Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe 997
Melugo writes to let us know that Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe. This reader notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again." "'If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,' Putin said... 'It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.'"
This is just Putin playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.
Putin is doing what Bush does, just rabble rousing to distract people from all the crap he is pulling behind the scenes.
As a russian expatriate (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the whole different matter that the missile shield is ineffective and a colossal waste of money.
"Targeting" is just rhetoric. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bullshit. Where a missile is 'targeted' has almost no real-world meaning. You can re-target a missile in a few seconds; in fact all submarine-launched and mobile missile systems have to be targeted right before launch, because the trajectories need to take into account the launch position.
The only scenario in which the 'default target' or preselected target of a missile might matter, would be an accidental launch. But even then, having the missiles aimed at neutral territory might not buy you much, because the unexpected launch itself might be perceived as hostile and engender a response; you can't depend on the mis-targeting for security -- that needs to be built-in to the command-and-control systems absolutely.
Old, poor Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a russian expatriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years... that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those bases?
Besides, something tells me that if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose. Just because somebody is at peace with you now, doesn't mean that he won't be at war with you some time later, especially if you're dealing with the world's mightiest and most aggressive superpower.
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old, poor Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
There's large doubts to if they'd work at all.
Works great! A lot of money is transfered (well it is "spent") and nobody really questions the whole thing because it is to much money.
Nothing happens without a reason and a benefit for somebody. So - who benefits?
I mean, is there any doubt that normal, simple people actually could get along? Well, maybe no more, after being bombed and shot into pieces. Which also helps.
Maybe at one point it gets so bad that enough people really have had it. In USA with that news media - can take a long time.....
Mr Putin (Score:5, Insightful)
And even with all this, Putin has soaring approval ratings, proving once again that nationlist pride is one of the most dangerous memes ever.
Domestic Message on a Global Stage (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russian objections to the US missile defense system are silly. Even if the system ever worked perfectly (it doesn't), it would never be able to stop more then a handful of missiles. Russia has more then a handful of missiles. The only thing the missile defense system can do is blunt an extremely small scale nuclear attack by ballistic missiles. Launch anything BUT that exact type of attack, and the entire missile defense system is worthless. Beyond this, the US has offered to include Russia in the shield, share their tracking data, in general, make a worthless defense against Russian attack even more worthless by making it transparent. North Korea, Iran, and anyone else thinking of how much fun it would be to hold a dozen nukes should be worried. For Russia, this is a joke.
Putin really is just playing to scare his population and score a few 'against America' points. It is a cry for attention and a desperate pleading to PLEASE start some verbal shit to keep his population focused on foreign 'threats' rather than some of the more crushing domestic issues Russia faces. If the Dems kill the program, he will happily take credit for scaring the American weapons of Russia oppression away... when the reality is that the Dems have always found the program to be a waste of money and are happy to tear into a lame duck president on the issue... not because Putin is a scary guy.
Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles that can hit anywhere in the globe. I would be the first person to advocate throwing this worthless money hog on a chopping block, or at least relegating it to a lab for more 'research'. That said, Putin's saber rattling has nothing to do with reality. Putin knows that the ballistic missile defense program is a joke, and even if it wasn't a joke, it is only effective against nations with less then a dozen nukes... and it is safe to say Russia has more then a dozen nukes laying around these days.
If you want a real headline, make it this "Putin recall history and tries to invoke Cold War to score domestic political points, Americans continue to piss money into the wind and uphill". This is a domestic issue getting bounced around by a global media and nothing more.
Re:Cuban missile chrisis (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI: the Cuban missile crisis was also caused by "the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles". The placement of USSR's missiles in Cuba was a response to the US placing missiles in Turkey (with a comparable range to USSR's border to that of Cuba to USA's). Of course the US follows a different set of rules from everyone else and so while it claimed to be putting up missiles essentially on USSR's border for "defense", the USSR was not entitled to the same "defensive" distance for theirs. And the rest is history. Note that despite of all the posturing, the US missiles were eventually removed from Turkey (semi-secretly).
Mental illness feeds on itself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.
Bush's actions give Putin a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.
Then threatening actions by Putin give Bush a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.
Mental illness feeds on itself.
See the free 3-part BBC movie: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear [reallynews.com].
Threatening violence is only one of the formulas of manipulation. Here are others: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation. [futurepower.org]
(If you are a U.S. citizen and you don't like my summary of U.S. government corruption, you must write your own. You can't say you love your country if you abandon thinking clearly when your country is in trouble.)
