| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| US to deploy long-range weapons in Germany |
| 2024-07-13 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Text taken from the Telegram pages of vatfor and nuclear_stormbringer Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics [ColonelCassad] An American-German statement thundered from the sidelines of the Washington summit about the appearance of "long-range strike weapons" (who are they kidding, we are talking about medium-range missiles) in Germany in 2026. What, again, was veiledly stated - in the pictures. They are waiting for them in Mainz-Kassel. The essence was commented on for thematic materials of Kommersant and Vedomosti. Traditionally, the author's version of our considerations. Nothing unexpected happened: sooner or later the so-called "multi-domain task forces" (Multi-Domain Task Force), one of which (2 MDTF) is deployed as part of the 56th Artillery Command just in Germany, were supposed to get their "long arm". The fresh American-German statement mentions very specific "products" of the army missile systems "Typhon" and "Dark Eagle", the appearance of which, despite the lack of direct instructions, is directly related to the US withdrawal from the #INF Treaty. It is funny that there is no mention of the third model of missile weapon related to this plot - the operational-tactical missile system PrSM, which is integrated with fairly widespread launchers such as HIMARS and M270 and is reliably capable of hitting targets at ranges exceeding 500 km. Incidentally, these launchers are also included in the MDTF. In the political dimension, we are now witnessing the funeral of not only the INF Treaty, but also the Russian "moratorium". It seems that the Americans and partly their allies have convinced themselves that the so-called "dual solution" of NATO perfectly solved all their problems in the 1980s (and did not contribute to the past Euro-missile crisis and did not put the world on the brink of a nuclear war, for example, in 1983), and they completely ignore the internal political processes in the USSR and, in general, the traditionally significant role of the disarmament agenda in Soviet foreign policy. There are huge doubts that their attempt to play out a similar combination now, and especially in relation to two very different opponents (Russia and China) in a completely different international military-political (and economic and social) situation, will increase anyone’s security. At the same time, the US is emphasizing the non-nuclear nature of its medium-range missiles in every possible way, and no changes are in sight. Theoretically, making nuclear versions is not the biggest problem, but today the American nuclear weapons complex is struggling to cope with current tasks, and adding new warheads to current projects will be very difficult in terms of limited resources - human, financial, industrial, and even fissile materials and plutonium pits. Whether today's statement is connected with the evolution of Russian approaches is a debatable issue, but perhaps it served as an additional argument for obtaining Germany's consent for such deployment. * * * DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. The public is interested in what we have to say about the prospects for the production and deployment of domestic medium-range missiles. 1. We would very much like to know how things are going with the development and testing of the relevant products, which, as is known, were supposed to be completed back in 2019-2020. At the same time, we do not rule out that everything is already ready, moreover, we do not rule out combat use. Such are the times. Note: Links to mil.ru require a VPN on a Russian open VPN server to view. 2. What exactly we will see, if we see it, is a question. Perhaps, it will certainly be a full-fledged "grounded" Kalibr, but what kind of medium-range hypersonic complex is still not entirely clear. The obvious option is a land version of the "Zircon", or a conditional 9M723UTTH, or something in between. Although, again, the times are such that they can roll out the Rubezh-B3. Or they can do something together with our new friends from the Wrong Square of Evil. 3. When this will happen - the devil knows, but most likely it will happen. Where - is also a big question, here the new Leningrad Military District can "play", or, on the contrary, the Far East can be in the forefront, especially since from there it is possible, if desired and able, to reach the USA. 4. In any case, the arms race is gradually acquiring the character of a classic arms race, and even with a pronounced multilateral character. And the security dilemma works flawlessly, so we will see a lot of land-based missiles in the near future, including in our Europes, both ballistic and cruise. And in Asia they will not remain in debt, the worst Korea will not let you lie. As we like to repeat ( https://t.me/vatfor/8105), no one promised that a multipolar world would be safer. 5. Sooner or later, if we live long enough, and these new-old toys are taken up with control and reduction, the alternatives are much worse. And more expensive. P.S. Don't doubt it, we will have all this stuff in double performance, as they say, for the Russians, everything that is larger than an ATGM receives a special warhead by default. Such are the traditions. As I wrote even before the SVO, the nuclear missile arms race is inevitable. The emerging multipolar world will be a very dangerous place. Related from regnum.ru Russian Foreign Ministry calls for introducing clearer wording into the nuclear doctrine The experience of the special military operation in Ukraine has shown the inadequacy of general formulations in the Russian nuclear doctrine, so it is necessary to introduce more precise definitions in it in order to show Western countries the possible consequences of their actions, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Sergei Ryabkov said on July 12 on Channel One. He noted that NATO members ignore Russia's potential in this area, they are clearly convinced that the worst will not happen, despite any steps they take against common sense. Because of this, clearer provisions are needed in the nuclear doctrine so that Western countries understand what will happen if they continue to act in this way, the deputy minister added. “The political deafness of those who shape the position of Washington, Brussels, and other Western capitals in this area is all-encompassing; therapeutic measures in terms of some verbal signals are working less and less,” Ryabkov said. The Deputy Foreign Minister also accused NATO of lack of restraint in the area of nuclear deterrence. He called this a characteristic feature of the alliance. NATO is trying to dominate in the area of nuclear weapons, but these aspirations are doomed, Ryabkov noted. As reported by the Regnum news agency, on June 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow was considering a possible change to its nuclear doctrine in response to the West lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. At the same time, he emphasized that there was no need to envisage the possibility of a preventive nuclear strike. The head of state also noted that Russia was monitoring the growth of threats and would respond to them adequately. On June 23, the head of the State Duma Defense Committee Andrei Kartapolov announced a possible adjustment to the nuclear doctrine. He noted that this depends on changes in the military-political situation. If threats and challenges increase, Russia may make amendments to the document, the deputy added. More related from regnum.ru Foreign Ministry assesses the prospects for dialogue on strategic stability between Russia and the United States Under the current conditions, dialogue on strategic stability between Russia and the United States is by definition impossible. This was stated on July 12 by Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkov on Channel One. Ryabkov noted that at the moment, dialogue between Moscow and Washington has been reduced to a minimum, and this was not the fault of the Russian side. The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs clarified that in some respects, Russia, for reasons of principle, does not confirm its readiness to meet the US halfway, explaining that he means a dialogue on strategic stability and prospects for nuclear arms control. "They consider us an enemy that must be defeated, and at the same time, without blinking an eye, they propose to conduct such a dialogue. This is impossible by definition," he said. As reported by the Regnum news agency, on July 11, the head of state's press secretary Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia is ready to discuss strategic security issues only as a whole, and not their individual aspects. He emphasized that the Russian side will not discuss individual elements taken out of the general context of security. A Kremlin spokesman noted on June 21 that the Russian side, as President Vladimir Putin had previously stated, was ready for a U.S. dialogue on nuclear security, but it should be comprehensive. Peskov added that dialogue on these issues was necessary because without it, global security problems were growing. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #1 Zelenskyy says Ukraine can't win war unless US lifts limits on striking military targets in Russia |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-07-13 04:45 |