Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday that a controversial US missile defense base in Poland is a potential target of the Russian military, comments that come amid soaring tensions as the US just authorized Ukraine to strike Russian territory with long-range NATO missiles.
“Given the level of threats posed by such Western military facilities, the missile defense base in Poland has long been included among the priority targets for potential neutralization. If necessary, this can be achieved using a wide range of advanced weaponry,” Zakharova said.
The Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missile system in Poland has long been a security concern for Russia as its Mark-41 launchers are capable of fitting nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 miles. A land-based version of the Tomahawks was previously banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which the US withdrew from in 2019.
The US just recently opened the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, and NATO formally took control of it on Thursday. “The integration of the Aegis Ashore system into NATO’s defensive network underscores our collective commitment to ensuring the security of all Allies,” US Air Force Gen. James Hecker, the head of NATO’s Allied Air Command, said at a ceremony formalizing NATO control of the base.
Zakharova said the establishment of the base follows “a series of deeply destabilizing actions by the Americans and their North Atlantic allies in the strategic sphere” and said the move “aligns with the longstanding and destructive practice of advancing NATO’s military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.”
Her warning that Russia could potentially target the base comes after Russia updated its nuclear doctrine in response to the US supporting long-range Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory. Under the new doctrine, Russia now considers an attack by a non-nuclear armed state that’s supported by a nuclear-armed power as a joint attack.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also said on Thursday that Russia has the right to strike the military facilities of countries that are supplying Ukraine with the missiles. “We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities,” he said.
https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1859653399396089925
DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics
-"America is pushing the world into global conflict"
5h
Putin declares that Russia's NEW "Oreshnik" missiles cannot be intercepted by Western systems.
The missiles travel at Mach 10 which is 3km per second.
aio @blinkovalex
Replying to @DD_Geopolitics
Flight time for "Hazel"
UK – 19 minutes
Poland – 8 minutes
Belgium – 14 minutes
Germany – 11 minutes
Swoop and RyanAir seethe with envy.
Ukraine’s former military commander in chief delivers chilling message: WWIII ‘has begun’
He's not the one in charge now, he's just training recruits in Britain.
WW3 by Proxy has been active for several years now anyhow.
One can usually figure that out by “former”. I left out the link by mistake.
Yes, the front lines of the Anglesh countryside, where a warm pint and a Man. City footie match on telly can ease the burden of any frontline battle commander. "I'll go again on a basket of chips, Love."
He also said that the western supply of air defenses couldn't last more than a couple of months in a war against Russia. Not good for the west if he's right, and I suspect that he is.
FJB. FNATO. Make it stop.
FJB has left the room …
The stench remains.
As we await World War III to commence, let us catch a few last laughs as we watch MSDNC election night coverage of 2 weeks ago:
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1859720658110034151
After U.S. missile attack on Russia, which was an obvious act of war, of course, American military bases, particular the military bases in East Europe, became legitimate targets for Russian missiles. No need to use nukes for the base in Poland; conventional warheads would be enough. Recently tested Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile is perfect for the task.
Why only in East Europe?
these are prioritized because of the shorter time-to-target
Fair enough, I guess. Although hypersonic missiles could well hit Rota, the new “Gibraltar”, in about 30 minutes, and California in less than an hour.
Putin himself has warned those countries providing weapons to strike Russia: “We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”
This is very unspecific, much more of what Zakharova said, but I interpreted it as threatening to bomb military facilities in Great Britain or the USA. In any case it would trigger article 5 of NATO mutual defense, the specifics of which are not very clear anyhow.
I explained all that in posts today on the other thread about Putin's new missile.
Putin explicitly said its reactions would be a "mirror image" of US actions. So Russia will not hit continental US unless the US strikes from the continental US. Same with NATO countries. But countries that use US or NATO weapons to attack Russia are legitimate targets as well as the countries supplying those weapons.
Bottom line: Putin will NOT start WWIII over a few ATACMS. But he will counter – or target – those Aegis Ashore installations which are nuclear-capable.
“Mirror image” is not very precise. Mirroring US bombing (with US personnel managing the ATACMS) of Russia can be interpreted as Russian bombing of the USA. If, as has been the case so far, it’s Britain who’s doing the bombing, then the mirror would be to bomb Britain, etc. Poland is not directly involved anymore, so why bomb Poland?
Yes, it is not very precise. However, as we know, American ATACMS targeted some Russian military infrastructure in Briansk region which Russia uses in Ukrainian war. There are no similar targets on U.S. territory of any interest for Russia. Attacking, for example, some intercontinental launch pads on U.S. territory is not a mirror response. Besides, it would make not much sense. For Russia is more important to eliminate American military infrastructure in Poland and Rumania. Poland definitely is not innocent in this conflict.
