NATO's Missile 'Defence Shield' surrounding Russia

[isfahan]

see also
Did NATO provoke the Georgia war?
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15451
ed.


U.S. missile shield in Europe targets Russia – Medvedev
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080815/116068484.html

15/08/2008 18:49 SOCHI, August 15 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday he has no doubt that a planned U.S. missile defense shield for Central Europe is aimed against Russia, but Moscow is ready to continue talks with all parties concerned.


Medvedev

"The deployment of new missile-defense elements in Europe has the Russian Federation as its aim," Medvedev said at a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Black Sea resort town of Sochi.

The United States and Poland signed an agreement on Thursday to deploy 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in the former Communist-bloc country.

The news comes amid a military crisis in Georgia that has provoked strong criticism of Russia by the United States and other Western countries.

Commenting on the move, Medvedev said: "We will continue working on this issue. We are ready to continue discussing these issues with all the parties."

Moscow's NATO ambassador said earlier on Friday that by signing a missile defense agreement with the United States, Poland has effectively confirmed that the missile shield is aimed against Russia.

"The Poles should be thanked for helping reveal the strategic goal of the U.S. missile defense plan," Dmitry Rogozin said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

A top Russian military official said the Polish-U.S. deal would worsen Russia's relationship with the United States.

"Regrettably, in the extremely difficult situation that has evolved today, the American side is aggravating the relationship between the U.S. and Russia," said Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

Russia is strongly opposed to the missile shield plan, which it says will undermine its nuclear deterrent and threaten its national security.

Washington says plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland coupled with a radar system in the Czech Republic are intended to counter possible attacks from what it calls "rogue states," including Iran.

The agreement was reached after Washington agreed to reinforce Poland's air defenses. The deal is still to be approved by the two countries' governments and Poland's parliament.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in televised remarks that "the events in the Caucasus show clearly that such security guarantees are indispensable." The U.S.-Polish missile talks had been dragging for months before recent hostilities in Georgia.

Moscow has accused the West of bias in favor of Georgia and reliance on statements from Tbilisi during the South Ossetia armed conflict. Russia says it deployed additional troops to South Ossetia to reinforce its peacekeepers and protect civilians after Georgia attacked the capital of the breakaway republic on August 8.

Officials say the interceptor base in Poland will be opened by 2012. The Czech Republic signed a deal to host a U.S. radar on July 8.

Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus and Russia's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad if Washington succeeded in its missile shield plans in Europe. Moscow also warned it could target its missiles on Poland.

See Also: 'Alexander Solzhenitsyn dies at 89'
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=124100#124100

[TonyGosling]

So we come to the second bus stop on the hateful bus route to an overt World War Three.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475164/A-Russian-bare-Putin-go es-fishin.html
http://217.72.179.7/bilderberg/
http://emma2.radio4all.net/pub/archive2/07.01.07/tony@tlio.org.uk/2149 -1-20061219-LarryKingLivePrincessDianaCamilla.mp3

[isfahan]

In the history of the Cold War it was always the USSR that reacted to the provocations of the USA. The US has always been and remains the aggressive party, constantly poking Russia until she reacts. Now the Russian Federation, strong again with its new-found wealth in Oil and Gas, is hitting back, warning the US to stay out of its patch.

No matter how many times Condi repeats the old lie, the ABM Shield which the US is installing smack up against the Russian frontier is offensive and part of the US First Strike strategy as explained.

But the US won't listen. It'll ratchet-up a new Cold War in preparation for the moment that western Capital goes belly-up and the moment when it is deemed right to pull the nuclear trigger.

The USA went onto First Strike policy as long ago as the 'eighties. Now the Russians have announced they've done the same. It's lunacy: like two gamblers playing poker with pistols hidden under the table. When one loses, he'll go for his shooter and all hell is let loose.

The old Socialists were right when they said that Capitalism and War are two sides of the same coin.

Look at the history of the USSR/Russian Federation and that of the USA: which one has been the aggressor over and over again? I fear that it is in the disturbed mentality of north Americans that they are a gangster nation which wants desperately to be liked but, instead, ends up spreading fear and hate all over the Planet.

[isfahan]

A very human, Buddhist point-of-view by John Hilley which seeks to be truthful in it's analysis but which strikes me finally as optimistic and naive in its understanding of Anglo-American geopolitics, red in tooth and claw.

And if only journalism and newspapers could return to reporting the news and not managing it. No chance in a corporate, fascist system as has become the one in which we live.

The struggle must go on!

Isfahan.


________________________________________________________

Georgia: what's in their minds?
Friday, 15 August 2008
http://johnhilley.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-whats-in-their-minds.ht ml

War is, by any reasonable definition, an ugly business. But its grotesque human consequences are regularly shrouded and clouded by the dual language of the political elite and their media proxies.

Beyond the sanctimonious denunciation of Russia's presence in Georgia, this less palatable truth remains: a despotic Washington satellite, brought to power in a CIA-backed coup, has acted on instruction of its patrons to promote 'strategic conflict' in the Caucasus.

The current crisis is also an object lesson in how Western politicians and their satellite media respond in synchronised fashion. Thus, while David Miliband, Jim Murphy and other New Labour clones beautify Georgia as a 'bullied little democracy', the BBC spotlights claims of Russian 'atrocities' in Gori, asking, in partisan tones, when the tanks will depart Georgia. In stark contrast to the chorus citing Russian aggression, the actions of Georgia's leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, have been conveniently muted.

In a welcome departure from other Guardian posturings, the paper's Seumas Milne puts the issues in proper perspective:

[isfahan]

The Zionist NWO Versus a Sino-Russian NWO
By Karl Schwarz, 13/08/08
http://www.rense.com/general83/zionnwo.htm

At least for now, there is a tenuous 'cease fire' in Georgia as Medvedev called off the dogs. Reports on four different EU and Russian networks indicate sporadic shooting by Georgia (probably US, Israeli advisor-mercenaries) and the Russians are returning fire when fired upon.

After the Georgians stopped fleeing from their idiot escapade, there was a big speech by Saakashvili attended by about 50,000 of his backers. If one did not know better, one would think Georgia had just beaten the USSR:

"We are bidding final farewell to the Soviet Union. The USSR will never come back here. We urge Ukraine and other members of the CIS to leave the organization which Russia administers," ITAR-TASS quoted the Georgian president as saying.

Great, the US-Israel puppet is a screw-loose nutcase and seems not to know the 'USSR' has not existed since 1991. Well, he was educated in the US which could explain his total lack of knowledge of recent history and geography, or who his next door neighbors are.

Both Abkhasia and South Ossetia voted to stay with Russia long ago and those decisions were recognized by Georgia. Now Georgia (US andIsrael) want those areas back as a pipeline ROW for Big Oil and US 'geostrategic imperatives'. It will not happen, yet another failed Bush -Brzezinski idea.

If they keep pushing their bad hand, Russia can easily make sure there is no US pipeline across Georgia.

Has anyone noticed the 'odd silence' in London regarding this latest Bush Dirty Diaper? The British Zionist Empire builders have figured out that it was best to not join the US and Israel in this latest Bush Diaper Dance.

The Russian blowback has been ferocious, far more than expected evidently by the delusional folks in the US, Tel Aviv and Georgia.

The US and EU have been warned many times, no NATO on Russian borders, period. There was a live press conference from Moscow on BBC [4am to 4:33am New York time Tuesday]. It included the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and OCSE head Alexander Stubb. That acronym stands for The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and Russiais a member. In fact, Russia is the most powerful member of that organization.


Finland's new Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Alexander Stubb, speaks at a press conference following his appointment, Helsinki, 4 April 2008. (Finnish MFA/Raino Heinonen)

Lavrov is making it clear that 'Saakashvili must stand down'. Russia 'no longer has any trust in the Georgian leadership'. This attempted knife-in-the-back by Georgia, US and Israel is not going to be tolerated by Russia, period.

Russia is making it abundantly clear that the US and NATO had both been warned to not push this NATO membership and arming of Georgia. What was the US response? Israel just kept pouring in weapons and preparing the Georgian military (and mercs and advisors) for this war, along with the US. You can bet that is why the KGB (FSB) was in Georgia to see what these greedy Zionist zhids and the US were up to.

