# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Russia threatens to attack Poland due to the US Poland missile shield deal.

## TheEvilDetector

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ield-deal.html


"Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal

Russia threatened a nuclear strike against Poland after a landmark deal to site American global anti-missile shields in the country.

By Harry de Quetteville and Andrew Pierce

Last Updated: 8:41PM BST 15 Aug 2008

*Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces*

Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn: Russia's nuclear rethoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia Photo: AP

Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia's deputy chief of staff warned Poland "is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent".

*General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting "the allies of countries having nuclear weapons".

He told Russia's Interfax news agency: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."
*
Russia's nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.

The stand off between the two cold War powers was underlined by *Russian president Dmitry Medvedev*, who dismissed US claims that the silo is a deterrent against 'rogue states' like Iran as "a fairy tale". *He told reporters at the Black Sea resort of Sochi: "The deployment of new missile defence facilities in Europe is aimed against the Russian Federation."*

President George W. Bush in a brief but pointed statement earlier in the day said: "The Cold War is over… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

Mr Bush, who is demanding an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia now that that a ceasefire deal has been signed, added: "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation,"

Russia's deteriorating relationship with the West was strained further when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday visited Georgian capital Tbilisi and concluded a ceasefire deal with Russia. It was the highest profile gesture of American political support for Georgia's embattled government since the conflict began.

Echoing President Bush's demands for a withdrawal from Georgia, she evoked the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago. "Russian forces need to leave Georgia at once. This is no longer 1968,"she said.

Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, who was standing next to Miss Rice, said: "We were screaming to the world that Russia was going to do this...We are looking evil directly in the eye - this evil is very dangerous not only for us but for everybody."

Even as he was speaking a convoy of 17 Russian armoured personnel carriers was spotted advancing along the main highway to within 34 miles of the Georgian capital Tblisi, their deepest move yet inside the country.

The Foreign Office also condemned Russia. A spokesman said: "Threats such as these against our EU and Nato Allies are completely unacceptable and unhelpful, especially at the present time''.

The criticism was echoed by MPs, who warned of the potential for a major escalation in the diplomatic crisis.

But there was no word from either Gordon Brown or David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, on the nuclear issue, who were earlier both criticised for not speaking out sooner over the situation in Georgia.

David Cameron, the Tory leader, will today seize the initiative by travel to Georgia, where he is expected to warn Russia to respect its neighbour's territorial integrity.

Poland and the United States reached the agreement, after 18 months of negotiation, on siting 10 interceptor missiles capable of destroying incoming long-range ballistic missiles. Washington says the system, which would be installed by 2012, is designed to protect the US and its allies from "rogue states" such as Iran. The threat of nuclear reprisals were motivated by Moscow's fears the missile shield makes Russia a target of the United States.

Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, told The Daily Telegraph the new US missile shield deal, and its timing, was unrelated to Georgia. "It [the deal] is a coincidence," he said. "Georgia made a dramatic backdrop to it, but the timing had nothing to do with Georgia. We have offered Russia the right to inspect at any time. It only has the capabilities we say it does, which is to say, nothing to do with Russia."

Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, hinted that the US had pledged to back Warsaw in the event of Russian aggression towards Poland. He said that he only agreed to host the US defence shield on the condition that the US agreed to help augment Poland's defences with Patriot missiles, which are intended to ward off any threat from Russia. "We have crossed the Rubicon," he said."

*If this type of talk continues there is a risk of an escalation into military conflict between US and Russia which because they are both nuclear armed could end up turning into a nuclear war.*

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn remarks are confirmed here:

http://www.france24.com/en/20080815-...sian-general-0
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...748039695.html
http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-News...20080815182731
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/6457
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20...229677451/1001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...poland-target/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Georgia.html

and other places, so it is safe to say they are for real and as such are quite scary because this is out in the open belligerent talk that will only end with a radical change in foreign policy, change of leadership or war.

----------


## Monolithic

russia isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO country

----------


## TheEvilDetector

From http://english.pravda.ru/russia/krem...ussia_poland-0

"The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia warns Poland that it may become a priority target for Russia in the event the USA deploys elements of its missile defense system on the territory of this East European nation. To put it in a nutshell, Russia may strike a nuclear blow on Poland, which is possible after the recent change of the Russian Federation defense doctrine.

The USA is busy with its own missile defense system; it does not intend to defend Poland at this point. Poland lays itself open to attack giving the USA a permission to deploy the system. *The country may become an object of Russias reaction. Such targets are destroyed in the first instance,* Anatoly Nogovitsin, Russias Deputy Chief of Staff said commenting the recent agreement regarding the deployment of the US missile defense system in Poland.

