Podcasts about inf treaty

To commemorate the 20th anniversary of his passing, we are rebroadcasting our series on President Ronald Reagan________After entering office in 1981, Ronald Reagan insisted he wanted to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. His critics scoffed at him, not believing he was sincere. In 1987, he stunned them by signing the INF Treaty with the Soviets, eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons. In this episode, we cover how Reagan did just that and how his policies led to the end of the Cold War.JOIN PREMIUMListen ad-free for only $5/month at www.bit.ly/TAPpremiumFOLLOW USwww.linktr.ee/thisamericanpresidentCREDITSHost: Richard LimProducer: Michael NealScript Editor: Jennifer MazzellaArtist: Nip Rogers, www.NipRogers.com

Please enjoy December 8, 1987: Remarks at the Signing of the INF Treaty with Soviet Premier Gorbachev a great episode of the legendary Ronald Reagan - A Classic Old Time radio Show.

This Day in Legal History: Gorbachev at the HelmOn this day in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the new leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics following the death of Konstantin Chernenko. At just 54 years old, Gorbachev was the youngest member of the Politburo and brought a new vision for reform to the stagnant Soviet system.Domestically, he introduced policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) to liberalize the economy and allow greater freedom of expression. These sweeping changes upended decades of repressive Soviet policies and paved the way for democratization.On the international front, Gorbachev pursued arms reduction negotiations with US President Reagan, easing Cold War tensions. In 1987, they signed the historic INF Treaty, eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles from Europe.Gorbachev's reforms proved too fast and destabilizing for the Soviet system. In 1991, hardline communists attempted a coup against him which failed, hastening the dissolution of the USSR into independent republics by year's end.For helping end the Cold War without bloodshed, Gorbachev was awarded the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize. His legacy remains complex but he is widely credited with allowing self-determination for Eastern Europe and averting catastrophic conflict.A federal judge in Texas has struck down a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that would have expanded the definition of "joint employer" to include many companies that contract or franchise workers. The rule would have treated those companies as employers of the contract or franchise workers, requiring them to bargain with unions representing those workers. The judge agreed with business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the rule was too broad and violated federal labor law. The NLRB chair said they are considering next steps, likely an appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The rule was intended to ensure companies can be held liable for labor violations when they control key working conditions of contract/franchise workers. However, businesses argued it would disrupt franchising and contracting arrangements. The joint employer issue has been contentious, with shifting standards between the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations.Judge blocks US labor board rule on contract and franchise workers | ReutersLabor Board's Joint Employer Rule Struck Down in Texas Court (4)A committee of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit argued that a lower court should dismiss the remaining parts of a lawsuit filed by 96-year-old colleague Pauline Newman over her suspension. The judges claim the law governing Newman's suspension for an investigation into her fitness to serve is constitutional, despite her challenges. Newman's attorney plans to respond to the arguments made. Last month, a federal judge dismissed most of Newman's other allegations against the judicial council that suspended her. The council suspended Newman in September 2022 for at least a year amid concerns over her mental competency, which she has defended. The judges argue even if some suspension orders could violate the Fourth Amendment in certain situations, that would not make the governing law unconstitutional overall.By way of brief background, Judge Newman contends that certain elements of what was demanded of her violate the Fourth Amendment as they are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. Specifically, in Counts VIII and IX of the complaint, linked in the show notes, Judge Newman argues that the Act's authorization of demands for medical records or examinations without a warrant based on probable cause or constitutional reasonableness violates the Fourth Amendment. However, these claims are likely legally untenable for multiple reasons, including the failure to meet the standards of a facial challenge.US appeals judges argue suspension of 96-year-old colleague is constitutional | ReutersCustomers have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary in Los Angeles federal court. The suit alleges J&J failed to warn consumers that its acne products like Clean & Clear and Neutrogena contain benzene, a cancer-causing chemical. The customers claim they would not have purchased the products if they knew about the benzene and associated cancer risk. This comes days after an independent lab alerted the FDA about high benzene levels in popular acne product brands. The EPA has stated breathing low levels of benzene over a lifetime can increase cancer risk. The suit accuses J&J of ignoring the FDA's 2022 warning to test products for benzene contamination. It seeks to represent a national class and subclasses in several states against J&J's alleged failure to warn.J&J Allegedly Failed to Warn Acne Cream Customers of Cancer RiskA new trial involving a fatal 2018 crash while Tesla's Autopilot was engaged will test the company's defense that drivers must remain attentive and ready to take over at any moment. Lawyers for the plaintiff are citing internal emails and testimony suggesting Tesla knew drivers could become distracted or complacent when using Autopilot. They argue Tesla should have studied how quickly drivers can regain control if Autopilot fails. Testimony indicates Tesla did not research this issue until after the 2018 crash, and only added driver monitoring cameras in 2021. The case could pose a significant challenge to Tesla's stance that Autopilot is safe if drivers follow instructions. It highlights questions about Tesla's knowledge of likely driver behavior and obligation to design safeguards against foreseeable misuse. The outcome may influence other lawsuits Tesla faces over accidents involving its driver assistance systems.Next Autopilot trial to test Tesla's blame-the-driver defense | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this riveting episode of Cosmic Top Secret, Professor Michael John Williams delves deep into the intricacies of NATO's strategic evolution and its response to contemporary challenges with Dan Fata. With Fata's extensive background in national security and defense, the conversation illuminates NATO's journey towards increased defense spending, capability development, and the pivotal role of military tech innovation.Key Topics Discussed:NATO's Defense Spending: Insights into the progress and challenges of meeting the 2% GDP defense spending goal, with a historical look at efforts from past summits and the impact of the Ukraine conflict on current commitments.Military Technology and Innovation: The discussion pivots to the technological advancements in defense, highlighting initiatives like DIANA and the importance of enhancing NATO's technological edge in a rapidly evolving global security landscape.Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Fata and Williams tackle the sensitive issue of nuclear deterrence in Europe, exploring the strategic implications in the post-INF Treaty era and the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring European security.The Ukraine Conflict: An in-depth analysis of the Ukraine conflict's ramifications for NATO, evaluating the alliance's response, the importance of support from allies, and the potential paths to resolution.China's Influence: The conversation explores the implications of China's growing global presence for NATO, discussing whether the alliance should expand its focus beyond the North Atlantic area to address emerging global threats.This episode offers a comprehensive overview of NATO's strategic posture amidst evolving global challenges, providing listeners with expert analysis on defense spending, technological innovation, and the geopolitical landscape affecting the alliance's future direction.Music is considered “royalty-free” and discovered on Story Blocks.Technical Podcast Support by Jon Keur at Wayfare Recording Co.

Learn more about the book (and use promo code 09POD to save 30% off): https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501773068/unraveling-the-gray-area-problem Read the transcript: https://otter.ai/u/Ckmr71FCYKFkd5oDyV0oR2AV0v8?utm_source=copy_url In this episode, we speak with Luke Griffith, author of the new book Unraveling the Gray Area Problem: The United States and the INF Treaty. Luke Griffith is Professor of Government and History at New Mexico Junior College where he specializes in U.S. history, Western Civilization, and the American government. We spoke to Luke about his research on the US government's role in the origins and the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of December 1987; how President Reagan's success in securing the agreement was made possible by earlier work in the Carter Administration; and, what has been the state of nuclear arms control after the U.S. withdrew from the Treaty in 2019.

Professor Michael John Williams engages in a fascinating conversation with Dr. Susie Colbourn about the Euromissiles Crisis and its impact on NATO and international relations. Dr. Colbourn, a historian specializing in transatlantic relations and the politics of European security, shares insights from her book, "Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO."Key Topics Discussed:Overview of the Euromissiles Crisis: Dr. Colbourn explains the crisis, its origins in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and its impact on NATO-Soviet Union relations.NATO's Nuclear Strategy and Arms Control Dynamics: Discussion about the strategic nuances of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, NATO's flexible response strategy, and the intricate dynamics of arms control negotiations.Political and Strategic Challenges in the 1970s: Exploration of the political and strategic environment of the 1970s, including the impact of the Vietnam War, SALT I, and the changing dynamics of U.S. leadership in the world.Public Influence on NATO's Nuclear Policies: Examining how public opinion and civil society movements in Western Europe and North America influenced NATO's decision-making and nuclear policies.The Dual Track Decision and Its Aftermath: Discussion on the implications of NATO's dual-track decision, the Soviet Union's response, and the eventual signing of the INF Treaty.Legacy and Lessons from the Euromissile Crisis: Dr. Colbourn shares her thoughts on the contemporary relevance of the Euromissile Crisis, highlighting its complexity and the lessons it offers for today's world.This episode provides a deep dive into a crucial period in NATO's history, offering valuable insights into the complexities of international relations, nuclear strategy, and the influence of public opinion on geopolitical decisions.Music is considered “royalty-free” and discovered on Story Blocks.Technical Podcast Support by Jon Keur at Wayfare Recording Co.

President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev make remarks before they sign the INF Treaty, a landmark treaty that called for the destruction of more than 2,600 Soviet and American nuclear weapons. Their speeches are translated into and from Russian by a translator.

Episode Notes S4E34 -- Join us as we go deep into the mind of retired U.S Army intelligence officer Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer. What he's seen and things he's done will raise every hair on your body. LtCol Anthony (Tony) Shaffer (retired), is the President of Project Sentinel, a New York Times bestselling author and CIA trained intelligence operations officer with 35 years of experience in global and national security. In his think-tank work he is an advisor to senior members of the White House, the Intelligence Community, Pentagon and key members of Congress. He also works with National Geographic as an Advising Producer and Co-Producer of the series “Chain of Command”. In 2017 he became the Homeland Security Advisor to the Stafford County Sheriff's Department in Virginia and works as its member of the NYPD Counterterrorism Bureau's expanded task force. NEWS FLASH You can now purchase Toking with the Dead full novel here https://a.co/d/7uypgZo https://www.barnesandnoble.com/.../toking.../1143414656... You can see all your past favorite episodes now streaming on https://redcoraluniverse.com/ OR Show your support by purchasing FB stars. Send stars to the stars fb.com/stars This episode is sponsored by Deadly Grounds Coffee "Its good to get a little Deadly" https://deadlygroundscoffee.com ————————————————— https://www.stilltoking.com/ Check out Toking with the Dead Episode 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awhL5FyW_j4 Check out Toking with the Dead Episode 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUai58ua6o Buy awesome Merchandise! https://www.stilltoking.com/toking-with-the-dead-train https://teespring.com/stores/still-toking-with Sponsorship Opportunities https://www.stilltoking.com/become-a-sponsor or email us at bartlett52108@gmail.com thetokingdead@gmail.com ————————————— Follow our guest https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Anthony_Shaffer... https://us.macmillan.com/author/anthonyshaffer https://www.instagram.com/tspooky/?hl=en https://www.linkedin.com/in/tony-shaffer-115a723 https://www.facebook.com/tspooky/ https://londoncenter.org/.../57E72B62-8C75-11E9.../profile ———————— Follow Still Toking With and their friends! https://smartpa.ge/5zv1 https://thedorkeningpodcastnetwork.com/ ————————————— Produced by Leo Pond and The Dorkening Podcast Network https://TheDorkening.com Facebook.com/TheDorkening Youtube.com/TheDorkening Twitter.com/TheDorkening Dead Dork Radio https://live365.com/station/Dead-Dork-Radio-a68071 More about our guest: As a senior DoD intelligence officer, he received the Bronze Star and the Commander's Award for Civil Service for his work on cutting edge, highly classified, DoD special activities. He has detailed operational and policy expertise regarding the full spectrum of strategic national security issues; from being a pioneer in cyber operations, to being at cutting edge of U.S. counterterrorism efforts and helping develop and use of “weaponized technology”. � Tony has commanded and directed several key operational intelligence organizations that conducted “compartmented” (aka black) operations. These include Special Mission Task Force STRATUS IVY, that conducted direct support to DoD compartmented activities (OSD, SOCOM, JSOC, Army) which was focused on offensive information operations. In addition, he commanded Field Operating Base (FOB) Alpha, a joint DIA/CIA unit conducting classified collection and special operations support regarding terrorists just after the 9/11 attacks. During the 1980s, Tony was a counterintelligence officer. He deployed to Germany to conduct counterterrorism operations in 1985 as part of REFORGER and worked in New York City as part of Army's anti‐terrorism efforts during OPSAIL 1986 – the re‐opening of the Statue of Liberty. He also worked to monitor Soviet military officers visiting the United States during the INF Treaty missile eliminations, as well as a reserve tour with Army Foreign Counterintelligence Activity (FCA). Lt Col Shaffer transitioned into the Foreign Intelligence area of focus with his graduation from “The Farm” in 1988, and his work at Air Force Special Activities Center (AFSAC) where he worked as a case officer. He was brought to active duty by the Army for the first Gulf War in 1991 and transitioned into the Army's Military Intelligence Excepted Career Program (MIECP) where he became the chief of Army's global Controlled HUMINT collection program and ran specific Special Access Program (SAP) operations that netted highly. As a reservist during this period he was the senior HUMINT advisor to the J2/Senior Find out more at https://still-toking-with.pinecast.co Send us your feedback online: https://pinecast.com/feedback/still-toking-with/8faaec6a-b84a-4488-b2fb-53af569d1b7e