"It feels like the Cold War all over again." (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.
Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a russian expatriate (Score:2, Insightful)
if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose.
One day I'm going to "lol" when the other countries realize our economic sanctions mean nothing, because we don't have a middle class anymore and all the money is with the upper elite. In their greed to be rich they've killed their very future. The other countries will laugh at us and our sanctions and do whatever they darn well please; and we'll be able to do nothing about it.
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably don't realize how much power and influence Russia has in Europe simply because it controls all the energy. It doesn't have to shoot any rockets anywhere, it just needs to shut down the pipelines. So you can keep cursing at Putin all you want if it makes you feel better, but Russia is a player that we will still have to reckon with.
And by the way one of these puppies [wikipedia.org] won't be stopped by our multi-bullion dollar missile defense system. Probably should have used that money for healthcare and better schools...Hmm, excessive spending on military infrastructure at the expense of taking care of it's citizens sounds familiar ... oh yeah.. Soviet Union did that. Perhaps we are not that different after all. Now that's a thought!
Great Title ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
who is threatening who ???
ah!!
really what chose do the other countries of the world have
given the current
and in truth very old american imperialistic foreign policy
after all
under the specter of "ur either fur us
and just as in the past
sold to the american public
after all Wolfowitz did in fact call it World War III
and just as in the past it's really all about profit
when corporations go to war it's always about money
it's really all about the ME and MINE and the BOTTOM line
Re:best missile defense system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Old, poor Russia... (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.
Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.
Re:an analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old, poor Russia... (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember the times when Russia located huge nuclear arsenal here in Poland and did't asked anyone. They had no problem doing this then. But if we decide (and yes - we *do* decide now, not Our 'best friends') to allow someone else mount some *defence* systems in Our country - Russia has strong objectives. I have only one world to describe this - hypocrisy.
It's not that all poles agree this shield is good. We just started negotiations and we are not sure if we will finally agree, but again - this will be Our decision.
lima
Re:Fuck the missile defence.. (Score:2, Insightful)
And for Your information, we are not sure if we agree having this shield in Our country just like Czech. We just don't want to 3-rd countries like Russia decide what we should do.
lima
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Launches of what? Homemade explosive devices? Propaganda leaflets? A large bowl of hummus? I can see it now. Fifteen athletic Iranian guys carrying a long cylindrical object running at full tilt toward a cliff. Or was that was the Coyote in perpetual war against the evil Roadrunner?
But back to real facts. Russia feels threatened, and rightfully so. Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.
But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.
Agreed, but despite the fact that the cold war ended years ago, and despite the very real (and recently demonstrated) value of Russia to the US in everything from terrorism to geopolitics, we still refuse to talk to them (except through back channels) or acknowledge their importance. Come to think of it, we don't talk to anybody but our friends. I guess the strategy is to piss everyone off, and threaten anyone who objects.
Re:Old, poor Russia... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the EU and USA is just slightly intoxicated with the power and money we got? You cannot blame Russia for grabbing the ressources and influence and power they have and use it for what it is worth.
I am sure the USA will not mind if Russia puts 10, yes, 10 "interceptor" missles in Cuba, since USA has well over 1000 nuclear missles. These 10 missles will be used to protect Russia from hostile countries like Venezuela.
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The missiles are no threat to Russia. They can only shoot down ICBMs and are thus completely defensive.
2) The missiles are no threate to Russian ICBMs. If Russia launches an all out attack, they would overwhelm the system.
The problem is that either the Russians don't believe this, or Russian internal politics forces Putin to make this somehwhat crazy threat. Or maybe there's something else going on, like Russia is trying to make sure some other third rate power like Iran has the ability to lob ICBMs at the US.
I think the Russians and the Chinese are worried that even if a missile defense system starts of being designed to shoot down a few 1950's technology missiles from Iran, it will eventually be upgraded to the point where it can shoot down thousands of state of the art missiles from Russia or China. At which point, their deterrent would not be worth anything.
dont have a problem w/russian missiles in canada (Score:1, Insightful)
Cold War (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old, poor Russia... (Score:2, Insightful)
When a russian parliament member protested the fact that Romania has allowed the States to have military bases on it's territory and asked for explanations, Mr. president responded: "You stayed in Romania for 30 years and nobody asked you why".
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
You all forget one thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
It should also be pointed out that because Russia doesn't have large economic, industrial and technological base, and it will not have these in foreseeable future, there is no way to challenge the west after a working version of SDI has been build and deployed. It should also be pointed out that if and when west builds it SDI, China will probably build it's own version of SDI quite shortly after the west. So if we look at 2050, the strategic outlook may be very different: we have the West and China safely behind SDI and the rest of the world either trying to remain neutral or aligned to either party. In this situation Russians would be in very difficult situation: they must supply oil and gas to China or China will use it's military might to get what it wants and the West that challenges Russia in it's neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia etc..) leaving it either to accept that and join west, or be in mercy of Chinese.
The only way that Russia can play time and maybe avoid all this is to have west not deploy any kind of missile defense. If west doesn't deploy missile defense, the Chinese don't any motivation to start building their own. Thought it should be pointed out also that Chinese have, even with out west building SDI, impetus to do something: either have enough nuclear war heads to challenge both west and Russia, or to disable the nuclear threat all together by building SDI.
Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this: the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes) and normalize your relations with China while you're at it. No-one much minds that you're carrying a big stick, as long as you walk softly. Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory. Try to change mentalities and regimes if you so wish - but not by force of weapons. And finally, and most importantly, _bring_the_boys_back_home. The US military, as it is now deployed, seems ready to make war on the whole world. That is insane.
Take down the morons running America, get a new government that is strong enough to afford putting the leash on Israel, effect regime change in Iran (no, nuking Teheran does not count as regime change, yes, it is possible and has been done before, no, bringing back the Shah's cronies is also not an option) and re-instate the kind of policy that has kept NK in check for as long as Kim Ir Sen was in power. Better yet, give China carte blanche in NK - they'd like nothing more than to serve Kim Jong Il the traditional last cup o' tea, if only paranoid americans would not fear them more than they fear the Koreans. Those are the real nuclear threats, not the two paper-tiger ex-superpowers.
Re:Mr Putin (Score:2, Insightful)
America at least has some sort of system of checks and balances, Gonzales might have been fired yet, but there at least people criticizing him and exerting pressure for him to resign. In Russia, Gonzales' behavior is the norm. There are no independent institutions in Russia, everything works via system of contacts/relationships. Putin decides that he wants to lower the chance of particular successor (elections are internalized in Russia, a small group of people decide who gets to be in power, sometimes there is conflict inside this group), he just moves him to a less influential position.
There is no parliament in Russia, we have micromanagement of parties. There essentially two parties, a pro-government party and an "opposition party", they both will do what the government will tell them to but at the same time they pretend to be fighting against each other. The real opposition is completely marginalized, they are not allowed to stage demonstrations in the central locations (the governments excuse being that the pro-government organization needed that particular time slot for their own demonstrations). The choice between Democrats and Republicans isn't too good, but better than having no choice at all, at least it keep the ruling group under pressure.
Your statement about freedom of the press in the USA further underlines that you don't know what you are talking about. For Russia, FOX news would be one of the most pro-opposition channels on TV. In Russia the government virtually controls all forms of mass media. And they all just report what the government tells them to. FOX news pro-conservative shit is a walk in the park compared to Russian TV. Russian engages in racism, it promotes the idea of democracy as simple PR exercise, for all it's work Russian TV is simply a capitalist version of Soviet era TV. It's all propaganda, just now instead of documentary on the glory of communism, they show the Russian version of American Idol.
Seriously, don't ever compare Russia to the US! By doing so you are severely undermining the contribution of the few people in Russia who are doing something to oppose Putin and his fascists. You really don't much about politics or current events judging from your statement about Russia not invading, if anything it just shows how much you watch FOX news/CNN. Just because American TV don't report about certain things, doesn't mean they don't happen. Read up on South Ossetia, Abhazia and Transnistria and how Russian troops are in these regions without a UN peace keeping mandate. And even ignoring these areas, until recently Russia was in no state to battle the Chechens (arguably, they are still in trouble with Chechnya - no way to evaluate that however due to the government's media blockade), let alone invading other countries.
