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Problems), along with other problems, also raised questions about threats from short- and medium-range missiles ...
    4. spech
      spech 1 August 2014 16: 36
      can do with a range of 5000 km and say - is it a missile defense against South Africa?
  2. albi77
    albi77 31 July 2014 09: 01
    The United States there, too, NATO did not intend to move east ... GDR maximum and all ...
    but in the end ...
  3. Flinky
    Flinky 31 July 2014 09: 03
    It is high time to give up this agreement. And fasten the R-500 missiles to the Iskander.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 July 2014 12: 21
      Quote: Flinky
      It is high time to give up this agreement. And fasten the R-500 missiles to the Iskander.

      and they were originally made under the Iskander ...
  4. Stiletto
    Stiletto 31 July 2014 09: 04
    To begin with, let the mattresses remember how many contracts they violated (and continue to violate) themselves.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 July 2014 12: 22
      NATO’s eastward movement, unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, etc.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 31 July 2014 09: 08
    Yes to them .. And they are expanding NATO, they promised not to ..
  6. ufa1000
    ufa1000 31 July 2014 09: 19
    These missiles had to be done a long time ago, eh ... Naive Russia ..
  7. La-5
    La-5 31 July 2014 09: 19
    Ah, words, words ... The Empire of Lies (USA) has little other than empty words, and that the moronic mattresses, with great experience, do not know only the moron.
  8. Zubr
    Zubr 31 July 2014 09: 26
    Yes, there is nowhere to put brands on mattresses, for violations of all currently existing agreements. And for Iskander, according to slipping information on the network, they have already developed and are testing completely new missiles with an increased range. So, in which case we'll screw it up, we'll also conduct demonstration launches. smile
  9. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 31 July 2014 09: 52
    There is only one conclusion from the article! if America went on the path to reducing such weapons, then there is only one conclusion! because of their complete absence and the inherent memory of the RAM, they could not finish their brains with their brains, much less build good and high-quality missiles, that is, complete brakes! fools, dumb amateurs!
  10. kyznets
    kyznets 31 July 2014 09: 59
    The only question here is how profitable it is for US to withdraw from the agreement now. In a sense, when we have everything ready - SMD missiles and all the infrastructure for them have been developed, tested and ready for serial production and deployment in the required quantities, then IF STILL HAS SENSE, we can go out. In the sense: "We will definitely zhahn, but in due time!" And of course you can just go out in order to show the foe naked behind * d out the window, not very productively and adequately. It is rather the Ukrainian version of the polemic. First, threaten, and then think about how to fulfill this threat. Or not at all.
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 31 July 2014 10: 00
    Remember how the treaty on medium-range missiles came about.
    Reagan deployed nuclear-powered Pershing missiles in Europe. They reached
    targets in the USSR in half the time than their ICBMs. Mines of Soviet ICBMs with significant
    probability covered before their return launch to America.
    1. bmv04636
      bmv04636 31 July 2014 11: 20
      Well then, we didn’t have either a m2 torus or an armor, and none of the gay collective farms removed the nuclear weapons of the light elves. We also need to return a dozen BRGCs with new missiles such as ash, well, on alert.
      And it’s time to move the capital of Russia closer to the center to the Ural Mountains between Yekaterinburg and Chelyabinsk.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 31 July 2014 11: 53
      You're wrong.
      First, the buildup of SMD missiles in Europe began before the decision to deploy the Pershing. And already in 1977, the USSR deployed about 300 RSD-10 missiles on the western border with 3 multiple warheads each.
      So "in half the time than their ICBMs" the USSR could before the USA and NATO. This greatly frightened the Europeans, since both for the USSR and for the United States the time for canceling the order was reduced several times.
      In 1979, NATO decides simultaneously start negotiations on the INF Treaty and place the Pershing. The first of them appeared in Europe only in 1983, and the contract is already at least 4 years the options were negotiated: "zero option" of the USA, "absolute zero" of the USSR, RMSD + SDI. Then the USSR deployed Oka in Eastern Europe, which could eliminate Pershing launch sites in Germany.