Russia is also making it damned clear that "if the EU wishes to discuss this matter they need to discuss it with RUSSIA, not Georgia."

Of course, Nicholas Sarkozy had to rush in to see if he could broker a deal. His Zionist masters probably demanded it since their Zionist-version of the New World Order just got its assed kicked off in South Ossetia and Abkhasia. They had to act fast before Russia decided to annex Georgia and maybe even head south and annex Azerbaijan, too. Of course, little Sarko went to Georgia to broker his deal rather than Moscow. The OCSE had the deal already done by the time Sarkozy arrived in Moscow.

We shall see if Sarkozy understood what Moscow said.

OCSE Chief Stubb went to Georgia first, then to Moscow, to finalize the Russian version of this cease fire.

The Zionist banksters have fashioned themselves as the overlords of the Caucasus region for a long time. Back in the early 1900s, Azerbaijan was a major oil producing area. That was in part why the Rothschilds and Rockefellers slaughtered about 1.2 to 1.5 Armenians to get them out of the way so they could get that oil out of landlocked Azerbaijan and over to the Black Sea.

That is one of the primary reasons that Christian Armenia is still aligned with Russia and not this Zionist West version of the New World Order. The border guards on the Armenian-Turkish border are Russians, not Armenians. They still do not trust the Turks, or the US, or the Zionist version of the New World Order.

[isfahan]

Gorbachev Defends Russians In Georgia


Link



Link

[TonyGosling]

Russia and NATO have failed to reach a consensus on missile defence plans in Europe, with the Alliance standing firm on its position. NATO says it's against a joint anti-missile shield - and doesn't find it necessary to provide Russia with legal guarantees that the shield won't be directed against it. RT's Natalia Novikova has more from Russia's city of Sochi, were the talks have now drawn to a close.

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJH84yiXAM

[Caz]

.
MBDA state on their own website that their corporate headquarters are at the Strand, London (hence John Adam St Gang, link here http://www.mbdacareers.co.uk/london.html)

Not only do MBDA co-ordinate Franco-British missile research, they have also signed a deal with Russia's Rosoboronexport

[TonyGosling]

Russia Threatens to Destroy U.S. Missile Shield
2012-05-12 01:39:31 - Xinhua - Web Editor: luodan
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/05/12/191s699016.htm
Russia is ready to destroy U.S. missile defense facilities in Europe if Moscow considers them as real threats, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov warned Friday.
"(The deployment) raises our certain concerns, therefore we will destroy the missile defense," Serdyukov told reporters in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi.
He said that the Russian forces would not need any additional means to fulfill that task as the existing Iskander missiles are capable to neutralize the U.S. launching facilities.
Meanwhile, Serdyukov said Moscow is still waiting for U.S. proposals on the disputed missile defense system in Europe.
Moscow has long opposed the deployment of U.S. missile defense facilities near its borders and called for legally binding guarantees from the United States and NATO that the missile shield is not targeting Russia.
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/05/12/191s699016.htm


Q&A: NATO Chief Looks To Summit, Dismisses Russian Rhetoric On Missile Shield
http://www.rferl.org/content/interview_nato_chief_rasmussen_on_summit_ afghanistan_russia_missile_shield/24578078.html
May 11, 2012
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has dismissed recent warnings by Russian officials about the defense alliance's plans to set up a missile-defense system in Europe. In an interview with RFE/RL's Rikard Jozwiak in Brussels on May 11, the NATO chief expressed regret that Moscow continues to see missile defense as a national threat and also spoke about his expectations from the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago where Afghanistan is to top the agenda.

RFE/RL: Do you think that the recent negative comments and threats from Russian officials about the planned NATO defense system in Europe can destabilize negotiations between NATO and Russia?

Rasmussen: Such statements are a matter of concern and they are not in line with what we decided when we last met in Lisbon. We had a NATO-Russia summit in Lisbon a couple of years ago and we decided to develop a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. Threats to deploy offensive weapons directed against NATO territory...are not in accordance with the development of a true strategic partnership. So I strongly regret such rhetoric.
Threats to deploy offensive weapons directed against NATO territory...are not in accordance with the development of a true strategic partnership.