*Nogovitsin stated that Russia may use nuclear weapons in cases as stipulated by the defense doctrine.*

*It clearly states that we can use nuclear weapons against the countries possessing nuclear weapons, against allies of such countries, if they somehow support them, and against those countries, which deploy other countries nuclear weapons on their territories. Poland is aware of it,* the general said.

In the meantime, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added more fuel to the fire upon her arrival in Tbilisi, Georgia. She said that Washington would be ready to sign the missile defense agreement with Warsaw in the nearest future, ITAR-TASS reports.

Poland s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that Poland had completed the talks with the USA and agreed upon the conditions of the deployment of the US missile defense system elements on its territory.

The agreement stipulates the deployment of 96 Patriot missiles and 110 members of the personnel. The US permanent military reservation will be deployed in Poland by 2012.

Interceptor missiles will appear in Poland on the outskirts of the town of Slupsk. The agreement also stipulates USAs assistance to Poland in case the latter faces a threat from third countries.

It is worthy of note that Polish President Lech Kaczynski set off to Georgia Tuesday along with the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine to participate in the meeting of solidarity. All of the presidents, including Mr. Kaczynski, delivered anti-Russian speeches at the meeting. The Polish president particularly stated that Russia had shown its true face and committed criminal actions.

Russia s Dmitry Medvedev stated in July that US missiles in Poland would only aggravate the situation.

*Russia will have to respond; the EU and the USA have been warned,* the Russian president said. "

----------


## TheEvilDetector

I believe now is the time to start planning for TSHTF people.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> russia isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO country


This isn't about smart or stupid, its about power and ego now.

This type of talk from a nuclear armed country from the deputy head of its armed forces and its president is extremely destabilising to global security 
although Russia isn't wholly to blame here, they are reacting.

What if Russia hits Poland? 

Think about it, if Russia doesn't hit Poland after such words (in the absence of follow up US concessions), they have just proved they are nothing 
but words and embarrassed themselves on the political stage. Political embarrassment is not something Russia (or any country for that matter) desires.

I think unless US scraps this deal or does a Cuban crisis type behind the scenes manoeuvre we are going to have missiles flying in both directions.

By the way, I doubt that Europe will do anything because its full of small countries (geographically speaking) relative to Russia and therefore nuclear hits on their soil wouldn't be appealing and more importantly not only can Russia will shut down their gas as well but they (Europeans) know that Russia's concern is only Poland's US sponsored missile shield installations not empire.

In the event of a Russian attack on such facilities, US will be forced to fight for Poland else it by its in-action it will trash its reputation (since Poland is incapable of effective defence against Russian armed forces). 

Once US enters the conflict we very well might have Nuclear war between Russia and US as I believe conventional weapons cannot impose their will on either country.

Let met put this potential conflict in historical perspective. 

Russians know how to fight and have the historical record to prove it.

Not many countries can come out victorious after losing over 10 million of armed forces personnel (eg. WW2).

Only those with a very strong will to prevail, ultimately superior military strategy and a very large human resources to call upon.

Right now, Russia's military is mostly unencumbered, whereas US military is quite busy in the middle east fighting wars for profit of the few
at the expense of the many.

Financially US can ill support a new major war against the strong military of Russia. US is already in deep economical $#@!.

In the absence of nuclear weapons usage, I would wage a bet that US simply cannot bring Russia to its knees, therefore
for victory (if M.A.D can even be considered such) there is only one option, but that option is simply too crazy to even consider I think.



Possible developments down the road....

I have a feeling that this situation is likely to have ultimately destructive outcomes and these will be used as justification to 
fast track global government into existence while the ruins are still smouldering.

Once global government is in place, I think what will follow is systematic disarmament of the entire global population 
under the global directives with the exception of transnational security forces of course.

----------


## Kludge

> russia isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO country


Who is Russia?

I used to think the USA was intelligent enough to keep to its own damned business of moral enforcement and Handicapper General.

----------


## sidster

Wait a minute, so you guys don't think it is reasonable for Russia
not to want US placing missile systems, whether offensive or
defensive, in its neighboring surroundings?

All I read was that General Anatoly Nogovitsyn states these "targets
are destroyed as a first priority." Which absolutely makes sense.  If
sh!t were to hit the fan, and missiles were to fly both ways, the first
thing to do would be to take out any missile defense systems in the
path of Russian missiles.  It is only logical.

The U.S. would act exactly the same way if Russia were to strike a
deal with Mexico and/or Canada to install such missile "defense"
systems near U.S. borders.  How the heck would you think U.S. would
react to such a proposal?  Even if Russia allowed U.S. to inspect
such sites, as U.S. claims they are offering the opportunity to
Russia.

----------


## Kludge

I think Russia is justified in its outrage but don't think it should resort to coercive Cowboy Diplomacy to make its point.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

solution: point missiles at Poland. Russia needs to leearn some better diplomacy tactics.

----------


## DAFTEK

> solution: point missiles at Poland. Russia needs to leearn some better diplomacy tactics.


Ahh, Joe the hater  Lets just box them in the cage, thats you're solution? How about we mind our business and close down those US basses in EU? Why are you on this forum again? Please remind me  Check you're spelling

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Ahh, Joe the hater  Lets just box them in the cage, thats you're solution? How about we mind our business and close down those US basses in EU? Why are you on this forum again? Please remind me  Check you're spelling


Look at this guy, he just can't top attacking me, even when I offered my best advice to Russia.

Well, some countries, not sure how many, actually support the US presence on their land, but the problem is, in my opinion, that we're the ones flipping the bill. We should say, "ok, if you want us there, you will have to pay our bills." Then it works for both of us. You don't just close down every foreign base overnight, you need to stop listening to Alex Jones

----------


## DAFTEK

> Look at this guy, he just can't top attacking me.







> Can dish it, but can't take it.

----------


## sidster

> Look at this guy, he just can't top attacking me, even when I offered my best advice to Russia.
> 
> Well, some countries, not sure how many, actually support the US presence on their land, but the problem is, in my opinion, that we're the ones flipping the bill. We should say, "ok, if you want us there, you will have to pay our bills." Then it works for both of us. You don't just close down every foreign base overnight, you need to stop listening to Alex Jones


Hmm.. I think I'd have to agree with DAFTEK: Why are you
on this forum again?

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Hmm.. I think I'd have to agree with DAFTEK: Why are you
> on this forum again?


Why are you here? To attack people?

----------


## Kludge

> Why are you here? To attack people?


Argue the content please.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Argue the content please.


Speak when spoken to.

----------


## DAFTEK

I rest my case!

----------


## Kludge

> Speak when spoken to.


Practice What You Preach : And Twenty Other Tidbits of Bumper-Sticker Wisdom

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Practice What You Preach : And Twenty Other Tidbits of Bumper-Sticker Wisdom


I don't preach the practice of anything.

----------


## krazy kaju

Dudes, Poland is going to $#@! up Russia.

----------


## DAFTEK



----------


## krazy kaju

If Russia attempts to invade Poland, they'd either have to go via sea or via Belarus. Either way, they'll get the Russian Army will get its ass kicked.

Polish soldier:


Russian soldier:


The Russian Army is nothing more than a bunch of untrained conscripts with a few professionals. Even spetsnaz doesn't hold a candle to grom. Poland also has superior western armor and artillery forces, while Russia is stuck in the Cold War.

POLAND YEAH!

----------


## Kludge

> Polish soldier:
> 
> 
> Russian soldier:



Georgian soldier :

----------


## krazy kaju

Lol

----------


## pacelli

> If Russia attempts to invade Poland, they'd either have to go via sea or via Belarus. Either way, they'll get the Russian Army will get its ass kicked.
> 
> Polish soldier:
> 
> 
> Russian soldier:
> 
> 
> The Russian Army is nothing more than a bunch of untrained conscripts with a few professionals. Even spetsnaz doesn't hold a candle to grom. Poland also has superior western armor and artillery forces, while Russia is stuck in the Cold War.
> ...


+1 Polska!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WKLR37TN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BprgU-rJIRo

----------


## devil21

Russia sees that the US is slowly but surely surrounding it through deals with other countries.  You think Russia's "shock and awe" response to Georgia was about Georgia?  Hell no it wasnt!  That was sending a message to the US government!  And then a couple days later Poland accepts a US missile installation?  Yeah, Russia isn't going to respond kindly to that.  Remember that Russia is an ally of Iran.  The US gov't is trying to neutralize Russia from aiding Iran when Iran gets attacked.

----------


## krazy kaju

Polish officials said they wanted the missile system in Poland for a long time - it isn't a new development. Russia is just using the invasion of Georgia to show that it isn't afraid to flex its hypothetical muscles. Basically, it's a geopolitical power grab.

pacelli, GROM is awesome. two thumbs up.

----------


## sidster

> Polish officials said they wanted the missile system in Poland for a long time - it isn't a new development. Russia is just using the invasion of Georgia to show that it isn't afraid to flex its hypothetical muscles. Basically, it's a geopolitical power grab.


Russia's warning to Poland is exactly what U.S. would've said
to Canada or Mexico if either one of had agreed to host Russian
missile defense systems near U.S. border.