      In 1985, the package of negotiations was "unlocked" at the initiative of the United States and NATO. And the ABM negotiations were taken into a separate topic.

      And only in 1987, the contract was concluded.
      И ALL TIME The initiator of the negotiations was NATO.
    3. 222222
      222222 31 July 2014 13: 47
      ..not only "Pershing-2", but ground-based cruise missiles ... http: //
      - "The first battery (nine missiles) was deployed in West Germany in December 1983 and by December 1985 all 108 [3] Pershing-1A missiles in the US Army units in Germany were replaced with Pershing-2."

      In West Germany, "Pershing" were located in three battalions, as follows: 40 missiles (4 reserve) and 36 launchers (PU) for them - in the area of ​​Schwäbisch Gmünd, another 40 missiles (4 reserve) and 43 launchers ( 7 reserve) near the city of Neu-Ulm, in the Waldheide-Neckarsulm area, 40 missiles (4 reserve) and 36 launchers were deployed. In addition to this, 12 missiles were stored in Weilerbach .... The removal of Pershing-2 from duty in Europe began in October 1988 and ended on July 6, 1989 .. "

      the contract itself
  12. kind
    kind 31 July 2014 10: 04
    According to him, the information provided by American intelligence made it possible to determine that Russia was violating the obligations undertaken upon signing the INF Treaty.

    America also promised us not to push NATO eastward ...
  13. zol1
    zol1 31 July 2014 10: 06
    Missile attack on the Malaysian Boeing is ruled out, as the cockpit contains bullet holes. This transfers the blame for the killing of civilian passengers to the Ukrainian Air Force.

    German expert Peter Haisenko posted his comment on the MH17 disaster.

    “The data of black boxes are now known to be in England and are being evaluated. What can they give? Maybe more than you want to accept ... if you look at the image of fragments of the cockpit, then this picture, of course, will shock you.

    Bullet inlet and outlet openings in the cockpit area. This is not speculation, but an analysis of clear facts: the cockpit (cockpit) shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inward, they are much smaller and round in shape. 30mm caliber. Outlets are less well formed and the edges tear out. In addition, it can be seen that the outlet openings broke through the aluminum casing twice and tilted them out. That is, the fragments from inside the cabin went outside of it. The open rivets were also bent outward ... There is only one conclusion that can be drawn, and it is as follows:

    The plane was not shot down by a rocket. Damage to the aircraft are located exclusively in the cockpit area ...

    New sensation of flight MH17: German experts point a finger at a Ukrainian Air Force plane

    As you know, Russia published radar data that says that the Ukrainian SU 25 was close to MH 017. This corresponds to the statement of the Spanish dispatcher that two Ukrainian fighters were in direct contact with MH 017.

    Learn the armament of the SU 25: It has a 30-mm gun of the GSch-302 / AO-17A type, firing explosive, fragmentation rounds. Cockpit MH 017 was fired from two sides, as there are inlet and outlet openings on the same side ... ".

    Very convincing things, right?

    Now read (also a German expert) an article by military expert Bernd Biederman, who offers equally good reasons why a Malaysian plane could not be shot down by a ground-to-air missile:

    "The skin of the Malaysian Boeing, shot down on July 17 in eastern Ukraine," may not have been affected by anti-aircraft missile shells. "

    We find this assessment of retired colonel Bernd Biederman in an article for the daily newspaper, published in Berlin, “New Germany” (Thursday edition). If the fragments caused by a missile strike from the ground reached the plane, then it would catch fire immediately, says an anti-aircraft missile specialist, NVA. His arguments are as follows:

    “The fragments, penetrating the fuselage, generate a huge temperature of friction. One fragment contains the same kinetic energy as a buffer hit with a 40-ton truck at 60 kilometers per hour. In the case of the Malaysian Boeing, a scattered fire broke out after interacting with the ground because the hot debris of the plane came into contact with combustible materials. ”

    Biderman is familiar with Soviet and Russian air defense technology, he led combat crew in East Germany and taught at the Military Academy in the field of anti-aircraft missile forces.

