Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Putin’

AS PUTIN DEPLOYS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO CRIMEA, OBAMA REDUCES READINESS

RUSSIA STOCKS UP WHILE OBAMA DEPLETES READINESS

Does it bother you at all that while Putin moves tactical nuclear weapons into his recent annexation of Crimea, US President Barack Obama is making plans to drastically reduce America military readiness in Europe? It should.

Russia is moving tactical nuclear weapons systems into recently-annexed Crimea while the Obama administration is backing informal talks aimed at cutting U.S. tactical nuclear deployments in Europe.

Three senior House Republican leaders wrote to President Obama two weeks ago warning that Moscow will deploy nuclear missiles and bombers armed with long-range air launched cruise missiles into occupied Ukrainian territory.

putin-russia-moves-tactical-nukes-into-crimea
“Locating nuclear weapons on the sovereign territory of another state without its permission is a devious and cynical action,” states the letter signed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) and two subcommittee chairmen.

“It further positions Russian nuclear weapons closer to the heart of NATO, and it allows Russia to gain a military benefit from its seizure of Crimea, allowing Russia to profit from its action.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent months “has escalated his use of nuclear threats to a level not seen since the Cold War,” they wrote.

In a related development, the Obama administration is funding non-official arms control talks with Russia through a Washington think-tank that are aimed at curbing U.S. tactical nuclear arms in Europe.

Authoritarian Putin Faces New Instability as Up to 26,000 Russians March Against Ukraine Invasion

Protest Moscow banner
UK Guardian

By Alec Luhn in Moscow

Thousands of people gathered in central Moscow on Sundayto protestagainst their country’s involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine at an All-Russian March for Peace, the first large anti-Kremlin rally since the conflict started in April.

The march for an “end to the Russian regime’s irresponsible, aggressive policy” in Ukraine drew 5,000 protesters, according to the interior ministry. But official estimates of opposition march numbers have been notably low in the past, and the volunteer group White Counter, which was tallying participants as they passed through police metal detectors at the beginning of the march, said put the number at 26,000 people.

Although some far-left groups, such as Autonomous Action – whose members carried a banner reading “No to war between peoples! No to peace between classes!” – participated in the march, the main contingent of the protest was similar to the movement that shook Moscow in 2011-2013. Other banners read “Hands off of Ukraine!” and “Freedom to the 6 May prisoners”, a reference to those jailed on charges of inciting riots after an anti-Putin rally in Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 that degenerated into clashes between police and protesters.

Others carried pictures of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. In recent weeks, Russian independent media have reported on the growing number of soldiers who have gone missing after being deployed to eastern Ukraine, and secretive funerals have been held for some servicemen in places like the provincial city of Pskov.

Sunday’s march was organised by longstanding opposition parties including Yabloko, Solidarity and Parnas, as well as newcomers like the Party of Progress organised by popular anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, who is currently under house arrest as part of what many see as a politically motivated criminal case.

The protesters represented a variety of political views, but most were united in their opposition to what they see as a Kremlin policy to escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine by sending arms and soldiers across the border.

“My last name may be the same as Putin’s, but I’m against him,” said Oksana Putina. “We can wake up the Russian people, so that we won’t see any more Russian troops in Ukraine … Let Putin take out his troops, and Ukraine will deal with its own problems.”

Vadim Kryuchkov and Varvara Daryevskaya, who were holding Russian and Ukrainian flags, said they didn’t believe the protest would change the Kremlin’s course but felt it was their duty to express their opposition. Kryuchkov said he was originally from a town near Luhansk and supported the greater local autonomy for the region, but was againstRussia sending troops and arms to eastern Ukraine. “We want Ukraine to see that there are people in Russia who don’t support the war,” Kryuchkov said. “Russia is directly participating in this war.”

“In fact, Russia started it,” Daryevskaya said.

A few thousand protesters also assembled in St Petersburg, while peace marches in other cities drew far fewer people. According to the human rights organisation OVD Info, a peace march organiser in Yekaterinburg was briefly detained by police but later returned to the protest….
A few thousand protesters also assembled in St Petersburg, while peace marches in other cities drew far fewer people. According to the human rights organisation OVD Info, a peace march organiser in Yekaterinburg was briefly detained by police but later returned to the protest.