Attacking US military infrastructure, say the main military port at Norfolk, would be “mirror image”. I’m not saying that Russia will do that (almost certainly not) but the threat does exist. Attacking missile silos is probably unrealistic anyhow: it would need extreme precision, but attacking any US military base of any kind is much more feasible.
American military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan are attacked regularly by local militias anyway. It looks, Putin is going to increase the cooperation with those who are fighting U.S.
In his recent address to Russian public he told this Ukrainian war became global now. Russia has a lot of different kinds of weapons to offer to such countries as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria. U.S. has plenty of enemies. To help them with modern weapons and reconnaissance would be also a kind of mirror response.
Unclear to me. On one side Russia has been reinforcing alliance level with Iran and North Korea but on the other side Russia has failed to defend Syria from repeated Israeli attacks in spite of threats, this is rather because of Russian Zionism than because of fear of a US retaliation that is not known to have been even insinuated. Russia has also been catering to several US vassals (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.), China has done the same but worse even, cozying with Morocco and snubbing Algeria, more recently they have opened a megaport in Peru without any consideration to the government being a pro-US putschist regime. Russia’s behavior is maybe more reasonable but China’s has me completely baffled.
I think both great powers will do their utmost to avoid war, although it’s not their choice solely: the USA can push them to war, just that it would be total nuclear war.
"Russia has failed to defend Syria" – without Russian interference, Syria couldn't defend itself against U.S.-Israel-ISIS military pressure. Iran helped as it could, still Iran wasn't strong enough. Syria is not a puppet state. There are a lot of disagreements between Assad and Putin.
You are right, Zionist lobby is strong in Russia. Recently Russia-Israel relationship deteriorate a lot because of the genocidal war in Gaza. Still Putin is okay to talk both to Netanyahu and to Mahmoud Abbas who, by the way, participated in BRICS + summit. Netanyahu attended at 9 May Victory Parade in Moscow on 2018. As I remember, there were only two heads of foreign states who did it. The other one was Serb president Vucic. It does matter particular considering that American puppet Germany is moving back to Nazism.
We are watching an complicated geopolitical game.
I meant from Israel and also from Turkey broadly speaking. Russia has been almost absolutely passive re. this two countries that are the greatest menace to Syria and that were the two main sponsors of ISIS (Israel probably is to this very day). Syria-Damascus, much like the North Syria Federation, may have little choice but their current allies but these “allies” (Russia and the USA respectively) are not really good protectors in the face of foreign aggression by Turkey and Israel.
But glad we do agree overall.
Did I not just suggest today that Putin might target those installations in the event that the West strikes Russia from outside Ukraine?
Did I not say that those installations are the primary reason for the SMO – and all the other objectives announced by Putin in February, 2022, are merely the preconditions for the achievement of the real objective: the installation of a Military District on that border to counter those installations?
I don't doubt that Putin might – I stress might – be willing to forego taking all of Ukraine if he can successfully take out those installations without starting WWIII. However, it's still safer to use a Military District.
Sure but it is rather doubtful that Putin will strike any NATO countries openly – at the very least before he knows what he might obtain from Trump.
Agreed, with one proviso: the presence of the mentally diminished occupant in the WH who is given to spontaneous disgorgement of madness.
I’m far from certain that Biden has enough of presence left to qualify as mad (or sane). But given the incoming change in administration and the likely position of that new administration – I’d not say that allowing strikes with ATTCMS, Storm shadow and SCALP was an act of madness.
For it to qualify as that the usage of these weapons would constitute a major threat to Russia’s integrity or a reversal of the way the war is going in Ukraine – as neither is the case in my opinion – I cannot see that this is more than a PR problem for Putin.
And I can see no reason for Putin to risk all out war when with but a little luck (Trump being honest about how he sees funding Ukraine) Russia stands to dramatically improve their prospects post Trumps inauguration.
Or to put it in different words for this to be madness one would have to think the Russians much weaker than they likely are or Putin mad/incompetent – neither of which I subscribe to.
Oh, I agree re Trump. I have hopes that he means what he says, based primarily on his business orientation which at least implies that we're better off with friends we can compete peacefully with as starkly opposed to a couple of recent decades of madness on the part of the democrats.
In this short video, Putin complains to world leaders a decade ago about the USA building new military bases along Russia's borders, which was a direct violation of the Founding Act. The video also describes the building of American missile launchers in Poland and Romaina that were a direct violation of the INF treaty.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20241122/us-investor-lynch-eyes-nord-stream-2-purchase-citing-strategic-value-for-us-1120959788.html
Don’t fear the reaper.
