Published on: Oct 6, 2018 @ 20:28 –Washington’s envoy to NATO said on Tuesday October 2nd, that Russia must halt its covert development of an effective cruise missile system or the United States will destroy it before it becomes operational, the definition of a ‘first strike’.
Although Moscow has consistently shown that it is not in breach of the Cold War treaty, the INF Treaty, the United States still wants its public to believe that Russia is developing a ground-launched system that could allow Russia to launch a nuclear strike on Europe at short notice.
But Russia developing such a weapon is not only unnecessary, it is not part of Russia’s Eurasian development plan.
The Russian Federation wants ultimately to integrate into a pan-Eurasian sphere – not unlike some of the first proposals for Russian entry into the EU two decades ago, soon rejected once it became clear that Russia would be a subordinate non-partner. Indeed, the nuclear devastation of Europe at the hands of Russia would see the U.S the primary beneficiary.
That is identically why the U.S has been trying to push Europe to war with Russia. The economic havoc that would befall Europe would set it back decades, even centuries in terms of economic development. As there is a growing (but still minority) consensus among the EU elite that Europe must integrate with Eurasia, nuclear annihilation would fit in with the U.S aims, not Eurasia’s. Russia has been trying not only economically, but in the security sphere to become closer to Europe as well.
Likewise, the OSCE was first thought to be a Eurasia-wide replacement for NATO which would, in the aftermath of the Warsaw Pact, be a serious move in the direction of creating a pan-continental security treaty.
The OSCE in fact traces its origins to the détente phase of the early 1970’s at the peak of the ‘Peace Movement’ in the west. It’s predecessor, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), was created to be a multilateral forum for discussion and agreement making between the Eastern and Western blocs. One of the major outcomes of this was the Helsinki Final Act, was signed on August 1st 1975, and a significant document which the U.S has subsequently de facto reneged on unilaterally since the period of its first campaign against Iraq, and the project to engender a four-way civil war in the former Yugoslavia.
Russia has been able to prove that it is not in violation of the INF treaty – the U.S in fact does not make its case at all, only a gesture including bizarre rhetorical arguments which would never hold up before an international court.
U.S. ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison said Washington remained committed to a diplomatic solution but was prepared to consider a military strike if development of the medium-range system continued, Reuters reported.
Reuters in fact had the story right: “Russia must halt its covert development of a banned cruise missile system or the United States will seek to destroy it before it becomes operational, Washington’s envoy to NATO said on Tuesday.”
“At that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a (Russian) missile that could hit any of our countries,” Hutchison told a news conference.
“Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty,” she added. “They are on notice.”
She then later attempted to clarify in a face saving but contradictory tweet that she was not talking about a preemptive strike against Russia.
“My point: Russia needs to return to INF Treaty compliance or we will need to match its capabilities to protect US & NATO interests. The current situation, with Russia in blatant violation, is untenable.”
I was not talking about preemptively striking Russia. My point: ?? needs to return to INF Treaty compliance or we will need to match its capabilities to protect US & NATO interests. The current situation, with ?? in blatant violation, is untenable. https://t.co/dRaFoK8xlo
— Ambassador Hutchison (@USAmbNATO) October 2, 2018
It is clear that Hutchison was talking about a preemptive first strike. English is confounded with numerous ambiguities in its unclear use of tenses, but the clause in any reading “Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia.” speaks for itself.
The Washington Post, one of the several U.S government controlled mouthpieces, whose messaging and ideological work is shaped by the Atlantic Council – NATO’s media wing – attempted to run interference for this. No doubt ‘Snopes’, also an Atlantic Council asset, will mark any normal, grammatically and textually correct reading of the quote as ‘Fake News’ or ‘False’.
The Washington post again intentionally obfuscates the facts, and misleads its readers in a condescending click-bait style ‘5 Things You Need To Know’ type of story, cherry picking the quote, and leaving out the clear, critical line bolded and italicized above, and also makes no reference to the Reuters piece.
They titled their propaganda piece: No, the U.S. didn’t just threaten a preventive nuclear strike. 5 things you need to know.
Where they attempt to run direct interference is in point 2.
2. Hutchison did not threaten a preventive strike
While her initial statement was unclear and contained several inaccuracies, Hutchison clarified later that, if Russia did not come back into compliance with the INF Treaty, the United States would take corresponding measures to develop “the capability [emphasis added] to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska.” She did not elaborate on the exact nature of such a capability, but it was relatively clear she was referring to the development of targeting options to preempt Russian use in the event of war, rather than a preventive strike in peacetime.
Bu the Hutchison statement did not contain any inaccuracies unless indeed a first strike was threatened, as no other facts or policies were presented. It was a statement of policy. If Hutchison misspoke, or did not represent official US policy with the statement, then WaPo needs to make an entirely different claim; aaccurately Reuters reports that ”[…]the United States will seek to destroy it before it becomes operational”. The claim that Reuters and FRN are making, that Hutchinson on behalf of the U.S, in her official capacity in fact threatened ‘FIRST STRIKE’ is entirely correct. If that statement was later amended to retract its inarguable actual, literal, textual meaning, then so be it – the claim that the threat was made indeed stands as a true claim.
Finally, the claim was never made that the U.S threatened ‘nuclear’ first strike, just first strike. To hit something – to strike it – ‘before’, that is ‘first’, is the definition of ‘first strike’. So the Wa-Po misleads with its headline in a way that avoids the child’s definition of a lie. Given its intention to deceive, it has committed fraudulent misrepresentation. It’s also scienter, a mental state in fraud that is characterized by an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. They did it on purpose. They lied.
Indeed, NATO/Atlantic Council subservient The Washington Post, acting in the name of the Military Industrial Complex, has consistently attacked and slandered the fact-checking, editorial, research, and analytic work of FRN – a non-profit news organization, a project of the non-profit Belgrade-based Think Tank, Center for Syncretic Studies. FRN was included in its top dozen list of ‘fake news sites’ in its report from the pro-pravy sektor Ukrainian site in English ‘Prop-or-Not’.
The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in fact bans medium-range missiles capable of hitting Europe or Alaska, and Russia has held to this. It is the US that has unilaterally broken similar treaties, and Russia has never devolved into making first strike threats.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the United States had for some time argued that Moscow was not in compliance with the treaty, but also attempted to run interference for the diplomatic row and criminal threat made by Hutchison. The reason FRN may speculate that there has been, in Russia, little highlighting of the response from official Moscow over this, is that Putin’s more nationalist, hard-line critics like Zhirinovsky would stand to benefit from this, internally, the most.
“What Ambassador Hutchison was talking about was improving overall defense and deterrence posture,” Nauert told a news conference. “The United States is committed to upholding its arms control obligations and expects Russia to do the very same thing,” she said, adding that the U.S. was discussing the issue with its allies.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that such statements were dangerous, and that it would provide detailed answers to Washington.
“It seems that people who make such statements do not realize the level of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric,” TASS news agency quoted spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattisthen weighed in on the issue Thursday and said that Russia’s violation of an arms control treaty was “untenable” and unless it changed course the United States would need to match Moscow’s capabilities.
“Russia must return to compliance with the INF treaty or the U.S. will need to match its capabilities to protect U.S. and NATO interests,” Mattis said in prepared remarks to reporters during a NATO meeting of defence ministers in Brussels.
“The United States is reviewing options in our diplomacy and defense posture to do just that. Make no mistake: The current situation, with Russia in blatant violation of this treaty, is untenable,” Mattis said.
Previously the U.S unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty.