Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'military'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Canadian Political Discussions
    • Federal Politics
    • Provincial Politics
    • Local Politics
  • United States Political Discussions
    • US Federal Politics
    • US State Politics
  • International Political Discussions
    • Canada / United States Relations
    • The Rest of the World
  • Moral, Religious and Political Philosophy
    • Moral & Ethical Issues
    • Religion & Politics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Sex and Gender Issues
  • Off-Topic Discussions
    • Arts and Culture
    • Health, Science and Technology
    • Business and Economy
    • Travel, Leisure and Sports
    • Media and Broadcasting
  • News and Help
    • Support and Questions
    • News and Announcements
  • DataVis's Events
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s The Clubhouse
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Suggest A Topic
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Where is the World Headed ?
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Media Hot and Cold
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's General Talk
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Club Suggestions
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Canadian Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's US Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's World Politics
  • Jah Rules / Talk Is Cheap comedy club's No comment.
  • Democratic Dictatorships's Countries
  • Whatever I damn well want to talk about.'s Topics
  • Ice Hockey's NHL Hockey Talk
  • Anything Off Topic's Climate Cultists
  • Anything Off Topic's U.K. Europe and Illegal Migration
  • Anything Off Topic's Israel BDS Movement
  • Anything Off Topic's Trudeau and Senate
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action and Diversity
  • Anything Off Topic's A Tax on Home Equity is wrong
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action
  • History's General History
  • News of the Day's 2 more Catholic churches burned down in B.C.'s Interior
  • News of the Day's Topics

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 10 results

  1. Trending via the CBC Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago. Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry." More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future. It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference. Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada. Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia. In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre arrives to appear before the House of Commons standing committee on National Defence in Ottawa on Oct. 18, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press) Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, said in an interview with CBC News broadcast this week that the new equipment "cannot arrive fast enough." The military is looking for ground-based air defence systems to guard soldiers against attack helicopters, low-flying jets and missiles. It's seeking anti-tank weapons like the U.S.-made Javelin, which the Ukrainians have used to deadly effect against the Russians. It's trying to source better electronic warfare systems and weapons to counter bomb-dropping drones. The urgency of Eyre's remarks points to the obvious question: If there was a plan to buy some of this equipment, what happened to it? Former Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay signed off on the proposal to reconstitute the army post-Afghanistan and set in motion a series of plans. He launched procurement projects for medium-sized fighting vehicles — the kind the U.S. is now supplying to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. Also on MacKay's shopping list were ground-based air defence systems, anti-tank weapons and long-range rocket artillery systems such the U.S. HIMAR — another donated weapon Ukrainian troops have used to help stem the onslaught. Defence Minister Peter MacKay addresses troops at Kandahar Airfield as Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan ended in July 2011. (Murray Brewster/The Canadian Press) "It was quite a robust, detailed plan with short, medium and long term goals," MacKay told CBC News in an interview. "The close combat vehicle (CCV) was a big part of that … There was obviously a need to replace and complement some of the long-range artillery that we use in Afghanistan." Former army commander and lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who also served as a Liberal MP between 2015 and 2019, was one of the authors of the 2010 rebuilding proposal. He said it was meant to cover gaps the military had seen develop during the counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan. "This was not something that was dreamt up in isolation. They were planned, programmed and sequenced [for delivery] between the year 2010 up to around 2020," Leslie told CBC News. "I kind of wish that people had followed through." 