Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pompeo: US to leave nuclear treaty in 60 days unless Russia complies with terms
The Hill ^ | 12/04/18 01:15 PM EST | y Morgan Chalfant -

Posted on 12/04/2018 11:31:16 AM PST by BenLurkin

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that the United States would suspend its obligations under a decades-old nuclear arms pact in 60 days if Russia does not come back into full compliance with the treaty.

Pompeo made the announcement following meetings with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Belgium, describing Russia’s violations of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty as part of a broader pattern of “lawlessness” by Moscow on the global stage.

President Trump signaled earlier this fall that he planned to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the INF Treaty, citing Russian violations of the agreement. U.S. officials have publicly accused Moscow of violating the treaty since the days of the Obama administration, but Russia has denied the accusations.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Russia
KEYWORDS: inf; nuclear; pompeo; russia; sospompeo; treaty; trumpnato; trumpputin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 12/04/2018 11:31:17 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Love our prez!


2 posted on 12/04/2018 11:33:11 AM PST by rrrod (just an old guy with a gun in his pocket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

kaboom!


3 posted on 12/04/2018 11:33:45 AM PST by zanarchist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rrrod

What’s so great about withdrawing from the INF treaty?

Take you time answering Ramrod.


4 posted on 12/04/2018 12:21:52 PM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It’s nice when we act with our eyes wide open.


5 posted on 12/04/2018 12:23:00 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Because when only one side is abiding by the treaty it gives your enemies an advantage that they WILL use to your detriment.

It also makes you look weak. Like other countries can walk all over you and there are no consequences. The incidents will keep escalating until you are playing with lives.

Better to nip it in the butt.

You don't want to hold up your end, fine we will not hold up ours.

They will either decide they actually will abide by the agreement or they will decide to formally withdraw. Either way their intentions will be clear.

Either that they are not ready for conflict yet or they are.

6 posted on 12/04/2018 12:33:23 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Putin puffers will be deeply saddened.


7 posted on 12/04/2018 12:33:26 PM PST by rrrod (just an old guy with a gun in his pocket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Bring back a newer, faster, better version of the Pershing II.

The Russians will beg for the treaty to be returned.


8 posted on 12/04/2018 12:38:15 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rrrod

Rrramrod!

What a deep thinker you are...mother would be proud.


9 posted on 12/04/2018 1:09:21 PM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Because when only one side is abiding by the treaty it gives your enemies an advantage that they WILL use to your detriment.

It also makes you look weak. Like other countries can walk all over you and there are no consequences. The incidents will keep escalating until you are playing with lives.

So you agree that deployment of Aegis missile launch systems to Romania and Poland needed to be countered...got it.

10 posted on 12/04/2018 1:23:39 PM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Clearly yours isn’t...


11 posted on 12/04/2018 1:25:04 PM PST by rrrod (just an old guy with a gun in his pocket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Not what I said.

But you go ahead and thing whatever you like little comrade.

It is more freedom then your masters will ever give you.

12 posted on 12/04/2018 1:26:36 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
What’s so great about withdrawing from the INF treaty?

If Russia isn't abiding by the treaty, it's not much of a treaty, now is it?

13 posted on 12/04/2018 1:28:12 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
You are aware by the way of the difference between a shield and a sword right?
14 posted on 12/04/2018 1:29:03 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
Comrade mac is in favor of the reemerging USSR being able to do whatever it pleases while our hands are tied.

We must allow them to aim as many guns as they please at us but putting on Kevlar is verboten.

15 posted on 12/04/2018 1:35:00 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

“Comrade mac is in favor of the reemerging USSR ...”

Bingo! mac_truck is all in favor of “self-determination” for the Crimean people, but would like to see all of the other former Soviet Republics subjugated by force in the interest of a reconstituted USSR.

Personally, I’d like to see an MMA event matching Klitschko and Putin, winner take all.


16 posted on 12/04/2018 1:55:18 PM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

“You are aware by the way of the difference between a shield and a sword right?”

It isn’t quite that way. In strategic missiles, when someone builds a shield, the other side has to face a glaring possibility. That is that safe behind their shield, that nation will launch a first strike in relative safety from retaliation. The way of overcoming that is to build more nukes in order to overcome that, or to develop new weapons that bypass that system.

So a shield is not always a shield.

Also, when that system was built in eastern Europe, it was advertised as protection from Iranian missiles, intended to hit them in their burn phase as they launched ona polar rout to the USA. If this was the case, then we should have included some Russians into that operation and into the umbrella in some capacity.

We didn’t, so they see it as a threat to them and we are headed back to a 4 minute hair trigger in Europe, and another Able Archer. Not saying it would have been a fantastic idea, BUT Russia has a very justified fear of European invasion and the devastation that follows. What we see as a great game, they see as an existential threat. This especially when we have people like Hillary trying to launch a color revolution there in 2011.

No telling how this cold war II ends, but we normal people in America will either be nuked to death, or taxed to death to pay for a new cold war (in addition to paying for 20 million Mexicans)


17 posted on 12/04/2018 2:12:36 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
You are aware by the way of the difference between a shield and a sword right?

I'm aware of all the capabilities of the Aegis system...are you?

18 posted on 12/04/2018 2:34:49 PM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
If Russia isn't abiding by the treaty, it's not much of a treaty, now is it?

If a treaty isn't being abided by, its not much of a treaty.

That logic applies to ALL parties, not just one of them.

19 posted on 12/04/2018 2:42:21 PM PST by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

We should do it anyway. It makes no sense to be bound by a treaty which binds the US, but not China, or any other potential non-Russian nuclear adversary.

Plus, Russia will always cheat.


20 posted on 12/04/2018 3:00:16 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson