Shifting military technology and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear treaty

Russia has been violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty for at least five years. Trump has announced the US is pulling out of the treaty. Russia tested and then deployed land-based missile with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (300 and 3,400 miles). Sea-based and air-based missiles were not covered under this treaty which is why there are so many air-launched and navy ship and submarine-launched mid-ranged cruise missiles. Drones were not covered under the treaty.

The purpose of the INF treaty was to reduce the land-based missiles placed all over Europe and in the Russian area near Europe. The ranges covered just behind the front lines to the end of the European-Russia theater of operations.

China has not signed onto this treaty and has many mid-ranged land-based missiles, drones and is now developing railguns and electromagnetic launchers to boost the range of missiles.

Longer range artillery is being created

The US has authorized $58 million in funding for the development of active defenses to counter INF-range ground-launched missile systems; counterforce capabilities to prevent attacks from these missiles, and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance the capabilities of the United States.

The US has begun development of giant cannons which will have a range of 1000 miles (1852 kilometers). Conventional artillery would have those ranges but usually nuclear weapons would need to be larger. Although 155 mm tactical nuclear weapons that could be fired from 155mm through 400mm artillery. The 155mm nuclear shell had the equivalent of 100 ton explosive nuclear weapon.

The trend of foreign, heavy MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) is to fire well over 100 kilometers (60+ miles).

The US recently doubled the range of army artillery to 38 miles. The Army has successfully fired a 155mm artillery round 62 kilometers (38.5 miles). The Army is now prototyping artillery weapons with a larger caliber tube and new grooves to hang weights for gravity adjustments to the weapon – which is a modified M777A2 mobile howitzer. The new ERCA weapon is designed to hit ranges greater than 70km (43.5 miles). The Russian military is currently producing its latest howitzer cannon, the 2S33 Msta-SM2 variant; it is a new 2A79 152mm cannon able to hit ranges greater than 40km.

In 2016, South Korean defense contractor Poongsan revealed its own ramjet artillery shell concept, which had an estimated range of nearly 50 miles. Norway has a ramjet artillery shell with a 60-mile range.

Longer range missiles are not banned but can easily fly into the shorter range

Ballistic missiles can also fly to less than their maximum range if they fly along a depressed trajectory or a lofted trajectory, if they carry a heavier payload, or if they consume only part of their fuel. This was not banned.

The US has a 499-kilometer Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). It is meant to replace the Tactical Missile System while providing increased standoff range. Congress slowed the program in 2019 appropriations. The Precision Strike Missile would be close to the bottom limit of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Russia calls Drones missiles but US calls them planes

Russia claims that U.S. armed drones violate the INF Treaty because they are consistent with the treaty’s definition of a ground-launched cruise missile. The treaty defines a cruise missile as “an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path.” It further specifies that a ground-launched cruise missile banned by the treaty means “a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.”

The US position is drones are not missiles but are more like planes.

History of INF and what missiles were banned

The United States and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in December 1987. Negotiations on this treaty were the result of a “dual-track” decision taken by NATO in 1979.

The ban applies to missiles with nuclear or conventional warheads, but does not apply to sea-based or air-delivered missiles. The INF Treaty did not ban the possession or testing and production of missile defense interceptors, even if they flew to ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

For the Soviet Union, the list of eliminated weapons included the SS20 intermediate-range missile, and the SS-4 and the SS-5 shorter-range missiles. The Soviet Union also agreed to destroy a range of older nuclear missiles, as well as the mobile, short-range SS-23, a system developed and deployed in the early 1980s. For the United States, the list of banned missiles included the new Pershing II ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles, along with several hundred older Pershing I missiles that were in storage in Europe.

There is a Congressional Research Service report – Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty : Background and Issues for Congress. Amy F. Woolf. Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy. Updated October 5, 2018. (45 pages).

The U.S. State Department has reported that Russia has been in violation of the treaty from 2014 to 2018. In the 2016 report, it noted that “the cruise missile developed by Russia meets the INF Treaty definition of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, and as such, all missiles of that type, and all launchers of the type used or tested to launch such a missile, are prohibited under the provisions of the INF Treaty.” The 2017 and 2018 compliance reports describe evidence for non-compliance. In 2018, the Russian missile 9M729 was specifically cited. Press reports also indicate that Russia has now begun to deploy the new cruise missile.

The Obama Administration raised its concerns about Russian compliance with the INF Treaty in a number of meetings since 2013. Russia continued to deny that it had violated the treaty. In October 2016, the United States called a meeting of the Special Verification Commission, which was established by the INF Treaty to address compliance concerns. Again no progress was made in resolving INF Treaty violations. A second SVC meeting was held in December 2017.

125 thoughts on “Shifting military technology and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear treaty”

  1. US has not shown any proof that Russia has been violating the treaty. If Russia has been violating the treaty for 5 years why bring it up now and not when they started violating it? There have been plenty of meetings between Russia and US within 5 years yet no discussions of the INF violation. Seems like a blatant lie that benefits them now as they are losing their world dominance and their proxy war in Syria.

  2. More nukes are just stupid. If you use them you are dead. France and Great Britain have enough nukes to sterilize Russia. A single 100K warhead exploding above Moscow would kill a million Russians and devastate the Russian economy for decades.

  3. US has not shown any proof that Russia has been violating the treaty. If Russia has been violating the treaty for 5 years, why bring it up now and not when they started violating it? There have been plenty of meetings between Russia and US within 5 years yet no discussions of the INF violation. Seems like a blatant lie that benefits them now as they are losing their world dominance and their proxy war in Syria.

  4. More nukes are just stupid. If you use them you are dead. France and Great Britain have enough nukes to sterilize Russia. A single 100K warhead exploding above Moscow would kill a million Russians and devastate the Russian economy for decades.

  5. Should have been done long time ago but still kudos to Trump and a special thanks to Putin for electing the son of gun.

  6. This has nothing to do with nukes its about PACOM. Very simply the Chinese, NKorea, soon to be Iran and others have a growing viable advantage with being able to deploy mass numbers of IRBM’s and to target US airbases rear assets. DF21 is based off the US pershing outlawed by above treaty. With the end of this treaty the US will wash in the EU theater upon our own deployments but will gain a huge currently restricted by treaty ability in PACOM. Just consider simply the DF21. The Chinese version with less targeting ability has caused the US to not just spend trillions on BMD but is still a viable threat for US forces deployed across PACOM. Well now consider what a US DF21 deployed across the region and bought deployed by our allies would do to the Chinese basing across their eastern nation. How devastating would those systems be loaded into our sub forces in place of a pack of cruise missiles. China would be faced with response times that would be near undefendable. Russia is not will not be a friend but they are not the Soviet Union anymore. The EU should be well able to more than check balance the Russian forces in EU theater with US easily being the balance breaker. China is the current US threat that can make a real challenge.

  7. That is a fair point and what you think is going to happen when the Russians hit back with a 10 MT nuclear warhead in Paris or London.

  8. Should have been done long time ago but still kudos to Trump and a special thanks to Putin for electing the son of gun.

  9. This has nothing to do with nukes its about PACOM. Very simply the Chinese NKorea soon to be Iran and others have a growing viable advantage with being able to deploy mass numbers of IRBM’s and to target US airbases rear assets. DF21 is based off the US pershing outlawed by above treaty. With the end of this treaty the US will wash in the EU theater upon our own deployments but will gain a huge currently restricted by treaty ability in PACOM.Just consider simply the DF21. The Chinese version with less targeting ability has caused the US to not just spend trillions on BMD but is still a viable threat for US forces deployed across PACOM. Well now consider what a US DF21 deployed across the region and bought deployed by our allies would do to the Chinese basing across their eastern nation. How devastating would those systems be loaded into our sub forces in place of a pack of cruise missiles. China would be faced with response times that would be near undefendable. Russia is not will not be a friend but they are not the Soviet Union anymore. The EU should be well able to more than check balance the Russian forces in EU theater with US easily being the balance breaker. China is the current US threat that can make a real challenge.

  10. That is a fair point and what you think is going to happen when the Russians hit back with a 10 MT nuclear warhead in Paris or London.

  11. I reread your comment a few times. It kind of makes plausible sense. America encouraging Europe — now well over 75 years past the disastrous end of WW2 — now a land of high prosperity, high culture, high capacity and high expectations, to rearm itself and be responsible for its own defense, well … that to me seems laudable in turn. The only real long term downside is that America’s industries have (at least for a while) enjoyed a super-preferred-trading-partner relationship with Europe’s markets. I say (at least for a while) because I would also say that that cherry-in-the-pie relationship dissolved almost completely with the ascendence of the super-nation, the European Union. Whatever sweet trading deal(s) we had going for us due to European’s tacit admission of America’s Defense benefit, from the 1990s on, is long over. Gone. Which then brings us to the realpolitik of today perhaps: admitting not only that reestablishing the sweet deal is not possible, admitting that Europe is a pitifully duplicitous trading partner, happily imposing tariffs on American goods and services at any turn, yet outcrying loudly when we impose the same in reverse, … if we just openly recognize that Europe is — LIKE AMERICA — out “for itself”, then I think it all becomes clearer. Out for yourself without regard to your allies? Great! Spend your OWN money to arm, man, reconnoiter and defend yourself, New Europe. You’ve got the manpower, you’ve got the industry, you’ve got the pölïtical will, and you’ve got the fire in your belly. And if you finally decide that Russia isn’t really as terrible an existential foe, and actually more like a European nation, well … put up your own defense. Which leaves America as the Tie Breaker in case of conflict. A good relationship. One that doesn’t need to be further influenced. Just saying, GoatGuy

  12. Seems more likely — than it being a “lie” — is that the Big O chose, with deep party mollification, to “look the other way”. That President Trump has chosen to task the Russians for their duplicity, now, is perhaps partially pölïtical — as an answer to his endless queue of fake-news-critics as to his softness on Russia — but in reality, if the Big O failed to address Russian surreptitiousness, then bad on him. Yah, he’s gone. Nothing better than the Now for our president to deal with the Ruskies. Moreover, it stands to similar reason that by exiting the non-functioning ballistic missile treaty, America is asserting its address to plenty of foreign power that has been unsubtly aiming to power-up their own military presences. Having no anti-IRBM missile treaty means we can deploy IRBMs forward. As in Guam. Hello China. Maybe all y’all will want to rethink the commandeering of the Spratleys. Just saying, GoatGuy

  13. Chuckle. Delightfully — much to the persistent gnashing-of-fangs of The Establishment — delightfully a charismatic non-politician infamously overtook all his fish-headed also-rans, and won the election. It didn’t take conspiracy bunkum from Putin. It didn’t take dark-handed secret agencies working against Hillary’s hilariously wrong-facing pitch. Just one guy, pitching to the long-overlooked “fly over America”, and to the many, many Republicans who have felt increasingly dispossessed of their representation in this fine country. But yah. ⊕1 more from me. GoatGuy

  14. I reread your comment a few times. It kind of makes plausible sense. America encouraging Europe — now well over 75 years past the disastrous end of WW2 — now a land of high prosperity high culture high capacity and high expectations to rearm itself and be responsible for its own defense well … that to me seems laudable in turn. The only real long term downside is that America’s industries have (at least for a while) enjoyed a super-preferred-trading-partner relationship with Europe’s markets. I say (at least for a while) because I would also say that that cherry-in-the-pie relationship dissolved almost completely with the ascendence of the super-nation the European Union. Whatever sweet trading deal(s) we had going for us due to European’s tacit admission of America’s Defense benefit from the 1990s on is long over. Gone.Which then brings us to the realpolitik of today perhaps: admitting not only that reestablishing the sweet deal is not possible admitting that Europe is a pitifully duplicitous trading partner happily imposing tariffs on American goods and services at any turn yet outcrying loudly when we impose the same in reverse … if we just openly recognize that Europe is — LIKE AMERICA — out for itself””” then I think it all becomes clearer. Out for yourself without regard to your allies?Great!Spend your OWN money to arm man reconnoiter and defend yourself New Europe. You’ve got the manpower you’ve got the industry you’ve got the pölïtical will and you’ve got the fire in your belly. And if you finally decide that Russia isn’t really as terrible an existential foe and actually more like a European nation well … put up your own defense. Which leaves America as the Tie Breaker in case of conflict. A good relationship. One that doesn’t need to be further influenced. Just saying””GoatGuy”””””””

