Military Review

Russian Foreign Ministry: Washington’s unfounded accusations against Moscow could undermine the regime of the INF Treaty

45
Unsupported by objective evidence of Washington’s accusations against Moscow regarding the violation of the INF Treaty can lead to unpredictable consequences, reports RIA News statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry.




The ministry reminded that the US State Department on April 12 "published an annual report to Congress" On the observance of the letter and spirit of international treaties and agreements in the field of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament in 2015 "."

“For the third year in a row, the report reproduces absolutely unsubstantiated accusations against Russia regarding the alleged non-compliance with the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF), said the Russian Foreign Ministry.

“It is alleged that our country produces and tests ground-based cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km, as well as launchers for such missiles. By all indications, the American side has neither objective data, nor any weighty arguments capable of supporting the charges brought against us. Washington deliberately creates a negative information background around the INF / CAP, thereby striving to discredit Russia. ”


The Russian ministry called on the United States to "stop unsubstantiated insinuations addressed to Russia and focus on meeting its own obligations under the INF Treaty." The diplomats recalled the Pentagon’s statement “on the elaboration of military response options, up to the potential deployment of prohibited medium-range and shorter-range missiles to the Russian borders.”

“This signifies the real (from the Pentagon), and not the imaginary (from Russia) threat of undermining the INF mode with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world community”,
stated in the Foreign Ministry.
Photos used:
http://www.photo-moskva.ru
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Svyatogor
    Svyatogor April 16 2016 08: 49
    +17
    Send the Americans to a well-known address and do everything as they do, that is, what is necessary for the safety of Russia.
    1. Bath
      Bath April 16 2016 08: 52
      -27%
      Yes, our Foreign Ministry is able to inflate menacingly cheeks and Vaska listens and eats a feint with his ears)))
      1. EvgNik
        EvgNik April 16 2016 09: 09
        -27%
        Quote: Bath
        Yes, our Foreign Ministry can inflate menacingly cheeks

        Recently, the actions of our Foreign Ministry and the entire government resemble this photo:
        1. WKS
          WKS April 16 2016 09: 51
          +9
          “It is claimed that our country produces and tests ground-based cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km, as well as launchers for such missiles.

          If the boat of the Caspian flotilla rises along the Volga and enters the Neva through a canal system. Then it will launch several Caliber. This does not mean that these calibers began to be based on the ground. Both were on the boat and are. But if the boat is pulled ashore and start to be launched from there, then this is really a violation of the contract. But what d-ak will drag a boat out of the water for this. We have enough ponds and rivers for boats.
          1. Red_Hamer
            Red_Hamer April 16 2016 15: 17
            +1
            If the boat of the Caspian flotilla rises along the Volga and enters the Neva through a canal system. Then it will launch several Caliber.
            I am sure that even through a system of channels it is not necessary, let them stay there. And somewhere, on the same Neva, there is probably a vessel with a standard container, if not one.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. EvgNik
          EvgNik April 16 2016 15: 36
          -6
          I don’t change my opinion. If you have questions, let's say to clarify the opinion in more detail - I ask in PM. I can add only this:
          1. Rom14
            Rom14 April 16 2016 18: 31
            +1
            I personally also do not like the justifiable position of Russia .., a strong state It is obliged to silently carry out its plans, not turning to the screeching of enemies. - example China. And our press should be disgusted to carry around the World every "PUK" of sworn friends ... - like an information war, shut up and the war will end., But you are doing this, so someone needs it ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Armax
        Armax April 16 2016 09: 48
        +10
        Quote: Bath
        Yes, our Foreign Ministry is able to inflate menacingly cheeks and Vaska listens and eats a feint with his ears)))

        It is the competence of other ministries and departments to drive the impudent "Vasek" under the sofa.
        And the Foreign Ministry should just “puff out its cheeks” and lucidly indicate Russia's position.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 April 16 2016 08: 55
      +8
      RMSD is beneficial to Russia.