Just like Israel threatens to preemptively strike at Iranian nuclear
plants, I think Russia would be well in their rights to do the same
once these U.S. missile systems are put in place in Poland or any
other neighboring region for that matter.  Although, Russia has
made no such claim about preemptive strike. Just said those would
be priority targets.

----------


## strapko

Russia will eat poland alive. And the spetznas are badass. My coaches freind who is ex spetznas got jumped by a group of 6 people and beat them all down=D.

----------


## Kotin

> Russia sees that the US is slowly but surely surrounding it through deals with other countries.  You think Russia's "shock and awe" response to Georgia was about Georgia?  Hell no it wasnt!  That was sending a message to the US government!  And then a couple days later Poland accepts a US missile installation?  Yeah, Russia isn't going to respond kindly to that.  Remember that Russia is an ally of Iran.  The US gov't is trying to neutralize Russia from aiding Iran when Iran gets attacked.


Bingo!!!

----------


## DAFTEK

> Russia will eat poland alive. And the spetznas are badass. My coaches freind who is ex spetznas got jumped by a group of 6 people and beat them all down=D.








*George W. Bush Shock and Awe!*

----------


## hypnagogue

It's not difficult to understand what the Russian Military is saying. If a conflict were to break out, Poland is now a legitimate target. Generals are notoriously poor diplomats.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

If I were Russia I'd just join NATO. Why not?

----------


## sidster

> If I were Russia I'd just join NATO. Why not?


you are a strange one.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Russia will eat poland alive. And the spetznas are badass. My coaches freind who is ex spetznas got jumped by a group of 6 people and beat them all down=D.


Sorry, but GROM is way more badass. They were even used to save trapped Navy Seals operatives during the First Gulf War.

Oh, and I want to see a bunch of 18 year old conscripts leave their homes and actually fight a war against a real enemy willing to fight to the death. Imagine Afghanistan but 100 times worse.

----------


## Hiki

> If I were Russia I'd just join NATO. Why not?


Same here, in fact the Soviet Union wanted to join Nato in the 50's but England and the U.S. denied them access, now imagine what "cold" era could've been avoided if you just let them join Nato 

On the issue, I think both the U.S. and Russia are equally stupid. I cant see the point in the whole missile battery and I cant understand what the $#@! is the problem with Russians. It's a defensive system and it just seems to come down to ego.

----------


## sidster

> Sorry, but GROM is way more badass. They were even used to save trapped Navy Seals operatives during the First Gulf War.
> 
> Oh, and I want to see a bunch of 18 year old conscripts leave their homes and actually fight a war against a real enemy willing to fight to the death. Imagine Afghanistan but 100 times worse.


So you are saying that if it came to a fight between Russia
and Poland, it would be more than a fair fight as far as Poland
is concerned. Right?

So if it came to that, and say, Poland was smugged off of
the map, no hard feelings. No crying foul. Right?

----------


## sidster

> On the issue, I think both the U.S. and Russia are equally stupid. I cant see the point in the whole missile battery and I cant understand what the $#@! is the problem with Russians. It's a defensive system and it just seems to come down to ego.


Hey, what country do you live in again?  Cause I can try to
answer your question if I knew your origin.

----------


## Hiki

> Hey, what country do you live in again?  Cause I can try to
> answer your question if I knew your origin.


Finland.

----------


## sidster

> Finland.


OK, then. Great country.  But I guess I can't use Russia in
my analogy since they are already bordering you.

So you are saying you would have no problem whatsoever
if Iran were to make a deal with Norway and Sweden to
put missile "defense" systems near Finland's border?

What if Russians (civilians) were to make a deal with your
neighborhood and start getting a few tanks and park them
around your street pointing towards your home and calling
those a "defense" system?

Would that not make you nerves one bit?

----------


## Fox McCloud

not a good situation--if they really do go through with this, I don't know if there's really anything, besides an out and out "Total War" state+WWIII/WWIV scenario (whichever you think it is this time around)...even then, I don't think we can win.

Scary stuff, that's for sure.

----------


## DAFTEK

My opinion stands! 

This is the worse thing Bush did by far, Poland feel for it because this shows how stupid and low influence their puppet government is. 

You can't surround RUSSIA in the 21st Century like a dog in the corner, how is this going to help? Would the US accept a defense system in Cuba today? NO....

The US needs Russia more then anyone! To much world power is destructive for the whole world and will bring down the USofA. 

United States of America now has more enemies then any other country in the world! WHY? Because "WE ARE FREE AND PROSPEROUS?" 

Some here have lost their way and the things that Ron Paul has woken us up to. 

Would Ron Paul put a defense shield on Russian borders? NO! 

Why not put them on Russian soil heading for Iran if that was the case!  Some will say that you cant trust them, well how can you trust them if you alienate them or show them nothing but aggression, lies and hidden agendas and supply weapons in their back yard... History just repeats itself, these monkeys in power don't learn anything from the past...

Georgia for example is a puppet state that was used by Bush to show the world that they are evil and cant be trusted so anything they say in the Iran attack would be void! China is next on the smear campaign. If i was in Iran today i would probably do anything to get out soon....

----------


## ChooseLiberty

Why are the Russians so worried about this?

The US "missle defense" systems are notoriously over-rated.

Patriot system anyone?  Couldn't even stop a Scud.

----------


## sidster

> Why are the Russians so worried about this?
> 
> The US "missle defense" systems are notoriously over-rated.
> 
> Patriot system anyone?  Couldn't even stop a Scud.


I'm a pretty poor shot. Would you feel comfortable if I
was in the same room with you aiming a gun in your general
direction, even if we were on opposite sides of the room?

I'm just saying ...

----------


## pacelli

> Polish officials said they wanted the missile system in Poland for a long time - it isn't a new development. Russia is just using the invasion of Georgia to show that it isn't afraid to flex its hypothetical muscles. Basically, it's a geopolitical power grab.
> 
> pacelli, GROM is awesome. two thumbs up.


Yes, I had the honor of meeting 2 of them in their hometown when I was last in Poland.  These guys were about as hardcore as I've seen.

----------


## ChooseLiberty

I'd say it's more like we both had firearms for self defense.  Then you decide to cover yourself with tin foil.  

These are anti-missile defense systems.  They are supposed to shoot Russian missles out of the sky. 

Russian missile technology is very advanced at this point.  Maybe better than anything NATO has.  Check out their new torpedo/missile for example.






> I'm a pretty poor shot. Would you feel comfortable if I
> was in the same room with you aiming a gun in your general
> direction, even if we were on opposite sides of the room?
> 
> I'm just saying ...

----------


## Hiki

> OK, then. Great country.  But I guess I can't use Russia in
> my analogy since they are already bordering you.
> 
> So you are saying you would have no problem whatsoever
> if Iran were to make a deal with Norway and Sweden to
> put missile "defense" systems near Finland's border?
> 
> What if Russians (civilians) were to make a deal with your
> neighborhood and start getting a few tanks and park them
> ...


No I wouldnt have a problem with Iran placing a *defense* system into Sweden/Norway, those countries are close to us anyway so we wouldn't have a problem and we would probably be in it.
Well the tank thing is a bit over the edge

----------


## sidster

> I'd say it's more like we both had firearms for self defense.  Then you decide to cover yourself with tin foil.
> 
> These are anti-missile defense systems.  They are supposed to shoot Russian missles out of the sky.


Fair enough. I'll revise my analogy. You are right. We are both
in opposite sides of a room. Each of us have a gun that is loaded.

You are a far better shot and have a much better gun than I do.
Maybe you even have a few more mags than I have.

We've been in this room for many days and there has been no
problems so far.  The doors are locked and we can't get out. There
are no windows.  Then all of a sudden, one evening, you noticed
that I'm building myself a barricade by stacking chairs and tipping
over the vending machine that is in the room and start taking
cover behind them.


This wouldn't phase you one bit would it? I mean, why should it?
... right?

----------


## ChooseLiberty

Is it one of those armor plated Coke vending machines? LOL.

OK.  I was being a little sarcastic in my first post.

One of the things Russia could be concerned about is even if their tech is currently better, if the US puts a system in Poland the US could possibly eventually upgrade that system to something that could stop 99% of Russian missiles.  That would be a big problem.




> Fair enough. I'll revise my analogy. You are right. We are both
> in opposite sides of a room. Each of us have a gun that is loaded.
> 
> You are a far better shot and have a much better gun than I do.
> Maybe you even have a few more mags than I have.
> 
> We've been in this room for many days and there has been no
> problems so far.  The doors are locked and we can't get out. There
> are no windows.  Then all of a sudden, one evening, you noticed
> ...

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> solution: point missiles at Poland. Russia needs to leearn some better diplomacy tactics.


Pointing missiles at countries as a solution to a problem is the kind of thinking that led to the Cuban Missile crisis (ie. nearly resulted in a nuclear war).

I would have to agree with the second portion of your comments, regarding better diplomacy. Although to keep things in perspective, the same is just as true (if not more) for US and certain other countries.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> It's not difficult to understand what the Russian Military is saying. If a conflict were to break out, Poland is now a legitimate target. Generals are notoriously poor diplomats.