And just because I don't like Russia and it's government, doesn't mean I am a fan of the US. Both the Dems and the Republicans are full of shit, America primitive social laws (you can't drink until your 21, but it's okay to buy a semi-automatic weapons for your own protection) are an embarrassment. And America's foreign policy is just a joke. What you guys need is a test on international events and foreign cultures for everyone who wants to vote. Can't find Somalia on the map? The only Georgia you know of is an American state? Sorry can't vote! That would also have a good side effect of eliminating the fascist (bible) belt as a political force.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Wired's analysis is so flawed as to be completely useless. The Wired "report" stated that "we see attacks coming from around the world, so the cyber attack is not coming from Russia". Given that we know that the DDOS attack was botnet generated and that botnets are a global problem, of course the attacks were coming from everywhere! The only way to clearly determine where the attacsk were coming from would be to have the logs of the control channels of the botnets used in the DDOS & determine who set them on this DDOS attack.
There may be no concrete trail of evidence leading to the kremlin, yet there is no evidence that clears them either.
Spheres of influence.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wish you were here: Who profits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, I'm pissed off with almost all the "players" at the moment:
a)The Americans. The current US government, not content with fighting two insurgencies concurrently, one of which is almost certainly already lost and the other one looks ominously like it's going that way as well, is blindly carrying on with this utterly useless missile defence scheme in Poland and the Czech republic which the majority of the populations do not want [bbc.co.uk], but whose governments have been bought by big promises from the same group of corrupt (Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Feith, Cheney, Bremer et al) incompetents who bled Iraq dry while promising the sun and the moon.
b)The Russians. While I can certainly understand Russians in general wanting a strong government after the chaos and national humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent robbery by Oil thieves and chaos of drunk and corrupt politicians, Putin is still in his heart a KGB man who wants a return of Russian might and power and who is just too dumb too see that the only place threatening the Europeans will lead to will be a gradual and then rapid rearmament of Western Europe, with the majority of nations bending over even further for the protection of American weapons than was thought possible. The American, Russian and European Arms lobbies must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of new satanically expensive weapons systems of questionable value for their respective clients. The slashdot weapon groupies will be loudly masturbating over these same toys as they dream of killing millions in their science fiction dreams of sexual impotence.
c)The Eastern Europeans. Just how far did these nations expect to be able to provoke the Russians before the Russians went ahead and drew a line in the sand? Do the Czechs and the Poles, both of whom are so fond of criticing Western Europe (but happily take its cash and forgetting that England and France went to war for Poland in 1939 and that the Americans did sweet fuck all in 1968 when the Russians reinvaded Czechoslovakia) for not being totally willing to support their Russian baiting think that the USA would risk nuclear war for them so that they could threaten the Russians? I mean, I know the Nazis and the Soviets killed off a lot of intelligent people there, but really, just how dumb are they? The EU will unhappily be pulled into this mess by these three fuckups playing very dangerous games.
The only people who really profit in this is the arms manufacturers. Think about that and look at the situation again.
Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation! (Score:4, Insightful)
Western values like allowing friend countries to invade and occupy foreign countries (Turkey over Cyprus) while doing the exact opposite thing with non-friend countries?
Western values like increasing the price of imported goods from Africa in order to protect domestic production?
Western values like economically supporting all the 'orange' revolutions in former soviet union countries in order to get the geopolitical advantage?
Western values like dismantling Yugoslavia because the southern part has the largest deposits of a rare metal which USA wants for replacing enhanced uranium in its weapons?
Western values like lying about WMDs in Iraq?
Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history) ?
Western values like giving money under the table to enemies of Chaves so as that he is overthrown, even if he is legally elected?
Western values like illegally giving money to Israel under the table, as well as advanced technology that no other one has?
Western values like don't doing anything about Israel's 200 nuclear warheads, even when they openly admit it?
Western values like privatizing everything and leaving over 60 million americans in the mercy of god, without medical insurance and health care? and with private health care companies sucking everything out of their clients?
Western values like banks increasing their profits 500% each year while the average payment of an american employee has remained almost the same in the last 30 years?
Western values like stealing ancient artifacts from all around the globe and displaying them in your museums?
Western values like changing the borders of other countries (for example in the Balkans) so as you can divide and conquer, while in Africa there are thousands of slaughtered people every day in Sudan, yet you say 'it's not your problem'??? (as Angela Merkel told us a few days ago)...
Western values like not destroying the drug factories and plantations of south America, even if you have accurately mapped all the globe with your satellites?
Western values like not doing anything for the environment because it will hurt your wallet?
What western values are you talking about? all your values were invented somewhere else, and you might not know it, but almost all your habits and things you use daily come from other countries that you bash as 'non-western'. Your clothing habbits probably come from Europe. Your food from Europe and Latin America. Your language comes from Europe. Your political system comes from Europe. Your music comes from Africa. Your religion comes from Middle East. Your sports come from Europe and the Far East. The foundations of your technology come from West Germany, where almost all top scientists came to USA before and after WWII.