While Eliot is still in Europe, Eric welcomes former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000) Stephen Pifer to the show. Steve is affiliated with the Stanford Center on International Security and Cooperation and is a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has served at the US Embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, was senior director at the NSC and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia and Ukraine, as well as an advisor to Amb. Paul Nitze during the INF Treaty negotiations. They discuss VE Day in Europe, the drone attack on the Kremlin, the prospects for the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the types of military equipment that would be most useful for the Ukrainians. They also discuss the promise (or lack thereof) of potential Chinese mediation of the conflict and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict.  https://www.amazon.com/Eagle-Trident-U-S-_Ukraine-Relations-Turbulent/dp/0815730403 Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Email us with your feedback at shieldoftherepublic@gmail.co Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While Eliot is still in Europe, Eric welcomes former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000) Stephen Pifer to the show. Steve is affiliated with the Stanford Center on International Security and Cooperation and is a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has served at the US Embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, was senior director at the NSC and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia and Ukraine, as well as an advisor to Amb. Paul Nitze during the INF Treaty negotiations. They discuss VE Day in Europe, the drone attack on the Kremlin, the prospects for the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the types of military equipment that would be most useful for the Ukrainians. They also discuss the promise (or lack thereof) of potential Chinese mediation of the conflict and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict.  https://www.amazon.com/Eagle-Trident-U-S-_Ukraine-Relations-Turbulent/dp/0815730403 Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Email us with your feedback at shieldoftherepublic@gmail.co Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO (Cornell UP, 2022), Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles―intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war―highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time.  At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned.  Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis―from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New START has been in peril for years. The first episode of the pod was about the INF Treaty being in danger, and here we are, 8 years later, with almost no arms control treaties left. Maybe it is time to rename the pod Arms Race Wonk, because the next few years are going to be scary.  Jeffrey and Aaron talk through the Era Without (Bilateral) Arms Control, the immanent two-front deterrence challenge, and how being scared as **** is the only way we know deterrence is working.  Support us over at Patreon.com/acwpodcast!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched an illegal, unjustified war against Ukraine and Putin himself is the only person who can stop the war immediately. In this episode, we seek to understand why President Putin has launched this horrific war in order to judge our country's ability to bring the war to a quicker end. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD186: National Endowment for Democracy CD168: Nuclear Desperation Ukraine Civil War Alan MacLeod. Feb 22, 2022. “Documents Reveal US Spent $22 Million Promoting Anti-Russia Narrative in Ukraine & Abroad.” The Washington Standard. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Oct 8, 2021. “Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine.” United Nations. Andrew Higgins and Peter Baker. Feb 6, 2014. “Russia Claims U.S. Is Meddling Over Ukraine.” The New York Times. NATO Expansion Becky Sullivan. Updated Feb 24, 2022. “How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine.” NPR. Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov. Dec 17, 2021. “Russia Demands NATO Pullback in Security Talks With U.S.” Bloomberg. Joe Dyke. Mar 20, 2021. “NATO Killed Civilians in Libya. It's Time to Admit It.” Foreign Policy. NATO. Updated May 5, 2020. “Enlargement.” NATO. 2020. “The Secretary General's Annual Report.” National Security Archive. December 12, 2017. “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.” Arms Control Association. “The Debate Over NATO Expansion: A Critique of the Clinton Administration's Responses to Key Questions.” “Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts.)” February 9, 1990. National Security Archive. “Ukraine: The Orange Revolution and the Yushchenko Presidency.” In The Encyclopedia Britannica. NATO in Ukraine Xinhua. Nov 14, 2021. “Ukraine, NATO countries hold naval drills in Black Sea.” News.cn Chad Menegay and Aimee Valles. Sept 22, 2021. “US, NATO, Ukraine enhance interoperability with Rapid Trident exercise.” NationalGuard.mil Reuters. April 3, 2021. “Ukraine and Britain to Hold Joint Military Drills.” U.S. News and World Report. NATO Allied Maritime Command. Mar 17, 2021. “NATO forces train with the Ukrainian Navy.” European Deterrence Initiative Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. Updated July 1, 2021. “The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview” [IF10946.] Congressional Research Service. Weapons Treaties TASS. Feb 21, 2022. “Europe won't understand Kiev talking of regaining nuclear weapons — Russian diplomat.” Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Updated March 2021. “Fact Sheet: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.” Arms Control Association. Last reviewed August 2019. “The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance.” General Dynamics General Dynamics. “Corporate Governance: Board of Directors.” Russia-China Alliance Chen Aizhu. Feb 4, 2022. “Russia, China agree 30-year gas deal via new pipeline, to settle in euros.” Reuters. Robin Brant. Feb 4, 2022. “China joins Russia in opposing Nato expansion.” BBC News. Sanctions Matina Stevis-Gridneff. Feb 25, 2022. “European Leaders Agree to a Second Wave of Russia Sanctions.” The New York Times. Congressional Response Joe Gould. Feb 22, 2022. “Emergency funding proposal for Ukraine gets bipartisan backing in Congress.” Defense News. Reuters. Feb 25, 2022. “U.S. providing $600 mln for Ukraine defensive weapons -House Speaker Pelosi.” Reuters. Images State Property Fund of Ukraine USAID Partnership Audio Sources House Speaker Weekly Briefing February 23, 2022 YouTube Version Overview: At her weekly briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with several of her Democratic colleagues, talked about the situation in Ukraine and President Biden's sanctions after Russia recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region. Clips 10:25 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Putin is terrified by the prospect of a democracy at his border. A democracy, giving an example to the Russian people of the kind of life and economy they might enjoy if they cast aside their own autocrat. This is, I think, one of the preeminent motivations of Vladimir Putin. 15:32 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): I chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign operations, which oversees many of the resources to assist the Ukrainian people through this crisis. This includes our economic assistance to Ukraine, including loan guarantees. Economic assistance would come through the economic support accounts for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, those of the accounts that would come through. Without getting in too many of the weeds, I wanted to just mention that because it's an effort that we're looking at now in terms of our funding. It also includes humanitarian plans, including funding for refugees, God forbid, and for those internally displaced by conflict. The administration has committed to us that in the event of conflict, there is a need over the next 12 months of at least $1 billion for humanitarian needs. So I support the efforts of the administration also to bolster Ukraine's economy, including the proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to continue with Ukraine's economic reforms. 22:08 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): I will just close by saying this: I had the privilege of going with President Clinton, who invited four members of Congress House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Senate Democrat was Senator Joe Biden. And we went to the expansion of NATO meeting in Paris. And it was all the heads of state of the then NATO countries who spoke and it was so beautiful because they all spoke in such a positive way about NATO. We thought like we were NATO and they were also NATO, they had ownership and agency in possession of the NATO possibilities. The representative of Russia who was there was Boris Yeltsin. And he was very ebullient, but he was welcoming to what was called was the expansion we had supported in our own country, the Baltic States, Poland, others countries becoming what was called the Partnership for Peace and it included many countries. Now Putin is saying push it back to pre-1997. Don't ever try to add another country and remove weapons out of Eastern Europe. That's what he wanted. No, that was not going to happen. 33:35 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): What is this about? The people of Hung -- many of us have visited Ukraine and have seen that they love democracy. They do not want to live under Vladimir Putin. He does not want the Russian people to see what democracy looks like. And therefore he wants to bring them under his domain. 35:15 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): When we talk about the president, he's doing the sanctions. He has a full picture of all this. As I said, he was present there the day of the expansion of NATO. I saw the respect he commanded then, and that was 1997, by the heads of state of all those countries, and of course, that has only grown over time, by his leadership, but also the expansion of NATO. I think we're very well served, I respect his judgement. And again, it's not just about when you do the sanctions, or how you support the people. It's about how the world views what Putin is doing. This is a very evil move on the part of Vladimir Putin. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 22, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: During an address, President Biden announced new sanctions against Russia in response to President Vladimir Putin sending Russian troops into separatist regions of Ukraine. Clips 1:57 President Biden So, today, I'm announcing the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia in response to their actions yesterday. These have been closely coordinated with our Allies and partners, and we'll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates. We're implementing full blocking sanctions on two large Russian financial institutions: V.E.B. and their military bank. We're implementing comprehensive sanctions on Russian sovereign debt. That means we've cut off Russia's government from Western financing. It can no longer raise money from the West and cannot trade in its new debt on our markets or European markets either. Starting tomorrow [today] and continuing in the days ahead, we will also impose sanctions on Russia's elites and their family members. They share in the corrupt gains of the Kremlin policies and should share in the pain as well. And because of Russia's actions, we've worked with Germany to ensure Nord Stream 2 will not — as I promised — will not move forward. 3:23 President Biden: Today, in response to Russia's admission that it will not withdraw its forces from Belarus, I have authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic Allies — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part. We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message, though, that the United States, together with our Allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO. 4:22 President Biden: Russian forces remain positioned in Belarus to attack Ukraine from the north, including war planes and offensive missile systems. Russia has moved troops closer to Ukraine's border with Russia. Russia's naval vessels are maneuvering in the Black Sea to Ukraine's south, including amphibious assault ships, missile cruisers, and submarines. Russia has moved supplies of blood and medical equipment into position on their border. You don't need blood unless you plan on starting a war. 6:25 President Biden: I'm going to take robust action and make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at the Russian economy, not ours. We are closely monitoring energy supplies for any disruption. We're executing a plan in coordination with major oil-producing consumers and producers toward a collective investment to secure stability and global energy supplies. This will be — this will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me. 7:37 President Biden: Yesterday, the world heard clearly the full extent of Vladimir Putin's twisted rewrite of history, going back more than a century, as he waxed eloquently, noting that — well, I'm not going to go into it, but nothing in Putin's lengthy remarks indicated any interest in pursuing real dialogue on European security in the year 2022. 8:04 President Biden: He directly attacked Ukraine's right to exist. He indirectly threatened territory formerly held by Russia, including nations that today are thriving democracies and members of NATO. He explicitly threatened war unless his extreme demands were met. And there is no question that Russia is the aggressor. Russian President Putin Statement on Ukraine February 21, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced after a Security Council meeting that Russia would recognize the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine's Donbas region. Clips 00:15 President Putin: I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties. 1:22 President Putin: I would like to start by saying that the modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia. To be more exact, Bolshevist, partially communist Russia. This process started almost immediately after the 1917 revolutions, leading and planning and his group of supporters did it in a rough way. If we talk about Russia, they were alienating parts of historical territories of Russia. And millions of people who live there, obviously no one asked anything. Then before the Great Patriotic War, Stalin added to the USSR and handed over some lands that belonged to Poland and Hungary, and as a compensation gave some ancient German lands to Poland. And the 1960s crucial decision to take Crimea away from Russia and also gave it to Ukraine. That's how the territory of Soviet Ukraine was formed. 3:05 President Putin: We cannot help but react to this real threat, especially since I would like to reiterate that Western backers they can help Ukraine with getting this weapon to create yet another threat for our country because we can see how consistently they are pumping Ukraine with weapons. The United States alone starting from 2014 transferred billions of dollars including the arm supply training personnel. In recent months, Western weapons are sent to Ukraine given ceaselessly in front of the eyes of the entire world 7:05 President Putin: Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks' policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin's Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin's harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine. 9:31 President Putin: Everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic. And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. 10:05 President Putin: It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union. 13:55 President Putin: Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience. 14:39 President Putin: It was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine's dignity and sovereignty. According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion. 21:24 President Putin: A stable statehood has never developed in Ukraine; its electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans. Corruption, which is certainly a challenge and a problem for many countries, including Russia, has gone beyond the usual scope in Ukraine. It has literally permeated and corroded Ukrainian statehood, the entire system, and all branches of power. Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d'état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders' bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. 23:37 President Putin: Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress. Having accomplished a coup d'état, the nationalists and those political forces that supported them eventually led Ukraine into an impasse, pushed the country into the abyss of civil war. 26:30 President Putin: In fact, it all came down to the fact that the collapse of the Ukrainian economy was accompanied by outright robbery of the citizens of the country, and Ukraine itself was simply driven under external control. It is carried out not only at the behest of Western capitals, but also, as they say, directly on the spot through a whole network of foreign advisers, NGOs and other institutions deployed in Ukraine. They have a direct impact on all the most important personnel decisions, on all branches and levels of government: from the central and even to the municipal, on the main state-owned companies and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian Railways, Ukroboronprom, Ukrposhta , Administration of Sea Ports of Ukraine. There is simply no independent court in Ukraine. At the request of the West, the Kiev authorities gave representatives of international organizations the pre-emptive right to select members of the highest judicial bodies - the Council of Justice and the Qualification Commission of Judges. In addition, the US Embassy directly controls the National Corruption Prevention Agency, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under a plausible pretext to increase the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. Okay, but where are the results? Corruption has blossomed as luxuriantly, and blooms, more than ever. Are the Ukrainians themselves aware of all these managerial methods? Do they understand that their country is not even under a political and economic protectorate, but reduced to the level of a colony with a puppet regime? The privatization of the state has led to the fact that the government, which calls itself the "power of patriots", has lost its national character and is consistently leading the matter towards the complete desovereignization of the country. 31:04 President Putin: In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia's Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine.” 32:05 President Putin: As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era. In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. 33:47 President Putin: Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine's armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this. Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads. The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved. A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned. Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine's airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory. I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast. 36:54 President Putin: Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented. Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it. 37:16 President Putin: Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security 38:10 President Putin: Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy. 38:41 President Putin: A number of NATO member states are still very sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO. We are getting signals from some European capitals telling us not to worry since it will not happen literally overnight. In fact, our US partners are saying the same thing as well. “All right, then” we respond, “if it does not happen tomorrow, then it will happen the day after tomorrow. What does it change from the historical perspective? Nothing at all.” Furthermore, we are aware of the US leadership's position and words that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not rule out the possibility of that country joining NATO if it meets NATO criteria and overcomes corruption. All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote. They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia. However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level. Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, including the pullout from Germany, from Central and Eastern Europe, making an immense contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold War. We have consistently proposed various cooperation options, including in the NATO-Russia Council and the OSCE formats. Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans' true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO's continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. 43:05 President Putin: Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO's eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia's borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust. The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems. In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities. The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine's accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. 45:07 President Putin: I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. 46:00 President Putin: Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO's tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia's airspace up to the Urals. Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia's entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary. Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future. 47:46 President Putin: Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table. We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities. Furthermore, it was made explicitly clear to us that only NATO members can have legally binding security guarantees. 48:35 President Putin: Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states. The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray. We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia's core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. 50:21 President Putin: They are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. 51:06 President Putin: I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do. 51:33 President Putin: With regard to the state of affairs in Donbass, we see that the ruling Kiev elites never stop publicly making clear their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the conflict and are not interested in a peaceful settlement. On the contrary, they are trying to orchestrate a blitzkrieg in Donbass as was the case in 2014 and 2015. We all know how these reckless schemes ended. Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks. The recently formed large military force makes use of attack drones, heavy equipment, missiles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this. Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions. How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine's territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass. Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one. In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly. 54:52 President Putin: We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine's ruling regime. Ukraine is 'longing for peace' says Zelensky at Munich Security Conference February 19, 2022 Transcript Overview: Western powers should drop their policy of "appeasement" toward Moscow, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky told a security forum Saturday, as fears mount of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Clips 13:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world's third nuclear capability. We don't have that weapon. We also have no security. 14:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. President Biden Remarks on Russia-Ukraine Situation February 18, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Following talks with NATO allies, President Biden provided an update on Russia-Ukraine tensions and international efforts to resolve the crisis. Clips 3:04 President Biden: You know, look, we have reason to believe the Russian forces are planning to and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week — in the coming days. We believe that they will target Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, a city of 2.8 million innocent people.War posturing - Biden US provided record security assistance to Ukraine 4:00 President Biden: This past year, the United States provided a record amount of security assistance to Ukraine to bolster its defensive — $650 million, from Javelin missiles to ammunition. And we also previously provided $500 million in Ukrai- — in humanitarian aid and economic support for Ukraine. And earlier this week, we also announced an additional sovereign loan guarantee of up to $1 billion to strengthen Ukraine's economic resilience. 7:24 President Biden: Well, I don't think he is remotely contemplating nuclear — using nuclear weapons. But I do think it's — I think he is focused on trying to convince the world that he has the ability to change the dynamics in Europe in a way that he cannot. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 15, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: President Biden gave an update on tensions between Russia and Ukraine, calling for diplomacy to resolve tensions. Clips 1:47 President Biden: The United States has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in Europe. We're proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. These measures would apply to all parties — NATO and Russia alike. 2:14 President Biden: We will not sacrifice basic principles, though. Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate. 3:17 President Biden: And the fact remains: Right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine's border. An invasion remains distinctly possible. That's why I've asked several times that all Americans in Ukraine leave now before it's too late to leave safely. It is why we have temporarily relocated our embassy from Kyiv to Lviv in western Ukraine, approaching the Polish border. 4:12 President Biden: The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is not threatening Russia. Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well. 4:26 President Biden: To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture. 5:52 President Biden: Today, our NATO Allies and the Alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. And the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience, and universal appeal of our shared democratic values. Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It's about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world. 7:25 President Biden: And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen. 7:35 President Biden: While I will not send American servicemen to fight Russia in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We have provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. 7:50 President Biden: And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct. Already, in response to Russia's build-up of troops, I have sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO's eastern flank. Several of our Allies have also announced they'll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO's eastern flank. We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our Allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness. And if Russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassure our Allies, and deter further aggression. 9:12 President Biden: I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices. We're coordinating with major enersy [sic] — energy consumers and producers. We're prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. And I will work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. Hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Russia Senate Committee on Foreign Relations December 7, 2021 Overview: Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden's earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia's use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Clips 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden January 23, 2018 Clips 24:30 Former Vice President Biden: I'll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Stop me if you've heard this one before. It's a story about the most powerful person on Earth, and his comedian friend from the Soviet Union, and how they ultimately saved the world from nuclear disaster. Wanna laugh? On this episode of DIA Connections, we explore how the humor of President Ronald Reagan and Yakov Smirnoff may have paved the way for a nuclear arms reduction treaty.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty marked the first time the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, and is just one example of DIA supporting treaty compliance by extensive on-site inspections for verification. On this episode of DIA Connections, we visit the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for an up-close look at nuclear missiles, and then speak with a naval officer at the ready to execute a launch order on a nuclear submarine. Finally, Hollywood director Nicholas Meyer explains how his 1983 television movie, “The Day After,” a raw and vivid look at a nuclear attack on the United States, caused such alarm that psychologists suggested people watch it in large groups for fear of mass hysteria. White House staff members even tried to make changes prior to the movie airing, and may have even been the tipping point for President Ronald Reagan to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev and change the course of history.