'The plan seemed to get picked apart' Within a year of agreeing on the plan, Leslie moved on from the army commander's job and then out of the military. MacKay was shuffled to the justice minister's portfolio. Another champion of the proposal, former chief of the defence staff general Walt Natynczyk, retired around the same time. After 2013, MacKay said, "the plan seemed to get picked apart, and almost put to one side. So it never came to fruition." He said that while the current Liberal government, in its 2017 defence policy, resurrected some elements of the proposal, the proposal is mostly "sitting there on a shelf somewhere, unfortunately." The last major element of the proposal — the purchase of 108 close-combat vehicles — was cancelled by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in late 2013. The chief of the defence staff at the time, the now-retired general Tom Lawson, said that the "Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they're absolutely necessary to the attainment of our mandate." The attitude of 'we're not going to buy it unless it's absolutely necessary' has been shared by both Liberal and Conservative governments since the end of the Cold War, said MacKay. While he said the government's pursuit of a balanced budget at the time was a worthy one, rebuilding military capacity is seldom a government priority in peacetime — even when it makes sense. It's one of the reasons the Canadian Army went into a desert war in Afghanistan wearing green camouflage fatigues and in unarmoured vehicles. A cycle of failure Leslie has become decidedly jaded about politicians' promises to restore the armed forces to fighting strength. "Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door," he said. Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie says federal governments have gotten good at deflecting blame for failures in military procurement. (Chris Wattie/Reuters) When those procurement systems fail to deliver the goods, Leslie said, the politicians say, "'Hey, we told them they could have their money. They just couldn't spend it in time.'" "And of course," he added, "at the end of the year, the cycle [of handing back unspent money to the federal treasury] starts. "You know, after 20 to 25 years of this, you begin to suspect that it's deliberate." Politics aside, MacKay said the system itself is to blame. "There is a competing and almost intractable attitude between departments like public works that want to somehow design a perfect, impenetrable contract that will stand up against any challenge," MacKay said. "The Department of Industry Canada wants every nut and bolt and washer made in Canada. And of course, not surprisingly, the Canadian Armed Forces want the very best possible equipment that sometimes isn't there on the shelf, and certainly takes time to build and procure." And not everyone agrees on what the military really needs — even within the defence establishment itself. Eyre's recent warnings about the precarious geopolitical climate are "probably a little overstated," said Lawson, who suggested his successor was simply doing his job and advocating for the military. "There is something else at play here that is really grave and important to Gen. Eyre," Lawson told CBC's Power & Politics this week. "The main responsibility of every chief of defence is ... to make sure that the Canadian military has enough people, the appropriate numbers of people, that they are equipped to an appropriate level and that they are trained and providing the readiness that the government may need." Lawson's remarks drew a sharp response from Leslie, who said Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprecedented and has upended the global order. "The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime," he said. "Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong." What defence expert Dave Perry is struggling to understand is why the equipment the Liberals are scrambling to buy now — the air defence and anti-tank weapons they identified as important in their defence policy five years ago — haven't been purchased already. "There was a series of projects that were funded and policy approved in [the defence policy document] which was published in the summer of 2017," Perry said. "So I do find it really curious that versions of those are now being pursued on an urgent operational basis for Latvia, when there's been approved projects, with money attached to them, on the books for five and a half years." 'A lack of urgency' Senior defence and procurement officials, testifying before Parliament last year, said they were proud of their record of delivering equipment under the current defence policy. Perry begs to differ and points to the rising pile of unspent capital in the defence budget. "There's urgency now," Perry said. "But I think, in part, Canada ended up in the situation as a result of a lack of urgency in the preceding five-plus years." Leslie takes a more tough-minded view. "I was the army commander for four years at the height of the Afghan war. So I had a front row seat to the various influencers, and their shenanigans concerning defence procurement," he said. "Tragically, it wasn't until Canadians started dying in Afghanistan that a great deal of focus and energy was placed on defence procurement. And the bureaucracy was told in no uncertain terms — woe betide any of you who slowed down programs that caused more soldiers to die because they didn't have the equipment they needed." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-equipment-procurement-ukraine-latvia-1.6706444
  2. Do you agree with such intervention? The United States says Canada would be an ideal leader for such a military intervention. Trudeau said Sunday that Canada is working with CARICOM, the Caribbean governments organization, along with “various actors in Haiti from all different political parties” to get a consensus on how the international community can help. “It is not enough for Haiti’s government to ask for it,” he said. “There needs to be a consensus across political parties in Haiti before we can move forward on more significant steps.” He did not rule out eventually establishing a Canadian military mission on the ground in Haiti. “Canada is very open to playing an important role, but we must have a Haitian consensus,” Trudeau said in French. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-haitian-political-parties-must-all-agree-to-canadian-military/ Armed gangs are terrorising residents in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, a United Nations official has warned, as deadly violence and instability continue to complicate the country’s response to a worsening outbreak of cholera.
  3. “Gerasimov’s Doctrine” – a key to Russian Success On the 22nd of September at the Finnish government’s Koningstedt residency in Vantaa a meeting took place between General Velery Gerasimov the Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of United States General Mark Milley. Military Commanders have held internal negotiations in the past – in 2019 in Geneve, Switzerland. As always, official information on the agenda and results of meetings of heads of general staffs of two strongest armies on the planet stands out in laconism and restraint. According to the press-service of the Ministry of Defence of Russian Federation the Military Leaders discussed “issues of mutual interest including lowering the risks of occurrence of incidents during military activities.” In the Russian Defense Ministry, by the tradition, which has settled in the international diplomacy, it has been noted that the meeting "carried constructive character". The Pentagon stands in solidarity with the Russian colleagues that, by the way, happens not so often. Mark Milley's press secretary colonel Dave Butler with the reference to the chief has noted efficiency of the meeting. According to him, Valery Gerasimov's dialogue with Mark Milley "became the next stage of the negotiations directed at improving the communication between the military management in order to decrease the risks and find ways of evading conflict situations". As reciprocal curtsey to the Russians, Butler has shared Milley’s reverence for mister Gerasimov, having specified that both military leaders have not failed to show sense of humour, of course, "when it was pertinent". In spite of the fact that Valery Gerasimov's negotiations and Mark of lasted nearly six hours, details have remained in secret. Such state of affairs in the Pentagon was explained as "established practices". The surreptitiousness of negotiations between Valery Gerasimov and Mark Milley, on one hand, has strengthened the mysterious atmosphere around the Russian army and, first of all, it’s military leaders, on another, it has led to the rapid growth of interest among the western experts in modern Russian commanders. Special attention of the American and the European analysts is directed at the general Valery Gerasimov which is quite understandable as the head of the Russian General Staff for the last several years remains a recognized ideological leader and the mentor of Putin’s group of elite commanders. Among our military experts there isn’t one, who doesn’t have a strongly established opinion about the Russian general. He is characterised as a man with stone-cold face, he keeps confidence and calm in most extraordinary and unusual situations. Mister Gerasimov along with his immediate charismatic superior Minister of Defence Sergey Shoygu permanently accompanies the Russian leader Vladimir Putin on military venture, tests of the new Russian weapon, and also international visits (especially, to traditionally unsteady Middle East) and meetings with world leaders (as it was at the June summit of Putin and his American vis-a-vis Joe Biden in Geneva when the general Gerasimov was part of the Russian delegation). The trust of the head of the Kremlin Vladimir Putin the chief of the General Staff shows the high status and weight of the general Gerasimov in the Russian military and political elite is unprecedented. Cardinal difference between him and his predecessors, in our opinion, lies at mister Gerasimov’s excellent expertise in the field of military diplomacy that has proved itself during numerous meetings with heads of the foreign states and the governments. Besides, there is no doubt that the role of the general Gerasimov as a head and the organizer of modern Russian military science derived from the first Russian emperor Peter the Great, the creator of the regular army. By definition the head of the Russian General Staff is obliged with key functions of development and practical introduction of scientific concepts of the military constructions. His predecessors – Georgy Isserson, Alexander Svechin, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Boris Shaposhnikov, and many others gained outstanding practical achievements due to a theoretical judgment of character and forms of future wars. General Valery Gerasimov who looks good as the army commander, managed to be a successful leader and coordinator of modern military science. At the same time Gerasimov had a great luck to check the effectiveness of his means and ways of conducting modern war on the ground. Russia relying on its military force got back its status of a key power in the Middle East despite skepticism of its geopolitical competitors. Roger McDermott, professor in Jamestown Foundation said Gerasimov's role as president of Academy of military sciences (AVN) marked an important step in further improvement of the Russian army. He stressed that Valery Gerasimov's election as the AVN chair in December, 2020 was caused by his aspiration to let the academy revive the interest in military science and art of war. Being an inspirer of the Russian military science, Valery Gerasimov does his best in summarizing the modern armed conflicts experience and modeling of future wars. Meanwhile, his American colleague Mark Milley is not involved in any kind of scientific research and the analysis. Mister Gerasimov is widely known in Russia as the author of a number of articles in which he comprehends the experience of wars and military conflicts of the past and defines the character hostilities of the future. Mark Milley, the graduate of Priston