Get a grip on reality. The battle between USA and Russia is far from over, because Russia got the biggest natural energy resources, and USA is scared to death about Europe depending on Russia for its energy needs. That about sums it up, really.
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
To clarify. Poland and the Czech Republic are on Russia's doorstep, less than a generation ago they were firmly inside the orbit of Moscow. Now, not only are they members of NATO but they are enthusiastically embracing the policies of the US military. This is bound to set red lights flashing in the Kremlin. Imagine the reaction in Washinton if Ottawa announced it was placing Russian missiles in Ontario - the US would see it as a grave provocation within its sphere of influence.
Secondly, long term treaty aims are to reduce the amount of MIRVing on missiles AND to reduce to the number of missiles. The Russians are already coming from behind on this, they have large fleets of liquid fuelled SS18 missiles, well past their sell-by date, but capable of putting 10 warheads pretty much anywhere in the US. If they go down the treaty route they'll find themselves surrounded by anti-missile stations that MAY be upgradeable to take out Russian missiles.
Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.
American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster, it has provoked confrontation after confrontation, rolled its tanks up to the borders, abbrogated long-standing treaties and acted like Russia was a backward nation. Putin is using national resentment to give America (and Britain in particular) a serious case of the jitters.
Whether American missiles can destroy Russian missiles is almost immaterial, it gives the Russians a chance to throw their not-inconsiderable weight around, and it offers their, let be honest, stunning missile designers, plenty of opportunities to bring in a new generation of planet killers. Putin can now make sure he's succeeded by a fellow strong man and Russia can really start to influence European politics - at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East. And that may not be a good thing.
But you can be sure this will also have been noticed in Beijing - another cash-rich country will soon be pouring money into solid-fuelled, MIRVed missiles. China is almost certain to build a missile submarine fleet and expand its own Pacific fleet - which brings another force into direct conflict with US strategic interests. At the end of the day, can the US compete in an arms race against TWO superpowers?
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you not noticed that the US are building "shields" in the Pacific and have them planned for the eastern edge of the the EU?
Miss the fact that an invasion of Iraq puts a large chunk of the US military slap in the middle of the chess board...err...middle east?
Ooooo and then there are little details like Pakistan, a few decades back they were a stone age soviet ally, now they're a nuclear armed US ally on the door-step of the Caspian sea. NATO stomping around Afghanistan looking to kill the people who the CIA trained and supplied to kick the soviets out (OBL/Taliban).
OTOH: Ten anti-missle misslies (by themselves) are certainly not a realistic defense against Russia (not even enogh to stop Isreal) but I'm sure they will be very effective at stopping Iranian WMD's that only the neo-cons can find.
Speaking of Iran reminds me of another "supreme council", do you think that maybe the veto holders in the UNSC are stll fighting each other in proxy wars just as they have done since the end of WWII? Has the underlying "competition" for ever dwindling resources somehow been solved or have the peices just moved around on the "chess board"?
Meditate and discuss: The real moral behind the story of Adam and Eve is: Don't let anyone spoonfeed you apple-pie.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides that, what good is the threat of mutually assured destruction if one side can block the other's? The balance of power is then skewed, and anyone with too much power, even the venerable Americans, abuses their position.
B.
Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think you really get it. It's up to me as a Czech and our Polish brothers (and of course the Americans) whether we wish to have an American missle defense system installed - on our own territory. What they think about it in Moscow is as irrelevent as the opinion in Antananarivo. We are independent nations and it's up to us to decide what we do and with whom.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:5, Insightful)
After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.
USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. And lately, there seems to be a much stronger push to force "little USAs" even if people don't actually want them. An assumption of moral superiority.
Balanced Russian response? (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe it is very obvious that this has very little to do with the missile defense, and everything to do with politics. Putin ups the ante everytime he makes an official statement on this issue. It seems to be an attempt to exploit the growing skepticism towards usa, so that enough countries takes opposition and ultimately force the usa to stop/withdraw their defensive missile installations. And the aim is to portray russia as a potent international player. Just imagine how this will appear to anti-usa countries and movements around the world. Russia will be viewed upon as the nation that was able to strike a stark political blow against the usa in modern times.