On COI #214, Kyle Anzalone and Connor Freeman cover the U.S.-Russia talks in Geneva, the JCPOA talks in Vienna, and the criminal legacy of America's Guantanamo Bay torture prison. Connor updates Iran's regional diplomacy and the nuclear deal talks. The Europeans are increasingly admitting progress is being made. Even the Israelis appear increasingly split on the issue with Tel Aviv's Military Intelligence Chief saying it would be better for Israel if the JCPOA is revived. According to a new poll, most Americans support the deal as well. Kyle breaks down all the news out of Geneva and what the indications are for U.S.-Russian diplomacy. The Russians and the Americans are still at odds over Ukraine's potential NATO membership, a red line for Moscow and a tripwire for war. Connor and Kyle note that it does appear the Americans are willing to negotiate missile placements, perhaps replacing the INF Treaty, and limiting the size and scope of both NATO and Russia's military exercises. Though Kyle shows how the media is preparing Americans for the talks' failure. Kyle details the history of Guantanamo Bay, the torture of detainees, new facilities being built that cost millions of dollars, and Biden's broken promises to close America's gulag. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify iHeart Radio Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD  

On COI #214, Kyle Anzalone and Connor Freeman cover the U.S.-Russia talks in Geneva, the JCPOA talks in Vienna, and the criminal legacy of America's Guantanamo Bay torture prison. Connor updates Iran's regional diplomacy and the nuclear deal talks. The Europeans are increasingly admitting progress is being made. Even the Israelis appear increasingly split on the issue with Tel Aviv's Military Intelligence Chief saying it would be better for Israel if the JCPOA is revived. According to a new poll, most Americans support the deal as well. Kyle breaks down all the news out of Geneva and what the indications are for U.S.-Russian diplomacy. The Russians and the Americans are still at odds over Ukraine's potential NATO membership, a red line for Moscow and a tripwire for war. Connor and Kyle note that it does appear the Americans are willing to negotiate missile placements, perhaps replacing the INF Treaty, and limiting the size and scope of both NATO and Russia's military exercises. Though Kyle shows how the media is preparing Americans for the talks' failure. Kyle details the history of Guantanamo Bay, the torture of detainees, new facilities being built that cost millions of dollars, and Biden's broken promises to close America's gulag.