  15. Seems more likely — than it being a lie”” — is that the Big O chose”” with deep party mollification to “look the other way”. That President Trump has chosen to task the Russians for their duplicity now is perhaps partially pölïtical — as an answer to his endless queue of fake-news-critics as to his softness on Russia — but in reality if the Big O failed to address Russian surreptitiousness then bad on him. Yah he’s gone. Nothing better than the Now for our president to deal with the Ruskies. Moreover it stands to similar reason that by exiting the non-functioning ballistic missile treaty America is asserting its address to plenty of foreign power that has been unsubtly aiming to power-up their own military presences. Having no anti-IRBM missile treaty means we can deploy IRBMs forward. As in Guam. Hello China. Maybe all y’all will want to rethink the commandeering of the Spratleys. Just saying””GoatGuy”””””””

  16. Chuckle.Delightfully — much to the persistent gnashing-of-fangs of The Establishment — delightfully a charismatic non-politician infamously overtook all his fish-headed also-rans and won the election. It didn’t take conspiracy bunkum from Putin. It didn’t take dark-handed secret agencies working against Hillary’s hilariously wrong-facing pitch. Just one guy pitching to the long-overlooked fly over America””” and to the many”” many Republicans who have felt increasingly dispossessed of their representation in this fine country. But yah.⊕1 more from me.GoatGuy”””””””

  17. They brought it up 5 years ago. Just because you were not paying attention doesn’t mean that they didn’t.

  18. Agree with you about Russia but not so much about China. China IS a threat…just not directly to the US (nuclear missiles pointed at us aside as we also have nukes pointed at them…probably more than they do, too). The US can manage China by forcing the real stakeholders in the PAC to take the risks. This means Japan becoming a nuclear power. Better that there’s more of a risk of Osaka, Tokyo and Kobe being nuked instead of Seattle, LA and Chicago. Not to mention that a nuclear Japan would be a de facto Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Japan as far as China goes. More than enough for relieving the pressure off us.

  19. They brought it up 5 years ago. Just because you were not paying attention doesn’t mean that they didn’t.

  20. Agree with you about Russia but not so much about China.China IS a threat…just not directly to the US (nuclear missiles pointed at us aside as we also have nukes pointed at them…probably more than they do too). The US can manage China by forcing the real stakeholders in the PAC to take the risks. This means Japan becoming a nuclear power. Better that there’s more of a risk of Osaka Tokyo and Kobe being nuked instead of Seattle LA and Chicago. Not to mention that a nuclear Japan would be a de facto Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Japan as far as China goes. More than enough for relieving the pressure off us.

  21. Putin only has a very short time for adventurism before his army becomes to small (those damn demographics) to project power. Russia can bomb the EU all the live long day but in a few years they won’t have enough men to hold any of the land they manage to “liberate”.

  22. Putin only has a very short time for adventurism before his army becomes to small (those damn demographics) to project power. Russia can bomb the EU all the live long day but in a few years they won’t have enough men to hold any of the land they manage to liberate””.”””

  23. I don’t think they can easily mobilize a ground invasion army NOW, but I’m speaking in the hypothetical that they somehow find the money to remain globally relevant militarily.

  24. I don’t think they can easily mobilize a ground invasion army NOW but I’m speaking in the hypothetical that they somehow find the money to remain globally relevant militarily.

  25. Yeah, for real, a single large scale nuclear weapon, as it exists today, would decimate just about anything if detonated at the right altitude. I suppose you could say that about any nuke, though, because of fallout and how shockwaves carry debris. Still, they’re much worse than the originals.

  26. That kind of reminds me of War and Peace for some godawful reason. *shudders* Anyway, I’d rather the shitshow. However, I agree; Russia invading western Europe, I doubt it. I see that as being about as likely as ET landing on my lawn tonight. I live in an apartment and don’t have a lawn, so that tells you what I think about Russia invading anything outside its nearest neighbors. I also don’t think that most nations really have ambitions of empire anymore. I see that as winding down. Hopefully I’m not wrong.

  27. Not counting the additional people from Crimea, Russian population is growing. That is however irrelevant. No country possesses enough troops to occupy an area the size of EU/USA/Canada/China and definitely not Russia(It is just too expensive to equip troops on such a scale). Just look at what happened in Iraq, US was able to control parts but not the whole country and most of the cities still had insurgents operating. Just Iraq required almost all available troops, any more and US would have to give up positions around the world.

  28. Yeah for real a single large scale nuclear weapon as it exists today would decimate just about anything if detonated at the right altitude. I suppose you could say that about any nuke though because of fallout and how shockwaves carry debris. Still they’re much worse than the originals.

  29. That kind of reminds me of War and Peace for some godawful reason. *shudders*Anyway I’d rather the shitshow. However I agree; Russia invading western Europe I doubt it. I see that as being about as likely as ET landing on my lawn tonight. I live in an apartment and don’t have a lawn so that tells you what I think about Russia invading anything outside its nearest neighbors. I also don’t think that most nations really have ambitions of empire anymore. I see that as winding down. Hopefully I’m not wrong.

  30. Not counting the additional people from Crimea Russian population is growing. That is however irrelevant. No country possesses enough troops to occupy an area the size of EU/USA/Canada/China and definitely not Russia(It is just too expensive to equip troops on such a scale). Just look at what happened in Iraq US was able to control parts but not the whole country and most of the cities still had insurgents operating. Just Iraq required almost all available troops any more and US would have to give up positions around the world.

  31. That is not based on facts. You need to examine similar situations in history to make correct projections. Most projections dont take into account the economic situation and assume that the decrease in population is a trend. Looking at the Great Depression as an example of economy effecting the population, the fertility rate in US dropped 20%… For Russia the 1990s were worse and so the effect on the population is worse. The fertility rate is estimated to have fallen by 30-45% during the early 90s, however by the mid to late 90s it stabilized and started to grow. It has been growing ever since with some recent slowdowns. Any source you look at will probably be an estimate. The only real numbers are from the 2010 census with reporting number 142.9. The recent 2018 reports show a population of 143.96. As I am sure you know countries conduct a census on irregular basis every decade or so. If Russian Duma is able to reform the process of getting a Russian citizenship and make it easier to get, then I think Russia could easily see an increase of Immigrates from the CIS countries and failing countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states(both have demographics far worse then Russia). Most leading economies in the world have population growth only due to immigrates. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

  32. Actually the Russian population is falling in the last several years and projected to fall to 120 million in 20 years.