and Columbia University is a rather a politician than a military theorist. Such differences between Russian and American military chiefs can be explained by differences of military systems of the two nations. The U.S. Joint Chief of Staff is initially engaged in combat operations planning, the Russian General Staff also conducts scientific forecasting. The American military analysts point to these disproportions in powers of Russia’s and U.S. military staffs. “The General Staff of Russian Armed Forces solves a much bigger range of problems than simple planning of operations. It is also responsible for development and improvement of the theory and practice of future war by forecasting. In the Russian military system the forecasting is directly connected with military science”, – Charles Bartls and Lester Grau wrote in the book “The Russian way of waging war”. Being directly involved into multi-level scientific researches on forecasting of the future conflicts, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian army is a key coordinator for the enterprises of country’s military and industrial complex. Possessing information on perspective weapons of potential foes, every head of the Russian General Staff, as a rule, personally supervises development and tests of the weapons of deterrence. Eventually, specifics of Russia’s political system in which military command is most distanced from election processes allow the Chief of the General Staff to concentrate on his professional duties only. The U.S. political system expects that the chairman of Joint Chief of Staff shows flexibility to minimize political risks as the White House administrations change. Theoretical concept of Chief of Russia’s General Staff caused discussions among military experts. The so-called “Gerasimov's Doctrine” is the concept of “new generation war” or the “hybrid warfare”: simultaneous use of power methods, information campaigns, political pressure, and economic sanctions. For the first time this term was used by the British researcher Mark Galeotti in February, 2013 – almost immediately after Gerasimov’s speech Russia’s AVN conference and the publication Gerasimov’s article “Science’s value is in foresight” in “Voyenno-promyshlenny Kuryer” newspaper. The article included ideas about a combination of military and non-military methods of armed struggle between the states. Afterwards Gerasimov’s article was also published by “the Military Review”, the popular English-language magazine, and was repeatedly quoted in European and American mass media. The research associate of the Kennan Institute in Washington Michael Coffman wrote that the term “hybrid warfare” was first mentioned in an article in 2005 by Americans James Mathis and Frank Hoffman, who used this definition to describe the nature of the military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Coffman considers that Gerasimov precisely described the western model of “hybrid warfare” in the Big Middle East and tried to explain how the West succeeded in use of non-military methods against its foes. Despite the intrigues around terms, “Gerasimov's Doctrine” is an issue of a great interest as it describes the scale of Kremlin’s foreign policy claims and effective actions of the Russian military using methods of “new generation war”. Helsinki meeting did not become a bright political event or a breakthrough in relations between Russia and the West. But the quiet Finnish capital once again gives a hope for the military chiefs of two nuclear powers mutual understanding. In a situation when politicians fail to find a common ground, military professionals are able to avoid new global shocks.
  4. Im currently a grade 12 student who started an Initiative to Inform Youth about Politics and World Issues. I started this podcast in the summer of 2019 after seeing the lack of attention being given to the Canadain election of 2019. My older friends were not voting, and if they were voting, they voted without the proper knowledge. That led me to create this podcast where I try to inform the youth about world issues and politics, and hopefully encourage them to vote. CHECK IT OUT HERE & TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK
  5. The melting ice of Greenland will soon reveal the dirty secrets of the Camp Century military base built by the Americans in Denmark during the Cold War. Then it was assumed that the secrets of this place would be buried forever under snow and ice, along with nuclear and toxic waste. But now the «canned» base with hundreds of thousands of liters of fuel, radioactive refrigerant and toxic substances has begun to thaw. The rapid ice melting means that in a few decades these substances will appear on the surface, exposing a serious environmental disaster. The «Camp Century» base was developed in 1959 to deploy ballistic missiles within the reach of the USSR. The project was called an «Ice Worm». According to the Pentagon, it was planned to conduct in Greenland ice sheet a system of 2500 miles long tunnels and deploy about 600 «Iceman» intercontinental ballistic missiles in it, aimed at the USSR. These missiles were supposed to be a modernization of the «Minuteman» missiles (a shortened two-stage version), their flight range was estimated at 3800 miles, while they had to carry a 2.4 megaton warhead in TNT equivalent. The missiles were planned to be placed in tunnels under the ice, while the ice was supposed to protect the missiles from detection and complicate the process of their destruction. It was planned to lay a network of tunnels that were