After entering office in 1981, Ronald Reagan insisted he wanted to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. His critics scoffed at him, not believing he was sincere. In 1987, he stunned them by signing the INF Treaty with the Soviets, eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons. In this episode, we cover how Reagan did just that and how his policies led to the end of the Cold War.JOIN PREMIUMListen ad-free for only $5/month at www.bit.ly/TAPpremiumFOLLOW USwww.linktr.ee/thisamericanpresidentCREDITSHost: Richard LimProducer: Michael NealScript Editor: Jennifer MazzellaArtist: Nip Rogers, www.NipRogers.com

Examining Russian & Chinese Nuclear Missile Doctrine; Socio-political vulnerabilities.

Launch a missile, get a pod, post-INF Treaty edition.  On December 12, 2019, the U.S. Air Force and the Strategic Capabilities office tested a "prototype conventionally-configured, ground-launched ballistic missile" from Vandenberg AFB. The trio talks Twitter hot takes, the Strategic Capabilities Office, the future of U.S. missile procurement, and the future of intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Support us over at Patreon.com/acwpodcast!

The INF Treaty limiting intermediate range nuclear weapons is dead.  Killed by the Trump Administration after the Obama team failed to stop Russia from building a new, treaty-violating missile,  Already, the arms race is already heating up.  Will Russia, the US and now China all play nuclear “Match Me?”  Arms control expert Joseph Cirincione of The Ploughshares Fund what was lost with INF, the threats to 2 more important security agreements involving the US and Russia, and where the arms race is headed. 

Het Defensie Grondgebonden Luchtverdedigingscommando beschermt tegen iedere mogelijke aanval vanuit de lucht. Overste Jos Kuijpers is vanaf maart 2020 de commandant van deze multinationale eenheid. "Luchtverdediging doe je niet voor een paar uur. Dat is 24 uur per dag, zeven dagen in de week, 365 dagen per jaar, haar scherp en alert zijn."

Nukes, missiles, and being oblivious to risk. The Indo-Pacific strategy is freaking some people out. Allies worry that the US doesn't know what it's doing in Asia, and a nuclear Japan and South Korea may just be a matter of time.  Trump doesn't care about Hong Kong.  Also this episode, why it sucks to have a liberal foreign policy in the Second Nuclear Age. When New Zealand will start developing nukes. And why post-INF missiles are the Christmas present no ally wants. In Ask Me Anything: Why Van Jackson is a good example of how not to build a career in foreign policy.Stay Off Twitter:David Frum on honorable resignations - https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1199528319483596800Brett McGurk on the Trump/Erdogan bromance - https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1199041509317701632Mike Mazarr on the INF Treaty and missiles in Kansas - https://twitter.com/MMazarr/status/1197011144759595008Vipin Narang on a new nuclear age - https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/1197924400428810241Armchair Analysis:Mira Rapp-Hooper on decoupling and the new nuclear age - https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/decoupling-is-back-in-asia-a-1960s-playbook-wont-solve-these-problems-2/

Russia is on the offense; where is the US?

Liberals block weapons US needs to deter Russia & China.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Darrell Castle talks about why the Trump Administration chose to withdraw the United States from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty , a treaty with Russia that has been in effect for 22 years. Transcription / Notes WHY DID THE UNITED STATES WITHDRAW FROM THE INF TREATY? Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. Today is Friday, August 9th, 2019, and on today's Report I will be talking about why the Trump Administration chose to withdraw the United States from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty or (INF), a treaty with Russia that had been in effect for 22 years. Yes, we will take a foreign policy look today in hopes that the killing abroad will drive away thoughts of the killing at home, at least for a few minutes.  I try to use logic and apply it to what the world leaders are publicly saying in order to gain some perspective of what is really happening in the world and then come to some conclusion given the evidence that I have. The INF Treaty was painstakingly negotiated by President Reagan and the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbechev and finally signed in 1987. It became an integral step in the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the relaxation of tensions between the two countries. President Reagan acted on behalf of Europe and removed much of the nuclear threat to our NATO allies. Intermediate Range missiles have a range of 310 to 3400 miles and, therefore, were no threat to the United States. Europe, on the other hand was totally exposed to such missiles as was the Soviet Union since America had stationed Intermediate Range missiles along Europe's eastern borders.  Intermediate range missiles are extremely dangerous because the warning time of an attack is almost eliminated. The missiles can hit targets in a first strike that can greatly reduce or eliminate the ability of the targeted nation to retaliate. The treaty eliminated 2,692 such missiles with opportunities for both sides to verify elimination and it helped to establish trust between the two leaders and the two governments. Reagan's trust but verify statement became part of folklore, but its result was a more peaceful world. Why then would the United States withdraw from a treaty that had been so beneficial to both nations? There are many collateral issues, such as, unwillingness to accord Russia much respect as a great nation after the demise of the Soviet Union and the unwillingness of the NATO countries to live up to their agreements and spend the agreed amount on their own defense, and therefore, President Trump is just saying, OK, if you won't relieve part of our NATO cost burden as you agreed to do, then you are on your own. Those are factors, but not the real reason for ending the treaty. The real reason, in my view, is containment of China. What could a missile treaty with Russia have to do with China? That country has been in rapid expansion mode all over the world and seems to be in a kind of informal alliance with Russia against the United States. Just listen to or read the words of the leaders of the world's nations, especially the United States, and you can often see their intent quite clearly. China has recently said that the United States is its number one enemy. You are aware that there is a trade war between the two countries and now China has expanded that to a currency war. Earlier this week, President Trump applied a 10% tariff to the last $300 billion of Chinese goods without tariff. That could be devastating to a Chinese economy completely dependent on exports. Everything made in China now costs more than before the tariffs. The world's economy was already slowing due in part to increasing debt loads of various trading partners as well as sanctions placed on various nations by the United States. The Chinese had to either retaliate for the tariffs or lose face, so they allowed their currency, the Yuan, to devalue. They said it devalued due to market forces but everyone knows they devalued it in retaliation.