  33. Russian military has crossed Ukrainian borders which is a European county and killed Ukrainians as well as used artillery over the border, send irregular forces, trained and armed local delinquents and supplied them with all kinds of arms from tank rounds to tanks themselves. Only a blind can talk about “ET landing on my lawn tonight”.

  34. Countries like Russia have to be contained or they will try to expand by all means possible. Putin’s system is in effect a milder version of Hitler’s system. Many similarities but more overt and hybrid actions still directed to expand outside its borders. The Russian “elites” and Putin in particular can not accept the fact that the USSR has fallen apart and try to put it together again. So the West has to take steps to contain Putin’s neo imperialist revanchist ideology. The only effective method against Putin is steadfastness and force.

  35. Putin, Prigozhin etc did help as unlikely as it might seem to the uniformed. It is a fact. I hope you understand I don’t have to explain this to you my friend.

  36. That is not based on facts. You need to examine similar situations in history to make correct projections. Most projections dont take into account the economic situation and assume that the decrease in population is a trend. Looking at the Great Depression as an example of economy effecting the population the fertility rate in US dropped 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}…For Russia the 1990s were worse and so the effect on the population is worse. The fertility rate is estimated to have fallen by 30-45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} during the early 90s however by the mid to late 90s it stabilized and started to grow. It has been growing ever since with some recent slowdowns. Any source you look at will probably be an estimate. The only real numbers are from the 2010 census with reporting number 142.9. The recent 2018 reports show a population of 143.96.As I am sure you know countries conduct a census on irregular basis every decade or so.If Russian Duma is able to reform the process of getting a Russian citizenship and make it easier to get then I think Russia could easily see an increase of Immigrates from the CIS countries and failing countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states(both have demographics far worse then Russia). Most leading economies in the world have population growth only due to immigrates.https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

  37. Actually the Russian population is falling in the last several years and projected to fall to 120 million in 20 years.

  38. Russian military has crossed Ukrainian borders which is a European county and killed Ukrainians as well as used artillery over the border send irregular forces trained and armed local delinquents and supplied them with all kinds of arms from tank rounds to tanks themselves. Only a blind can talk about ET landing on my lawn tonight””.”””

  39. Countries like Russia have to be contained or they will try to expand by all means possible. Putin’s system is in effect a milder version of Hitler’s system. Many similarities but more overt and hybrid actions still directed to expand outside its borders. The Russian elites”” and Putin in particular can not accept the fact that the USSR has fallen apart and try to put it together again. So the West has to take steps to contain Putin’s neo imperialist revanchist ideology. The only effective method against Putin is steadfastness and force.”””

  40. Putin Prigozhin etc did help as unlikely as it might seem to the uniformed. It is a fact. I hope you understand I don’t have to explain this to you my friend.

  41. War is good for the economy and creates employment. Then maybe they could afford national health for all.

  42. War is good for the economy and creates employment. Then maybe they could afford national health for all.

  43. While there is a system it has never been tested in actually combat. So, I wish the Russians luck. Just an interesting fact, the anti-ballistic missiles are nuclear tipped, 10kt warheads. I hope the Muscovites unplug their electronic devices in case of a nuclear attack. The system is design to be good enough to provide protection from 1 to 2 ballistic missiles. A pity that no country has 1 or 2 ballistic missiles. They either have none or they have a lot more than 2.

  44. While there is a system it has never been tested in actually combat. So I wish the Russians luck. Just an interesting fact the anti-ballistic missiles are nuclear tipped 10kt warheads. I hope the Muscovites unplug their electronic devices in case of a nuclear attack. The system is design to be good enough to provide protection from 1 to 2 ballistic missiles. A pity that no country has 1 or 2 ballistic missiles. They either have none or they have a lot more than 2.

  45. While there is a system it has never been tested in actually combat. So, I wish the Russians luck. Just an interesting fact, the anti-ballistic missiles are nuclear tipped, 10kt warheads. I hope the Muscovites unplug their electronic devices in case of a nuclear attack. The system is design to be good enough to provide protection from 1 to 2 ballistic missiles. A pity that no country has 1 or 2 ballistic missiles. They either have none or they have a lot more than 2.

  46. While there is a system it has never been tested in actually combat. So I wish the Russians luck. Just an interesting fact the anti-ballistic missiles are nuclear tipped 10kt warheads. I hope the Muscovites unplug their electronic devices in case of a nuclear attack. The system is design to be good enough to provide protection from 1 to 2 ballistic missiles. A pity that no country has 1 or 2 ballistic missiles. They either have none or they have a lot more than 2.

  47. While there is a system it has never been tested in actually combat. So, I wish the Russians luck. Just an interesting fact, the anti-ballistic missiles are nuclear tipped, 10kt warheads. I hope the Muscovites unplug their electronic devices in case of a nuclear attack. The system is design to be good enough to provide protection from 1 to 2 ballistic missiles. A pity that no country has 1 or 2 ballistic missiles. They either have none or they have a lot more than 2.

  48. War is good for the economy and creates employment. Then maybe they could afford national health for all.

  49. War is good for the economy and creates employment. Then maybe they could afford national health for all.

  50. That is not based on facts. You need to examine similar situations in history to make correct projections. Most projections dont take into account the economic situation and assume that the decrease in population is a trend. Looking at the Great Depression as an example of economy effecting the population, the fertility rate in US dropped 20%… For Russia the 1990s were worse and so the effect on the population is worse. The fertility rate is estimated to have fallen by 30-45% during the early 90s, however by the mid to late 90s it stabilized and started to grow. It has been growing ever since with some recent slowdowns. Any source you look at will probably be an estimate. The only real numbers are from the 2010 census with reporting number 142.9. The recent 2018 reports show a population of 143.96. As I am sure you know countries conduct a census on irregular basis every decade or so. If Russian Duma is able to reform the process of getting a Russian citizenship and make it easier to get, then I think Russia could easily see an increase of Immigrates from the CIS countries and failing countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states(both have demographics far worse then Russia). Most leading economies in the world have population growth only due to immigrates. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

  51. That is not based on facts. You need to examine similar situations in history to make correct projections. Most projections dont take into account the economic situation and assume that the decrease in population is a trend. Looking at the Great Depression as an example of economy effecting the population the fertility rate in US dropped 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}…For Russia the 1990s were worse and so the effect on the population is worse. The fertility rate is estimated to have fallen by 30-45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} during the early 90s however by the mid to late 90s it stabilized and started to grow. It has been growing ever since with some recent slowdowns. Any source you look at will probably be an estimate. The only real numbers are from the 2010 census with reporting number 142.9. The recent 2018 reports show a population of 143.96.As I am sure you know countries conduct a census on irregular basis every decade or so.If Russian Duma is able to reform the process of getting a Russian citizenship and make it easier to get then I think Russia could easily see an increase of Immigrates from the CIS countries and failing countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states(both have demographics far worse then Russia). Most leading economies in the world have population growth only due to immigrates.https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

  52. Actually the Russian population is falling in the last several years and projected to fall to 120 million in 20 years.

  53. Actually the Russian population is falling in the last several years and projected to fall to 120 million in 20 years.

  54. Russian military has crossed Ukrainian borders which is a European county and killed Ukrainians as well as used artillery over the border, send irregular forces, trained and armed local delinquents and supplied them with all kinds of arms from tank rounds to tanks themselves. Only a blind can talk about “ET landing on my lawn tonight”.

  55. Russian military has crossed Ukrainian borders which is a European county and killed Ukrainians as well as used artillery over the border send irregular forces trained and armed local delinquents and supplied them with all kinds of arms from tank rounds to tanks themselves. Only a blind can talk about ET landing on my lawn tonight””.”””

  56. Countries like Russia have to be contained or they will try to expand by all means possible. Putin’s system is in effect a milder version of Hitler’s system. Many similarities but more overt and hybrid actions still directed to expand outside its borders. The Russian “elites” and Putin in particular can not accept the fact that the USSR has fallen apart and try to put it together again. So the West has to take steps to contain Putin’s neo imperialist revanchist ideology. The only effective method against Putin is steadfastness and force.

  57. Countries like Russia have to be contained or they will try to expand by all means possible. Putin’s system is in effect a milder version of Hitler’s system. Many similarities but more overt and hybrid actions still directed to expand outside its borders. The Russian elites”” and Putin in particular can not accept the fact that the USSR has fallen apart and try to put it together again. So the West has to take steps to contain Putin’s neo imperialist revanchist ideology. The only effective method against Putin is steadfastness and force.”””

  58. Putin, Prigozhin etc did help as unlikely as it might seem to the uniformed. It is a fact. I hope you understand I don’t have to explain this to you my friend.

  59. Putin Prigozhin etc did help as unlikely as it might seem to the uniformed. It is a fact. I hope you understand I don’t have to explain this to you my friend.

  60. Yeah, for real, a single large scale nuclear weapon, as it exists today, would decimate just about anything if detonated at the right altitude. I suppose you could say that about any nuke, though, because of fallout and how shockwaves carry debris. Still, they’re much worse than the originals.

  61. Yeah for real a single large scale nuclear weapon as it exists today would decimate just about anything if detonated at the right altitude. I suppose you could say that about any nuke though because of fallout and how shockwaves carry debris. Still they’re much worse than the originals.

  62. That kind of reminds me of War and Peace for some godawful reason. *shudders* Anyway, I’d rather the shitshow. However, I agree; Russia invading western Europe, I doubt it. I see that as being about as likely as ET landing on my lawn tonight. I live in an apartment and don’t have a lawn, so that tells you what I think about Russia invading anything outside its nearest neighbors. I also don’t think that most nations really have ambitions of empire anymore. I see that as winding down. Hopefully I’m not wrong.

  63. That kind of reminds me of War and Peace for some godawful reason. *shudders*Anyway I’d rather the shitshow. However I agree; Russia invading western Europe I doubt it. I see that as being about as likely as ET landing on my lawn tonight. I live in an apartment and don’t have a lawn so that tells you what I think about Russia invading anything outside its nearest neighbors. I also don’t think that most nations really have ambitions of empire anymore. I see that as winding down. Hopefully I’m not wrong.

  64. Not counting the additional people from Crimea, Russian population is growing. That is however irrelevant. No country possesses enough troops to occupy an area the size of EU/USA/Canada/China and definitely not Russia(It is just too expensive to equip troops on such a scale). Just look at what happened in Iraq, US was able to control parts but not the whole country and most of the cities still had insurgents operating. Just Iraq required almost all available troops, any more and US would have to give up positions around the world.

  65. Not counting the additional people from Crimea Russian population is growing. That is however irrelevant. No country possesses enough troops to occupy an area the size of EU/USA/Canada/China and definitely not Russia(It is just too expensive to equip troops on such a scale). Just look at what happened in Iraq US was able to control parts but not the whole country and most of the cities still had insurgents operating. Just Iraq required almost all available troops any more and US would have to give up positions around the world.

  66. That is not based on facts.
    You need to examine similar situations in history to make correct projections. Most projections dont take into account the economic situation and assume that the decrease in population is a trend. Looking at the Great Depression as an example of economy effecting the population, the fertility rate in US dropped 20%…
    For Russia the 1990s were worse and so the effect on the population is worse. The fertility rate is estimated to have fallen by 30-45% during the early 90s, however by the mid to late 90s it stabilized and started to grow. It has been growing ever since with some recent slowdowns.
    Any source you look at will probably be an estimate. The only real numbers are from the 2010 census with reporting number 142.9. The recent 2018 reports show a population of 143.96.
    As I am sure you know countries conduct a census on irregular basis every decade or so.
    If Russian Duma is able to reform the process of getting a Russian citizenship and make it easier to get, then I think Russia could easily see an increase of Immigrates from the CIS countries and failing countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states(both have demographics far worse then Russia). Most leading economies in the world have population growth only due to immigrates.
    https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

  67. Russian military has crossed Ukrainian borders which is a European county and killed Ukrainians as well as used artillery over the border, send irregular forces, trained and armed local delinquents and supplied them with all kinds of arms from tank rounds to tanks themselves. Only a blind can talk about “ET landing on my lawn tonight”.

  68. Countries like Russia have to be contained or they will try to expand by all means possible. Putin’s system is in effect a milder version of Hitler’s system. Many similarities but more overt and hybrid actions still directed to expand outside its borders. The Russian “elites” and Putin in particular can not accept the fact that the USSR has fallen apart and try to put it together again. So the West has to take steps to contain Putin’s neo imperialist revanchist ideology. The only effective method against Putin is steadfastness and force.

  69. I don’t think they can easily mobilize a ground invasion army NOW, but I’m speaking in the hypothetical that they somehow find the money to remain globally relevant militarily.

  70. I don’t think they can easily mobilize a ground invasion army NOW but I’m speaking in the hypothetical that they somehow find the money to remain globally relevant militarily.

  71. Putin, Prigozhin etc did help as unlikely as it might seem to the uniformed. It is a fact. I hope you understand I don’t have to explain this to you my friend.

  72. Putin only has a very short time for adventurism before his army becomes to small (those damn demographics) to project power. Russia can bomb the EU all the live long day but in a few years they won’t have enough men to hold any of the land they manage to “liberate”.

  73. Putin only has a very short time for adventurism before his army becomes to small (those damn demographics) to project power. Russia can bomb the EU all the live long day but in a few years they won’t have enough men to hold any of the land they manage to liberate””.”””

  74. Yeah, for real, a single large scale nuclear weapon, as it exists today, would decimate just about anything if detonated at the right altitude. I suppose you could say that about any nuke, though, because of fallout and how shockwaves carry debris. Still, they’re much worse than the originals.

  75. That kind of reminds me of War and Peace for some godawful reason. *shudders*
    Anyway, I’d rather the shitshow. However, I agree; Russia invading western Europe, I doubt it. I see that as being about as likely as ET landing on my lawn tonight. I live in an apartment and don’t have a lawn, so that tells you what I think about Russia invading anything outside its nearest neighbors. I also don’t think that most nations really have ambitions of empire anymore. I see that as winding down.
    Hopefully I’m not wrong.

  76. They brought it up 5 years ago. Just because you were not paying attention doesn’t mean that they didn’t.

  77. They brought it up 5 years ago. Just because you were not paying attention doesn’t mean that they didn’t.

  78. Agree with you about Russia but not so much about China. China IS a threat…just not directly to the US (nuclear missiles pointed at us aside as we also have nukes pointed at them…probably more than they do, too). The US can manage China by forcing the real stakeholders in the PAC to take the risks. This means Japan becoming a nuclear power. Better that there’s more of a risk of Osaka, Tokyo and Kobe being nuked instead of Seattle, LA and Chicago. Not to mention that a nuclear Japan would be a de facto Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Japan as far as China goes. More than enough for relieving the pressure off us.

  79. Agree with you about Russia but not so much about China.China IS a threat…just not directly to the US (nuclear missiles pointed at us aside as we also have nukes pointed at them…probably more than they do too). The US can manage China by forcing the real stakeholders in the PAC to take the risks. This means Japan becoming a nuclear power. Better that there’s more of a risk of Osaka Tokyo and Kobe being nuked instead of Seattle LA and Chicago. Not to mention that a nuclear Japan would be a de facto Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Japan as far as China goes. More than enough for relieving the pressure off us.

  80. Not counting the additional people from Crimea, Russian population is growing. That is however irrelevant. No country possesses enough troops to occupy an area the size of EU/USA/Canada/China and definitely not Russia(It is just too expensive to equip troops on such a scale). Just look at what happened in Iraq, US was able to control parts but not the whole country and most of the cities still had insurgents operating. Just Iraq required almost all available troops, any more and US would have to give up positions around the world.

  81. I reread your comment a few times. It kind of makes plausible sense. America encouraging Europe — now well over 75 years past the disastrous end of WW2 — now a land of high prosperity, high culture, high capacity and high expectations, to rearm itself and be responsible for its own defense, well … that to me seems laudable in turn. The only real long term downside is that America’s industries have (at least for a while) enjoyed a super-preferred-trading-partner relationship with Europe’s markets. I say (at least for a while) because I would also say that that cherry-in-the-pie relationship dissolved almost completely with the ascendence of the super-nation, the European Union. Whatever sweet trading deal(s) we had going for us due to European’s tacit admission of America’s Defense benefit, from the 1990s on, is long over. Gone. Which then brings us to the realpolitik of today perhaps: admitting not only that reestablishing the sweet deal is not possible, admitting that Europe is a pitifully duplicitous trading partner, happily imposing tariffs on American goods and services at any turn, yet outcrying loudly when we impose the same in reverse, … if we just openly recognize that Europe is — LIKE AMERICA — out “for itself”, then I think it all becomes clearer. Out for yourself without regard to your allies? Great! Spend your OWN money to arm, man, reconnoiter and defend yourself, New Europe. You’ve got the manpower, you’ve got the industry, you’ve got the pölïtical will, and you’ve got the fire in your belly. And if you finally decide that Russia isn’t really as terrible an existential foe, and actually more like a European nation, well … put up your own defense. Which leaves America as the Tie Breaker in case of conflict. A good relationship. One that doesn’t need to be further influenced. Just saying, GoatGuy