RFE/RL: Would the NATO summit be considered a failure if you don't get a concrete plan spelled out of what your post-2014 engagement in Afghanistan will look like?

Rasmussen: We will make a decision on the profile of our post-2014 mission in Afghanistan -- maybe not in all details, but we will outline how we will stay engaged in Afghanistan after 2014.

RFE/RL: When it comes to financing of the Afghan security forces do you have a benchmark in mind of what you want to achieve in Chicago?

Rasmussen: Chicago will not be a pledging conference so you won't see one total figure. But I would expect some allies and partners to come forward with concrete announcements of financial contributions to the Afghan security forces after 2014. Our planning assumption is that the total bill of the long-term, sustainable Afghan security force will be around $4 billion a year, out of which I would expect NATO allies and ISAF partners to pay what I would call "a fair share." We will not discuss exact numbers in Chicago, but I would expect an overall commitment to paying a fair share.

RFE/RL: Will this "fair share" be somewhat more concrete after the summit?

Rasmussen: Not a total number, but I think a number of countries will announce what I would call "significant contributions." Because seen from an economic perspective it is less expensive to finance Afghan security forces to do the combat in Afghanistan than to deploy international troops and politically it is also much better to give the defense of Afghanistan an Afghan face.

RFE/RL: This is not an enlargement summit but is Georgia, who has made enormous commitments in Afghanistan, any closer to NATO membership?

Rasmussen: The Chicago Summit will not be an enlargement summit, but we will definitely acknowledge the progress Georgia has achieved during recent years. We will acknowledge that progress in our declaration from the summit. We will also acknowledge Georgia's contributions in a very visible way.

Actually, Georgia will participate in three important meetings in Chicago. Georgia will participate in the ISAF meeting on Afghanistan. Georgia will participate in a special-partnership event, a gathering of 13 partners across the globe that contribute to NATO operations in a very significant way and Georgia is among these 13 partners and actually one of the largest contributors to our operation in Afghanistan. And finally, Georgia will also participate in an aspirant-countries meeting at the level of foreign ministers. So it will be in a very visible way that we acknowledge what Georgia has achieved and what Georgia contributes to the trans-Atlantic alliance.

[TonyGosling]

NATO activates missile shield despite Russian anger
NATO leaders launched Sunday the first phase of a US-led missile shield for Europe, risking the wrath of Russia which has threatened to deploy rockets to EU borders in response.
A NATO official told AFP that US President Barack Obama and his allies "just decided" at a Chicago summit to put a US warship armed with interceptors in the Mediterranean and a Turkey-based radar system under NATO command in a German base.
The alliance insists the shield is not aimed at Russia and aims to knock out missiles that could be launched by enemies such as Iran, but Moscow fears that the system will also serve to neutralize its nuclear deterrent.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nato-activate-missile-shield-despite-russian- anger-204128053.html

[TonyGosling]

'US missile defence plans hinder new arms cuts'
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/us-missile-defence-plans-hinder-ne w-arms-cuts_784708.html

Arms reduction talks snag over European missile shield
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_06_30/79787078/
The US refuses to provide legal guarantees that the European missile defense system will not be aimed against Russia. Russia, in turn, plans the deployment of Iskander missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and a raft of other military and political measures.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

This is the context for the escalation in Cold War tensions with Russia this week, with the deployment of the US missile system in Romania. The $800 million so-called missile shield is set to expand to Poland over the next two years and eventually will cover all of Europe from Greenland to southern Spain.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/16/peace-not-russia-is-r eal-threat-us-power.html

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power
FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 16.05.2016 | OPINION
Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power
The monstrous US military budget is a classic illustration of the proverb about not seeing the wood for the trees. It is such an overwhelming outgrowth, all too often it is misperceived.

In recent years, Washington’s military expenditure averages around $600 billion a year. That’s over half of the total discretionary spending by the US government, exceeding budgets for education, health and social security. It’s well over a third of the total world military annual spend of $1.7 trillion.

The incipient military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech in 1961 has indeed become a central, defining feature of American society and economy. To talk of «American free-market capitalism» is a staggering oxymoron when so much of the country’s economy is wholly dependent on government-funded militarism.