Putin/Russia threatens with nuclear aggressive weapons, using footage of their latest nuclear delivery device on display for extra visual effect. A few defensive missiles is hardly enough to cause such a response. Radars is nothing new to either countries. Russia and putin understand very well that their approach to this is an overreaction and unjustified. Which i belive is evident in their own official statement, with emphasis on "we have done nothing, point finger at usa" wording included. They apologize for their behaviour, but want the attention off their actions.
I believe the worst scenario for the Russians is that the us and europe just dont take their statements and threats seriously. Putin has put his own reputation at stake in this matter. He wants international recognition, and this is an opening they have been looking for. And it goes in harmony with with what we have seen from Russia the last years. Putin has certainly been successfull in pushing events to their liking, when everything goes your way, you want more. It will be interesting to see how this progress. I expect him to raise the bar if the response he is looking for doesen't come. But I cannot imagine that some defensive missiles can be exploited to appear as the main reasoning for their aggressive behaviour in the long run.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
One good way to deal with it is to cooperate on the technology with the Russians, so they can build the defensive systems themselves.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:4, Insightful)
he weapons are being placed in those countries because the cold war has had a bit of resurgence lately
You realize that a Russian ICBM aimed at the United States wouldn't be within range of any interceptors in Eastern Europe anyway, right? It would likely come in over the pole. That's why we put all of our early warning systems in the Canadian wilderness back in the day.
Aside from that, I'd be pretty sure that Moscow is already targeting most of Europe anyway
Officially nobody is targeting anybody. In reality you can target a modern ICBM with a few keystrokes once the orders come down. But who cares anyway? This is just sabre-rattling. And given the choice between stateless terrorists flying their airplanes into our buildings and the classical game of brinkmanship between nation states I'll take the Cold War any day.
It's about time for a new Rocky movie, isn't it? ;)
Re:you are forgetting where the US is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:best missile defense system (Score:1, Insightful)
It's funny how so many territorial disputes are painted as religious disputes in the american media - Israel vs. Palestaine, Ireland vs. Britain, China vs. Tibet. Americans, get this through your skulls: it's not about religion. Most people, anywhere, don't give a damn about religion anymore (america is regarded as a relative hotbed of fundamentalism by europeans!)
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Point One: Who defines defensive? Missile Shield == missiles. Russian missiles == missiles. Defensive defines how they are used, not what they are.
An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature. Do you really think that a kinetic kill vehicle can wipe out a city?
Point Two: You, and the rest of the US are terrified of the Iranian boogeyman
So is Europe, apparently, because they have largely supported our efforts in this area. Indeed, they were leading the effort against the Iranian nuclear program for quite awhile. Russia (and China to a lesser extent) are the ones throwing up roadblocks.
Those of us in Europe, caught between two monolithic, stupid, agressive, violent and unreasonable powers are beginning to wonder why we need either of you.
Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.
Perhaps you should be more worried about the EU turning round and atomic-bitchslapping you both - because that is, overwhelmingly, what the population seems to want right now, regardless of whther that's a good strategic choice.
The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return. And that seems like an awful lot of posturing to be making when the EU can't even agree on internal trade quotas or policies. And a lot of Europeans I've met seem to think that the EU is nothing more then a means for Paris and Berlin to dominate Europe and they are less then happy to be a part of it.
Fuck You, Fuck the US, Fuck Russia, and get the fuck out of our countries you arrogant pricks.
Kind of ironic since you are posting on an American website. I bet you are even using American software on your computer. Oh, and your apartment is probably heated with natural gas from Russia ;) But, by all means, let's isolate the EU from the US and Russia. I bet you'd fall upon yourselves within a matter of decades.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is just Putin playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
According to The World Bank (not known for its enthusiasm for Communism) 1.5% of the population lived in poverty (less than $25 per month) in the last days of Communism; that went up to somewhere between 39% and 49% by 1993. This is a collapse akin to that of the Great Depression in the West - and look what nasties that spawned.
The Communist economic system needed to be dismantled, but the way it was done in Russia was barbaric. We botched it, now we're reaping the consequences.
Reexamine the SYSTEM, not the map (Score:3, Insightful)
The system is capable of taking out missiles on the side, not just those that are overhead. What they can not do, is intercept against a missile that is fired at greater than a 90 angle (probably even less). IOW, it is designed to protect mostly Europe, but it does offer protection to NA from Iran (not a big deal for another 5-8 years) and some of China. I would guess that if these are accepted, then America will most likely put one up in either Canada or Alaska to offer North America protection from China, NK and a rogue missile or so from Russia.