    Like it or not, but this analysis makes sense. The US State Department has now changed its position, shifting emphasis from "Russian cruelty" to a "tragic accident." The above opinions show that not a single American assessment is true: they very seriously prove that it was Ukrainian aviation that "got" the ill-fated Boeing of flight MH17.

    A bit out of topic, but ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 July 2014 17: 38
      "The edges of the bullet holes are bent inward, they are much smaller and round in shape. 30mm gauge" ///

      "Rook" flew to a height of 10 km and attacked the liner from a cannon from the side of the cockpit?
      Cool plane! belay
      1. aquatic
        aquatic 31 July 2014 18: 40
        the roaming dynamic ceiling is one and a half times higher than 10 km. and yes Su 25 is a cool plane) although not the coolest)
      2. aquatic
        aquatic 31 July 2014 19: 09
        I tried to understand where you got that 10 km is a problem for Su 25) and I understood vikipedia you read yes?))))))))

        on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for example
        Practical ceiling, m 10000
        [email protected]

        but on wikipedia
        Practical ceiling: 7000 m [* 2]
        BUT))) easy viewing history of changes we see


        smacks of something disgusting)
      3. bmv04636
        bmv04636 31 July 2014 21: 21
        Well, it can go up to 10 km, but you really didn’t know.
      4. Wheel
        Wheel 1 August 2014 02: 20
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "The edges of the bullet holes are bent inward, they are much smaller and round in shape. 30mm gauge" ///

        "Rook" flew to a height of 10 km and attacked the liner from a cannon from the side of the cockpit?
        Cool plane! belay

        This is more like an explosion in the cockpit.
        I already wrote about this.
        But something went wrong, the autopilot apparently remained intact, and Sushka finished off the Boeing with a rocket.
        To shoot a Boeing from a cannon, especially in the cockpit area - this is a task for the super race, the Su-25 had to act on the border of its capabilities, both on the ceiling and in speed.
        This is more like a truth that, alas, we are unlikely to know.
  14. not a sailor
    not a sailor 31 July 2014 10: 19
    America's promise to promote NATO eastward is expressed somehow in documents?
  15. Rusich
    Rusich 31 July 2014 10: 20
    The United States signs treaties that are beneficial to them, because they are constantly violating them. We’re like fools, any contract is good for us. It’s time to withdraw from all treaties that somehow hamper Russia or even harm it. and only from the usa ...
  16. onega67
    onega67 31 July 2014 10: 24
    Different missiles: bigger and better! Only these little things can reason shit democrats!
  17. kaa1977
    kaa1977 31 July 2014 10: 33
    Stupidly score on their opinions and sanctions and charges. Let them puff.
  18. Mad dok
    Mad dok 31 July 2014 10: 40
    Send America to three letters. And silently make rockets .. Smile and wave request
    1. Hope1960
      Hope1960 1 August 2014 00: 48
      Accidentally hit a minus, I'm sorry!
  19. pensioner
    pensioner 31 July 2014 10: 44
    The text of the official Russian response to a letter from the Barack Obama administration has not yet been published. However, the general meaning of this document can be imagined.