The Moscow march was tailed by a few hundred pro-Kremlin protesters holding the flags of the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics declared by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. At least one minor scuffle broke out but lines of riot police for the most part kept the two camps apart.

“The whole reason for this crisis is that Russia has refused to recognise Ukraine’s European choice,” said Higher School of Economics professor Nina Belyayeva, who was holding a sign reading, “Ukraine’s European choice = an example for Russia”. She was soon confronted by several pro-Kremlin protesters, who argued that the protests in Kiev this winter that toppled former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich’s regime had been organised by the United States.

Police did confiscate signs from some protesters, including one reading, “Putler kaput!” When asked about the seizure, a police officer would only say that the signs “didn’t correspond to the topic of the protest”.

“It strongly affects the police officers’ nerves when it’s something related to Putin,” said organiser Ilya Mishenko.

Putin is ready......

Putin-Strat-NRD-600-wLogo

Putin Teams Up With Left Wing Activists to Stall Fracking

fracking-reuters
Russia is behind the campaign to discredit hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (fracking) as part of a “disinformation” operation designed to ensure the West remains reliant on the former Soviet country’s gas.
NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told the Chatham House think tank that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to the Guardian.
Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”
A NATO spokesman made clear that the comments represented the personal views of Mr Rasmussen, not official policy. He also declined to elaborate on exactly what Russia is doing, describing his opinions as an “interpretation.”
Fracking is the process by which water and chemicals are injected into shale, to release tiny pockets of gas. The shale itself is like a sponge that was hold huge amounts of gas despite looking solid.
In America fracking has brought down gas prices by as much as 80 percent but perhaps more importantly it has made the country increasingly energy independent. A similar situation in Europe would cause Russia significant financial harm as the economy is based on gas and oil exports.
Fracking would also undermine Vladimir Putin’s powers as he has used Russia’s position as the world’s only energy super-power to bully neighbouring countries. Only this week Russia turned off the gas supply to Ukraine, with whom it has had a troubled relationship with recently.
Environmental groups were keen to deny any links to Russia, Andrew Pendleton, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, added: “Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential and have infiltrated the UK government.” A Greenpeace spokesman said: The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ,”
However, despite the claims of campaigners, it is clear that there is a well organised negative campaign against Fracking. It is not always clear who is behind it and Russia certainly has a great deal to gain from ensuring the West is not self-sufficient in gas.

Vladimir Putin on Muslims.

No wonder he was selected by Forbes as the most powerful person in the world!!
This is one time our elected leaders should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin. I would suggest that not only our leaders but every citizen of USA should pay attention to this advice.
How scary is that? It is a sad day when a Communist makes more sense than our LEADERS but here it is !!!!
Mail Attachment
Vladimir Putin’s speech – SHORTEST SPEECH EVER.
On August 04, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia :
Putin stated:In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia , to work and eat in Russia , it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim’s then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.
Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia , and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America , England , Holland and France , if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia .

The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities Are Not Russians.
The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.
If you keep this to yourself, you are part of the problem!

GRABBED FROM THE GRAVE

Ukrain

The Syria Crisis

Putin and Barry

In the wake of President Barack Obama’s change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.

The president’s minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow.

Remember that all public statements now are meant to obscure real plans and intentions. They are intended to shape the environment. Read them, but do not look at them as anything more than tactics.

The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia’s goal is to be seen as an equal of the United States. It wins if it can be seen as a protagonist of the United States. If it can appear that Washington has refrained from an attack because of Russian maneuvers, Moscow’s weight increases dramatically. This is particularly the case along Russia’s periphery, where doubts of American power abound and concern over Russian power abides.

This is not merely appearance. After all that has been said, if the United States buys into some Russian framework, it will not be seen as a triumph of diplomacy; it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act and being pushed away out of concern for the Russians.

