Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe

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.'"

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[thedarknite]

In Soviet Russia, you threaten strategic weapons

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.

You are a fucking idiot. The reason it would be more effective in defending from Iran than Russia is because Iran has less missiles.

Nothing whatsoever to do with trajectory math. Be glad you posted anonymously.

All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[A beautiful mind]

...makes me wish the EU to take a stronger stand. This isn't the cold war anymore where Europe was divided and I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it.

Re:Possible Cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly? I kinda of hoped Russia and the US would be past this infantile chest-pounding bullshit 10 or 15 years ago. Bush has played way too much cowboy during his presidency, but for fuck's sake, at least we're behaving somewhat responsibly sober as the only country to ever bear the responsibility for having USED a nuclear weapon in war. Putin's bringing back the cold war in a desperate bid to make Russia once again relevant on the world stage.

When I was a kid, a friend of mine told me stories that Russia had "big guns" pointed at the US and a bunch of other countries. For the life of us, neither of us could figure out why they would do that or why we would point at them. I learned later what a nuclear missile was, of course. It didn't make the thought any less horrible. Worse yet, even as an adult, the posturing and hatred STILL makes no fucking sense, save for its usefulness in inciting fear in the populace to allow you to assert control.

Bush has already found an infinite boogieman (THE TER'RISTS!) to keep people malleable and in fear. Putin could follow that and just get control of his own people, but instead he wants to posture against the world's remaining super power. The only reason I can see to do that instead is to gain control AND gain a place in the world spotlight again.

I just wish threatening to become the most PEACEFUL and least warlike country in the world could get the same amount of attention. Definitely would make me much more willing to listen to somebody.

Re:This is stupid

[drgonzo59]

You under-estimate the Russian missiles. US says that the defense systems are there for the missiles flying from North Korea. Russian missiles a lot more advanced than North Korean ones. Take this little puppy [wikipedia.org] for example. She is beautiful, isn't she!.
  An attack with those babies will not be stopped by the current generation of missile defense systems. It is _not_ a completely ballistic rocket. In other words predicting, calculating it's trajectory and using all the billions of dollars of infrastructure designed for ballistic missiles is not as useful anymore.

The competition between missile defense and missiles will mostly end up with a win for the missile. This reminds me of the competition between artillery and armor. There are certain artillery shells that no current armor can protect against it.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

These are defensive missiles. There are no "crazy dangeous games" you CAN play with defensive missiles.

As many people already pointed out, there is no such thing as a "defensive" weapon. Every new defense upsets the balance of offense, and thus at best initiates an arms race, and at worst enables one side to overpower the other since a shield is in essence a way to decrease the power of the other guy's weapons, preferrably, from the point of view of the party with the shield, to zero. And thus allowing the shield-wielder to strike first, with impunity.

If the USA was going to ever nuke anyone first, it wouldn't Russia.

There is no way to predict the future course of history. Not so long ago a majority of Americans would be very offended if you had postulated that the USA will be engaged in invasion and occupation of whole countries based on fabricated evidence and questionable pet theories of deranged ideologues combined with avarice of certain corporate elites. They would be very outraged and incredulous if you had suggested that the USA would be running what essentially amounts to a Gulag network and that its top justice officials would be engaged in "what is the meaning of is" type of parsing of the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torturing the denisens of those Gulags. I could go on.

you are forgetting where the US is...

[Anonymous Coward]

..the US is all over the planet (not just north america), with military bases in over *one hundred* countries, including an ever widening ring around russia especially on the asian and eastern european side.. In any altercation,from the Russian POV, all of them are legit targets, along with NATO "allies".

I mean, this isn't geographical/political rocket science..err..wait, yes it is

What would the US say and do if Russia was establishing full time bases in Canada and Mexico and setting up missile sites, and so on? See how that works when you stop looking at events one sided, even if you think you are paying attention to the news?

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[hengist]

> 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.

Two points to consider:

Firstly, not having a nuclear warhead explode over your country is a preferable option than having one go off, then turning its lauchsite into glass.

Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah.

Re:meh

[Xiph]

Actually, the soviet union collapsed when the regions started having enough political power (due to economic development)
to demand some sort of autonomy.
There was the occupation of the tv-tower in Vilnius as response, causing the vote on the retention of power to slide.

This in turn led to the august coup [wikipedia.org] Which failed,
and forced the supreme soviet to finally give up it's power monopoly.

So I would say, the Soviet Union collapsed, due to economic reform in the vassal states, without political reform to back it.
The funny thing about this way of thinking, is that it fits with the doctrine, that a change in economic power without a change in political influence leads to violent change.

2nd option

[cgenman]

Perhaps Putin is afraid of what the US might do if Mutually Assured Destruction was no longer mutually assured? After all, while a good shield can help save lives, it can also cost a lot more if the bearer of the shield no longer has to worry about the consequences of drawing his sword.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[MvD_Moscow]

As a Ukrainian citizen, I would have to question your thoughts about Poland and the Czech Republic being coerced into joining the missile shield. Significant sections of former USSR (excluding Russia of course) can't stand the Russians (try speaking in Lviv). I don't know about the Czech Republic, but the Poles can't stand the Russians and their imperialist policy. Just look at the whole depute over Polish meat exports. If anything, the Polish leaders are happy to have military sites just to show the Russians that the USSR/Warsaw pact is as dead as ever.