Or put it another way: if the US military budget were somehow drastically reduced in line with other nations, the all-powerful military-industrial complex and the American state as we know it would collapse. No doubt something better would evolve in time, but the impact on established power interests would be calamitous and therefore is trenchantly resisted.

This is the context for the escalation in Cold War tensions with Russia this week, with the deployment of the US missile system in Romania. The $800 million so-called missile shield is set to expand to Poland over the next two years and eventually will cover all of Europe from Greenland to southern Spain.

Washington and NATO officials maintain that the Aegis anti-missile network is not targeted at Russia. Unconvincingly, the US-led military alliance claims that the system is to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles or from other unspecified «rogue states». Given that Europe is well beyond the range of any Iranian ballistic capability and in light of the international nuclear accord signed last year between Tehran and the P5+1 powers, the rationale of «defense against Iranian rockets» beggars belief.

The Russian government is not buying American and NATO denials that the new missile system is not directed at Russia. The Kremlin reproached the latest deployment as a threat to its security, adding that it would be taking appropriate counter-measures to restore the strategic nuclear balance. That’s because the US Aegis system can be reasonably construed as giving NATO forces a «first-strike option» against Russia.

A couple of things need to be clarified before addressing the main point here. First, European states are chasing Iranian business investments and markets following the breakthrough P5+1 accord signed last July. Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Austria are among the Europeans who have been vying to tap Iran’s huge economic potential. The notion that Iran is harboring a military threat to such prospective partners is ludicrous, as Russian officials have pointed out.

Secondly, the US protestations of innocent intentions towards Russia are a contemptible insult to common sense. They contradict countless statements by Washington, including President Obama and his Pentagon top brass, which have nominated Russia as an aggressive threat to Europe. Washington is quadrupling its military spending in Europe, increasing its troops, tanks, fighter jets, warships and war exercises on Russia’s borders on the explicit basis of «deterring Russian aggression».

In other words, Russia is viewed as a top global enemy – an existential threat – according to Washington. So, the deployment of the US Aegis missile system this week in Eastern Europe is fully consistent with Washington’s bellicose policies towards Russia. It would thus be irrational and foolishly naive to somehow conclude otherwise, that the US and its NATO allies are not on an offensive march towards Russia.

The depiction of Russia as a global security threat is of course absurd. We can also include similar US claims against China, Iran and North Korea. All such US-designated «enemies» are wildly overblown.

Western claims – amplified relentlessly in the Western news media – of Russia «annexing» Crimea and «invading» eastern Ukraine can be easily contested with facts and indeed counterpoised more accurately as belying Washington’s covert regime change in Kiev.

Nevertheless, Western fear-mongering supported by unremitting media propaganda has to a degree succeeded in conflating these dubious claims into a bigger specter of Russia menacing all of Europe with hybrid warfare. It is, to be sure, a preposterous scare story of a Russian bogeyman which has racist undertones and antecedents in Nazi ideology of demonizing Slavic barbarians.

But this demonizing of Russia, as with other global enemies, is a necessary prop for the American military-industrial complex and its essential functioning for the US economy.

The $600 billion-a-year military spend by Washington is roughly tenfold what Russia spends. And yet, inverting reality, Russia is presented as the threat!

The US military budget is greater than the combined budgets of the world’s next nine big military spenders: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Arguably, the US economy as we know it – dominated by Pentagon, corporate, Wall Street and congressional interests – would cease to exist were it not for the gargantuan government-subsidized military budget.

Structurally, the US economy has ossified into a war economy and the only way for this to be maintained is for the US to be continually placed on a war footing, either in the form of a Cold or Hot conflict. Historians will note that out of its 240 years of existences as a modern state, the US has been in war or overseas conflict for more than 95 per cent of its history.

During the former Cold War with the Soviet Union, a recurring theme in Washington was the alleged «missile gap» which purported to portray the US as losing its military edge. This resulted in relentless military expenditure and an arms race that in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Washington’s self-ordained privilege to run up endless debt (currently nearly $20 trillion) because of its dollar dominance as the world’s reserve currency has permitted the US to escape a day of reckoning for its ruinous military profligacy.