The Russian ploy on weapons controls was followed by the brilliant move of abandoning strike options. Obama’s speech the night of Sept. 10 was addressed to the U.S. public and Obama’s highly fractured base; some of his support base opposes and some — a particular audience — demands action.

He cannot let Syria become the focus of his presidency, and he must be careful that the Russians do not lay a trap for him. He is not sure what that trap might look like, and that’s what is unnerving him as it would any president. Consequently, he has bought time, using the current American distaste for military action in the Middle East. But he is aware that this week’s dislike of war can turn into next week’s contempt on charges of weakness. Obama is an outstanding politician and he knows he is in quicksand.

The Russians have now launched a diplomatic offensive that emphasizes to both the Arabs in the Persian Gulf opposing Bashar al Assad and the Iranians supporting him that a solution is available through them. It requires only that they ask the Americans to abandon plans for action. The message is that Russia will solve the chemical weapons problem, and implicitly, collaborate with them to negotiate a settlement.

Obama’s speech on Sept. 10, constrained by domestic opinion, came across as unwilling to confront the Russians or al Assad. The Russians are hoping this has unnerved al Assad’s opponents sufficiently to cause them to use the Russians as their interlocutors. If this fails the Russians have lost nothing. They can say they were statesmen. If it succeeds, they can actually nudge the regional balance of power.

The weakness of the Russian position is that it has no real weight. The limit on American military action is purely domestic politics. If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak, the tables thus turned on them.

At this point, all signs indicate that the domestic considerations dominate U.S. decision-making. If the Russian initiative begins to work, however, Obama will be forced to consider the consequences and will likely act. The Arabs suspect this and therefore will encourage the Russians, hoping to force the U.S. into action.

The idea that this imbroglio will somehow disappear is certainly one that Obama is considering. But the Russians will not want that to happen. They do not want to let Obama off the hook and their view is that he will not act. Against this backdrop, they can appear to be the nemesis of the United States, its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy.

This is the game to watch. It is not ending but still very much evolving.