    I think that there is no answer for the following reason. Because the arrivals from the side of the mattress continue, then not far off their next pack. Therefore, our people apparently wait until a rather heavy pile of them accumulates and, with a flick of a pen, impose a resolution on it with repeatedly mentioning the number of PIs. Package so to speak ...
  20. sxn278619
    sxn278619 31 July 2014 10: 45
    Well, get out of the contract.
    Well put USA Pershing in the Baltic States and Kharkov.
    Flight time 5 min.
    They will shoot down our missiles at the launch site.
    1. stoqn477
      stoqn477 31 July 2014 11: 13
      Quote: sxn278619
      They will shoot down our missiles at the launch site

      How exactly do you see this happen? I am curious? Also, where will the Yankees remove these missiles? This missile system has long been in history. It takes time to put into production.
  21. lexx2038
    lexx2038 31 July 2014 10: 49
    We smile and quietly make rockets and everything else.
  22. RPG_
    RPG_ 31 July 2014 11: 09
    Something I did not understand a bit, and why the tomahawk does not fit this agreement? Is it really just because the main carriers are the US Navy? In this case, even if we are testing the launcher, you just need to put it on some net barge and calmly test it.
    1. bmv04636
      bmv04636 31 July 2014 11: 21
      Under the contract were only land-based. There is no air or sea
  23. pticas
    pticas 31 July 2014 11: 18
    You just need to clarify that the range of our missiles is 499 and 5501 km.
    What claims ???
  24. The comment was deleted.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 July 2014 12: 27
      Quote: rudolff
      and force to sign the agreement and other countries with INF.