scooped in an ice shell like trenches, followed by arched ceiling. The tunnels were supposed to interconnect the launch complexes with missiles located at a distance of about 4 miles, with at least one meter of ice above them. Between the launch complexes, the missiles were supposed to move on special small trains. The tunnels network and launching sites should have been managed from 60 command centers. In total, 11 thousand people were planned to be involved in servicing the complex. In the process, 21 tunnels with a total length of 3000 m were laid. In the small town under the ice was created all the necessary infrastructure for life and work. There were built presidential houses, kitchens and dining rooms, showers, toilets, lounges, a library, a shop, a theater, a 10-bed hospital, an operating room, a laundry room, a cold warehouse for food, a research laboratory, a communications center, a nuclear power station, an administrative building, and a hairdresser, diesel-electric power plant and water storage tank, there was even their own chapel. The «Camp Century» military base lasted until 1966, when it became apparent that the «Ice Worm» project was impossible to implement, so the Greenland ice won. Back in 1962, it was discovered that the ice movements on the island significantly exceed the calculated values. Identified features and reduced funding for the project led to the fact that in 1963 the nuclear reactor was stopped and dismantled, and in 1966 the military completely left the camp. Observation over the camp was still ongoing for several years, until in 1969, ice and snow almost completely consumed all the erected premises. The place was abandoned and the Americans simply left, giving the snow the opportunity to hide their tracks. The «Ice Worm» project has not been mentioned for decades. For the first time this became known only in 1997 when the Danish Parliament commissioned the Danish Institute for Foreign Policy to study the history of nuclear weapons using in Greenland in connection with the scandal over the plane crash over the American base of Thule, located in the north-west of Greenland. In 2016, scientists working on the global warming issue found that its consequences led to a thinning of Greenland ice layer, and to a slow melting of those tunnels that were built by the U.S. military. In this regard, melting ice in this area is a threat to the ecology of the island. Radioactive waste that poses the greatest danger may appear on the surface. For a long time, the United States ignored the information that during the implementation of the «Ice Worm» project, there had been produced about 200 tons of radioactive water, which merged right into the ice cap of Greenland. Moreover, at a depth of about 40 m and at an area of a hundred football fields, nine thousand tons of various materials lurk - bunkers, railway rails, tanks with diesel fuel and radioactive coolant, as well as an unknown amount of extremely toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, which are extremely dangerous for health and the environment. Undoubtedly, scientists are especially worried about tanks with chemicals buried in tunnels, that naturally accumulate in colder conditions and can penetrate into the most unexpected places. In the Arctic has already been noted the dangerous toxin levels in the indigenous population, which eats seals and whales’ meat. According to scientists, a decrease in the amount of ice can reach critical values by about 2090, when the negative effects of harmful substances from the «Ice Worm» can no longer be reversed. As for melt water, it will reach the bunkers of the former American base and its dangerous contents much earlier, and then the streams will carry the «American legacy» into the ocean. Today it may seem that if scientists believe that several more decades will pass before the melting of the ice causes a possible chemical or radiation disaster, then there is still time to clean up the territory. However, the cleaning up process of the base`s heritage can also take quite a long period of time. At the same time, the USA and Denmark have not yet agreed on a work plan. Formally, at present, the base remains the property of the US military, but it is still not clear who exactly should clean up the waste. Both countries refuse to allocate budget funds for a time-consuming project, and also do not take risks for its implementation. Meanwhile, when the Arctic as a whole, and Greenland in particular, is facing an environmental disaster, the United States, which refuses to cleanse the island of the results of its activities during the Cold War, is again interested in this island. This time, the Americans are trying to raise the issue of buying the largest island in the world, which is of tremendous strategic importance, given its position in the Arctic.
  6. Is it okay to protest at a high level against the fact that a country, in order to protect its people, is strengthening the defense of its borders? I am talking about Japanese protests against Russia's strengthening of the defense of its Far East. Tokyo constantly protests against any Russian activity on its own territory, and these protests have already become a habit. The stubbornness and new White Paper will not help the Japanese leadership to “return” the islands, because Moscow has repeatedly proved the groundlessness of these territorial claims and stated directly that they have no any plans to transfer the islands. So what are our samurai friends waiting for? Maybe support of America in a military resolving of the issue?