So, Russia attacked Ukraine, an independent country, but they have the audacity to demand that Ukraine defend itself with one hand tied behind its back.
I don’t get it!
Why shouldn’t we give Ukrainians all the weapons they need to do whatever they believe will help them?
Sure, Putin can say whatever he wants—he could even claim that if one of us looks at him the wrong way, he’s entitled to attack us and put that in their war doctrine papers. But why should we care about his baseless justifications?
That redundant line of thought that has been answered and discredited innumerable times and has gotten more than old around here. It completely ignores or dismisses ALL the history leading up to the invasion of Ukraine, most of which was motivated by the US Neoliberal Establishment's documented need to prevent any country from "challenging" it in any way. The seeds were planted at the inception of the RF long before Mr Putin was even its President. Stow all the rhetoric, it's been regurgitated and answered over and over for the last few years. Do a search of the site, if you're not just a pro US Hegemony troll.
Every aggressor who started a war in the history of the world believes that they were justified in making the attack. What does not change is the fact the Ukraine was attacked by Russia. And Ukraine has right to defend itself from this aggression.
No, the US government under George W. Bush for example knew they were not justified in invading Iraq. And knew with absolute certainty. How do we know? Well, they – the government, the legacy media, the think tanks, the incorrigbly blabbermouthing retired generals, the other 'experts', all the usual suspects, repeat offenders – knowingly, intentionally and explicitly lied to construct a casus belli that they all knew wasn't.
Oversimplification. The legitimate sounding reasons that the US used to invade (fill in the blank), in countries thousands of mile away,no less were made up, Russia's, right next to her border, weren't.
His justifications are not 'baseless,' in fact they are easy to understand, and would be very easy to recognize even for people completely immersed in the propaganda as they are, as self-evidently legitimate if applied to the USA having Russian missile bases, defensive in nature only of course, stationed in Mexico and Canada.
This problem, deriving from the fact that mind-reading is not a thing that actually exists, is called the security dilemma. If you are anywhere near sane at all, you avoid to play this "game" with a nuclear power at nearly all cost, much less with a nuclear power that is also the greatest landpower in the world today.
Giving the Ukrainians all the weapons in the world would not change the outcome, it would only change the number of dead Ukrainians and drive up the rate at which that number increases. The war has already been lost by Ukraine as a NATO (read: US) proxy. The US, the UK and France, Germany all have operatives inside Ukraine. The missiles fired into Russia, into Crimea etc. are de facto fired by NATO already, this is why Russia is justified to target relevant NATO facilities in NATO countries. They are naturally very disinclined to do so, and exercised almost superhuman amounts of restraint, but their patience has been stretched to the limit. And if they chose to do so there is nothing in the NATO arsenal that can prevent that from happening. This latest demonstration served to deliver the message very clearly, and as if needed clarified thusly by Putin himself.
Russia has what is called escalation dominance all the way up to nuclear war. Betting on that not happening because of whatever reason you can imagine, possibly even suddenly inserting rationality into the equation, is really even more foolish still.
If we really wouldn't want the nuclear catastrophe to ever happen there would be no nuclear weapons, that's the only actual solution. But they are there and will remain so because of the same inescapable dilemma.
There's some grey area here, and unless The GreyZone has covered this, I'll ask my questions here.
Does the RF intend to attack US missile base(s) in Poland that launch missiles, or that supply them or technical logistics ?
And if the former, are these missiles launched against Russian targets in Ukraine, Russian territory temporarily occupied by Ukrainian Special Service (SS) operatives, any Russian territory, or as interceptors destroying Russian ballistics in flight in any of those ?
Would think all those circumstances carry either a "fully legal" or "unjustified" qualifier – and therefore a grey area for interpretation.
It is time for Joey Biden and minions to be quite and slink into their evil caves.
The American voters have spoken, and peace is the point.
Be gone evil you have done your worst!
https://x.com/i/status/1860122225388441887
Putin will not attack an American base while Biden is President. Not sure about what happens after trump takes over. Iran fired missiles at a USA base while trump was President and trump did nothing about it. So Putin may calculate the trump does not have the courage to stand up to Putin. Time will tell.
i see your craziness and raise you insanity[poker]…
NATO Secretary General Rutte meets President-elect Trump on November 22, 2024.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2024/11/23/trump-rutte-nato/7301732388256/
The medium-range Tomahawk missiles are mainly used by the US Navy (submarines). Putin only fears the land-based Tomahawk?
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Tomahawk-cruise-missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)
https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/BGM-109-Tomahawk.htm
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/tomahawk-cruise-missile
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2169229/tomahawk-cruise-missile/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/06/navy-sub-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-joins-middle-east-buildup-attacks-us-military-forces-continue.html
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/putins-march-of-folly/