P.S. I am biased against Russia, but so what? I proud to be biased against a nation of nationalist xenophobes.

Russian rockets in Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: Russia places its rockets in Canada, for its own defense of course. What reaction would you expect from the U.S.?

putin isn't that bad

[backtothelight23]

The reasons why putin is so popular at home are simple: When he took office russia was bankrupt, people had lost all their savings, wages and rents were not paid. Since then wages have quadrupled, russia is not just defacto debt free(~debt is at 8 % of gdp), but has currency reserves of over 400 billion dollars plus a stabilization fund of 117 billion dollars. Capital influx reached allready 40 billion dollars jan-may.The economy grew by 7.9 % in the frist quarter. And this growth is now driven by demand, and not longer by the gas and oil sector. Oil and gas revenues now stay in the country, without putin russia would not profit from the high oil prices, all money would end up in western bank accounts like under jelzin. Even birth rates are rising. The so called "opposition" figures like berezovsky and kasparov have no backing in the russian population, they are seen as thieves and hated. Putin brought stability, and the state has regained control over the country, which was lost in 1999. If the politics of the nineties were continued, russia could not exist anymore. In fact, putin saved russia. The west allready believed it was dead, and expanded nato to it's borders and ignored russia's concerns. This time is now over, and the west should accept russia as an equal partner, because without russia most problems we face today can't be solved, and the russian economy is a huge market for western goods. Russia can help us in many spheres, but has also the capability to create giant troubles for the west. As an european i don't want to see a europe full of weapons. I don't believe we have the right to interfere with russia's internal affairs - everytime the west tries to enforce so called "democracy" another desaster happens, just look at afghanistan, iraq and the political crises in the ukraine. Putin is no angel, and he makes difficult decisions which might look bad to the west, but are right from a russian perspective. Russia suffered more than most countries(for example it lost more people than any other country in WWII), and it's no germany, it's much bigger, it has over 100 nationalities, and has/had problems you can not solve with a western style government, just look how difficult it is for an european government to make just the simplest reforms. It's time for the west to make concessions, to get russia back in our boat, we need it to fight terrorism, as a market, for resources, and to solve all other outstanding issues. Russia is pragmatic, you can have everything from them if you respect them, and in contrast to the us which wants to control the whole world, russia only wants a backyard without foreign troops to feel save. Russia is back.

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[Xenna]

Thanks for the warning. When I buy my next house I'll make sure to put in aircon units that works as heat pumps as well. In case the gas supply fails and electric power stays up.

I'm sort of hoping the Russians will do something like this soon. Nothing like a few days without heat to increase public support for nuclear energy.

X.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ok, time for my weekly conspiracy theory:
Why did the Cuba crisis start? According to a recent Documentary on the Discovery Channel (Not the best of sources I know but this time it told the story from the Russian POV as well) it went something like this:

1. A fellow named Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who also happens to be the premier of the Soviet Union takes a vacation on the Black Sea.
2. He gets a visit from a general who points out to him US missile bases on the Turkish side a strategic stone's throw from where they are standing.
3. Khrushchev decides that if the USA can plant missiles in the USSR's back yard surely the USSR can plant missiles in the USA's back yard?
4. Vastly underestimating depth of US anti communist hysteria Krushev orders missies to be deployed to Cuba.
5. The US finds out.
6. Outrage sweeps in Washington, nobody seems to register the degree to which similar US actions might have contributed to this.
7. Surprise at the US reaction sweeps Moscow, nobody had seriously thought about what reaction nuclear missiles in Cuba might cause in Washington. After all the USA had planted nuclear missiles in Turkey within sight of the Soviet premier's summer house hadn't it?
8. The US president John F Kennedy is overwhelmed both by Soviet actions and pressure by hawks in the US to respond with maximum force. To his credit he orders reconnaissance flights to be made by US forces in order to establish the facts on the ground before pressing any red buttons. At first these flights are relatively non threatening U-2 missions but eventually high speed low level over-flights are ordered at altitudes of some 300m in order to obtain detailed imagery. These over-flights along with a few other incidents caused by overzealous people on both sides including one involving aggressive US Navy behavior towards a missile armed Soviet sub in the region convinced many Soviet and Cuban participators in the crisis that the US was trying really, really hard to deliberately provoke a war. In reality of course it seems that people in the US were simply trying really, really hard to figure out what was going on in Cuba and not taking into consideration what over-flights by reconnaissance aircraft, aircraft who incidentally were almost indistinguishable from the fighter and bomber variants of the same aircraft type, made at high subsonic and even super sonic speeds would look like to the Cuban/Soviet military.
9. Nuclear war (almost) ensues but is averted by a frighteningly small number of cool heads on both sides of the curtain, sometimes by communicating through unofficial channels.