  82. I reread your comment a few times. It kind of makes plausible sense. America encouraging Europe — now well over 75 years past the disastrous end of WW2 — now a land of high prosperity high culture high capacity and high expectations to rearm itself and be responsible for its own defense well … that to me seems laudable in turn. The only real long term downside is that America’s industries have (at least for a while) enjoyed a super-preferred-trading-partner relationship with Europe’s markets. I say (at least for a while) because I would also say that that cherry-in-the-pie relationship dissolved almost completely with the ascendence of the super-nation the European Union. Whatever sweet trading deal(s) we had going for us due to European’s tacit admission of America’s Defense benefit from the 1990s on is long over. Gone.Which then brings us to the realpolitik of today perhaps: admitting not only that reestablishing the sweet deal is not possible admitting that Europe is a pitifully duplicitous trading partner happily imposing tariffs on American goods and services at any turn yet outcrying loudly when we impose the same in reverse … if we just openly recognize that Europe is — LIKE AMERICA — out for itself””” then I think it all becomes clearer. Out for yourself without regard to your allies?Great!Spend your OWN money to arm man reconnoiter and defend yourself New Europe. You’ve got the manpower you’ve got the industry you’ve got the pölïtical will and you’ve got the fire in your belly. And if you finally decide that Russia isn’t really as terrible an existential foe and actually more like a European nation well … put up your own defense. Which leaves America as the Tie Breaker in case of conflict. A good relationship. One that doesn’t need to be further influenced. Just saying””GoatGuy”””””””

  83. Seems more likely — than it being a “lie” — is that the Big O chose, with deep party mollification, to “look the other way”. That President Trump has chosen to task the Russians for their duplicity, now, is perhaps partially pölïtical — as an answer to his endless queue of fake-news-critics as to his softness on Russia — but in reality, if the Big O failed to address Russian surreptitiousness, then bad on him. Yah, he’s gone. Nothing better than the Now for our president to deal with the Ruskies. Moreover, it stands to similar reason that by exiting the non-functioning ballistic missile treaty, America is asserting its address to plenty of foreign power that has been unsubtly aiming to power-up their own military presences. Having no anti-IRBM missile treaty means we can deploy IRBMs forward. As in Guam. Hello China. Maybe all y’all will want to rethink the commandeering of the Spratleys. Just saying, GoatGuy

  84. Seems more likely — than it being a lie”” — is that the Big O chose”” with deep party mollification to “look the other way”. That President Trump has chosen to task the Russians for their duplicity now is perhaps partially pölïtical — as an answer to his endless queue of fake-news-critics as to his softness on Russia — but in reality if the Big O failed to address Russian surreptitiousness then bad on him. Yah he’s gone. Nothing better than the Now for our president to deal with the Ruskies. Moreover it stands to similar reason that by exiting the non-functioning ballistic missile treaty America is asserting its address to plenty of foreign power that has been unsubtly aiming to power-up their own military presences. Having no anti-IRBM missile treaty means we can deploy IRBMs forward. As in Guam. Hello China. Maybe all y’all will want to rethink the commandeering of the Spratleys. Just saying””GoatGuy”””””””

  85. Chuckle. Delightfully — much to the persistent gnashing-of-fangs of The Establishment — delightfully a charismatic non-politician infamously overtook all his fish-headed also-rans, and won the election. It didn’t take conspiracy bunkum from Putin. It didn’t take dark-handed secret agencies working against Hillary’s hilariously wrong-facing pitch. Just one guy, pitching to the long-overlooked “fly over America”, and to the many, many Republicans who have felt increasingly dispossessed of their representation in this fine country. But yah. ⊕1 more from me. GoatGuy

  86. Chuckle.Delightfully — much to the persistent gnashing-of-fangs of The Establishment — delightfully a charismatic non-politician infamously overtook all his fish-headed also-rans and won the election. It didn’t take conspiracy bunkum from Putin. It didn’t take dark-handed secret agencies working against Hillary’s hilariously wrong-facing pitch. Just one guy pitching to the long-overlooked fly over America””” and to the many”” many Republicans who have felt increasingly dispossessed of their representation in this fine country. But yah.⊕1 more from me.GoatGuy”””””””

  87. I don’t think they can easily mobilize a ground invasion army NOW, but I’m speaking in the hypothetical that they somehow find the money to remain globally relevant militarily.

  88. Putin only has a very short time for adventurism before his army becomes to small (those damn demographics) to project power. Russia can bomb the EU all the live long day but in a few years they won’t have enough men to hold any of the land they manage to “liberate”.

  89. Agree with you about Russia but not so much about China.

    China IS a threat…just not directly to the US (nuclear missiles pointed at us aside as we also have nukes pointed at them…probably more than they do, too).

    The US can manage China by forcing the real stakeholders in the PAC to take the risks. This means Japan becoming a nuclear power. Better that there’s more of a risk of Osaka, Tokyo and Kobe being nuked instead of Seattle, LA and Chicago. Not to mention that a nuclear Japan would be a de facto Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Japan as far as China goes.

    More than enough for relieving the pressure off us.

  90. Should have been done long time ago but still kudos to Trump and a special thanks to Putin for electing the son of gun.

  91. Should have been done long time ago but still kudos to Trump and a special thanks to Putin for electing the son of gun.

  92. I reread your comment a few times. It kind of makes plausible sense. America encouraging Europe — now well over 75 years past the disastrous end of WW2 — now a land of high prosperity, high culture, high capacity and high expectations, to rearm itself and be responsible for its own defense, well … that to me seems laudable in turn.

    The only real long term downside is that America’s industries have (at least for a while) enjoyed a super-preferred-trading-partner relationship with Europe’s markets. I say (at least for a while) because I would also say that that cherry-in-the-pie relationship dissolved almost completely with the ascendence of the super-nation, the European Union. Whatever sweet trading deal(s) we had going for us due to European’s tacit admission of America’s Defense benefit, from the 1990s on, is long over. Gone.

    Which then brings us to the realpolitik of today perhaps: admitting not only that reestablishing the sweet deal is not possible, admitting that Europe is a pitifully duplicitous trading partner, happily imposing tariffs on American goods and services at any turn, yet outcrying loudly when we impose the same in reverse, … if we just openly recognize that Europe is — LIKE AMERICA — out “for itself”, then I think it all becomes clearer.

    Out for yourself without regard to your allies?
    Great!

    Spend your OWN money to arm, man, reconnoiter and defend yourself, New Europe. You’ve got the manpower, you’ve got the industry, you’ve got the pölïtical will, and you’ve got the fire in your belly. And if you finally decide that Russia isn’t really as terrible an existential foe, and actually more like a European nation, well … put up your own defense.

    Which leaves America as the Tie Breaker in case of conflict.

