tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post3195762827029375373..comments2023-10-06T10:10:06.982-04:00Comments on La Russophobe: So Much for Russia's Word: Arms Control Treaty Unilaterally Repudiated by DumaLa Russophobehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05672264388217953086noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-48768705885590852532007-11-09T19:05:00.000-05:002007-11-09T19:05:00.000-05:00Scoffs, a pissed off Europe is scarier than a piss...Scoffs, a pissed off Europe is scarier than a pissed off Russia. Short term prospects- Russia. Long Term Prospects- Europe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-2859252260495072782007-11-08T20:16:00.000-05:002007-11-08T20:16:00.000-05:00How about quotes from the past? Russians have brok...How about quotes from the past? <BR/><BR/><I>Russians have broken arms reduction/control agreements with impunity and continue to do so. After they violated the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, the West agreed to renegotiate that agreement</I><BR/><BR/><I>This in turn led Defense Minister Igor N. Rodionov to warn East Central European countries that their capital cities would be targeted by Russian tactical nuclear missiles if they joined NATO. Since the former army general did not receive any reprimand, it would appear that his sentiments are shared by the small leadership group in the Kremlin.</I><BR/><I>over the next few years funding will become available only to modernize arms that already have been produced. On the other hand, a number of plants in the military-industrial complex (voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks or VPK) will receive "guaranteed minimal state orders" for new weapons during that period.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Ivan P. Rybkin, secretary of the Security Council, who stated that "if any aggressor should precipitate a conflict with us and use conventional means, we may respond also with nuclear weapons." He further suggested that those who might engage in such "military adventures" should be forewarned of Russia's response.</I><BR/><BR/><I>The new Russian military doctrine will include the "first strike" proviso, as did an earlier version issued back in November. Thus, decision-makers in the Kremlin would appear to have become prisoners of their own disinformation offensive against the West. They anticipate war and, therefore, are building a modernized nuclear arsenal that they hope may indeed frighten away future aggressors.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok… that was from 1997… <BR/><BR/>And the reason I started that one was that someone mentioned the US pulling out on start… the document is from the Institute for the study of conflict, ideology, and policy. <BR/><BR/>Perspective vol vII, number four march april 1997<BR/>http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol7/Staar.html <BR/><BR/><BR/>does any of this sound familiar? <BR/>How bout this tit bit?<BR/><BR/><B>The Russians do not even claim that they are on schedule in destroying intercontinental missiles under START II. They have made comments that the deadline for doing so must be extended, complaining they have no money to finance this treaty obligation. The above-mentioned summit resulted in an understanding to postpone the earlier deadline by five years to the end of 2007.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Washington furthermore is pouring $11.5 billion into Moscow under a multi-year contract for the purchase of HEU or Highly Enriched Uranium (500 tons) from dismantled warheads, the fissile material from which should have been reprocessed by the US into diluted low-grade fuel for our nuclear power stations. This agreement has been violated from its inception, when the Russians began and have continued to deliver low-grade uranium. The latter may be coming from stockpiles in the closed cities of Kranoyarsk-45, Sverdlovsk-44, and Tomsk-7, rather than from dismantled warheads.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Do note that in this same article they point out that we shipped them some super computers… hows that for nasty? They get to take them apart and make more (something they have been historically great at). <BR/><BR/><BR/>One only needs to know that Russia has never kept a treaty that could benefit it more if it lied and broke it unless it served more purpose to keep it.Artfldgrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13594241837693535704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-56692399307772306582007-11-08T16:31:00.000-05:002007-11-08T16:31:00.000-05:00It is interesting to note the lack of outcry about...It is interesting to note the lack of outcry about Russia threatening to move more troops to western borders, as they also decide to ignore this treaty. If you look at the US pulling out of START for the same stated reasons, the difference in public response is night and day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-18014366809458194572007-11-08T16:30:00.000-05:002007-11-08T16:30:00.000-05:00What about the USA having unilaterally repudiated ...What about the USA having unilaterally repudiated the ABM treaty? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com