Read more: Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

A legacy for Barack Obama - Syria Will Surrender Chemical Weapons to Russia

By Wes Prudwn
Vladimir-Putin_4-301x350
A war nobody believes in, led by a man nobody trusts. If Barack Obama is still looking for a legacy, here it is. Everything about the Syrian dilemma stinks.
Bashar Assad is recognized by nearly everybody as the source of at least half the stink. But only half. The rest of the stench is supplied by the rebels. It’s tempting to suggest that Mr. Obama, who yearns for applause, deserves the dilemma.
A war nobody believes in, led by a man nobody trusts. If Barack Obama is still looking for a legacy, here it is. Everything about the Syrian dilemma stinks.
In U.S. and around world, doubts grow over attack on Syria
Bombers always sound to the uneducated ear like the cheap, quick and sensible way to punish international bad guys. Lots of bang-bang, fire, smoke and bravado is exciting, stimulating and inspiring, guaranteed to warm the blood of those who are not required to shed the blood. Bombs usually accomplish considerably less than expected, as decades of war on nearly every continent have demonstrated to anyone paying attention.
But cutting an American president, any president, off at the knees is no strategy, either, even if he’s a president who deserves punishment for screwing up everything he touches and threatens to make incompetence the national virtue. If the president really wants to go to war over Syria’s chemical weapons, and doing it alone unless you count the French, he should have done it without consulting Congress, since he thinks congressional permission is not really necessary. Congress only wants to belabor the obvious, anyway, and spend the rest of summer and early autumn debating, preening and trying to avoid responsibility for saying either yea or nay.obama-biden_s160x224
Several “key” senators put together a bipartisan version of an administration deal with Congress, and the resolution is a corker. In fact, it was written by Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Republican, and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the Democrat. The actual architect was whoever invented Swiss cheese, because it has many loopholes, some of them large enough to drive an Abrams main battle tank through and on to Damascus, breaking off just enough cheese for an omelet. Mr. Menendez emerged from the negotiations bubbling with pride of authorship.
The deal would give the president “the authority he needs to deploy force,” he said, while “assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the armed forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria.”
This is a cheesy way to fight a war, and ineffective besides. A war requires more than boots on the ground, and John Kerry keeps assuring us that no American footwear will touch Syrian sand. But change always happens. Anyone who has heard these promises before, beginning with Lyndon Johnson (“We seek no wider war”), is naturally skeptical. Harry Truman never called the Korean War a war; it was only “a police action.” FDR promised in 1940 that he would never send “American boys” to a foreign war. Circumstances change.
The cliche about boots does not impress Charlie Rangel, the Democratic congressman from Harlem, who brought a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star home from Korea. “You cannot be part pregnant in international conflicts,” he says, “and once you get in, all these resolutions mean nothing.” He doesn’t think most members of Congress “have any skin in the game.”
He makes the obvious point that the makers of war are rarely the fighters in the war. “You know, they don’t get these volunteers for combat from Harvard or Yale,” he says. “They get them from communities like mine … if members of Congress thought for one minute that [the country would be] drafting their kids and their grandkids, you would not see this overwhelming sense of patriotism that you see.”
The invasion of France was the most carefully plotted battle of World War II; the quartermasters calculated down to the last bean how many beans the Navy would need for its signature soup in the ships off Normandy. Dwight Eisenhower ruefully conceded on the eve of D-Day that once the first shots are fired all the carefully drafted plans are gone with the wind. Congressional resolutions, however eloquently parsed, mean nothing once the war begins.
Saying “pox on both your houses” is no policy, either, even if it replaces “no policy.” Barack Obama painted himself into this corner, taking the rest of us with him, and in a fair and ordered world, we could walk away to let the Islamic precincts of the Middle East stew in their own bile, venom and malignant evil.
If the president loses the vote, his credibility will be lost for sure and for good, but so will the credibility of the United States. For better or worse, the credibility of the president, any president, and the credibility of the nation are bound together. That’s what makes this dilemma particularly and spectacularly bad. This one may be a hold-your-nose vote to give Barack Obama his legacy.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/pruden-a-legacy-for-barack-obama/#ixzz2eQFEzBMS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Direct British military involvement in Syria will not be authorised in Thursday's House of Commons vote, after Labour threatened to oppose the Government's motion.

David Cameron Returns Early From Holiday To Deal With The Escalating Syrian Crisis
Any direct action by UK forces will require a further vote in the Commons once the United Nations has considered a report from weapons inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus.

But the motion will ask MPs to agree the principle that a “strong humanitarian response” is required from the international community and “this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”.

Chief Political Correspondent Jon Craig said: “This motion looks very bland, very uncontroversial.

“(Prime Minister David Cameron) has put off a decision really and that will be seen as a climbdown.”

Labour had said it would oppose the Government’s motion on Syria unless it insisted on waiting for UN inspectors’ report.

It tabled an amendment outlining conditions it said should be met before any intervention to deter the further use of chemical weapons, after last week’s attack that allegedly killed more than 1,300.

It demanded “compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons”, that action would be legal in international law and that the Parliament can vote on UK participation.

A Labour source said: “We cannot give the PM a blank cheque. We should see the UN evidence before making a decision. This conflict has been going on for two and a half years. If it takes another two and a half days we will do so.”

In New York, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also told the British Government that the United Nations Security Council should not consider a draft resolution before inspectors reported their findings there, saying it was necessary “to wait for the results”

Earlier Foreign Secretary William Hague had said the UK may act whether or not a consensus was reached by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

“We believe that it’s time the United Nations Security Council shouldered its responsibilities on Syria, which for the last two and a half years it has failed to do,” he said.

U.N. chemical weapons experts visit wounded people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya
A UN weapons inspector visits wounded Syrians after the alleged gas attack
“We’re clear that if there isn’t agreement at the United Nations, we and other nations still have a responsibility on chemical weapons.

“We have to confront something that is a crime against humanity. If we don’t do so we will have to confront even bigger war crimes in the future.”

Mr Hague said “all the evidence” pointed to Bashar al Assad’s regime being behind the chemical weapon attack.

He repeated David Cameron’s statement that the National Security Council (NSC) had “agreed unanimously that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was unacceptable – and the world should not stand by”.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister claimed Britain, the US and France helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Damascus.

