Poking the Bear
Pentagon accuses Russia of ‘playing with fire’ over nuclear threats towards Nato
By Doug Bolton Friday 26 June 2015 Via The Independent
The US Deputy Secretary of Defence said that Russia’s attempts to intimidate Nato countries had not worked. [Photo Credit: Unknown]
(‘Violent statements and threats cannot provide a solution to the problem. They can only exacerbate feeling and make a clash of forces inevitable.’ – LS)
A senior Pentagon official has warned that Russia is “playing with fire” by suggesting it would threaten the use of nuclear weapons in international disputes, and added that Russia is attempting an intimidation campaign against Nato.
Robert Work, the US Deputy Secretary of Defence, told a House Armed Services subcommittee that Russia was trying to control the escalation of tensions by invoking the threat of nuclear weapons.
He said: “Anyone who thinks they can control escalation through the use of nuclear weapons is literally playing with fire.”
“Escalation is escalation, and nuclear use would be the ultimate escalation.”
The Kremlin has not made any direct nuclear threats, and Work did not specify and particular comments. However, numerous references to Russia’s nuclear arsenal in the last few months by Russian officials have increased tensions between East and West.
In April, leaked notes from a meeting between US officials and Russian generals revealed that Russia mentioned “a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” if Nato moved more forces into the Baltic states.
In a documentary about the annexation of Crimea aired on Russian TV, President Vladimir Putin was asked by the interviewer if he was prepared to put Russia’s nuclear forces on alert. He said: “We were ready to do it.”
In March, the Russian ambassador to Denmark warned that “Danish warships would be targets for Russia’s nuclear weapons” if the country joined Nato’s missile defence programme.
Threats and posturing aside, Russia has taken steps to beef up its nuclear arsenal – speaking at a military expo earlier this month, Putin announced the development of 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles, that would be able to overcome “even the most technically advanced anti-missile defence systems”.
A Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of delivering multiple nuclear weapons, is paraded through Moscow’s Red Square in the 2009 Victory Day parade The new missiles are not themselves nuclear weapons, but are nuclear-capable, as they will allow Russia to more easily deliver their stockpile of around 3,000 warheads.
In his speech, Work was defiant in the face of the Russian nuclear arsenal.
He said: “Senior Russian officials continue to make irresponsible statements regarding its nuclear forces, and we assess that they are doing it to intimidate our allies and us.”
“These have failed. If anything, they have really strengthened the Nato alliance solidarity.”
Nato has accused Russia of ‘sabre rattling’ in recent months, but the alliance have themselves been increasing their military presence in Eastern Europe.
Read more: Britain remains vital to the success of Nato
Russia begins huge air force drill as Nato exercises begin
Russia warns Sweden not to join Nato
On Tuesday, Nato announced that heavy weapons would be deployed across Europe in an effort to stand up to Russia.
Tanks, artillery, fighting vehicles and thousands of soldiers will be stationed in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, in a show of military strength.
US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter told the press: “While we do not seek a cold, let alone a hot war with Russia, we will defend our allies.”
Earlier this month, a large Nato military exercise took place in the Baltic Sea, with forces from across the alliance practicing amphibious landings and naval maneouvres.
Nato tests its high-readiness attack forces in Western Poland during a recent exercise Some of these exercises took place just a couple of hundred miles from Russia’s naval base in Kaliningrad.
As part of the larger exercise, Exercise Noble Jump took place in Poland from 9 June, in a test of Nato’s high readiness task force, that is designed to respond to urgent situations.
And yesterday, The Guardian reported that sources and Nato claimed that the alliance was preparing to discuss its own strategy on using nuclear weapons at a meeting in Brussels.
Up for discussion were Russia’s threats – with Nato ministers asking whether they should be taken seriously, or whether they are simply rhetoric.
As tensions increase, tit-for-tat exchanges of military force look set to continue.
Explore posts in the same categories: Russia, Saber Rattling
Tags: Nuclear War
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
WarSclerotic 
June 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM
Moscow ‘closely looks’ into reported US plans to return medium-range missiles to Europe
The Pentagon is considering scrapping a Cold War-era treaty and deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range cruise missiles in Europe over Moscow’s alleged treaty violations, AP reported. The Kremlin says it is looking closely into the report.
http://rt.com/news/265147-us-missiles-russia-europe/
June 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM
Cold War Resurgent: US Nukes Could Soon Return to Europe
Washington is once again talking about stationing nuclear warheads in Europe. Russia, too, is turning up the rhetoric. Europeans are concerned about becoming caught in the middle of a new Cold War. By SPIEGEL Staff
For some time now, the Americans have once again been thinking about upgrading Europe’s nuclear arsenal, and in the past week, a rhetorical arms race has begun that is reminiscent of the coldest periods of the Cold War.