I don't think Putin & Co and Bush and his people. are trying to provoke a war any more than JFK and Khrushchev were. They simply are so entrenched in their respective preconceptions that GWB for example can't accurately assess what effect it will have to plant a missile defense system in Russia's back yard and that Russia has no effective answer to. I don't doubt that the Americans honestly intend this system mainly to defend against missile attacks from rogue states such as N-Korea and Iran, they would be insane if they really intended it to upset the MAD balance with Russia. But Putin & Co, who also seem to be unable to accurately assess US intentions for various reasons, see this as the first step in an attempt to create a situation where the US can nuke them but they can't respond so they have reacted in their own way which is to re-heat the cold war with new missiles. If the US and Russia continue to provoke each other the only thing it will achieve is to m

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

He is not making an ass out of himself. Invasions of Russia have traditionally come from the west. Who and where are the new US missiles pointed at?

In my opinion, the US has made an ass out of itself by declaring a War on Terrorism that cannot be won (and is guaranteed to make things worse), and apparently I am no longer in the minority, according to recent polls.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[SharpFang]

"Launches of what?"

Launches of suborbital missiles that fly over Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Ocean, North Pole, and in the end fall on Europe flying over Poland.
Or the ones that make a big circle through Russia or Atlantic Ocean and come back to Europe from North.

Check location of Europe on the map. Check location of Iran. Then check location of Poland. Then try to draw possible trajectories of missiles launched from Iran, flying to most of Europe, that could be intercepted by missiles from Poland.

Re:I have a better idea

[phayes]

A military is needed to protect the civilian populations from situations like that [nytimes.com] occurring presently in northern Lebanon. The civilian population in the camp is suffering because no military was present to prevent an armed organization installing itself in it's midst. In an ideal world, no such forces would be present but as we do not live in an ideal world, we will always need armed forces to protect the sheep from the wolves.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

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.

So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[wellingj]

So what you are saying is Ron Paul for President [youtube.com]?

Re:I have a better idea

[Spookticus]

Maybe you will see the military as important when you are being shot in the face because some dictator in la la dictator land decides to invade your country. It is apart of human history that we fight. Yes I do agree that being able to spend the money supporting something else would be beneficial. But we still live in the dark times of human stupidity and having no military would be a death wish. Not everyone's emotions have caught up with their intelligence. This could take some time to accomplish

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Lockejaw]

Nothing whatsoever to do with trajectory math.

If Russia launched missiles at the U.S., they would not fly over Europe. If Iran launched missiles at the U.S., they would fly over Eastern Europe. Go check an azimuthal map [dxatlas.com] and see for yourself.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[MrSteveSD]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense

I'm not so sure about that. Russia controlled Eastern European states via Puppet governments. The US (and the UK) has done a very similar thing. For example, removing the democratically elected leader of Iran and replacing him with the Shah. Then there is US control over Cuba via various leaders which came to an end with Castro. There can be no doubt that the US has tried to control governments in Central and South America and this has lead to violent backlashes, e.g. the Sandinistas in Nacaragua.

Perhaps one difference is that US control tends to have more of an economic drive to it. For example, when the government of Guatemala was considering policies that the United Fruit Company didn't like, they went to the US government for help. This culminated in a huge propaganda campaign and an eventual coup against the Guatemalan government. Yes, a government was overthrown by a US company worried about its bananas. It's not always about oil, but it's usually about greed in some way.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[SrJsignal]

That's a more logical argument to make against placing defenses in Alaska or the Canadian North. Interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe won't be very effective against missiles launched over the pole and aimed at North America.

Ummm no, see you have to shoot down an ICBM before re-entry stage, once it's coming back through the atmosphere it's much too difficult of a problem to shoot it down effectively, or be able to count on when the multiple warheads will separate, given that they've already received all of the kinetic energy they need to reach their target.

I for one realize that Iran had no connection to 9/11 and that most Iranians are moderate and decent people. I for one realize that we've given the Iranian people lots of justifiable reasons for hating our guts at worst and for being wary of us at best.

Oh really, you have proof that they had no connection?... about as much as we have that there was. Also, what have we done to the Iranians? Last I checked, nothing, except kidnap some soldiers.... oh wait, that was them taking British soldiers... Also, saying most of them are decent is about like a blanket "most Muslims are decent people" reference this: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May22/0,4670,Poll MuslimAmericans,00.html [foxnews.com] Sure I suppose if only 51% said bombing wasn't ok, you could say most of them are decent, but that's still a hell of a lot that aren't.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Björn]

The parent post was referring to, I think, the military junta under Papadopoulos, during 1967 - 1974. The junta had close connections with the CIA and opened Greece to US espionage bases and missile launch sites. Papadopoulos was a fascist and admirer of Hitler. Bill Clinton has made a public apology for the US support of the regime.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[thetagger]

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.

While I am no socialist, if you take a look at the UN Human Development Index, you will notice that Cuba actually scores pretty well for the region. Certainly a lot better than a dozen countries which have had the "blessing" of being under the American boot.

But yes, be sure to take only the "top" as a proof. It certainly makes you look better than looking at the whole picture.