You are herecontent / With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S. Moves Missiles And Troops To Russian Border

With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S. Moves Missiles And Troops To Russian Border


With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S. Moves Missiles And Troops To Russian Border
Rick Rozoff | Stop NATO | Blog site

2010 is proceeding in a manner more befitting the third month of the year, named after the Roman god of war, than the first whose name is derived from a pacific deity.

On January 13 the Associated Press reported that the White House will submit its Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress on February 1 and request a record-high $708 billion for the Pentagon. That figure is the highest in absolute and in inflation-adjusted, constant (for any year) dollars since 1946, the year after the Second World War ended. Adding non-Pentagon defense-related spending, the total may exceed $1 trillion.

The $708 billion includes for the first time monies for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which in prior years were in part funded by periodic supplemental requests, but excludes what the above-mentioned report adds is the first in the new administration's emergency requests for the same purpose: A purported $33 billion.

Already this month several NATO nations have pledged more troops, even before the January 28 London conference on Afghanistan when several thousand additional forces may be assigned for the war there, in addition to over 150,000 already serving or soon to serve under U.S. and NATO command.

Washington has increased lethal drone missile attacks in Pakistan, and calls for that model to be replicated in Yemen have been made recently, most notably by Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who on January 13 also advocated air strikes and special forces operations in the country. [1]

The Pentagon will begin the deployment of 1,400 personnel to Colombia to man seven new bases under a 10-year military agreement signed last October 30. [2]

This year the U.S. will also complete the $110 million dollar construction of new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania to house at least 4,000 American troops. [3]

The Pentagon's newest regional command, Africa Command, will expand its activities on and off the coasts of that continent beyond current counterinsurgency operations in Somalia, Mali and Uganda and drone flights from a newly acquired site in Seychelles. [4]

But this month has brought even more dramatic and dangerous news. The Pentagon has authorized the completion of a $6.5 billion arms deal with Taiwan with an agreement to deliver 200 Patriot Advanced Capability anti-ballistic missiles. The People's Republic of China is infuriated, as Washington would be if the situation were reversed and Beijing provided a comparable arsenal of weapons to, for example, an independent Puerto Rico. [5]

As though that action was not provocative enough however, on January 20 the Polish Defense Ministry announced that a U.S. Patriot missile battery, and the 100 American soldiers who will operate it, would not be based on the outskirts of the capital of Warsaw as previously announced but in the Baltic Sea city of Morag, 35 miles [6] from Poland's border with Russia.

The missile battery and troops are scheduled to arrive in March or April. As part of the Obama administration's new missile shield project, one which will be integrated with NATO to take in all of Europe and extend into the Middle East and the Caucasus, the Patriots will be followed by Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor deployments on warships in the Baltic Sea and, for the first time ever, a land-based version of the same. "The Pentagon will deploy command posts of SM-3 missiles, which can intercept both short- and mid-range missiles...." [7] An SM-3 was used by the Pentagon to shoot a satellite out of orbit in February of 2008 to give an indication of its range.

Further deployments will follow.

The new, post-George W. Bush administration, interceptor missile system will employ "existing missile systems based on land and at sea....Deployment of the revised missile defense would extend through 2020. The first step is to put existing sea-based weapons systems on Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers. [8]

"Subsequently, a mobile radar system would be deployed in a European nation....More advanced, mobile systems would be put in place later elsewhere in Europe. Their centerpiece would be...Lockheed's Terminal High Altitude Defense interceptor missiles and improved Standard Missile-3 IB missiles made by...Raytheon." [9]

Last December Washington signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that formalizes plans for "the United States military to station American troops and military equipment on Polish territory" and "opens the way for the promised Patriot missiles and US troops to be stationed in Poland...as part of an upgrading of NATO air defences in Europe." [10]

In October, shortly after U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Warsaw to finalize the plan, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski met with his opposite number from the U.S., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow, and announced that the American missiles "will be combat-ready, not dummy varieties as Washington earlier suggested." The same report added that "Earlier, Ukrainian and American officials stated that Ukrainian territory may be used in some way in the new antimissile shield." [11] Poland borders Russia's Kaliningrad enclave, but Ukraine has a 1,576 kilometer (979 mile) border with Russia.

The State Department issued a press release on the agreement to deploy American troops to Poland, the first foreign forces to be based there since the end of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, which stated "The agreement will facilitate a range of mutually agreed activities including joint training and exercises, deployments of U.S. military personnel, and prospective Ballistic Missile Defense deployments." [12]

A Pentagon spokesperson said "U.S. Army Europe will help the Polish Armed Forces develop their air and missile defense capabilities. Considering the cooperative training we already do with the Polish Armed Forces, this Patriot training program is just another extension of that effort." [13]

If earlier plans to deploy ground-based midcourse missiles to Poland evoked, however implausibly, an alleged Iranian missile threat, the Patriots can only be meant for Russia.

Russian Lieutenant-General Aitech Bizhev, former commander of the United Air Defense System of the Commonwealth of Independent States, told one of his nation's main news agencies:

"It's completely unclear why the air defense group of the northern flank of
NATO needed strengthening - NATO has manifold superiority over Russian
conventional armaments as it is.