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned of an “accelerating spiral of escalating words and then of actions.” He described them as “the old reflexes of the Cold War.”
Berlin is concerned that Europe could once again become the setting of a new East-West confrontation — and that Germany might once again become a deployment zone. A source in the Defense Ministry suggested that “more (military) equipment may once again be stockpiled in Germany.” Washington plans to station tanks, weapons and heavy equipment for 5,000 soldiers in Germany and the eastern NATO countries. US President Barack Obama hopes that doing so will soothe the fears of the Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe, which, since the Ukraine crisis, are once again fearful of Russian aggression. He also hopes to quiet his critics in US Congress.
Moscow sees the American plans as a further proof that Washington intends to expand its military sphere of influence in Europe. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s spokesman has said that “Washington and its partners are clearly aiming for the final break-up of the NATO-Russia Founding Act.”
Berlin, however, does not want to abandon the treaty. Consistent with the treaty, the German government has fundamentally ruled out the “substantial” or “permanent” stationing of NATO troops in the former Eastern Bloc. That wording was chosen to assuage Russian concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion.
June 27, 2015 at 2:41 AM
The new US plans are only the latest step in an overall period of rearmament, a dangerous development that had already started before the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis. Washington and Moscow have cancelled or undermined one disarmament treaty after another. The end of the Cold War saw the signing of a number of far-reaching agreements pertaining to conventional and nuclear disarmament, from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. But now, the agreements, some of which took decades to hammer out, are losing their value. “Moscow no longer believes the West and the West doesn’t believe Moscow. That’s terrible,” declared Mikhail Gorbachev told SPIEGEL in January. “If one side loses its nerves in this inflamed atmosphere, then we won’t survive the coming years,” he said.
The American logic is as follows: For some time now, Washington has been accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The legendary agreement, which was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, signaled the end of the Cold War. In the agreement, both superpowers agreed to scrap all land-based intermediate-range atomic weapons and to renounce them in the future. Now Washington believes this treaty has been violated, and is threatening to react. NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Philip Breedlove has already announced that the introduction of a weapon that violates the INF Treaty “can’t go unanswered.”
“We would like Russia, and our Allies, to know that our patience is not unlimited,” said Frank Rose, who is in charge of arms control at the State Department, a few weeks ago. And Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon Brian Mckeon announced that Washington would develop a response to safeguard the security interests of the United States and its allies and that such a response would involve the stationing of land-based cruise missiles in Europe.
In Europe, these considerations are being viewed critically. When the Americans placed the subject on the agenda of the NATO defense ministers meeting in February, the Germans and the French spoke out against NATO retaliatory measures, not least because there was only shaky proof of what weapons the Russians had actually tested.
The allies are having trouble evaluating whether Moscow actually has violated the INF Treaty, which the Russians vehemently deny. Although none of the European intelligence services have better surveillance capabilities than the Americans, nobody wants to rely purely on US findings. It has become known that Washington is particularly concerned about the R-500 cruise missile, with an estimated range of 500 kilometers, and the RS-26 ballistic missile, which could threaten the entire NATO territory. The US believes that both have been tested in a manner that violates the INF Treaty.
June 27, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Casting Doubt
The Europeans don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Members of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group concluded during the last ministers meeting that the refurbishment planned by Moscow does not violate any treaty. Weapons expert Oliver Meier, from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin, also doubts the US claims: “The RS-26 definitely does not violate the INF Treaty,” he says.
But President Obama is under enormous pressure from Congress, wiht lawmakers accusing Obama of being far too willing to give in to Putin. During a hearing several months ago, a number of representatives repeatedly interrupted Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.
But Moscow too is increasly casting doubt on the INF Treaty. “It is only a scrap of paper,” says military expert Victor Murachovski. “If NATO planes can now already reach Saint Petersburg in five minutes from Estonia, and NATO warships are cruising around the Baltic Sea and Black Sea, then this agreement is worthless for Russia.”