“The terrorist groups are the ones who used them with American, British and French encouragement. This encouragement should stop,” said Faisal Al-Miqdad.

But the US is reportedly certain the poison gas attack in Syria was carried out by the Assad-regime after listening to intercepted telephone calls.

Intelligence officers allegedly overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit.

Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region, in the Duma neighbourhood of Damascus
More than 1,300 are said to have died as the result of the alleged attack
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged all sides to prioritise a diplomatic solution and said his team needs until Sunday to establish the full facts of the alleged chemical attack.

UN weapons inspectors visited at the site of the alleged attacks again on Wednesday morning, a day after suspending their mission over safety concerns.

The inspectors came under sniper fire when they began their operation on Monday.

This afternoon’s NSC meeting discussed intelligence gathered by UN inspectors from their initial visit to Mouadamiya.

General Sir Nick Houghton, chief of the defence staff, was also expected to outline a series of options for targeted attacks.

It is understood the most likely military response would be a strike launched from US Navy warships, several of which have been repositioned in the eastern Mediterranean, against targets such as command and control bunkers.

But defence analyst Francis Tusa told Sky News: “I’m not necessarily sure it puts any particular pressure on the regime to change its behaviour. Losing the odd bit of hardware that the Russians will replace for free doesn’t seem to be that much of value.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded to the rising tensions, reportedly saying that US military intervention would be “a disaster for the region”.
grab-2-522x293

A child is treated after the alleged chemcial attack
“The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted,” Iran’s ISNA agency quoted him as saying.

Turkey and Iraq both say they have placed their military on high alert.

Nato has given its support for tough action against Syria, “condemning in the strongest possible terms these outrageous attacks” and saying “those responsible must be held accountable”.

But hundreds of protesters, carrying banners and chanting slogans such as “Hands off Syria” and “Cut War Not Welfare”, gathered outside Downing Street to oppose any Western intervention in Syria.

While political momentum towards intervention mounts, the British public has yet to be persuaded.

A YouGov survey for The Sun revealed that nearly three-quarters of people oppose the deployment of British troops to Syria.

And a majority of 3-1 believe the Government should be bound by Parliament’s vote.

Surprize, Surprize!!! Russia is Cheating on Arms Treaties, Obama Ignores Warnings

BY: Bill Gertz, The Washington Free Beacon:putin-angry-banks

Russia is engaged in a major violation of the terms of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the United States by building a new medium-range missile banned under the accord, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Disclosure of the treaty violation comes as President Barack Obama last week called for a new round of arms negotiations with Moscow aimed at cutting deployed nuclear warheads by one-third.

Intelligence officials said internal assessments identified Russia’s new Yars M missile that was tested earlier this month as an INF missile with a range of less than 5,500 kilometers.

“The intelligence community believes it’s an intermediate-range missile that [the Russians] have classified as an ICBM because it would violate the INF treaty” if its true characteristics were known, said one official.

However, Russia is denying its new Yars M missile represents an INF violation.

Retired Lt. Gen. Victor Yesin, a former commander of Russian strategic forces and current consultant to the chief of the general staff, said in an email to the Washington Free Beacon that Russia is complying with the terms of INF because the Yars M, also known as RS-26, is an ICBM and not a banned intermediate-range system.

“According to the information I have, Russia closely follows the obligations arising from the 1987 INF Treaty and 2010 New START Treaty,” Yesin said. “The RS-26 ballistic missile, which is a Topol class ICBM, is not covered by the INF Treaty as its range is over 5,500 kilometers. Russia officially informed the U.S. about that in August 2011.

The issue of Russian INF compliance was raised in Moscow on Monday by presidential aide Sergei Ivanov, who told a television interviewer that Russia would not adhere to INF treaty constraints indefinitely.

“A legitimate question arises: On the one hand, we have signed the Soviet-U.S. treaty, and we are honoring it, but this can’t last endlessly,” Ivanov said according to Interfax.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said June 19 that some of Russia’s “neighbors,” a reference to China, were developing INF missiles and suggested Moscow would not allow the INF treaty to hinder its strategic arms buildup.