"It can't be ruled out that the stationing of the Patriots in Poland may be
followed by other actions in building up the American military infrastructure in Eastern Europe...." [14]

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms expired on December 5 and has been extended, but no agreement has been reached on a new pact, 48 days later.

At the end of last year Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was asked about the delay and identified the main impediment to resolving it: "What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one."

He further defined the problem: "If we are not developing an anti-missile shield, then there is a danger that our partners, by creating such 'an umbrella,' will feel completely secure and thus can allow themselves to do what they want, disrupting the balance, and aggressiveness will rise immediately."

In respect to how prospects for the reduction, much less elimination, of nuclear arms in Europe and North America were faring, Putin added, "In order to preserve balance...we need to develop offensive weapons systems," [15] reiterating a statement by his nation's president, Dmitry Medvedev, a week before. The timing of the announcement that the Pentagon will soon station Patriot missiles so close to Russian territory will not help matters. Nor was the State Department's contention that "the START follow-on agreement is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing" the issue of "missile offense and defense." [16]

A month before, Russian news media revealed that "Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), the land-based component of the nuclear triad, will put on combat duty a second regiment equipped with Topol-M mobile missile systems by the end of 2009.

"The Topol-M missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 km), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors [for example Patriot missiles], and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys." [17]

Just as supplying Taiwan with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) theater anti-ballistic missiles led China to conduct a ground-based, midcourse missile interception on January 11, so moving U.S. military hardware and troops nearer Russia bodes poorly for a nuclear arms reduction agreement.

On the non-strategic front, the 1990 Treaty On Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) limiting the amount and expansion of major armaments on the continent is also seriously jeopardized by U.S. and NATO missile shield plans. The adapted CFE (Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) of 1999 has not been ratified by any member of NATO, which has linked it with so-called frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union. The August 2008 Georgia-Russia war was a consequence of that obstructionist and belligerent policy. The establishment of permanent U.S. and NATO military bases in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania and now Poland is a gross violation of and may prove the death knell for the CFE.

Russia suspended the observance of its treaty obligations under the CFE on July 14, 2007 because of "extraordinary circumstances...which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures." [18]

The circumstances alluded to were the U.S. project of establishing missile interception facilities in Eastern Europe and the general movement of NATO bases and forces to the Baltic and Black Sea regions.

On November 29 of last year Russia "released a draft of a proposal for a new European security agreement the Kremlin says should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)." [19]

Chinese analysts Yu Maofeng and Lu Jingli contend that Moscow was motivated by its concerns over U.S. and NATO missile plans, NATO's eastward expansion to its borders, the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, Western-sponsored "color revolutions" in other former Soviet states and NATO members' non-ratification of the Treaty On Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. [20]

For the past thirty years each successive American president has unveiled an ostensible plan to eliminate nuclear weapons, if none before now has received the Nobel Peace Prize while in office [21]. Each in turn then escalated reckless arms buildups and armed aggression abroad in an effort to achieve global military dominance. The current U.S. commander-in-chief with his foreign policy entourage of Robert Gates, James Jones and Hillary Clinton is no exception. [22]

###

1) Yemen: Pentagon’s War On The Arabian Peninsula
Stop NATO, December 15, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/yemen-pentagons-war-on-the-ar...
2) Rumors Of Coups And War: U.S., NATO Target Latin America
Stop NATO, November 18, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/rumors-of-coups-and-war-u-s-n...
3) Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bas...
4) AFRICOM Year Two: Seizing The Helm Of The Entire World
Stop NATO, October 22, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/africom-year-two-taking-the-h...
5) U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow
Stop NATO, January 19, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/u-s-china-military-tensions-grow
6) New York Times, January 21, 2010
7) Voice of Russia, December 14, 2009
8) U.S. Missile Shield System Deployments: Larger, Sooner, Broader
Stop NATO, September 27, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/u-s-missile-shield-system-dep...
Black Sea, Caucasus: U.S. Moves Missile Shield South And East
Stop NATO,September 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/283
U.S. Expands Global Missile Shield Into Middle East, Balkans
Stop NATO, September 11, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/u-s-expands-global-missile-sh...
9) Bloomberg News, January 14, 2010
10) Polish Radio, December 11, 2009
11) Russia Today, October 16, 2009
12) Stars and Stripes, December 21, 2009
13) Ibid
14) Interfax Ukraine, January 20, 2010
15) Reuters, December 29, 2009
16) Ibid
17) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2009
18) Time, July 14, 2007
19) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 30, 2009
20) Strategic considerations behind Russian proposal for new
European security treaty
Xinhua News Agency, December 1, 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/02/content_12571639.htm
21) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-fo...
22) White House And Pentagon: Change, Continuity And Escalation
Stop NATO, March 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/white-house-and-pentagon-chan...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He's been very specially focusing on U.S. and NATO military build-up(s) or expansions similar to the way he did with this article for some years now; as can be seen with his author index at www.globalresearch.ca, which has quite a few of his articles. Because he very specially focuses on this topic, the only person I know of doing this, too, I am always ready to recommend that people pay attention to his articles.

