Russia Secretly Deploys Cruise Missile

[Claire.]

Russian Cruise Missile, Deployed Secretly, Violates Treaty, Officials Say

Russia has secretly deployed a new cruise missile despite complaints from American officials that it violates a landmark arms control treaty that helped seal the end of the Cold War, administration officials say. The move presents a major challenge for President Trump, who has vowed to improve relations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and to pursue future arms accords.

Read more: The New York Times

[+and-then]

What an irony it would be if Flynn might have been the one to retain some trust and common sense in this relationship.  Nuclear war due to petty politics.  After THOSE things blossom, politics aren't going to mean anything to anyone.

[pallidin]

Violation of a treaty sounds serious.

Wonder what the response will be.

[bee]

.

Probably just more fake / twisted news from the Mind Control Media and Associates -

The warmongers haven't given up trying to cause trouble and conflict with Russia -
carrying on where Obama and Clinton and treacherous elements in the Intelligence community left off
when Trump very inconveniently won the election - 

Looks to me like the Globalists pulling the strings are still going ahead trying to have a war with Russia -
the anti Russia propaganda is being ratcheted up again -

Buyer beware --- those behind the perception management and war preparation propaganda won't mind if
a few million people die in their war - in fact maybe that's the plan - heavy conspiracy I know....but..... 

hands up who wants to die in their war...?....or have their home / community / country destroyed...? 

.

 

        

[Michelle]

Let me know when they actually take any action. It sounds like the Red Scare all over again to me.

[MWoo7]

Sound reasoning that.

[bmk1245]

7 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Let me know when they actually take any action. It sounds like the Red Scare all over again to me.

Some thought. Hitler->Chechs (1938). Any action?

[Space Commander Travis]

Why should Poot'n want to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland and then the rest of Europe, bmk? Because that's just what dictators always do, regardless of whether there'd be any possible reason for him to do so? I realise that in Lithuania, you'd naturally nurse resentment towards Russia for what Stalin did in 1940 and the subsequent integration into the USSR, but that really is just the same irrational paranoia as sees everyone as the New Hitler. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[bee]

.

I Google searched the title of this thread and ALL the results were more or less the same from countless media outlets ---
big and small - 

I got fed up after 17 pages of all the same stuff --- 17 pages !!!! and it went on..

the spreading of this dubious ''''news'''' is obviously very important to the Puppeteers behind the Media (including some Internet)
domination  - it must be an important piece in the globalist warmongers strategy - invented justification..

it could be a forerunner to deploying (MORE) US (NATO) tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and

*roll on the drum*

in Ukraine.....

provocation and brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind on it's way in the not too distant future..?

.

  

[Unusual Tournament]

23 hours ago, pallidin said:

Violation of a treaty sounds serious.

Wonder what the response will be.

Any more serious than with unnecessary NATO encroachment into the neutral territory of the old Warsaw pact?

[Mr.United_Nations]

Um its varient of an orginal missile, its not actually a brand new missle

[Eldorado]

How is a secret if we all know about it?

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

How is a secret if we all know about it?

Slow day at the CIA for leaking Trump's stuff.

[Claire.]

The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty prohibited the flight testing and development of new intermediate missiles. Arms control treaties are binding. They are also verifiable.

I'm not aware of any response as yet by the new administration, apart from Trump denouncing New START (another nuclear arms treaty) because it was supposedly not favorable to the US.

[RoofGardener]

Hmmm.....

So, the whole purpose of the story is to suggest that the Russians have taken this missile out of "development" stage, and actually deployed it as a live weapon. Only the NY Times is reporting this, and their report only makes a fleeting reference to an anonymous "Administration officials"

Not "Defense officials" or "Intelligence officials", but unspecified "Administration officials". So what, exactly, is an "Administration official" ? The Secretary of Defense ? The Secretary of State ? A disgruntled democrat in the typing pool ? And the use of the plural term "officials" implies more than one. Oh really ? And they where ALL anonymous ? 

The story is elegantly written; on first glance it leaves the impression that other - named - senior Generals and Analysts etc have confirmed the story. On closer reading, however, you realise that they are merely making hypothetical comments on the "issue" as presented by the NY Times, and are not actually verifying the underlying ACCURACY of the story. In essence, they are responding to the question ".. what would your thoughts be IF the missile was deployed ? ". And yet, the writing makes it APPEAR that they are actually confirming this assumption, when they are not. This is DEEPLY suspicious. 

It mentions that the acting State Department spokesman saying "We do not make comments on intelligence matters", and he goes on to talk about Russia's treaty violation. But we don't know what question the NY Times asked. Whas the spokesman referring to the 2015 treaty violation, or the NEW suggestion that the Russians had deployed the missile ? (which is the meat of the NYT story). 

This looks like VERY dodgy story-writing to me. Long on interpretation and hypothesis, no credible sources, and lots of "sleight of hand" to make the people they DID cite look as though they where verifying the story, when in fact they where doing no such thing. 

Fake news ? 