    A good relationship.
    One that doesn’t need to be further influenced.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  93. Seems more likely — than it being a “lie” — is that the Big O chose, with deep party mollification, to “look the other way”. That President Trump has chosen to task the Russians for their duplicity, now, is perhaps partially pölïtical — as an answer to his endless queue of fake-news-critics as to his softness on Russia — but in reality, if the Big O failed to address Russian surreptitiousness, then bad on him. Yah, he’s gone. Nothing better than the Now for our president to deal with the Ruskies.

    Moreover, it stands to similar reason that by exiting the non-functioning ballistic missile treaty, America is asserting its address to plenty of foreign power that has been unsubtly aiming to power-up their own military presences. Having no anti-IRBM missile treaty means we can deploy IRBMs forward. As in Guam. Hello China. Maybe all y’all will want to rethink the commandeering of the Spratleys.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  94. Chuckle.

    Delightfully — much to the persistent gnashing-of-fangs of The Establishment — delightfully a charismatic non-politician infamously overtook all his fish-headed also-rans, and won the election. It didn’t take conspiracy bunkum from Putin. It didn’t take dark-handed secret agencies working against Hillary’s hilariously wrong-facing pitch.

    Just one guy, pitching to the long-overlooked “fly over America”, and to the many, many Republicans who have felt increasingly dispossessed of their representation in this fine country.

    But yah.
    ⊕1 more from me.

    GoatGuy

  95. This has nothing to do with nukes its about PACOM. Very simply the Chinese, NKorea, soon to be Iran and others have a growing viable advantage with being able to deploy mass numbers of IRBM’s and to target US airbases rear assets. DF21 is based off the US pershing outlawed by above treaty. With the end of this treaty the US will wash in the EU theater upon our own deployments but will gain a huge currently restricted by treaty ability in PACOM. Just consider simply the DF21. The Chinese version with less targeting ability has caused the US to not just spend trillions on BMD but is still a viable threat for US forces deployed across PACOM. Well now consider what a US DF21 deployed across the region and bought deployed by our allies would do to the Chinese basing across their eastern nation. How devastating would those systems be loaded into our sub forces in place of a pack of cruise missiles. China would be faced with response times that would be near undefendable. Russia is not will not be a friend but they are not the Soviet Union anymore. The EU should be well able to more than check balance the Russian forces in EU theater with US easily being the balance breaker. China is the current US threat that can make a real challenge.

  96. This has nothing to do with nukes its about PACOM. Very simply the Chinese NKorea soon to be Iran and others have a growing viable advantage with being able to deploy mass numbers of IRBM’s and to target US airbases rear assets. DF21 is based off the US pershing outlawed by above treaty. With the end of this treaty the US will wash in the EU theater upon our own deployments but will gain a huge currently restricted by treaty ability in PACOM.Just consider simply the DF21. The Chinese version with less targeting ability has caused the US to not just spend trillions on BMD but is still a viable threat for US forces deployed across PACOM. Well now consider what a US DF21 deployed across the region and bought deployed by our allies would do to the Chinese basing across their eastern nation. How devastating would those systems be loaded into our sub forces in place of a pack of cruise missiles. China would be faced with response times that would be near undefendable. Russia is not will not be a friend but they are not the Soviet Union anymore. The EU should be well able to more than check balance the Russian forces in EU theater with US easily being the balance breaker. China is the current US threat that can make a real challenge.

  97. That is a fair point and what you think is going to happen when the Russians hit back with a 10 MT nuclear warhead in Paris or London.

  98. That is a fair point and what you think is going to happen when the Russians hit back with a 10 MT nuclear warhead in Paris or London.

  99. More nukes are just stupid. If you use them you are dead. France and Great Britain have enough nukes to sterilize Russia. A single 100K warhead exploding above Moscow would kill a million Russians and devastate the Russian economy for decades.

  100. More nukes are just stupid. If you use them you are dead. France and Great Britain have enough nukes to sterilize Russia. A single 100K warhead exploding above Moscow would kill a million Russians and devastate the Russian economy for decades.

  101. US has not shown any proof that Russia has been violating the treaty. If Russia has been violating the treaty for 5 years, why bring it up now and not when they started violating it? There have been plenty of meetings between Russia and US within 5 years yet no discussions of the INF violation. Seems like a blatant lie that benefits them now as they are losing their world dominance and their proxy war in Syria.

  102. US has not shown any proof that Russia has been violating the treaty. If Russia has been violating the treaty for 5 years why bring it up now and not when they started violating it? There have been plenty of meetings between Russia and US within 5 years yet no discussions of the INF violation. Seems like a blatant lie that benefits them now as they are losing their world dominance and their proxy war in Syria.

  103. This has nothing to do with nukes its about PACOM. Very simply the Chinese, NKorea, soon to be Iran and others have a growing viable advantage with being able to deploy mass numbers of IRBM’s and to target US airbases rear assets. DF21 is based off the US pershing outlawed by above treaty.

    With the end of this treaty the US will wash in the EU theater upon our own deployments but will gain a huge currently restricted by treaty ability in PACOM.

    Just consider simply the DF21. The Chinese version with less targeting ability has caused the US to not just spend trillions on BMD but is still a viable threat for US forces deployed across PACOM. Well now consider what a US DF21 deployed across the region and bought deployed by our allies would do to the Chinese basing across their eastern nation. How devastating would those systems be loaded into our sub forces in place of a pack of cruise missiles. China would be faced with response times that would be near undefendable.

    Russia is not will not be a friend but they are not the Soviet Union anymore. The EU should be well able to more than check balance the Russian forces in EU theater with US easily being the balance breaker. China is the current US threat that can make a real challenge.

  104. That is a fair point and what you think is going to happen when the Russians hit back with a 10 MT nuclear warhead in Paris or London.

  105. More nukes are just stupid. If you use them you are dead. France and Great Britain have enough nukes to sterilize Russia. A single 100K warhead exploding above Moscow would kill a million Russians and devastate the Russian economy for decades.

  106. US has not shown any proof that Russia has been violating the treaty. If Russia has been violating the treaty for 5 years, why bring it up now and not when they started violating it? There have been plenty of meetings between Russia and US within 5 years yet no discussions of the INF violation. Seems like a blatant lie that benefits them now as they are losing their world dominance and their proxy war in Syria.

Comments are closed.