Global dominance is what the real rulers of the government of the USA are after and this has been very evident for several years now; it's only becoming increasingly evident as the clock keeps ticking forward. Pepe Escobar and some other people refer to it as full spectrum dominance, though possibly also global dominance, for (I believe, anyway) the former at least usually is about U.S. military dominance, globally, including from space. The U.S. is the military superpower on land, sea and air, and the U.S. military has plans for adding to this with dominance from space. That's specifically referred to in the U.S. military's Vision 2020 project plans, which some articles at GlobalResearch.ca have referred to or described in terms of full spectrum (military) dominance.

And the military of the U.S. rather always serves the "interests" of the economic rulers of the U.S. government, the usurped government, that is, which includes financial, MIC, energy, perhaps mineral, and maybe other industries. They're "the boys" the military, the CIA (ops branch), the N.E.D., USAID, etcetera, serve.

The U.S., including with NATO, cannot [conquer] the world, most likely can't conquer even only Afghanistan or Iraq, but this team, the U.S. and NATO, clearly can create severe destabilization and thereby gain considerable dominance; on a country-by-country and regional basis, but while I think also globally. It would not be for every country, but it seems clear that all would be affected. Prof. Peter Dale Scott wrote an article I believe last fall, or I think that's when I read a copy at www.globalresearch.ca anyway, and he explained that the U.S., including with NATO, can't possibly conquer Afghanistan, but would gain considerable dominance through severe and maintained destabilization. I agree with him about that, but also think we can consider this on a more, if not a fully, global scale.

Either way, it means U.S. empire and NATO expansionism and war; and with no near end in sight. NATO partners apparently aren't particularly comfortable with all of this, but they apparently do want to provide a (so-called) justification for the continuation of NATO, for if it wasn't for this expansionism of it, then it seems that there'd be no justifiable reason for its continued existence. That, from what I recall reading about it anyway, is because NATO's creation was due to the U.S. Cold War with or against the former USSR.

Regarding what Rick Rozoff says in the above article about Russia and words from former President and present PM Vladimir Putin, a little that just came to mind was omitted. Then President Putin and/or some of his top military commanders clearly stated a number of times a couple or few years ago that if Russia's anti-missile defence system, or anti-nuclear missle defence system, detected any missiles heading in the direction of Russia, even if fired at Iran and not Russia, then Russia's defence system would immediately kick into active mode and would launch nuclear missiles in retaliation. What was additionally said about that is that after around 10 to 15 seconds (I think the articles said), the system can't be disabled; it [will] fire, there being no way to stop it after this very short time-frame. And I believe articles also said that these missiles are or would be aimed at the U.S. and possibly parts of western Europe.

If those articles were truthful about this latter "little" matter, then I suppose U.S. military and intelligence would know about this and that the U.S. would, therefore, NOT fire any missiles in the direction of Russia; even if the U.S. wasn't targeting Russia. Or maybe they think their, the USA's, that is, technology of war can "outsmart" the Russian missile defence system(s) and missiles(?).

GWoT, short for Global War [of] Terrorism, enough to terrorize all of humanity and is, therefore, globally terrorizing or terrifying. At least the White House got the GW and T parts right; just screwing up in or by pretending that the 'o' means "on". Otoh, maybe the rulers of the U.S. were terrified of the fact that most of humanity is opposed to their globally expansive greed, killing, destruction, etc., which are aimed at achieving their "interests", while we're usually and falsely told that they're the "national interests" and "security" of the USA.

This is a terrifying war-footing that the real rulers of the usurped government of the USA have been placing all of us on for their poorly disguised "train ride to hell".

Either U.S. troops don't get much inside news on U.S. military expansion, or else they're awfully deaf, blind, ... unable to [think] about what it is they're actually serving; what it is, and who the served parties are, that is. If they are aware of this, then they should realise that their first oath of service is to the Constitution and that this oath can't be overridden or replaced with serving the usurpers of the Constitution and international laws, conventions and treaties the U.S. is a co-signatory of or to.

They need to DISSENT. Until they do, there evidently is basically no way for the population in the U.S. to be able to stop this path of war and military expansionism that the U.S. "leadership" has the country on. Most of U.S. law enforcement does like the military, which is to serve the "interests" and dictats of the leading usurpers, so The People in the U.S. have only themselves to turn to. I'm a U.S. citizen, but live in Canada, with no means of physically being present in the U.S., so all I can say is that the country's in BIG TROUBLE(s) and our government's been HIJACKED by usurpers of the supremely criminal kind; and these fiends live richly at everyone else's expense.

It's just colateral damage, unavoidably part of "doing business", they say?! If they don't say it, then they nevertheless do clearly believe it and live according to this principle of theirs, anyway.

Voters will hopefully provide great changes for real improvements in 2010 and 2012. And I don't hold much hope in this happening, but definitely hope that it does. If it doesn't happen, then what other hope is there in stopping this U.S., and NATO, war path? I don't see any other way; except for the eventual (some day, some time) self-implosion of these war and war-for-economics projects. Which will come first?

Mike Corbeil

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.