Typical geography knowledge of an American.
Do you normally draw illogical inferences based on little to no knowledge? Or just resort to ad hominem attack? or should I consider this typical bigotry of a European based on lack of knowledge?
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice fantasy, though.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Far from it, its likely you already know this but just in case, the Cuban missile crisis arose because the installations in Cuba were not a defensive system, they were R-12 Dvina [wikipedia.org] medium range missiles carrying mega-ton class nuclear warheads. The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.
Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. If anyone should be concerned it is the Europeans as the fallout from any overhead anti-missile strike is likely to be above them.
Star-Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:3, Insightful)
You're joking right? Ill hand it to the Brits for holding out but they could not get a boot onto the continant soil without the help of the US. Hitler being stupid enough to engage Russia did not hurt either. If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.
" Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?"
History is always fun to look at but its quite unlikely that Europe in a militarily offensive conflict could take the US or Russia, let alone both.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Was it decisive? Yeah, actually, it was. Is the Nazi party in control of Germany? No. Are the Fascists in charge of Italy? No. Is the military in control of Japan? No. Looks like we're three for three.
Actually, the US was quite anti-Soviet during the Soviet-Finnish invasion, in part because of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact [wikipedia.org], which divided Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin. The country which royally got screwed in all of this was Finland because they dared to fight our "allies" after Hitler double-crossed Stalin and supported Finnish resistance against the Soviet military. By the way, how did France and Britain do against the Soviets during that war? Oh, that's right - they did nothing. Outstanding. In fact, if memory serves, France ended up collapsing faster than they did against the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War and the British led the greatest amphibious evacuation of an area in Dunkirk - being in the record books for the biggest retreat is not something to be proud of, y'know.
Oh, you mean like in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Europeans let a nice little genocide proceed before the US finally decided it was time to show up? Or how about Rwanda, where the French openly supported the bad guys? Of the three countries you just listed, England is the only one to actually win a war within recent memory, and that was against Argentina. Also, France did distressingly little in World War II, at least in any organized sense. They certainly didn't do any more than the Polish or any of the other Nazi-occupied countries did against their occupiers. Read up on the Polish resistance some time - they contributed more troops than every country in the war, save for the Soviets, Americans, and the British.
Look, don't get me wrong - I'm not a flag-waving pro-USA kind of guy here, but you guys need to get honest with yourselves here. Your population is declining, you have a bunch of Muslim immigrants that you don't know what to do with, and a welfare state that you guys love to hate but can't bring yourselves to kill off before it completely chokes your economies. Fix your own problems, then talk to us about ours. We'll be busy talking about our own problems here since, well, shoot, we're Americans - we don't care about your problems or the problems of anyone else in the world unless they become our problems, right?
Empire vs. Empire (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial. Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Or compare the USSR-supported North with the US-supported South Koreas... Or look at how the US-assisted Western Europe recovered after WW2 and then consider the USSR-controlled Eastern Europe (including Eastern Germany!)
These are just the most obvious cases...
Every culture wants its presence felt (just listen to all the noise the French are making). But America's empire is the benevolent one — and the "way of life" it (strongly) suggests is the one of prosperity and comfort. And not necessarily due to the benevolence of all Americans — simply because for us to prosper, it is better to have prosperous (and peaceful!) neighbors. And we are willing to shove that prosperity and peacefulness down a throat or two...
Russians, on the other hand, just want an empire for the sake of empire — yes, we have huge rates of alcoholism, our population is declining, our former subjects all hate us, AIDS is rising, natural resources are our only sources of currency. But we are citizens of a Great Empire, you see, and that is somehow comforting on its own...
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Those defensive missiles could be considered offensive weapons.
I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that they are in a useless location in terms of defending against any Russian ICBMs launched at the United States. The fact of the matter is that Russia can easily overwhelm any defense system we can put up with current technology. Barring a new arms race this isn't likely to change any time soon.
The only reason the USA could justify an ABM system pointed at Iran would be the Iranian leaders being insane
The leader of one country calling for another country to be "wiped off the map" doesn't give you pause?
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at things in a different light, you might see the world as eventually coming together. No longer separate nations, but one global economy, one currency, one government. But long before then, there will be struggles for power in the economic area, political area, military, human rights, resources, etc.