      Simply, if there is no agreement, then ground-based cruise missiles will appear in the Baltic States, covering the entire European part of Russia. Response P-500 cover only Europe and America are not afraid.

      Well, that is, the exchange of allies, which are not very sorry and the bases that are sorry, for additional shock capabilities for any goals in the European part of the Russian Federation.

      Undoubtedly, the first turn will be ordinary axes on a car chassis. But this, already the load on air defense, is additional. And what will happen next is difficult to say. Can and Pershing-3 do.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock April 16 2016 08: 59
        +3
        Quote: donavi49
        The reciprocal P-500s cover only Europe and America are not afraid.

        And where does the R-500? There is a marine option for surface ships of the Caliber missile, it may well approach the Iskander-K launcher. And what prevents containers from building?
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 April 16 2016 09: 16
          +2
          The Americans will hysteria that the P-500 is actually flying under a contract. In fact, P-500 and several other projects are called the main threat of the RMND.

          Containers are still stand-alone modules. That is, they will be more expensive. Although they can be deducted for the contract, for the intended purpose - that is, it is a ship system, and ground ones are prohibited.
        2. BilliBoms09
          BilliBoms09 April 16 2016 09: 35
          +4
          And what prevents containers from building?
          Put the container on the ship and the missiles no longer fall under the INF Treaty!
          1. Yura
            Yura April 16 2016 10: 39
            +3
            Quote: BilliBoms09
            Put the container on the ship and the missiles no longer fall under the INF Treaty!

            The same thing if these containers are transported by rail to the western border of Russia, installed on any panton metal or concrete on any pond, lake or river. They seem to be afraid of this, they don’t pronounce aloud so as not to bother them.
      2. Petrof
        Petrof April 16 2016 09: 01
        +14
        Quote: donavi49
        Simply, if there is no agreement, then land-based cruise missiles will appear in the Baltic States, covering the entire European part of Russia



        Do you really think that these same missiles did not appear there only thanks to the agreement?
        and the fact that the USA easily violates any agreements, if it is beneficial for them, doesn’t it bother you?
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 April 16 2016 09: 19
          +1
          So far, yes, the only reason that even the old chassis (most of the storage facilities) has not yet been deployed in the Baltic States and Poland is the contract. The only reason for the lack of active development in the USA of land-based SD missiles, for example, the new generation of Pershing, is again the RMND. They still can’t break the agreement, under the pretext, but Iran has such missiles. Therefore, they are preparing to imagine that Russia itself has severed the treaty, but does not admit it.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 April 16 2016 20: 04
            0
            Quote: donavi49
            The only reason for the lack of active development in the USA of land-based SD missiles, for example, the new generation of Pershing, is again the RMND.

            there is such a thing in the American missile defense called GBI made on the basis of the stages of the Minitman solid-fuel ICBMs, there is a kinetic interceptor in the head, and the question is how long it will take to replace the kinetics with a nuclear warhead.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 April 17 2016 11: 21
              0
              A lot, the entire control system will have to be redone - it will be easier to install warheads on the remaining MX missiles.
      3. Stinger
        Stinger April 16 2016 09: 02
        +1
        Yes, profitable. Therefore, we are accused to untie the hands of NATO. Tan is cunning, as always.
        1. Petrof
          Petrof April 16 2016 09: 05
          +7
          Quote: Stinger
          Therefore, they accuse us



          we are literally blamed for everything - without any evidence
          an agreement with the United States is nothing more than a piece of paper that they will rub in, if the United States benefits
          1. Error
            Error April 16 2016 09: 36
            +2
            Yes! They always did it! The main thing otvudbolivat competently and Met will do all the work there right now is the new birth of the psaki
            1. K-50
              K-50 April 16 2016 10: 12
              +3
              Quote: Error
              Yes! They always did it! The main thing otvudbolivat competently and Met will do all the work there right now is the new birth of the psaki

              With your spelling mistakes, it's hard to understand what you mean. request
      4. BilliBoms09
        BilliBoms09 April 16 2016 09: 02
        0
        “It is claimed that our country produces and tests ground-based cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km, as well as launchers for such missiles.
        Russia does not need to look back at others, but act in its own interests. Amer was not beneficial agreement on missile defense, they poher.li! Another thing is that the INF Treaty is now beneficial to us. Since they can surround Russia with these missiles, and we have no bases near the United States. Well, in the future ...
      5. Rom14
        Rom14 April 16 2016 18: 42
        +1
        There will be a contract, there will be no contract .., the same scenario as with Hitler ...
      6. The comment was deleted.
    3. vodolaz
      vodolaz April 16 2016 09: 10
      +2
      Mattresses would be better told how they bury weapons-grade plutonium, instead of destruction, as prescribed in the contract.
      1. sufix
        sufix April 16 2016 10: 54
        +6
        It’s interesting, but can you sue any slander or lie in the media? After all, such a reaction would be logical. And to cover the trial in terms of informational counterbalance.
        If the Americans stop fulfilling this treaty, then Russia is also on hand. Russia is a continental power, and most of its weapons are concentrated on land, while among the Americans the main thing is the fleet. Those. their missiles do not fall under the INF, and the Russian fall.
        In addition, the ABM Treaty - overseas "friends" refused to fulfill it and are building their launchers around Russia. Even if we assume that they have there exclusively interceptor missiles can be launched (which in reality I think is not at all the case), but these interceptors also fall (at least in range) under the elimination of the INF.
        So who is breaking that? I just don’t understand why this is not covered.
        1. Yura
          Yura April 16 2016 11: 57
          +1
          Quote: sufix
          It’s interesting, but can you sue any slander or lie in the media?

          By and large, there are no such ships. It all depends on the decency of those who are at the helm, the economic and military power of states. Therefore, the French: "cannons are the last argument of kings" was, is, and probably will be for a long time.
        2. Saratoga833
          Saratoga833 April 16 2016 21: 10
          +1
          In my deep conviction, this Treaty is currently HARMFUL for Russia! And do not justify yourself to anyone and hide the missiles under the guise of sea or river weapons! Life itself and modern realities show that Russia needs medium-range missiles! And there is nothing to be afraid that, they say, the US will not approve of us. Despite verbal agreements on the non-proliferation of NATO to the east, Amer’s bases are already under our nose. And they wanted to spit on any promises! But you really need to restrain them from rash steps, and not with pieces of paper!
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null April 17 2016 14: 22
            0
            Quote: Saratoga833
            In my deep conviction, this Treaty is currently HARMFUL for Russia!

            - "I have not read, but I condemn" ... the same, right? wink
  2. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock April 16 2016 08: 53
    +7
    And the United States, in turn, is building a missile defense system in Europe on the basis of the Mk-41 universal launcher, so the SM-3 missiles can be replaced in minutes with Tomahawks with a nuclear warhead.
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko April 16 2016 09: 03
      +4
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      SM-3 missiles in minutes can be replaced by Tomahawks with a nuclear warhead.

      Something I strongly doubt that there will be at least one missile defense in the mines.
      The money to build Euro-missile defense needs to be swelled up not small, and the effectiveness against Russian missiles is practically zero. Therefore, the official photo may show one missile defense, but in the mines 100% will be the Tomahawks.
  3. Altona
    Altona April 16 2016 08: 56
    +2
    Here "Solzhenitsyn's rule" - whoever spat before is right. And you wash yourself afterwards. The State Department learned this long ago, the GDP only makes some kind of curtsies in the spirit of "Barak is a strong man, admitted mistakes in Libya."
  4. meriem1
    meriem1 April 16 2016 08: 59
    +8
    The diplomats recalled the Pentagon’s statement “on the development of military response options, up to the potential deployment of medium- and shorter-range missiles banned by the INF Treaty near Russian borders.”