In German military circles, though, people are interpreting the Russian saber-rattling as a sign of weakness. Unlike during the Cold War, the Russians do not have as many conventional weapons as NATO. In response, Moscow — like the West during the Cold War — intends to rely on nuclear deterrence.
The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, currently does “not see any substantial change to the danger” posed by Russia. The nuclear threats by Moscow — Putin announced his intention to acquire 40 intercontinental missiles — were described by BND Vice-President Guido Müller, in a secret meeting in front of select lawmakers, as little more than a “propaganda show.”
According to Müller, the refurbishment plans are well known. Since a speech by Putin at the end of 2014, the upgrade has been seen as a fait accompli by the German intelligence agency. But analysts at the BND believe the chances of success are not high: Purely from a technical standpoint, the modernization of the 40 nuclear warheads in such a short period of time is hardly possible, the BND vice-president said. Russia experts at the BND describe it as “passive aggressive behavior.” What’s important to Putin is its effect on his opponent, not the degree to which his statements are true.
‘A Great Deal of Concern’
For the German government, the prospect of nuclear rearmament would be a nightmare. In the early 1980s, millions of people in Germany, as well as in Italy and the Netherlands, took to the streets because they feared a nuclear war in Europe. As an answer to the Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles, the Western allies had provided Moscow with a proposal: They were prepared to negotiate about the disarmament of these types of systems, but if the Soviet side wasn’t prepared to compromise, the West would station about 600 nuclear missiles on its side. And that’s exactly what happened.
For the German government, even the discussion about intermediate-range missiles is touchy. A huge majority of Germans don’t want new American nuclear weapons in Europe. On the contrary, they would prefer to see the last American B-61 atomic bombs stored near Büchel, in western Germany, removed.
The Social Democrats in particular remember the Nato Double-Track Decision with horror. It indirectly cost Chancellor Helmut Schmidt his office in 1982, and led the SPD to the precipice of division. It also contributed significantly to the rise of the Green Party. A new rearmament would test the party’s ability to stay together, and also erase all chance of a new coalition with the Green Party for the foreseeable future. Rolf Mützenich, deputy floor leader of the SPD in German parliament, is watching developments with “a great deal of concern.”
At the end of the 1970s, NATO’s armament plans were tied to an offer of dialogue. Today too, the West is emphasizing the need to remain in talks with Putin, but the venues that existed for such dialogue before Ukraine crisis, like the G-8 and the Nato-Russia Council, have all been put on ice. For this reason, Green politician Jürgen Trittin is pushing the German government to immediately begin an initiative to revive the Nato-Russia Council. “We are experiencing a dynamic that can quickly lead to a real arms race,” the senior Green Party member warns. Measures need to be put into place, he believes, to interrupt the “tit-for-tat” spiral. For this, the Nato-Russia Council would once again need to become a “site of dialogue.” What’s needed at the moment, he argues, is “talking instead of arming.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-danger-of-a-new-arms-race-in-europe-versus-russia-a-1039724.html
June 27, 2015 at 2:31 PM
Obama tried to do a reset with Russia and Putin played him for a fool. Payback is a bitch. Regan ran the old Soviet Union into the ground economically with the last arms race. Obama will do the same.
June 27, 2015 at 2:38 PM
Barack Obama today urged Russia to move on from the cold war and stop interfering in the affairs of neighbouring states.
In a keynote speech during his first visit as president to Moscow, Obama delivered a carefully worded critique of Russian foreign policy.
“In 2009, the great power does not show strength by dominating or demonising other countries. The days when empires could treat other sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over,” he said.
He is a stand up comedian ! what a hypocrisy !
June 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells The New York Times that Obama made some mistakes, like convincing Medvedev to refrain from blocking intervention in Libya at the U.N. Security Council — when intervention turned to regime change, Gates says, “the Russians felt they had been played for suckers on Libya” — but pins most of the blame on Putin.
June 27, 2015 at 3:12 PM
It looks like it but is not , and that is the problem .
June 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM
yep , typical an comment from an occupant of the shinning house on the hill, stupid as stupid can be, just flexing muscles, the bully on the world schoolyard, do as i told you or !!
And that is exactly the foreign politics of the USA .
Russia and China and a lot more country,s in the world are fed up with this behavior and even in the EU is the resistance against this behavior growing.
And to be practical, sins Reagan there is something changed , the almighty lion is getting old and weaker and the bad bad bear and China stronger , be careful perhaps you get straight in your face what you are hoping for Russia .
THE USA can not finance anything anymore whit out loans and or the petro dollar , losing this support will accelerate the downfall , and that losing support in going on, slowly but sure .
And that will trow the whole world in a turmoil , do we want that ?
Time for a mental upgrade , USA 2.0
you may say , time to grow up.
By the way what is happened whit that: obama is making the US weaker, it is changed to obama,s arms race overnight .
John you sound a bit frustrated, understandable, but sometimes reality bite you in the behind , afraid that the light is going out on the house on the hill ?
June 28, 2015 at 3:01 AM
The 21st century will be controlled by the board room not the war room. Those who drive technology will also be driving the world.
So let’s compare American technological developmental muscle power vs Russia. BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA . I made a funny. What comparison. BWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA.
June 28, 2015 at 3:02 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/09/the-air-forces-b-3-bomber-isnt-as-secret-as-it-seems/
June 28, 2015 at 3:02 AM
The U.S. weaker BWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHA!!!!
June 28, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Me frustrated? Joop me thinks it’s the other way around.
Nihilism:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.
June 28, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Joop, a Nihilist and a Survivalist. Let me guess, mushrooms, right? I got it, didn’t I. Better look around. 😜😜 ya never know.
June 28, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Childish JP , typical reaction of a frustrated person , can you keep your comments a bit more on a intellectual level, if you can not stand the heat , stay out of the kitchen.
Do not drag yourself down by emotional childishness .
June 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Reblogged this on boudicabpi2015 and commented:
Poking the Bear
June 28, 2015 at 3:15 AM
War with Russia will never happen.
1. No one wins a nuclear war.
2. Russia loses a conventional war.
For Russia war is a losing proposition, and an arms race will melt down its puny economy. AINT GONNA HAPPEN.
Russia is closed in and fucked.
Putin misjudged Obama and now all he can do is bluff like a gorilla in a cage.
http://theweek.com/articles/449917/what-usrussia-war-look-like
June 28, 2015 at 11:03 AM
quote :Russia is closed in and fucked.
unquote : thank you for helping making my point .
June 28, 2015 at 12:02 PM
Never say never .
1) Bull, depends on the scale of it , and the world is much bigger than the USA , Russia is nearly 2 times bigger than the USA.
2) I,am not complete sure about that , a lot will depends on China position and actions of China, and pressure from the rest of the world, war will not only won by arms anymore, you have to know that first hand, losing Vietnam had to learn you something .
By the way, it would be nice for the USA if Iran get his nukes and we are still poking the beer and pushing the bear further in a corner, smart foreign politics and a lot safer middle east .not !
And again my thanks about that remark “Russia is closed in”, and is it not a kind of funny that blind Americanism lead you from a anti obama to a pro obama person .
But thanks again, it was a nice insight you comment.
June 28, 2015 at 3:20 AM
The U.S. weaker, BBBBWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA
In the coming weeks, the U.S. Air Force will announce the biggest defense deal of the decade. It will also be the last contract for a new manned combat aircraft for probably 20 years.
Whoever wins the bid will have years’ worth of manufacturing work. Whoever loses may have to exit the business of building piloted military aircraft.
The Long Range Strike-Bomber will replace an aging bomber fleet whose oldest aircraft go back to the Korean War.The Air Force has revealed little about what it wants out of the new bomber, but one thing is clear: it does not want an explosive price tag. The most recent bomber contract went to Northrop Grumman for the B-2, which first flew in 1989. The Pentagon purchased only 21 of the sleek, stealthy aircraft, at a cost of $2 billion each.
This time, the Air Force wants to buy up to 100 bombers and keep the price to $550 million per aircraft. Add in an estimated $20 billion for research and development, and the total value of the contract could close in on $80 billion. The new bomber should be airborne in 10 years.
Many wonder—with good reason, given the recent history of military aircraft contracts—whether the cost can really be kept to $550 million per plane. One strategy may be to build a plane that uses existing technology with an open architecture that allows future upgrades.
Northrop Grumman (NOC) is again competing for the new bomber, and it’s touting its experience in a . “This is what we do,” the ad says.
However, Northrop faces potent competition. Boeing (BA) and Lockheed Martin (LMT) have teamed together for a rival bid. Boeing has experience ramping up aircraft manufacturing, and Lockheed has developed state-of-the-art stealth technology.
“Given the secrecy surrounding the program and the acquisition process, it is impossible to have an informed view on who will win, and there are compelling arguments both ways,” writes Roman Schweitzer, a defense analyst at Guggenheim Securities.
Schweitzer speculates that if the Air Force imposes a fixed-price, incentive-free contract for the first 20 aircraft, it could favor “the deep pockets of the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team and allow them to be more aggressive on their proposal than Northrop may choose to be.”
If Northrop loses, it would be a terrible blow to the company’s aerospace systems division, especially after losing a major Air Force refueling tanker contract to Boeing in 2011.
“If Northrop were to lose, then this would likely stir expectations of further consolidation in the U.S. defense industry, with Northrop a potential seller down the line,” writes Robert Stallard for RBC Capital Markets. That may not be a bad thing. “For Northrop’s shareholders, this could be a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation.” He has an “outperform” rating on the stock.
If Boeing loses, it will be a black mark for the company’s incoming CEO. Some analysts have suggested Boeing may buy Northrop, but outgoing CEO Jim McNerney this month “that is not a thought that has occurred to us.”
Both California and Florida are offering to become the manufacturing home for the new bomber. California may have the edge, even though the cost of doing business is higher there. Both teams already have established facilities in Palmdale, California, and last year the state offered $420 million in credits first to Lockheed, and then to Northrop, if they agree to build the bomber in the Golden State.
“Other states are luring what is ours and trying to take it from us,” said California State Sen. Steve Knight. “If California is not competitive, then shame on us.”
Lockheed Martin may be a winner either way. It still has the mammoth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and while being part of the new bomber team would obviously boost its bottom line even more, “a loss may have some value as well,” writes Guggenheim’s Schweitzer. Losing would help “one of the company’s largest suppliers and frequent partners (Northrop) stay healthy and would hurt one of its biggest strategic competitors (Boeing).”
June 28, 2015 at 4:50 AM
I agree with you JP. I’d rather see the US stand strong against Russia. Reagan did it and brought the whole damned Soviet system down. Russia should not be allowed to run freely and dominate any part of the world. They are still communists and the fact that they supported and continue to support fascists such as Assad, Arafat, the Mullahs in Tehran, the Castro brothers, and other regimes throughtout history that have butchered their people and those of other countries should speak volumes about their threat to mankind. I say keep the pressure on and give them hell. They deserve it and Israel will be much safer without Russia wreaking havoc all over the neighborhood.
June 28, 2015 at 5:50 AM
Yup, time for Putin to go down!
June 28, 2015 at 11:10 AM
a matter of time , but is it only Putin ?
June 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Perhaps you notice and forgot it, there is no more Sovjet union , but there is Russia .
Quote : Russia should not be allowed to run freely and dominate any part of the world.
Unquote : The big bully has spoken, Thank you.
Quote : They are still communists
Unquote : not true , but even if true , so what ?
Quote : the fact that they supported and continue to support fascists such as Assad, Arafat, the Mullahs in Tehran, the Castro brothers, and other regimes throughtout history that have butchered their people and those of other countries
Unquote : that happens if you push them in a corner, and the USA does not do the same ? you are full of hypocrisy, Just one example USA , support for Morsi and his gang of murdering moslime butchers , do you really want a list of the same sh1t done by the USA .
Further more : Gen Westley Clark explains how there was a plan to invade and take over 7 countries in 5 years. He was told, “we have a good military AND we can take down governments“…. the plan was revealed to Clark right after we first started bombing Afghanistan and it went like this; Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.
Quote : I say keep the pressure on and give them hell. They deserve it and Israel will be much safer without Russia wreaking havoc all over the neighborhood.
Unquote : Thank another typical big bully thing , give them hell , no it is the USA who fucked up in Iraq, Libya and now with Iran, And it is NOT better for Israel, cooperation with Russia would be much better in the middle east but Russia can not trust the USA after the USA breaks agreement after agreement .
Conclusion, you are just a good USA citizen complete saturated with it Americanism virus , keep the lights on in the shinning house on the hill, it will become more difficult if time pass by .
June 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM
and when will it all fly according specs ?
And how are you gonna pay for it ?
Perhaps you can close some of the USA basis at the Russian border and retreat to you own real estate, would save some money.
And stop to fill Europe up with expensive middle range nukes ( i know it, it is bad, battlefield Europe is so convenient for war mongering USA )