Edited February 18, 2017 by RoofGardener

[Helen of Annoy]

Sure.

From now on, if something nuclear blows up, all you have to do it scream 'fake news!' and there will be no incinerating, radiation or any need to get angry at Russia.

 

You can make posts disappear, but you can't make reality disappear, you know. 

[stevewinn]

FAKE NEWS. you cant stump the trump.

There is also NEWS coming out today that a Russian assassination plot to kill Montenegro's Prime minister last year.

Its the RED under the Bed scenario all over again.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by stevewinn

[hetrodoxly]

The irony, if Trump was saber rattling the usual suspects would be screaming 'warmonger' 

[Helen of Annoy]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

FAKE NEWS. you cant stump the trump.

There is also NEWS coming out today that a Russian assassination plot to kill Montenegro's Prime minister last year.

Its the RED under the Bed scenario all over again.

 

 

Maybe it's news in the West today, but in this neighbourhood it was reported on time and we find such plot quite logical. (Montenegrin Prime minister leans to EU, NATO and West in general. He also knows Montenegro is and should be sovereign country, not just another Serbian province etc. not to bore you with the details.)

The Red is not the problem under the bed, it's a problem at my doorstep. If we fall, it could be on your doorstep etc. not to bore you with the details. 

And that trump thing is not helping. In fact, it's so hilariously counterproductive phenomenon I now place my last hope in Russians. People like Lavrov are not complete, incoherent, delusional morons. I hope they won't accept Trump's gifts, simply because they know they couldn't keep them without huge losses.

Not to bore you with the details.  

[RoofGardener]

On 2/19/2017 at 9:48 AM, Helen of Annoy said:

Sure.

From now on, if something nuclear blows up, all you have to do it scream 'fake news!' and there will be no incinerating, radiation or any need to get angry at Russia.

 

You can make posts disappear, but you can't make reality disappear, you know. 

Well, perhaps HoT, but did you actually READ the NYT article ? Did you not find it deceptive ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

On February 18, 2017 at 6:55 PM, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.....

So, the whole purpose of the story is to suggest that the Russians have taken this missile out of "development" stage, and actually deployed it as a live weapon. Only the NY Times is reporting this, and their report only makes a fleeting reference to an anonymous "Administration officials"

Not "Defense officials" or "Intelligence officials", but unspecified "Administration officials". So what, exactly, is an "Administration official" ? The Secretary of Defense ? The Secretary of State ? A disgruntled democrat in the typing pool ? And the use of the plural term "officials" implies more than one. Oh really ? And they where ALL anonymous ? 

The story is elegantly written; on first glance it leaves the impression that other - named - senior Generals and Analysts etc have confirmed the story. On closer reading, however, you realise that they are merely making hypothetical comments on the "issue" as presented by the NY Times, and are not actually verifying the underlying ACCURACY of the story. In essence, they are responding to the question ".. what would your thoughts be IF the missile was deployed ? ". And yet, the writing makes it APPEAR that they are actually confirming this assumption, when they are not. This is DEEPLY suspicious. 

It mentions that the acting State Department spokesman saying "We do not make comments on intelligence matters", and he goes on to talk about Russia's treaty violation. But we don't know what question the NY Times asked. Whas the spokesman referring to the 2015 treaty violation, or the NEW suggestion that the Russians had deployed the missile ? (which is the meat of the NYT story). 

This looks like VERY dodgy story-writing to me. Long on interpretation and hypothesis, no credible sources, and lots of "sleight of hand" to make the people they DID cite look as though they where verifying the story, when in fact they where doing no such thing. 

Fake news ? 

What would be the purpose of making up such an elaborate story?

The top news sites very rarely publish outright lies that they have created themselves. Their problem is that they neglect to publish the truth or often only tell one side of the story. But to completely make something like this up? Only places like The Daily Mail and some tabloids can get away with things like that without being hurt too badly if caught, due to their readership being generally what it is.

Edited February 22, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Only places like The Daily Mail and some tabloids can get away with things like that without being hurt too badly if caught, due to their readership being generally what it is.

Woo, you're getting like Alibongo and his "stupid Northerners".  Why do you think it might be, if it was, fictitious? To hype up the "Russian Menace", and give more ammunition to those who want to swing the US into stepping up confrontation with Russia.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[ExpandMyMind]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Woo, you're getting like Alibongo and his "stupid Northerners". 

I don't understand the reference.

[Space Commander Travis]

"Perhaps the daily Mail might get away with it,  due to their readership being generally what it is ". Like being gullible, you mean. 

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"Perhaps the daily Mail might get away with it,  due to their readership being generally what it is ". Like being gullible, you mean. 

Gullible is one of the adjectives I'd use. There are others.

12 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Woo, you're getting like Alibongo and his "stupid Northerners".  Why do you think it might be, if it was, fictitious? To hype up the "Russian Menace", and give more ammunition to those who want to swing the US into stepping up confrontation with Russia.

It seems like a very large lie to tell for so little a gain.