Russia ‘retains right’ to pre-emptive strike on US-backed missile system in Europe









A top Russian military official says Moscow retains the right to a preemptive strike on the US-led missile system in Europe if Washington refuses to engage in constructive dialog over the issue.

“Considering the destabilizing nature of the [American] ABM system, namely the creation of an illusion of inflicting a disarming [nuclear] strike with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive deployment of assault weapons could be taken when the situation gets harder,” Chief of General Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces General Nikolay Makarov said on Thursday.

Speaking at the Moscow Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) conference, Makarov said Russia has no plans to deploy its missile defense facilities outside its national territory.

“We did not and do not have plans to deploy Russian missile defense facilities outside of national territory. Such an approach would exclude the influence of Russian missile defense facilities on the deterrence…

View original post 156 more words

15 thoughts on “Russia ‘retains right’ to pre-emptive strike on US-backed missile system in Europe

      • I pray they fail. To see what their agenda is and where they wish to take it is a frightening vision.
        I suppose much depends on Russian and Chinese, increasingly Indian reactions. When people start to rebel, and they are, events go against even the most cunning plans. Frankly they are desperate, their actions recently show this.
        A key is Nato. Whether a new socialist government in France will play the CIA tune as Sarko has remains to be seen. With a fractured Europe and nationalism rising this is hard to control.Nations will default, they have no choice. Rather ironic that the monster of their creation, usury, will most likely be their downfall.

  1. Interesting David, thanks. Unable to get their own way they may reinvent the wheel!
    Well at least the armaments industry will be happy 🙂

  2. On the other hand, the countries Russia is threatening to attack are sovereign nations and have a right to defend themselves. How would Russia respond if Poland, Romania, Turkey or any other nation demanded that they take down their defensive weapons systems? Don’t these nations also have a right to defend themselves? Why does Russia get to dictate to a sovereign nation who their allies are or what defensive systems they install on their territory?

    • A very valid point but should the U.S not take some responsibility for relations between other countries.This action could inflame the situation would it not be better judgement to look for a less controversial location.

      • Granted. The problem, I think (and I’m certainly not an expert), is the trajectories for missiles from Iran that would threaten Europe and/or the U.S. pretty much have to go over Russia and her neighbors. I think a more productive approach would be to eliminate the basic threat together – but that isn’t in Russia’s interests. They could have done a lot at the outset to dissuade Iran from seeking nukes.

  3. The root of this problem, at least my perspective, is a US led neo con and corporate one. They have deliberately provoked Russia, also China. Now who can blame them for reacting? The very secretive bankster cabal call these shots, not countries. Increasingly the Nato Alliance is just a branch of the UNs military influence.
    Had Nato been disbanded as the Warpac was, well then the Russians would feel less threatened, but no, push, push and push. Also there are the “PFP” countries, increasingly part of multinational military aggression.

    It is too easy to blame Russia, China and others. The US wants war, it is an aggressive and nasty regime, lickspittle countries like my own do not help. I was once part of this whole damned lie, I thank God I saw through it, as do millions.
    The sooner this lie ends, the better for mankind.

    • Interesting point about Russia and Afghanistan. I guess you mean had the Russians won in Afghanistan, there would have been no Taliban hosting terrorists who eventually attacked the U.S. Hard to say what would have happened over time.
      The current situation is complicated, but in my opinion if the U.S., NATO, and the countries who joined PFP to develop post-Soviet, civilian-controlled, professional militaries did so to get away from Russian influence. I’m sure that makes Russia uncomfortable. Are we supposed to throw the baltic nations and the caucasus under the bus, or tank as it were, despite their wishes, just to make the Russians less paranoid?
      Originally, when PFP started, the idea was for Russia to join the rest of the world in a less martial, democratic atmosphere.
      The problem here isn’t the “neocon encirclement of Russia,” for which there are no doubt some who are fans, but I don’t believe they control anything more than their own fantasies – the problem remains that the countries on the perimeter of Russia do not wish to be under their control, they continue to lean toward the west, and that makes Russia nervous. Russia isn’t comfortable unless they control, not partnered with, control, the Caucasus, the baltic, the Ukraine, the “stans, etc…
      It’s not about blame. It’s about the dual reality – Russia wants to control the perimeter and the perimeter countries don’t want to be controlled by Russia. I understand both sides, but I only agree with one.

      • Those are interesting views. I suppose my somewhat cynical view of Nato, but particularly the US is based on its appetite for war. Lets be honest, large armaments corporations stand to lose if Leviathan is not fed. Banksters lose as well, as do the professional military. Hence the directed history via socially dominant themes such as a “war on terror”.
        As in Israel, western populations are fed a diet of fear, they swallow it and, in the main part, accept increasingly draconian laws to “protect”. What from?

        The object of these new elements of “The Great Game” are world government via the UN. US imperialism has replaced British. Both the City and Wall Street call the tune presently. What they cannot seem to grasp, increasingly, is more people are not swallowing their lies.

        You do have a point about the satellite smaller countries, but this is where the UN is supposed to, but fails to, guarantee their rights. I guess that is real politik, historically I do not point fingers at Russia or China as peoples. Just marxism. Which has spread as the chosen method of western control over its own populations.

        Now I pose a question. If Ron Paul came to power would this be the same? I doubt it.
        Western government has forgotten one thing. Government is there to serve the people, not the other way round.
        When we get back to that simple situation, well, I have a feeling we would see a different world evolving.

      • Your points are well taken, though I have the American view of the UN’s ability to control or manage anything. We’ll have to just guess about what a Paul presidency would be like in regards to foreign policy and the military. I appreciate your point of view and enjoyed the discussion.

  4. I am with Cromwell on this one shifting the responsibility and thinking of the past doesn’t help the current situation.If the past is used you could say that Russia winning their war in Afghanistan would have actually been to U.S/NATO advantage.

Leave a Reply to Cromwellsheart Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s