Monday, August 29, 2016


Russia Says NATO Missile-Defense Talks At 'Dead End'

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly AntonovRussian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov

Related Articles

Putin: Missile Defense 'Aimed At Russia'

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the U.S. and NATO of aiming a European antimissile system at Russia.
Anatoly Antonov, Russia's lead negotiator with NATO on the planned Western European missile-defense system, said the discussions have reached "a dead end."

In an interview with "Kommersant" newspaper, Antonov, who is deputy defense minister, criticized Western proposals on missile defense as "vague," adding that Russian participation in a European missile-defense system "is not even up for discussion."

He named the proposed U.S.-led missile-defense system in Europe as the main threat to Russian security and said Moscow might withdraw from the new START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed with Washington in 2010.

Antonov was repeating positions stated by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 4.

Lavrov criticized Washington for failing to provide assurances that the proposed system is not directed against Russia's nuclear deterrent.

NATO allies agreed in November 2010 to develop a missile-defense shield that would protect member states against long-range attacks from states such as Iran.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
by: Shawn from: U.S.
February 06, 2012 13:48
Whats sad is I think the Russians are right on this. Would the United States like to have Russian missile defenses in Mexico? Realistically most European countries in NATO has the ability to make their own shield and own defenses. As a taxpayer I am wondering why my taxes are going on this very expensive missile sheild clear in Europe not even in North America to protect against a few outdated ballistic missiles from Iran.The math don't add up when you consider cost of this sheild and breakdown of relations with a very formidable foe in Russia.
In Response

by: Anonymous
February 07, 2012 11:36
Who cares Russia ? Who is Russia ? Must shut up or we Europe, we will kick them to Arctic islands. Russia is a cartoon film star state. Big and painted. And smell like a bear.

by: Eugenio from: Vienna
February 06, 2012 14:30
That's it: there is nothing to talk about. And even more so, given the fact that the gringos do not have money even to continue maintaining their ground troops, be it in Europe (will be reduced starting from 2013) or in Afghanistan (will be kicked out of the country by the year 2014). Where will they find resources to create a functional missile-defence, that they were unable to finance even in the 1980s, when their economy was still performing (as compared to a total Japanese-style stagnation starting from 2008)?

by: Vakhtang from: Moscow
February 07, 2012 02:06
The fact that negotiations on anti-missile system between the U.S. and Putin reach a deadlock were known alcoholics lying in the bushes, psychiatric hospitals's patients and rams jumping on the mountains.

Putin needs image of the enemy who wants only bad for Russia
so all actions of U.S. directed solely against Russia it helps to keep power in the Russia and control the electorate...

Look for example at Lavrov (who is not Lavrov at all, butTbilisi Armenian Kalantarov..)
Putin appointed him as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia because Kalantarov hates Georgia and Georgians..

Apparently a Kalantarov-Lavrov hate of the former Soviet republic of Georgia was transformed into hate of the U.S. state of Georgia.

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
February 07, 2012 02:49
On the first Monday of the month here in Lawrence, Kansas, during the tornado season, they sound-test the emergency sirens, the same warning sirens that would be used in the event of a nuclear attack. Russia is the one country that presents an existential threat to the U.S., so I can understand why some in Washington are advocating a missile defense system. I was reading this report when I heard the sirens, and thought for a moment that such a system made sense. Then I thought again, and realized that the BMD system would likely increase the likelihood of a nuclear war.
In Response

by: Anonymous from: USA
February 08, 2012 03:00
Only the "attack" (waiver) sound is supposed to be for nuclear attacks. A constant pitch is for tornadoes. Same sirens, different sounds. China also represents a growing existential threat, and the fact that they are building submarines that can go into the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico or the Indian Ocean is of great concern to Washington. The BMD cannot stop nukes launched from subs. It matters not whether the subs are Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, etc. IMO, BMD is very controversial but it won't increase the likelihood of nuclear war, just new methods of delivery.
In Response

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
February 08, 2012 13:21
Thanks for the info; I was not aware of the different sirens. I heard Dmitry Rogozin liken BMD to building a bigger shield, that would force countries like Russia to build more sophisticated (longer) 'swords.'

How sad, that even with all of today's technological marvels, (and despite any global economic collapse), the manufacturing of war weapons remains robust. Not much improvement over the cavemen of the past.

Most Popular

Editor's Picks