RF Announces Right to Move Nukes to Crimea, Ukraine Calls on The World Community

[ArmyATC]

Russia Finally Announces Right to Move Nukes To Crimea

Russia has the right to house nuclear weapons on its territory, if it deems this move to be necessary, while this also includes the option of stationing them in Crimea, a statement from the Foreign Ministry read.

“Russia obviously retains the right, if needed, to deploy its nuclear weapons anywhere on its national territory, including on the Crimean Peninsula,” the Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Mikhail Ulyanov told the RIA Novosti news agency on Monday.

Ulyanov’s statement comes in response to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin saying in May that the deployment of Russian arms in Crimea would violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“Any activity or even signals from Russia that they are even considering deploying nuclear weapons in Crimea will be considered a grave breach of the international code of conduct. If this happens, the international community will need to act decisively,” Klimkin said.


This is not a very good way to start the day. Apparently now the nuclear option is being played in Crimea. Knew it would be a matter of time since the rumblings were growing from the Kremlin. Ukraine gets up in arms about conventional weapons in Crimea, and Russia just goes all in.. Wow!

You see how they are working this NPT angle. Knew them pulling out would lead to problems. Also in the article, that term 'missle shield' comes up, only now Russia wants it in writing we will not deploy them. They also mention arms reduction. Lots of info.

http://rt.com/news/263781-russia-nuclear-arms-crimea/

 

[AlbertGrand]

It's a worryingly Cuba-like stand off.

Russia saying to the US "You continue your missile defence, we will put nuclear weapons on Crimea."

Having said that, I'm sure I read as far back as March that people on here thought there were already nuclear weapons in Crimea - that it's just a question of publicising it?

Ukraine is probably worried by the development, posted on here in GD, of Russia withdrawing its support for Assad in some sort of 'deal' with the US. What has the US offered in return?

 

[ArmyATC]

It's a worryingly Cuba-like stand off.

Russia saying to the US "You continue your missile defence, we will put nuclear weapons on Crimea."

Having said that, I'm sure I read as far back as March that people on here thought there were already nuclear weapons in Crimea - that it's just a question of publicising it?

Ukraine is probably worried by the development, posted on here in GD, of Russia withdrawing its support for Assad in some sort of 'deal' with the US. What has the US offered in return?

My thoughts exactly on the 'missle defense' card. And yes there have been rumblings about nukes in Crimea out of the Kremlin for a while. It seems the flashpoint was, according to the Artist formerly known as RT , that Ukraine apparently was trying to invoke the NPT a while back to prevent any arms to Crimea. Russia naturally just pulled out, then upped the ante.

As to the timing, you have the proof RF MOD faked the MH17 report (the RF is losing the propaganda war), the Syria announcement (major factor), and Kerry in Sochi. All laid the groundwork. Remember Russia is still in on the Iran deal, so there is dialogue. But this should leave no doubt that Ukrainian support will be utilized as a bargaining chip. It will be used by both sides to get the finishing touches on any overarching deal. So it's still a pawn, and as the deal goes, so goes Ukraine.

The point on Syria. It was the objective all along, and Ukraine was used as a pawn to get it IMO. And that is why Russia wants assurances the US won't sail it's Aegis near Crimea (missle defense), thus the scare off. It's one heck of a pickle. But I wouldn't be surprised with all the hawks on both sides, if this little agreement is shaky at best.

 

[Xexmi]

Having said that, I'm sure I read as far back as March that people on here thought there were already nuclear weapons in Crimea - that it's just a question of publicising it?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they already have nuclear bombers in Crimea or at least they had moved some there a couple months ago. They're only saying they have the right to, and they are not doing it right now. Nukes will most likely be moved there to test NATO but I don't think we will retaliate that much.

 

[ArmyATC]

The intent of discussion is not on whether or not Russia has had or does have nukes in Crimea. Point of emphasis is on officially acknowledging for the first time the right to do so.

The difference being that when Putin made his one year anniversary of Crimea speech, he said he put his nuclear forces on alert over the issue. He did not mention a permanent Russian nuclear contingent inside Europe. So the change in policy, not the reports of transitory nukes in Crimea, is the main topic.

This would be a move that would nullify ejust about every arms control agreement the US and Russia have in place. Much like if the US annexed Afghanistan or some other place and officially say we have the right now to establish a permanent nuclear command. Very serious change in policy.

Dang, hope that doesn't sound rude, just trying to explain

 

[AlbertGrand]

This would be a move that would nullify ejust about every arms control agreement the US and Russia have in place. Much like if the US annexed Afghanistan or some other place and officially say we have the right now to establish a permanent nuclear command. Very serious change in policy.

Dang, hope that doesn't sound rude, just trying to explain

Ah no worries.

Anyway, as far as Russia is concerned, the 'missile defence' will nullify all the agreements as well. Does the phrase 'more trouble than its worth' come to mind? The problem is, if US now rolls back its ideas, the likes of Romania and Poland will be angry, and the Americans - not necessarily Obama, but the hawks in the administration - will not want to show weakness.

I think Obama is pretty disengaged now anyway - this administration is being run by Ash Carter and Philip Breedlove by the looks of it! :?

 

[ArmyATC]

This would be a move that would nullify ejust about every arms control agreement the US and Russia have in place. Much like if the US annexed Afghanistan or some other place and officially say we have the right now to establish a permanent nuclear command. Very serious change in policy.

Dang, hope that doesn't sound rude, just trying to explain

Ah no worries.

Anyway, as far as Russia is concerned, the 'missile defence' will nullify all the agreements as well. Does the phrase 'more trouble than its worth' come to mind? The problem is, if US now rolls back its ideas, the likes of Romania and Poland will be angry, and the Americans - not necessarily Obama, but the hawks in the administration - will not want to show weakness.

I think Obama is pretty disengaged now anyway - this administration is being run by Ash Carter and Philip Breedlove by the looks of it! :?

You bring up a point I have been curious about a very long time. At what point do all these nations being used as pawns not stay in line? What would their individual and collective rebellions to both US-NATO and Sino-Russian subjugation look like? Total anarchy I presume. Greece is a beta test of perhaps how this will be handled? Sides will have to be picked, and the potential for extremist positions will run rife. Worse case scenerio

Obama has but one foreign policy card to play. I say one card but it concerns two issues inexorably intertwined. Iran and Israel.

The nuclear deal with Iran along with his abstention or outright yes vote on a UN Resolution establishing a Palestenian State. He very much has total control of two very critical issues that will decide the direction: diplomatic, and military aspects of geopolitics in the volatile Middle East that will absolutely change the course of history. And I truly don't feel I am overstating it.

Other than that, his handlers and the hawks, etc after these decisions are made, will by necessity be forced to deal with the fallout. Domestically, I don't think he's done yet, if you catch my drift..

Good point on the missle defense. I can see why Russia pushes it so. It does indeed amount to an end around arms control.