Are you implying that the russians will do nothing more than keep talking tough if US hypothetically continues to surround them 
geographically with US military hardware so long as that's done in a peaceful manner?

Where is the line in the sand? Believe me, there is such a thing.

Maybe Poland is it for Russia.

History tells us that Cuba was it for the US during the Cuban Missile crisis.

If I am right (I hope I am not in the sense that it is less serious), basically we have in some ways a similar situation right now to that of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The stance which I believe was clearly articulated is essentially that the US/Poland Missile Shield is unacceptable to Russia 
and if it is not voluntarily scrapped in the near future, it will be removed by other means by the Russian Federation.

I will leave those other means open to speculation, but I wouldn't rule out bombing or invasion.

----------


## Defining Obscene

I suppose if Russia propped Canada to strike at the boarder, and wanted to put a missile defense system in Mexico, we would gladly sponsor that.  

...  People, get your heads out of your rears.  We are encroaching on the Russians with puppet governments, the world knows it, and we are trying to cripple their military capabilities.  The only bully here is the U.S. and its allies, and its very clear.  The U.S. has already shown it is ready to spend countless lives on pointless wars, spend allied nation's lives for its own interest, and it is still beating the drums of war with Iran...  I don't know when this country is going to wake up, but I don't expect them to at this point.  They can't even process the obvious, even though its muttered in propaganda media.  No one is claiming that Russia is a wholesome nation, but this is uncalled for.  

I might as well take this opportunity to wish the Polish civilians find a safe haven before we force them into the crosshairs.  Don't forget Poland, guys, don't forget Poland...

----------


## Pauls' Revere

good point about Russia and Iran being allies. Russia is also working with Iran on/for thier nuclear program. Probably selling equipment to Iran. Strategically I see Georgia and the Caucasus region as important militarily as Georgia sits on the land mass which connects Russia to Iran. My guess is that would be an important route for supplies etc for both of them otherwise they have to go around the Eastern side of the Caspian Sea through Azerbajan and Turkenistan I think. Having Georgia as a staunch US ally essentially splits the two apart. Personally this whole thing is BS and our MSM is lacking as usual on the topic.

----------


## hypnagogue

> Are you implying that the russians will do nothing more than keep talking tough if US hypothetically continues to surround them 
> geographically with US military hardware so long as that's done in a peaceful manner?
> 
> Where is the line in the sand? Believe me, there is such a thing.
> 
> Maybe Poland is it for Russia.
> 
> History tells us that Cuba was it for the US during the Cuban Missile crisis.
> 
> ...


 To start, the Cuban Missile Crisis involved nuclear weapons pointed at us from 50 miles off our coast. A system to shoot down incoming missiles is different on principle. The only capacity this system denies Russia is the freedom to fire missiles into Europe. The Poles have attested to this fact and Russia has been offered the privilege of running regular inspections of the facilities, so I believe the system truly is defensive. 

In this instance, I believe Russia is simply being oversensitive to American activities. Do you think Russia would be protesting so loudly if the Poles built an identical system on their own initiative? I highly doubt it. This is nothing more than lingering cold war bitterness about having the US in their neighborhood.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> To start, the Cuban Missile Crisis involved nuclear weapons pointed at us from 50 miles off our coast. A system to shoot down incoming missiles is different on principle.


Yes. That is why I used the words 'similar' and 'some ways', rather than identical during my comparisons.

Where do I find such similarities?

a) Military systems sponsored or built by a leading military power in close geographical proximity to the country in question (Russia)
b) Strongly worded warnings and threats about such systems from the country in question.

and there are likely to be other similarities.




> The only capacity this system denies Russia is the freedom to fire missiles into Europe.


Your view is too narrow I believe.

This action by US/Poland undermines the global stability achieved through M.A.D (mutually assured destruction).

Think about this. It may sound paradoxical, but this worked for many years, like over half a century.




> The Poles have attested to this fact and Russia has been offered the privilege of running regular inspections of the facilities, so I believe the system truly is defensive.


See above.




> In this instance, I believe Russia is simply being oversensitive to American activities.


Oversensitive? USA is bombing 2 nations currently (Iraq and Afghanistan, that we know about) as a result of fraudulent justifications for initiation/continuation, actively planning to engage a 3rd (Iran) for similar reasons all the while having helped or currently helping many other nations/organised units commit violence behind the scenes (at least as far as the lack of contemporary US MSM coverage goes).

For the latter you can research CIA backed/assisted revolutions and coups.