    This is exactly what they want !!! For some reason I’m not surprised.
    PS Question to the liberals- Is it so good and calm in the world that cares about the security of the State is "dear" for us? Answer "gentlemen" caring for the People, who were shamelessly robbed in the early 90s
    1. Felix
      Felix April 16 2016 09: 29
      +4
      Quote: meriem1
      PS Question to the liberals- Is it so good and calm in the world that cares about the security of the State is "dear" for us? Answer "gentlemen" caring for the People, who were shamelessly robbed in the early 90s

      Heh))) The whole Marshal hi but naive as a child)
      Gentlemen, the liberals will now start their bagpipes about the fact that the United States is placing its weapons along the borders with Russia because Russia is pursuing its aggressive policy towards the nuns from NATO. And Russia just needs to destroy its Armed Forces in order for "all progressive humanity" to love her again ...
  5. Barakuda
    Barakuda April 16 2016 09: 04
    0
    Diplomats - politicians, cards in hand, RUN! Otherwise, God forbid, thermonuclear crap on combat platforms in space in orbits will "graze" soon. sad
  6. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 16 2016 09: 14
    +1
    USA cast a shadow on the wattle fence.
    So they say in the people.
  7. sl22277
    sl22277 April 16 2016 09: 14
    -1
    The US State Department aims to create a negative image of Russia. It is time for the United States to end its "unfounded" insinuations against Russia and focus on complying with its own obligations under the INF Treaty. "
  8. hrych
    hrych April 16 2016 09: 17
    +13
    The INF Treaty was exclusively beneficial for Britain, for we had enough funds to destroy the United States from 20 to 30 minutes from Voivode, UR-100 (Stiletto) to Sineva, Molodets and Poplar (without M). The Soviet Union would have had enough tactical means to destroy Central Europe. But the Center of Evil was nothing to cover, i.e. some funds go to fly, others are destined for a shortage. They covered us, in which case Trident (who was only declared as an ICBM, is actually an ordinary medium-range missile, for they are also based on British boats (except Ohio), where it’s not clear to them to throw from the Shaved Islands in this. speaking about true TTX. The Americans did not reach the ground midgetman, he didn’t reach the ICBM level by distance, the BZHRK didn’t have enough talent either, Em Ex for military use also failed, there were inconsistencies with the division of the BB and there was no unification with Minitmen’s, who are also not very good, that is, they didn’t have any luck with mine either. This is a bet on the Tridents, who were from 70% of the carriers of the adversary’s vigorous weapons. actually created by G.P.Es. However ... our current maneuvering BB, both of the Mace, and of Yars with Rubezh, flying also along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, doesn’t matter to cover New York and London, plus our Caliber and GLONASS (which was created for systems like Caliber, and for other systems, a pure bonus, like the state nicknames and especially do not care about a citizen) it is London-like goals that cover, plus, of course, the marine infrastructure of the Atlantists. Here there is a hysteria, though, as it seemed to the States, it doesn’t matter, but here the true owner of the New Order is issued ... It's a pity only the ballerina from the London zoo ...
  9. Armax
    Armax April 16 2016 09: 20
    +2
    The fact of fraud itself is not acceptable for Russia, but another fact pleases, our Foreign Ministry has begun to react more seriously.
    Previously, he only showed "concern" in cases where a tough answer was needed.
  10. bad
    bad April 16 2016 09: 58
    +5
    mattresses are all concerned .. there’s a plug in every barrel .. for their internal affairs it would be better to look .. fool
  11. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 16 2016 10: 18
    +1
    absolutely unfounded accusations against Russia

    They did not begin to accuse today or even yesterday. It seems to me that the reaction to such (unfounded) accusations on the part of our Foreign Ministry is always adequate, but too soft and even overly diplomatic. The similar departments of the USA and Europe do not suffer at all. It seems that for this reason they will continue to accuse us of all mortal sins without giving concrete evidence. When the enemy feels that the reaction to his attacks is within the framework of international law and diplomatic correctness, he will continue to become impudent. Maybe add a little harshness to these "preoccupied" and the like.
  12. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 16 2016 11: 03
    +1
    7 October 2015 from the Caspian Sea the Russian Navy launched a missile strike on the terrorist bases of the Islamic state (an organization banned in Russia) located in Syria. The launch of the 26 Sea-based Caliber-NK cruise missiles was launched. The targets were over 1500 kilometers away.

    If a ship is considered the territory of the State, it does not become land from this, and the land on ships only in flower pots.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K April 16 2016 16: 42
      0
      Quote: avg-mgn
      If a ship is considered the territory of the State, it does not become land from this, and the land on ships only in flower pots.

      I have never seen flower pots on ships. There are no special places for this. When the ship gets into a storm, everything that is not fixed can melt the death of the sailor.
  13. Termit1309
    Termit1309 April 16 2016 12: 41
    +1
    Quote: Altona
    the spirit of "Barak is a strong man, admitted mistakes in Libya"

    Obama is actually a former president, and former politicians in the West very often suddenly see their light. laughing
  14. Zomanus
    Zomanus April 16 2016 14: 47
    +1
    I don’t think the USA is so wrong. In fact, both they and we have similar ones,
    forbidden things. Only they have these things they do not formally belong to.
    And in our country, such missiles can be quickly transferred from sea to ground based.
    The good news is that we learned to respond tough to their attacks.
    Previously, they simply kept quiet, actually confirming their words.
  15. Old26
    Old26 April 16 2016 14: 59
    -1
    Quote: Lt. air force reserve
    And where does the R-500? There is a marine option for surface ships of the Caliber missile, it may well approach the Iskander-K launcher. And what prevents containers from building?

    The R-500 complies with the contract and its installation on the Iskander does not contradict the provisions of the INF Treaty. And if you place the "Caliber" (by the way, it's not a fact that without altering the launcher this can be done) - this is a direct violation

    Quote: hrych
    The INF Treaty was exclusively beneficial for Britain, for we had enough funds to destroy the United States from 20 to 30 minutes from Voivode, UR-100 (Stiletto) to Sineva, Molodets and Poplar (without M). The Soviet Union would have had enough tactical means to destroy Central Europe. But the Center of Evil was nothing to cover, i.e. some funds go to fly, others are destined for a shortage. They covered us, in which case Trident (who was only declared as an ICBM, is actually an ordinary medium-range missile, for they are also based on British boats (except Ohio), where it’s not clear to them to throw from the Shaved Islands in this. speaking about true TTX. The Americans did not reach the ground midgetman, he didn’t reach the ICBM level by distance, the BZHRK didn’t have enough talent either, Em Ex for military use also failed, there were inconsistencies with the division of the BB and there was no unification with Minitmen’s, who are also not very good, that is, they didn’t have any luck with mine either. This is a bet on the Tridents, who were from 70% of the carriers of the adversary’s vigorous weapons. actually created by G.P.Es. However ... our current maneuvering BB, both of the Mace, and of Yars with Rubezh, flying also along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, doesn’t matter to cover New York and London, plus our Caliber and GLONASS (which was created for systems like Caliber, and for other systems, a pure bonus, like the state nicknames and especially do not care about a citizen) it is London-like goals that cover, plus, of course, the marine infrastructure of the Atlantists. Here there is a hysteria, though, as it seemed to the States, it doesn’t matter, but here the true owner of the New Order is issued ... It's a pity only the ballerina from the London zoo ...


    Lord! Respected! What nonsense are you talking about !!! And this is on "VO" ... And then we wonder why the resource turns yellow and yellow. What do you order your scribble (nonsense) to disassemble line by line?
    1. hrych
      hrych April 17 2016 00: 24
      0
      Quote: Old26
      why the resource turns yellow and turns yellow.

      It is necessary to boil in the space provided for this, and not to carry it to the resource ...
      Quote: Old26
      What order your scribble (nonsense) order to disassemble line by line?

      I will not order at all. Even I will be completely glad that your review of your comment is absent