“We cannot accept a situation that would put the strategic deterrent system out of balance and make our nuclear forces less effective,” Putin said on the same day Obama announced plans for a one-third cut in the U.S. deployed nuclear warhead arsenal.

Two U.S. intelligence officials said the new Yars M mobile missile is not an ICBM and that the administration needs to confront the Russians on the system or risk undermining the entire arms control agenda.

The Russian INF violation initially was disclosed in vague terms by members of Congress, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.).

McKeon and Rogers wrote to Obama in April describing earlier concerns over what they called “a massive Russian violation and circumvention of an arms control obligation to the United States of great significance to this nation and its NATO allies.”

“Briefings provided by your administration have agreed with our assessment that Russian actions are serious and troubling, but have failed to offer any assurance of any concrete action to address these Russian actions,” the two chairman stated in the April 12 letter.

They noted that Senate Intelligence Committee members also have raised concerns about “clear examples of Russia’s noncompliance with its arms control obligations.”

McKeon and Rogers said they expected the administration’s annual arms control compliance report, due to Congress April 15, to “directly confront the Russian violations and circumventions.”

“We also seek your commitment not to undertake further reductions to the U.S. nuclear deterrent or extended deterrent until this Russian behavior is corrected,” they said.

McKeon said in a statement in response to Obama’s Berlin disarmament speech that “Russia is cheating on a major existing nuclear arms control treaty.”

“I have been urging the president through classified and unclassified correspondence to take seriously these violations by Russia since last year, but the president has ignored these concerns,” he said.

In February, McKeon and Rogers wrote to Obama asking why he had not responded to a classified Oct. 17 letter outlining “significant arms control violations by the Russian federation.”

“It is clear that the Russian Federation is undertaking both systemic violation and circumvention of a significant arms control obligation to the United States,” they said. “Such is the reality that confronts the United States, despite four years of your best efforts to ‘reset’ relations with that country.”

“How can President Obama believe [the Russians] are going to live up to any nuclear treaty reductions when he knows they are violating the INF treaty by calling one of their missiles something else?” one official said…

U.S. officials said the first details about the INF-range RS-26 missile emerged last year and intelligence assessments later confirmed the missile violates the INF treaty.

However, senior Obama administration officials so far have played down or dismissed the violation to avoid upsetting current and future arms talks with Moscow, the officials said.

Mark B. Schneider, a specialist on Russian missiles at the National Institute for Public Policy in Virginia, said the new Yars M missile appears to be an INF violation.

“There is increasing evidence that the ‘new’ Russian ICBM that they now call the Yars M or Rubezh is either a circumvention or violation of the INF Treaty,” Schneider stated in an email.

Other potential INF violations outlined in Russian press reports include Moscow’s development of a new ground-launched cruise missile, and reports that the Russians have used anti-ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles as surface-to-surface missiles, Schneider said…

A House Armed Services Committee staff member said administration officials recently told Congress that Russia was complying with the New START treaty.

The staff member said the issue of Russian treaty violations is not new and efforts were made in last year’s defense authorization bill to press the administration for answers to concerns expressed by both House and Senate members.

The refusal to address what one official called a “militarily significant” arms treaty violation led to the inclusion of language in last year’s version of the defense authorization bill that limited implementation of the 2010 New START arms treaty.

The fiscal 2014 defense bill includes a similar provision passed by the House earlier this month.

McKeon said the current legislation was approved “by an overwhelming margin” and “would prohibit further reductions while Russia is violating—if not in material breach of—its current obligations.”

“There is bipartisan agreement that faithfulness and an honest, open exchange are the heart of any successful arms control process,” McKeon said.

In response to the legislative provision in last year’s bill, Obama threatened to veto it if the provisions blocking New START implementation were in the final bill.

Obama’s pro-Moscow mentors Frank Marshall Davis and Alice Palmer and his friends in the Communist Party USA, worked for years to weaken the US.. military in favor of the Soviet Union.

It would be wise to work on the basis that Obama is deliberately continuing their agenda.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
SEO Powered By SEOPressor