    The U-S withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is raising questions over a renewed arms race with Russia.      On The Crisis Next Door, Jason Brooks talks about that grim prospect with Stephen Schwartz, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , and editor/co-author of "Atomic Audit:The Costs and Consequences of U-S Nuclear Weapons Since 1940." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The topics for Garrison this week are the historic ending of the INF Treaty between Russia and the United States, as well as the continual rise in Hong Kong violence. Also he will touch briefly on the topics of Brexit and the possibility of an Afghanistan Peace Treaty. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

There is a shooting in El Paso, Bryan talks about a CNBC article, and the US withdraws from the INF Treaty.

Sec. of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US is unilaterally withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which could have been re-negotiated if the US had acknowledged its own responsibility for the treaty's problems

As America abandons the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty we examine the future of arms control. New weapons abound and new countries are using them, but new treaties will be hard to come by. With Baltimore in the news as President Donald Trump’s latest point of provocation, we ask how the city’s crime rates got so high, and what can be done. And, the surprising rise of rosé wine in France. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1987, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It led to the elimination of more than 2,500 nuclear missile. But as of this week, the INF treaty is no more after the Trump administration announced its withdrawal. Former Secretary of State George Schulz thinks today’s politicians underestimate the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Also, roughly a year after the US announced that it’s creating a military space force, now France is following suit. It’s a 21st century military version of the space race; how hypersonic missiles could transform the future of war and diplomacy; and the widespread use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war has consequences beyond Vietnam’s borders. (U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room at the White House in 1987. Credit: Universal History Archive/Getty Images)

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

What is the INF Treaty and does it make any difference to global security if the U.S. abandons it? Donald Trump has made his decision. Now we'll see where it leads. 

Herbert Diess, Volkswagen CEO, is optimistic about trade. Jason Bordoff, Columbia University Professor and Former Special Assistant to President Obama, says we need to move much faster to a clean energy transition. Nadia Calviño Santamaría, Spanish Economy Minister, says the Spanish economy will grow above the EU average in 2019. Mark Rutte, Netherlands Prime Minister, says the economy has to deliver to the people. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, warns that Russia is not complying with the INF Treaty.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the biggest US foreign policy challenges.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Donald Trump is threatening to pull the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces--or INF--Treaty with Russia. Trump is also promising to bolster the nation's nuclear arsenal until, in his words, other nuclear powers “come to their senses.”

Nuclear weapons impact on Hiroshima’s ability to have a medical response after the bomb. This Week’s Featured Interview: Nuclear Weapons – With Trump abruptly announcing that the US is going to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, it seemed important that we find out exactly what that would mean, not only to...

Ruben Archuleta was born in Antonito, Colorado.  Since Ruben's parents were continually on the move  while working in the fields and potato warehouses his paternal grandparents assumed the responsibility of  providing a stable family environment for him.  Ruben grew up in an adobe house covered with a dirt roof,  no indoor plumbing, and was heated in the winter with a wood cook stove and heater. In 1962, at the age of seventeen, Ruben graduated from Antonito High School and joined the Navy.  After a  tour of duty in Vietnam, and upon completion of his four-year hitch with the military, he attended Southern  Colorado State College in Pueblo, Colorado.  He maintained his ties with the Navy and Air Force as a  reservist for fifteen years.   While attending college, Ruben joined the Pueblo, Colorado Police Department  in 1968 and eventually obtained his Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from CSU-Pueblo. During his tenure as a police captain, Ruben was trained by the U.S. Secret Service in Arizona and  Washington, D.C. and  he worked with the Secret Service assisting in the protection of political   dignitaries.  This included U.S. Presidents, vice-presidents, first ladies, presidential hopefuls, and high  profile Senators.  Ruben worked with, and befriended Hollywood stars and sports figures and he still stays  in contact with some of them.  Ruben applied his fluency in the Russian language when he was assigned to  work with the Soviets as law enforcement security liaison during the implementation of the INF Treaty.  This  treaty called for the destruction of specific ballistic missiles by the United States and the Soviet Union.  www.eljeferuben.com  

We are honored to interview Ron Bartek, president and co-founder of the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance, or FARA. Since both of us have FA, this organization and Ron himself are special to us. In a word, Ron is a peacemaker. Kyle starts off by reading Ron's long and impressive bio.. Of special note to Ron is that he was able to be a part of the negotiation team for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between The United States and The Soviet Union. As a school kid, Ron dreamed of being able to know enough about global superpowers that he would be able to help orchestrate peace between the US and the Soviet Union. After an impressive military career, he was a part of the INF Treaty, which helped put an end to the Cold War. Shortly after that treaty was signed, Ron's son was diagnosed with the rare disorder Friedreich's ataxia (FA). Suddenly the world of the rare disease community opened up to him, and he decided to use his ample peacemaking skills in the fight against FA.