Wednesday, August 24, 2016


Russian President Threatens To Target U.S. Missile Shield

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issues his statement in Moscow on November 23.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issues his statement in Moscow on November 23.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a strident warning to the West, threatening to aim missiles at U.S. missile-defense sites in Europe if Washington does not adequately address Moscow's concerns about the planned system.

He also said that Russia might withdraw from the New START nuclear-arms-reduction treaty with the United States if Washington did not allay its fears that the planned missile shield will undermine Moscow's nuclear arsenal.

In a televised statement on November 23, the Russian leader ratcheted up the rhetoric on an issue that has long proven intractable.

"I have tasked the armed forces to develop measures ensuring, if necessary, the destruction of the information and control services of the missile-defense system," Medvedev said.

He warned that Russia might deploy Iskander missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad exclave, which borders the EU, as well as in other areas in the south and west of the country, unless it received legally binding guarantees that the U.S. shield is not a threat to Russia.

"We are told that [missile-defense] plans are not aimed against Russia. They say: 'It's not against you. Don't worry,'" Medvedev said.

"They are reassuring us, but it is done at the executive level while legislators in some countries tell us directly that [the missile shield] is aimed against us. But when we propose that we put this on paper in the form of clear, unambiguous legal obligations, we receive a firm refusal."

The United States insists that its defense system is aimed at countering potential attacks by Iran or North Korea and says it will not have the technical capacity to deter Russia's arsenal. Washington has maintained, however, that it will not agree to any restrictions on the system.

Dialogue Not Working Out

The shield, set to be completed by 2020, calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations and upgrading them over time.

An Iskander missile systemAn Iskander missile system
An Iskander missile system
An Iskander missile system
Washington has already reached agreements to place 24 interceptor missiles in Romania, as well as a sophisticated radar system in Turkey.

Amid threats from Moscow similar to Medvedev's, U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009 ordered a major redesign of plans he inherited from former President George W. Bush. That plan envisioned placing interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.

But dialogue between the United States and Russia on potential cooperation on missile defense has failed to make strides since.

In discussions with NATO this year, a Russian proposal to designate sectors of responsibility for missile defense was deemed not viable.

Medvedev said Russia was "not closing the door either to further dialogue on missile defense with the United States or NATO or to practical cooperation in this area."

However, he warned that absent any progress, Russia could withdraw from the New START treaty. "In an unfavorable scenario, Russia reserves the right to abandon further steps in the area of disarmament and arms control," he said.

"Furthermore, considering the inseparable link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, there may be reasons for Russia to withdraw from the START treaty."

New START Over?

Agreed late last year, the treaty cut deployed stockpiles of nuclear warheads on both sides by nearly a third.

It was approved by U.S. lawmakers only after repeated assurances by the Obama administration that it would not constrain missile-defense plans.

The administration has since hailed the treaty as the cornerstone of its "reset" in relations between the former Cold War foes.

Analysts noted that Medvedev's comments, coming ahead of December 4 parliamentary elections, were likely aimed at tapping into Russian nationalist sentiment on behalf of his ruling United Russia party ahead of the vote.

However, they did generate a response from Washington, where U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner reiterated that the planned system would not inhibit Russia's arsenal.

"Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Russia hasn't changed even though we've tried for many years to engage with them constructively on missile defense," Toner said.

"We're going to continue to try to engage with them constructively on missile defense. We want that kind of cooperation because we believe it's in both our interests, Europe's interests, and Russia's."

He also said the United States "sees no basis for threats to withdraw" from the New START treaty.

The White House's National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said in a statement that the United States would not limit or change its missile-defense plans.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was "very disappointed" with Russia's threat, saying in a statement that moving missiles toward the EU's borders "would be reminiscent of the past and...inconsistent with the strategic relations NATO and Russia have agreed they seek."

compiled from agency reports
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
by: Fact from: Grozny
November 23, 2011 20:43
Russia, as always forces the situation. So what if the threat from Iran is real. It seems like always afraid. United States a great power, but Russia fears as always.
In Response

by: Fiction from: Johar-Gala
November 24, 2011 02:29
Russia and USA are twin brothers, good cop and bad cop, husband and wife, etc.
In Response

by: Fact from: Grozny
November 25, 2011 09:27
And what is the meaning of your words?
In Response

by: Robert1234 from: Vancouver Washington USA
November 24, 2011 05:03
Since Iran doesn't have the ability or even a reasonable strategic need or the equipment to attack eastern Europe, let alone Russia, it's patently obvious that the U.S. missiles are meant for Russia, not Iran. It's the U.S. forcing the issue, not Russia. A person would have to be totally ignorant of geography to believe the U.S. on this one!
In Response

by: Fact from: Grozny
November 25, 2011 09:19
I do not deny that the United States and at the same time wants to control Russia too. But that does not mean that the U.S. attack Russia. Medvedev responded just as if the U.S. wants to deliver missiles in the Kremlin . If the United States has wants control over Russia is only for the better, and that Russia has a habit of attacking at all. Take for example Georgia. They said as if they were attacked by Russia.

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
November 25, 2011 03:33
In fact USA neither targets Russia, nor Iran,
nor Korea, but capability and aggressive hunger
of all, specially Russia, to invade their neighbours and breed there Russians, as they did during Russian "Empire" and since 1949 in USSR and Eastern Europe.
Also USA did it by request of Eastern Europe
that insisted that they are defenseless and needed at least a symbolic reminder to Russia.

Indeed, even before invading Georgia in 2008,
Russia officially threatened use Termo-Nuclear bombing of any nation in case of Russian conquest, if such nation would stop Russian army and inflict substantial losses.

Why West wouldn't say so?
Is the Varanga "Rashkas",
Germano-Austrian "Prashkas"
And British Norman "Blyashkas"
So leading as Imperio-resurectors,
That it is a tabu confront annexators?

Well, there is of coarse another issue that
Russians and Americans simce needed mutually work-out among themselves:
How such miniscull "missle shild" can interfere with East-West parity in mutual deterent of Termo-Nuclear missles:
Can they intercept inter-continental ballistic missles?
How many are they?
Can they attack Moscow and Russian strategic forces?
If any of above makes sence, why USA and Russia wouldn't negotiate some details.

Russia already invading and killing people, even whole government of Poland...
Russia invade, annex and do not return invaded

"Ponimaesh", Medvedev?

In Response

by: Fact from: Grozny
November 25, 2011 09:25
In your words have real meaning.
In Response

by: Eugenio from: Vienna
November 25, 2011 15:31
Konstantin, are yre a rap-singer or something like that? Why do you always make "comments" in the form of "poetry" :-))?
In Response

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
November 25, 2011 16:41
Not rap, just a joke, Eugenio from Vienna -
Shorten explanation, once given to "krok" Gena.
In Response

by: Robert1234 from: Vancouver, Washington USA
November 25, 2011 18:39
LIST OF U.S. military actions since 1963:

IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup, killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, % Saddam Hussein from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Deployed Troops After King shot; over 21,000 soldiers.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, & chaos.
OMAN l970 U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Bombing; U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Army directs Wounded Knee siege of native Lakota Indians.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO & back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (ongoing) Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
In Response

by: Robert1234 from: Vancouver, Washington, US
November 25, 2011 18:38
I've included a list of U.S. military aggressions since 1963. The U.S. is the most aggressive nation in the history of the world, Russia one of the least. And, never forget, the U.S. once invaded Russia.

The U.S. missiles can shoot down Russian ICBMs, thus negating strategic deterrent. For any nation, this is sufficient to bring war, for it makes Russia susceptible to nuclear blackmail. The U.S.would be able to nuke Russia, but Russia couldn't respond.

Most Popular

Editor's Picks