  7. American analysts are anxiously watching the strengthening of the forces of the Russian army, which has been happening in recent years. The Russian fleet got at its disposal the «Caliber» cruise missile, which confirmed its capabilities during real combat firing at terrorist targets in Syria. Also the new «Zircon» hypersonic anti-ship missile, which can be used from launchers for «Onyx and Caliber» complexes, is going to appear in the fleet service. The National Interest, also, noted the power of the Russian «Poseidon» project of an unmanned underwater vehicle with a nuclear power plant on board. All this, along with the expansion of the geopolitical influence of Moscow, forces the Pentagon and the White House administration to closely monitor changes in the military sphere of Russia. For more details: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-military-transforming-and-getting-stronger-right-our-eyes-67907
  8. Currently, in America they are working on building of medium-range missiles, and they also recognize that anti-missile defense facilities deployed in Romania and Poland, after conversion, allow the launch of offensive missiles instead of defensive ones. Does the US really want the third world war to start?
  9. In August 2019, the fate of the INF will be finally decided. On February 2, 2019, the American side announced the suspension of the implementation of the Treaty between the USSR and the USA. This situation is quite in the spirit of Washington: this is not the first, and perhaps not the last treaty, which the States neglect. In 2001, America unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of 1972, which was considered an integral part of the entire system of control over strategic offensive arms. During Trump’s presidency, the States renegotiated a free trade zone agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, withdrew from the UN climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. The INF was of great historical importance, it was the first Soviet-American treaty that not only limited weapons production, but also significantly reduced it. The USSR and the United States signed a treaty in 1987 with the aim of curbing the arms race that broke out in the second half of the 1970s. By agreement, the United States and the USSR have committed themselves not to produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise ground-based missiles of medium (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range. Moreover, America and the USSR pledged to destroy all launchers and land-based missiles with a range of from 500 to 5,500 kilometers for three years. The United States has been talking about withdrawing from the Treaty for the first time, declaring its bilateral effectiveness ineffective. “The motto of the INF policy should be as follows: expand it or destroy it,” said Bolton in the Wall Street Journal in collaboration with former Deputy Secretary of State Paula de Sutter. Russia has not adhered to the INF Treaty, and the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to China at all. It was the behavior of the Russian side that, according to the States, was the reason for withdrawing from the treaty. The United States blamed Russia for the fact that, developed for the modernization of the operational-tactical missile complex Iskander-M, the new 9M729 missile violates the Treaty because it has a range of over 500 km. Moreover, Washington ignored the briefing given by the Russian Ministry of Defense, which demonstrated the tactical and technical characteristics of the new missile. In turn, the Russian side has accumulated a lot of complaints about the US observance of its part of the Treaty. Moscow demanded the destruction of the MK-41 universal launchers deployed on land, designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles; target missiles with similar characteristics to medium-range and shorter-range ground-based ballistic missiles (for testing anti-ballistic missile defense systems); as well as the destruction of strike unmanned aerial vehicles, which, according to their characteristics, meet the definition of the term “cruise missile of a land-based. Russian requirements remained unanswered. It is easy to predict what the next disregard of Washington may lead to. And the States themselves do not hide the fact that the goal of withdrawing from the treaty is to increase military pressure on the PRC and, most likely, short-range and medium-range US missiles will be placed primarily in Japan and the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, by abandoning the INF Treaty, the United States will be able to deploy ground-based missiles with a range of up to 5.5 thousand kilometers in close proximity to Russian borders, for example, in Poland and the Baltic countries. Obviously, the next step will be the US withdrawal from the “New Start”. Thus, the last treaty controlling the situation with nuclear weapons will disappear. This, in turn, will lead to an unrestricted nuclear arms race and heightening the risks of a nuclear war.
  10. This has been brewing for some time and now has come to a head. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27517591 The relationship with China has always been an issue. Mainly regarding the status of Thailand as part of China. Or am I confusing it with another country? This is part of it, but I do not think it is all of it. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/world/asia/thailand-martial-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
×
×
  • Create New...