The US has the upper hand in many areas but they need to keep that upper hand, and they aren't going to be able to do it by becoming Fortress America. Military bases in the Middle East (moreso, the fear incited by our attacks there), expansion of global industry and commerce (outsourcing, international companies, etc), making sure we don't "follow" (see Kyoto, etc) and that we're always seen as a leader.
It's difficult to see a road where the US and its beliefs/policies that we're used to are premier in the world without us throwing our weight around. Call us expansionist, imperialist, whatever...we're trying to stay on top.
I suppose the big question is: Do we want the US and its beliefs/policies to be on top? Many of them, I'd say yes to...but power corrupts and we may end up being genocidal to accomplish our goals and that's not something I believe in.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a myth spread by Hollywood movies. For most of the world's history, the majority of people lived under a government much more evil than the current American one, in societies where science and art had all but ground to a halt and the vast majority of people were not in the slightest bit free. And up to the end of WWII or maybe even the Cold War it was quite likely that all of the world's population would end up living under one, forever.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, expanding freedom, however badly being flubbed at the moment, is akin to expanding totalitarian dictatorship.
Seems like you have three choices: US Style, Soviet Style, or Islamic Style. Pick one. WHOA!!! EVERYBODY STOP RUNNIN' IN MY DIRECTION!
Hyperbole is nice -- you didn't actually expect us to LIVE anywhere else than US Style, did you?
I await downmodding by people upset at the US who would never go to Russia or an Islamic country to live in any case.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:3, Insightful)
To answer your big question, there's a core of american values that is shared by many cultures that I strongly believe I want to see on top and dominant in the world. But I do not see our current american society really sticking to this core anymore. So I guess I don't really have an answer to the question.
Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread (Score:3, Insightful)
This bit of leftist mythos is a pet peeve for me, probably because it had me fooled for awhile. That "democratically elected leader" was a Communist, and, in the manner of all Communists who come to power by election, promptly set about destroying the democratic institutions that brought him to power. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, even Hitler was duly & democratically elected chancellor by the Reichstag. Does that mean Eisenhower should have stopped at the Rhine?
Re:Empire vs. Empire (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation! (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about? You're going back to 1973 for Pinochet in Chile. He's dead, for Christ's sake. Chile has had a deomocratic government for ~18 years.
Central American countries? Who? I don't think anyone would believe that the Contra affair was a swell idea, but there's no "dictatorship" there. Guatemala? The coup there was in 1954: Carter cut off military aid in 1979.
Pakistan? Musharaff is an asshat, but would you have us do? Depose him? There's not much choice but to deal with him. And holy Jesus, can you imagine the cries of "interference" if we did depose him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We've put pressure on him, and I think he is finding out that being a dictatorial asshat can be hard work: his attempt to remove the Supreme Court Justice will hopefully moderate his stupidity.
Let's talk about Russia, then. Chechnya? Kazakhstan? Ukraine? Georgia? Cyberwarfare over a fucking war memorial? Assassinations on foreign soil. Destroying Yukos through "taxes". Putting potential political opponents in jail (Khodorkovsky, if not more). Assassinating journalists critical of the administration. Seeking extradition of others (Berezovsky) for completely bullshit reasons?
Oh, yeah, totally we should have stopped that. Everyone loves us when we interfere. Hey, is it the United States or France that wants to (or could) keep Turkey out of the EU (god forbid all those poor Muslims get freedom of movement)?
Yes, you're absolutely right. No one except the United States has protections on agriculture. Not the Europeans, not the Japanese, no one except the United States. We must prostrate ourselves before the will of all international fuckwits.
Instead we should have let Putin install his toady. God forbid we support the Ukrainian people's choice. It's a little known fact that every single person that camped in the city's square was a CIA employee: wow, huh?! I guess that Putin miscalculated the dose on the dioxin poisoning there, huh? "Geopolitical advantage"? Give me a break.
You smoke too much crack. We "dismantled" Yugoslavia? What, we went back in time and incited the hundreds of years of historical hatreds. We invaded them and kept them under an iron curtain until the friction of authoritarian rule from above caused them to explode?
Bush is a fucking retard. I don't think anyone is denying this.
Totally. We assigned McDonalds and Nike to go in there and set that up. We R teh Awesomez!
Maybe some evidence with those accusations, hrm? Our approach to Chavez is, "Oh god, what a nutcase". Do you know *anything* about
Re:Empire vs. Empire (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Empire vs. Empire (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is why the generate enemies all over the world - especially when the US sides with one side in a conflict against another.
Mod that flaimbait (Score:1, Insightful)