      especially China, which will send us far on foot ...
    2. bmv04636
      bmv04636 31 July 2014 14: 12
      but there is something to revive. Moreover, our neighbors are not bound by this treaty. The contract is outdated in its furnace.
    3. Berezin alex
      Berezin alex 31 July 2014 21: 11
      Place in Cuba and the Americans will again start working in the brick factory mode
    RUSOIVAN 31 July 2014 12: 04
    Yeah: atat us!
  26. crowley
    crowley 31 July 2014 12: 08
    The United States has no evidence in its repertoire, but Russia is to blame for everything ...
  27. alselu
    alselu 31 July 2014 12: 33
    This morning in the news "ROSSIYA24" in the running line I read that the Russian Federation has presented the United States with similar claims under the INF Treaty. So they themselves have a stigma in the gun!
  28. Alex_T
    Alex_T 31 July 2014 12: 43
    It is high time to leave this agreement. The INF Treaty was initially unprofitable for the USSR, since prohibits the development of ground complexes, and the main striking power of the United States is aviation and the navy. Therefore, the INF Treaty does not prevent the United States from improving its Tomahawk missiles with a range of 2500 km and above, sea and airborne. What prevents the Russian Federation, even being within the framework of the treaty, to develop and test "container" short- and medium-range missiles for, for example, sea-based. The container is not necessarily of the "civil" type, like the Club-K, the main thing is that it is functionally complete and ready to use. And if necessary, the "container" could be installed both on ships and on other carriers.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 31 July 2014 15: 58
      Well, ground-based systems of intercontinental range were quite developed, manufactured and taken on combat duty.
  29. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 31 July 2014 13: 02
    Well, they made a complaint, so what? And us army.
  30. provincial
    provincial 31 July 2014 13: 07
    Spit and live on without expecting them.
  31. crasever
    crasever 31 July 2014 14: 35
    I would also remember this Josh, in addition to his exploits on the school field of playing American football, that he is not the only one and all handsome, the childers only danced for him, and he even !!!! (well, of course, he didn't tell his wife, but she again suspects !!!!), did or did what, and somehow and without his free advice and participation, a boy in Africa, for the first time "took the ball in his feet", excellent twisted kick, scores a goal past the goalkeeper ...
  32. anomalocaris
    anomalocaris 31 July 2014 15: 56
    After the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, what else can there be talk of some kind of treaty? NATO is expanding, the European Union poses as a faithful dog of the United States, what should we do? We can only prepare for war, I'm afraid it is inevitable ...
    Only if the guys behind the hill understand that a direct war with Russia will end for them with a Pyrrhic victory, will they leave us behind.
  33. perfect100
    perfect100 31 July 2014 16: 53
    In fact, the United States has already put on alert "anti-missile" GBI, 30 pieces in Alaska in mines from the Minutemans and plans to deliver another 70 pieces in the Vandenberg positioning area in California. Their characteristics are a launch range from 2000 to 55oo km, a throw weight of at least 64 kg (the weight of a kinetic interceptor), which is quite enough for a warhead of a kiloton class; moreover, this rocket is orbital, i.e. can launch the warhead into orbit, and from there, at any moment, the BB can be directed to the target, from any direction.
    So whose cow would moo ...
  34. Efwrtrt
    Efwrtrt 31 July 2014 18: 43
    I would never have thought that this is possible in a civilized world, but probably our country does not belong to such. Your private information has become public, thanks to this portal I don’t know about you, but it’s unpleasant for me to see this. After confirming your identity, there is an option to hide from the general search, which I, without thinking, took advantage of.
  35. Venier
    Venier 31 July 2014 20: 11
    Mattresses are just such a creature that believes that they are above all rules and laws. Therefore, they can unilaterally withdraw from contracts, withdraw their obligations, and others do not. Some kind of rulers who want to give the floor, they want to take it back. of which, retaliation is inevitable.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 31 July 2014 22: 55
      Their domestic laws prevail over international ones. In Russia, on the contrary. What clearly characterizes the Russian government.
  36. studentmati
    studentmati 31 July 2014 21: 56
    Thus, the latest statements by US officials and relevant fragments of the State Department’s report can be considered another attempt to put pressure on Russia in the context of the events surrounding the current Ukrainian crisis.
  37. samoletil18
    samoletil18 31 July 2014 22: 52
    The Russian Federation can only answer that missiles that the US does not like are anti-missiles, because their use is directed only against the probable enemy’s missile launchers, and for other purposes their use is not planned, which does not contradict the terms of the INF Treaty.
  38. Observer2014
    Observer2014 31 July 2014 23: 23
    The creation of mega charges hidden in Russia, waiting in the wings or teams from centers throughout Russia will devalue any muck that exists or contemplate at least for our country for the next five hundred years! So scientists could do so even the cockroaches on the planet Earth after the attack on Russia, our scientists can for a long time. Yes, it’s not humane, but it sounds threatening and sacrilegious !!! But it’s super efficient and cheap. Creating a megabomb will cool the fervor of any warrior for centuries!
  39. andr327
    andr327 31 July 2014 23: 23
    Damn, but how to create a machine that would not shoot up to a hundred meters, and then please. This is how one must get the hell out of it so that a missile with a range of 7500 could not get into 4000. They didn’t study physics, it’s next to impossible, but please, and it’s very difficult to combine the launch point and aiming range of 200-300 meters in any case will be. in a word
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 2 August 2014 08: 46
      That's just physics and interferes. This is especially true for solid rockets.
      1. mark7
        mark7 2 August 2014 19: 29
        Quote: anomalocaris

        anomalocaris (2) Today, 08:46 ↑
        That's just physics and interferes. This is especially true for solid rockets.

        In fact, they are afraid of our submarines like fire, therefore, they are called their type-scribe, from the depths
        1. anomalocaris
          anomalocaris 3 August 2014 08: 47
          Not sure. All the same, the US and NATO have a very large advantage in the Navy. Although I am not "Copenhagen" in naval matters, I think that they do not sit there either and come up with various countermeasures. And the number of boats on alert is far from hundreds ...
  40. studentmati
    studentmati 31 July 2014 23: 53
    The United States accused Russia of violating the terms of the INF Treaty

    If they blamed, then we are on the right track! drinks
  41. Hajdeger
    Hajdeger 2 August 2014 01: 56
    The United States accused Russia of violating .....! You can not continue.
  42. prio124
    prio124 2 August 2014 10: 17
    "the hat is on fire for the thief." Know America something to "stir up" wants. Apparently they need in Europe their tactical missiles, with a small nuclear charge, to use the same their new missile defense?