US Abandonment of INF Treaty Planned Long Before Announced
US pullout of the JCPOA nuclear deal and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was planned by Trump regime hardliners long before announced.
In June 2002, the Bush/Cheney regime withdrew from the landmark 1972 ABM Treaty, the move announced six months earlier.
Agreed to by Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, the treaty prohibited both countries “from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles and from building the foundation for such a defense,” the Arms Control Association explained, adding:
“The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense.”
“The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race as each tried to balance its counterpart’s action.”
New START is next on the Trump regime’s chopping block for elimination when expires in February 2021 if DJT is still in power.
Agreed to by the US and Russia in April 2010, it succeeded START I (1991) and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).
New START limits deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, a major reduction from earlier levels, a verification regime agreed on to assure both sides comply with their obligations.
In June, Bolton said extending New Start on expiration is unlikely. Despite knowing nothing about its important provisions, Trump called it a “bad deal.”
Putin said no Trump regime official “is willing to talk about (extending New START) with us.” By letter in June to Trump, eight House and Senate Dems urged him to extend the treaty, saying:
Failure to continue “the benefits of New START by (not) extend(ing) the agreement would be a serious mistake for strategic stability and US security.”
Failure to extend it by the Trump regime will abandon the last pillar of arms control in favor of unrestrained weapons of mass destruction development and deployment.
Time and again, the US falsely accused Russia and other countries of breaching their obligations to unjustifiably justify abandoning its own mandated commitments.
Falsely accusing Moscow of breaching the INF Treaty was head-fake deception, a pretext for what bipartisan US hardliners intended all along.
Big Lies about Moscow breaching the treaty began by the Obama regime over five years ago, continued by Trump hardliners.
A hugely dangerous arms race began, including likely deployment of short-and-intermediate/nuclear-capable cruise and ballistic missiles close to the borders of US adversaries — notably Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
Putin said Russia won’t breach INF Treaty provisions except in response to US violations, adding:
“Russia has all the military technical premises for that, its reaction (to) be rapid. I know what I am talking about, but this is classified information so far. I am sure the Americans are fully aware of that as well,” adding:
Russia will start full-scale development and deployment of INF Treaty-banned missiles in response to the US taking this step.
“Before such weapons enter the arsenal of the Russian army, real threats to Russia in connection with the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty will be reliably counteracted by our existing means.”
If the US abandons arms control treaties, “there would be no instrument in the world to curtail the arms race,” Putin stressed — a hugely dangerous development with bipartisan neocon extremists running things in the US, hellbent for endless wars of aggression and other hostile actions.
Putin lamented that during the Cold War, “there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow.”
“Now, it seems that there are no rules at all. (T)he world has become more fragmented and less predictable, which is…most important and” recklessly dangerous.
His long ago attempt to save the ABM Treaty fell on deaf ears in Washington — what he called “the cornerstone of the entire international security system” now gone.
The US bears full responsibility for “cross(ing) out many years of efforts aimed at reducing the prospect of a major military conflict, including the use of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Sergey Lavrov explained that the Trump regime intended to abandon the INF Treaty long before announced last February.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said months before the Trump regime’s announced withdrawal, the US “budget…included funds for the development of” INF Treaty-banned missiles.
Lavrov said the decision was taken without dialogue with Russia. US war department spokesman Robert Carver falsely claimed the move is “purely defensive.”
US military actions are hostile and aggressive at a time when its only enemies are invented. No real ones exist — not Russia, China, Iran or any other nations.
US tests of INF Treaty-banned missiles began in mid-August on San Nicolas Island, California, the Trump regime war department announced, more surely coming unrestrained.
In early August, US war secretary Mark Esper said “we would like to deploy (INF Treaty-banned missiles) sooner rather than later” in the Indo/Pacific region near China and North Korea.
Days before the Trump regime’s formal INF Treaty pullout, Pompeo falsely said the US “will not remain party to a treaty that is deliberately violated by Russia” — a bald-faced Big Lie, while concealing US violations since the end of the Clinton co-presidency, according to Lavrov.
On Tuesday, US army secretary Ryan McCarthy said the war department intends developing nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles.
Deployment of nuclear-capable INF Treaty-banned missiles in Europe may follow their installation in East Asia.
Endless US wars of aggression and by other means on targeted nations, abandonment of arms control treaties and other hostile actions, heightened the risk of nuclear war.
What’s unthinkable is possible because of recklessly dangerous extremists in charge of US foreign policy.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”