> Do you think Russia would be protesting so loudly if the Poles built an identical system on their own initiative?


Poles would never do such a thing without backing from a military power such as US. Why not?
Because there is technically no need for it.

Russia can obliterate Poland if it wanted to and it hasn't done anything like that so Poland can rest assured as far as that goes (well they could have, until now).
In addition the boogey-man countries (as designated by US) like Iran would not attack Poland or Europe, for they know they 
would overplay their indignation at the US card by doing so and invite total annihilation where even Russia will not be backing them.




> I highly doubt it. This is nothing more than lingering cold war bitterness about having the US in their neighborhood.


Yeah, you are right, it is just temporary bitterness. 

I think the Russians will snap out of it, as soon as the Americans bring them milk and cookies.

You see, it seems to me that US is spinning out of control due to the lack of meaningful (ie. someone who can actually do something about it) 
opposition to its imperial and aggressive foreign policy. That is perhaps until now, although this opposition can have the opposite effect too,
and embolden the US megalomaniacs in charge. 

I say that because it is hard to predict how crazy people will react and I believe that the people in charge of US foreign policy are completely psychopathic (eg. Bush/Cheney).

To put so many lives at risk and to have lost huge numbers of others for nothing more than pure profiteering and ego driven power grabs is an act 
of a calculating evil psychopath ie. the way most kings and dictators behaved in history.

Let me explain what I mean by psychopath:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

"*Psychopathy is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior*.[1] ... *It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths. They are overrepresented in prison systems, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms, and in the media.*[4][5][6]

*The psychopath is defined by a continual seeking of psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes.* ... *individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior as well as lack a conscience.*"

If even some of these are true, how could you think otherwise:
Details here: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

(Articles of Impeachment against Bush)

"Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
In the United States House of Representatives
Monday, June 9th, 2008
A Resolution

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders "

----------


## hypnagogue

That was a rather huge post to advance 3 points that I can see: 1) It disturbs the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction, 2) The US beats up on other countries, and 3) Bush is crazy. 2 is irrelevant, since the odds of the US attacking Russia are so near to nil that they're scarcely worth considering. The Cold War is over. 3 is useless, since if he's crazy, he may do anything and there is no proper stance to have against him beside commitment to a mental facility. 

1 is addressable. The US and Russia's relationship no longer hinges on the fact that they could both annihilate each other and most of the world along with them. Like I said, the Cold War is over. Would the US threaten military strikes or even care if Canada built a missile defense system which covered North America? I would have to say no. Likewise, Russia shouldn't care either. We are not their enemy any longer. If they choose to do so it is, it is only stung pride which can be to blame. 

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that this system does anything to protect America from Russian missiles, which would be the only way that MAD would be disturbed. ICBM's fly through the stratosphere and could be sent over the north pole, or more likely launched from a Russian submarine. It's my understanding of these systems that they're primarily used to down missiles which are going to strike in the vicinity. I do not believe they reach up into the stratosphere and pluck missiles out of the sky. 

You also suggested that this system is unnecessary for it's stated purpose, and imply that the real purpose of this system is to defend against Russia. I don't hold to the idea that simply because a particular action is useless, expensive, and provocative that the US government won't do it anyway. I imagine there's a lot of inertia behind this project. Plenty of contractors lined up to produce the hardware and more still to install it. Bureaucrats with plans and contingency plans. The whole works.

I'd like to forego the debate about whether the US should be Europe's keeper, since I doubt we'd find a disagreement, and accept that that is what the US is trying to do. I find it substantially more likely that the US has come up with an expensive and half-witted plan to try to protect Europe from middle-eastern missiles, and that Russia is irate about their old rivals putting up a new military system, which could theoretically diminish their military strength, right in their neck of the woods.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

Good post, good points, taken under consideration.

Thank you.

I will address some of your points..




> That was a rather huge post to advance 3 points that I can see: 1) It disturbs the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction, 2) The US beats up on other countries, and 3) Bush is crazy.


Those things are to a degree interconnected, but yes essentially  you are correct.




> 2 is irrelevant, since the odds of the US attacking Russia are so near to nil that they're scarcely worth considering.


It is not impossible and these are precarious times we live in.




> The Cold War is over.


I am not so sure that it is over. 

On what basis do you make that judgement?




> 3 is useless, since if he's crazy, he may do anything and there is no proper stance to have against him beside commitment to a mental facility.


Well, war crimes tribunal would be nice, he may plead not guilty due to insanity I suppose, but I do not know if people will buy that.

When I said crazy, I did not mean someone who is drooling at the mouth and bumping into walls. I meant crazy in the manipulative psychopathic sense.




