No, we didn’t. We warned that we would *field* systems that would match Russia’s capabilities, which could destroy Russia’s new INF systems if deterrence failed. Big difference.https://twitter.com/MilDefInsider/status/1047117877021724672 …
If the point was to communicate the US will field new missile defense systems in eastern Europe, it was communicated terribly. "Before it becomes operational" = "We'll destroy a missile on the launch pad"? "Must halt its covert development" = "Development ok, but we'll be ready"?
-
-
Not denying that. But what she’s saying is consistent with US INF messaging for years now. “If you field this, so will we, and thus you won’t gain any advantage because should war come we’ll fight fire with fire.”
-
If it's consistent, why change the rhetoric? "Destroy before it becomes operational" is not something missile defense systems do. Could be a mistake, sure. But in that case, it's important to clarify that US stance hasn't changed.
-
I think she got mealy-mouthed. It’s not a change in rhetoric, she just mixed up two of the potential roles. You field a system to deny Russia an advantage to deter during peacetime, but to do that you need a capability that can destroy Russian systems during war.
-
That's a reasonable interpretation. It also means she should clarify to avoid any confusion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.