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 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 -
-
-
I don’t think that is what she means. The quote is: "Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty," she added. "They are on notice.”
-
Could be read take the missiles out while in development or develop a capability to counteract the in-development missile when the war starts. But it’s badly worded. I see
@luke_j_obrien’s point. -
But it’s clear she should call Moscow 10 minutes ago and make this clear
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.