- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A US announcement of a plan to station long-range missiles in Germany for the first time since the cold war has set off a diplomatic furore between Washington and Moscow and elicited comparisons to the European missile crises of the 1980s.
Russian and US officials both accused each other of provoking the escalation on Thursday, as arms control experts warned that the deployments of missiles on the European continent, after the collapse of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, could fuel a new arms race.
The decision to station non-nuclear Tomahawk cruise, SM-6 and hypersonic missiles in Germany from 2026 was welcomed by Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who said it “fitted exactly” into his government’s security strategy, even as the move attracted fierce criticism amid fears it would make Germany more vulnerable to attack.
Scholz said the decision had been long in the making and would come as “no surprise” to anyone who was knowledgable about security and peace policies.
You must log in or register to comment.
That headline is almost word for word the subplot of X-Men: First Class! 🤦
non-nuclear Tomahawk cruise, SM-6 and hypersonic missiles
Unless whatever hypersonic weapon this is is land-based, we can already park all of them on ships a lot closer to Russia than Germany. Tomahawks and SM-6s can be launched from ships.
It’s more of a political statement, same as the Soviet missiles on Cuba and Pershings in Germany during the Cold war. As such they carry great strategic value.
How dare they respond to our positioning of nuclear weapons in crazy Uncle Luca’s back yard.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, issued a stark warning to Berlin, insisting Moscow would respond militarily to the decision, which he said aimed to impair Russian security and could not go unanswered.
Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Russian government, called the planned move “a very serious threat” to Russia, which would be closely analysed by Moscow, which would “take thoughtful, coordinated and effective measures to contain Nato”.
Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, wrote: “First Russia develops/fields an INF missile in violation of treaty.
Sara Nanni, a spokesperson for the party’s parliamentary group, told the Rheinische Post she found it irritating that Scholz had yet to provide such details, “even though a clear classification” was “urgently needed”.
Support for Scholz came in particular from the main opposition Christian Democrats, whose foreign policy spokesperson, Jürgen Hardt, said the stationing of Tomahawks in Germany was a service to German security.
Joachim Krause, a political scientist and international policy expert, told DLF the presence of the cruise missiles would act as an effective deterrent, which could “considerably increase the military balance in favour of Nato”.
The original article contains 967 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
NATO is a terrorist organization.
WWIII seems to be happening sooner than expected.
I wonder if BRICS will back Russia on placing missiles in Cuba again.
NATO is a terrorist organization.
Where did you get that quote from? It’s not in the article.
It’s a quote I like to mention whenever there is news that shows NATO is trying really hard to help us get closer to WWIII happening.
I don’t think any corporate (and non-corporate) news or organization would mention negative rhetoric about NATO.
Ah yes, the classic “I can’t back up my argument because the entire mainstream media is hiding the truth from me” defense. Very convincing and believable.
I don’t know what Putin pays you but it’s not enough to cover the number of Ukrainian and Russian citizens who have been needlessly murdered because of Putin’s imperialist neo-USSR fetish. NATO has never had anything to do with any of this.
There wouldn’t be a war in Ukraine if Ukraine just gave up.
Let’s turn that around:
There won’t be a WWIII if Russia just gives up trying to force close-by countries to listen to them under threat of war.
Russia has already stationed short and medium range nuclear weapons in Belarus, and somehow they think that stationing conventional weapons in Germany is a breach of some kind of “deal”? That’s ludicrous. If they don’t want near by countries arming themselves to the teeth they should consider not threatening them with war all the time. We are not threatening to attack Russia. Notice that. NATO is arming up, and explicitly saying “if you attack us, we are prepared.” Meanwhile Russia is explicitly threatening “military action” if NATO dares to arm up.
Damn son, you’re an idiot lol.