This madcap situation continues to prevail. A quarter of a century after the official end of the old Cold War, US military spending continues at the same profligate, unsustainable pace.

What Washington needs in order to keep the fiasco going is to whip the rest of the world into a frenzy of fear and loathing. That’s why the Cold War with Russia and China has had to be rehabilitated in recent years. Swords cannot be turned into plowshares because the US power interests that command its economy have no use for plowshares.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions invited global cooperation on security matters, and with the US in particular. Moscow has also recently said that it does not want to embark on a new arms race. The latter wariness is understandable given the deleterious experience for the Soviet Union from runaway military spending.

However, that is precisely what the US wants and needs to induce: a global arms race which it can then invoke as justification for its own monstrous military.

According to SIPRI, both China and Russia have significantly increased their military budgets, by about 7.5 per cent each in 2015.

Russia may not want to engage in an arms race, mindful of the warping pressure that can inflict on its national resources and development.

But when the US installs a new missile system on Russia’s doorstep, the impetus for Russia to likewise scale up military commitments is onerous.

And that is what Washington is driving at. It is not that Russia is an objective security threat to Washington or its allies. The real threat to Washington is peaceful international relations which would make its military-industrial complex redundant.

It is a disturbing reality that world peace is antithetical to the very foundation of America’s corporate capitalist power.

Shamefully, the world is subjected to the risk of war and even annihilation all for the purpose of maintaining elite American power privileges. And among those who suffer this diabolical injustice are none other than the majority of American citizens, who have to endure poverty and misery while their corporate elite siphon off $600 billion a-year in military obscenity.

[TonyGosling]

Russia to take retaliatory measures in response to US missile defense system in Romania
13.05.2016

Russia to take retaliatory measures in response to US missile defense system in Romania. 57963.jpeg
Source: Pravda.Ru photo archive
The US has deployed the first ground missile defense system in Europe: the complex of antiaircraft defense was deployed on a military base in Deveselu, Romania. At the same time, the issue of the use of alternative methods of defense for the countries of the continent has been discussed actively during the recent years.

In 2008, the United States and Russia agreed to suspend the development of such a program. It was announced that Europe did not need a missile defense system. Later, however, the state of affairs took a U-turn.

To date, the BMD Aegis Ashore system has been officially put into operation and can already launch SM-3 interceptor missiles. The complex also includes 24 anti-aircraft missiles Standard SM-3 Block IB.

Russian officials said that such actions of NATO violate "strategic stability" and may lead to even more serious challenges in the region. In connection with the deployment of the US missile defense system in Romania, the Russian Defense Ministry intends to increase spending on the development of next-generation technologies before 2020.


Print version
+ - Font Size
Traditionally, US State Department officials stated once again that Russia's concerns about the deployment of the US missile defense in Europe were groundless.

Also read: Russia's new hypersonic weapon to outdo any missile defense system

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defence Policy, Frank Rose, said that Russia believes that the systems of the US missile defense in Europe pose a threat to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. "Russia has repeatedly raised concerns that U.S. and NATO missile defenses are directed against Russia and represent a threat to its strategic nuclear deterrent. Nothing could be further from the truth," he said.

During the official meeting with Romanian representatives on the eve of the opening of the Aegis missile defense system in Romania, Frank Rose noted that the US and NATO made it clear that the missile defense system was not able to undermine Russia's strategic potential, nor was it designed for the purpose.

The US message to Russia is as follows: the missile defense system in Europe will have a limited range and is deigned to protect US allies from "uncontrolled groups or states, such as Iran and North Korea" and is no threat to Russia.

Not so long ago, German publication Focus wrote that Russia's RS-24 missile called the concept of the American missile defense system in Europe into question, because the new missile, which is said to replace the obsolete "Topol" missiles, is capable to overcome US missile defenses.

In other words, it is still understood that the US missile defense system in Europe was created to counter Russian missiles. Moreover, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that as long as the question of the Iranian nuclear program was closed, there was no need to deploy the missile defense system in Europe.

Indeed, as soon as the Geneva agreements were signed, the Iranian threat disappeared. Yet, the US still wants to build missile defenses in Europe "just in case." What case can it be?

Official representative for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova announced that Moscow reserves the right for retaliatory measures after the US deployed the missile defense system in Romania.

Additionally, chairman of the Committee for Defense and Security of the Federation Council, Viktor Ozerov, sad that Russia could withdraw from the START treaty in response to the deployment of new anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, RIA Novosti reports.

"Given that this was and still is not our choice, we reserve the right for taking appropriate responsive military measures. We were ready for close cooperation, right to the creation of joint anti-missile architecture in Europe that would be built on the principle of sectors," RIA Novosti quoted Maria Zakharova as saying.

The question of nuclear parity between Russia and the United States remains one of the most important issues in world politics. Russia's military doctrine is defensive, while the United States and NATO share an offensive military thinking. To crown it all, the activities of NATO forces near Russian borders speak for themselves.

"Now we have the treaty about the reduction of offensive weapons - START-3 or the Prague Treaty from 2010. The US and NATO may want to sing START-4, but one needs to coordinate military doctrines first, to bring them to a common denominator not to look at each other through gun sights. Today, we are not ideological allies, but let us be at least ideological non-opponents," military expert Vladimir Kozin said in an interview with Pravda.ru.

- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/13-05-2016/134406-missile_ defense_system_romania_russia-0/#sthash.7mYp06cr.dpuf

[TonyGosling]

Big speech explaining what Putin knows about these missiles

“People Do Not Understand How Potentially DANGEROUS the Situation Really is”: Putin
Tuesday, June 21, 2016, 20:51 Beijing

‘We know when US will get new missile threatening Russia’s nuclear capability’
http://www.4thmedia.org/2016/06/putin-people-do-not-understand-how-pot entially-dangerous-the-situation-really-is/

The US anti-missile defense systems being installed near Russia’s borders can be “inconspicuously” transformed into offensive weapons, Vladimir Putin has said, adding that he knows “year by year” how Washington will develop its missile program.

Talking about NATO’s ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, Russia’s president said that the Americans are now deploying their missiles at these military complexes.

“The missiles are put into a capsule used for launches of sea-based Tomahawk missiles. Now they are placing their antimissiles there, which are capable of engaging a target at a distance of up to 500 kilometers [310 miles]. But technologies are developing, and we know around what year the Americans will get a new missile, which will have a range not of 500 kilometers, but 1,000, and then even more – and from that moment they will start threatening our nuclear capability,” Putin said at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Friday.

“We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know,” he said, adding that Western officials“pull the wool over [their news outlets] eyes,” who in turn misinform their audiences.

The main problem, according to the Russian president, is that people do not understand how potentially dangerous the situation really is. “The world is being pulled into a completely new dimension, while [Washington] pretends that nothing’s happening,” Putin said, adding that he has been trying to reach out to his counterparts, but in vain.

“They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It’s not true,” Putin told the journalists, adding that “strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system.”

The “great danger” is that the same launchers that are used for defense missiles can be used to fire Tomahawks that can be installed “in a matter of hours,” Putin noted. “How do we know what’s inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,” he said, adding that the governments of the nations on whose territories these NATO complexes are based would have no way of knowing if this had happened.

Washington engaged in deception from the very start when it claimed that it was moving its ballistic missile defense east to counter “Iran’s nuclear threat,” Putin said, pointing out that Tehran’s alleged offensive nuclear capability now doesn’t exist – largely thanks to President Obama’s involvement. “So why have they now built a missile defense system in Romania?” he asked.

While pointing out that NATO keeps rejecting “concrete” proposals from Russia on cooperation, Putin said that US policy is now jeopardizing “the so-called strategic balance… thanks to which the world has been safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.”

By unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Washington “struck the first colossal blow at international stability,” the president said. To maintain the balance, Moscow has had to develop its own missile program in turn, to which the US agreed in the beginning of the 2000s, when Russia was in a difficult financial situation.

“I guess they hoped that the armament from the Soviet times would initially become degraded,” he said.

“Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems,” Putin told the international news agencies, stressing that these moves are counter-measures and not “aggression,” as Moscow is so often accused of.

“We must provide security not only for ourselves. It’s important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet… It’s the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades,” Putin concluded.