> 1 is addressable. The US and Russia's relationship no longer hinges on the fact that they could both annihilate each other and most of the world along with them.


I am not sure you can totally discount the M.A.D doctrine. On what basis do you do this?




> Like I said, the Cold War is over.


See above.




> Would the US threaten military strikes or even care if Canada built a missile defense system which covered North America?


Maybe. If it was assisted or built by Russians, I think there is a fair chance of US being a little ticked off.




> I would have to say no. Likewise, Russia shouldn't care either. We are not their enemy any longer. If they choose to do so it is, it is only stung pride which can be to blame.


It may be pride to the politicians, but it is a lot more than pride as far as the average civilians are concerned.

Millions of lives are at stake.




> Further, there is no evidence to suggest that this system does anything to protect America from Russian missiles, which would be the only way that MAD would be disturbed.


M.A.D. may not necessarily refer to total inter-continental destruction in this scenario, it could for example be limited to M.A.D of specific military assets and 
personnel on a localised basis eg. Total Destruction of American Units/Bases in all of Europe along with similar destruction of Russian assets in Russian territory lying 
in close proximity to Europe. Come to think of it this is where tactical nukes may get a few uses.

To compliment the M.A.D idea I put forth we also have to consider that if (and it's a big if, as one of my earlier posts argued) the European countries decide to 'gang up' on Russia with US in a military confrontation, then Russia would be limited in its ability to retaliate against Europe.

Russians would have to consider all possible uses (from most probable to least probable) for this shield.




> ICBM's fly through the stratosphere and could be sent over the north pole, or more likely launched from a Russian submarine. It's my understanding of these systems that they're primarily used to down missiles which are going to strike in the vicinity. I do not believe they reach up into the stratosphere and pluck missiles out of the sky.


Perhaps not, but if Russians let this one slide, then the next may have greater capabilities.




> You also suggested that this system is unnecessary for it's stated purpose, and imply that the real purpose of this system is to defend against Russia. I don't hold to the idea that simply because a particular action is useless, expensive, and provocative that the US government won't do it anyway. I imagine there's a lot of inertia behind this project. Plenty of contractors lined up to produce the hardware and more still to install it. Bureaucrats with plans and contingency plans. The whole works.


Well if it's just to fill the pockets of certain agencies without a meaningful military capability then it is an even more of a reckless move.
Why do I say that? Because Poland could face Russian military action as a result of this action and if such activity eventuates a near useless 
installation is not worth losing lives over whether Russian, Polish or US.

I think I am being reasonably accurate in saying that US (supposedly an ally of Poland) is putting Poland's security at risk.




> I'd like to forego the debate about whether the US should be Europe's keeper, since I doubt we'd find a disagreement, and accept that that is what the US is trying to do. I find it substantially more likely that the US has come up with an expensive and half-witted plan to try to protect Europe from middle-eastern missiles, and that Russia is irate about their old rivals putting up a new military system, which could theoretically diminish their military strength, right in their neck of the woods.


Yes, that may be true but seriousness of the possible consequences remain.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> If Russia attempts to invade Poland, they'd either have to go via sea or via Belarus. Either way, they'll get the Russian Army will get its ass kicked.
> 
> Polish soldier:
> 
> 
> Russian soldier:
> 
> 
> The Russian Army is nothing more than a bunch of untrained conscripts with a few professionals. Even spetsnaz doesn't hold a candle to grom. Poland also has superior western armor and artillery forces, while Russia is stuck in the Cold War.
> ...


I think both of those men are quite ready to kill, with modern weaponry that is pretty much the main requirement of a soldier.

As far as sweeping generalisations go with respect to training and equipment, it's nice if you can give us some specific data about the respective 
military capabilities and assets of both of those countries and incorporate that data somehow into the reasoning behind your stated positions 
(I assume that you have used some data to come to your conclusions, hope I am not mistaken, and you simply didn't provide it in the interest of economy).

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_armed_forces

Russia has 1,245,000 active and 1,690,000 reserve troops. 
Poland has 155,000 active and 260,000 reserve troops.

Russia has 23381 tanks, Poland has 947
Russia has 2118 fighter aircraft, Poland has 102.

The rest of the statistics follow a similar pattern.

----------


## DAFTEK

That Polish soldier has mostly Russian equipment

----------


## Hiki

> I think both of those men are quite ready to kill, with modern weaponry that is pretty much the main requirement of a soldier.
> 
> As far as sweeping generalisations go with respect to training and equipment, it's nice if you can give us some specific data about the respective 
> military capabilities and assets of both of those countries and incorporate that data somehow into the reasoning behind your stated positions 
> (I assume that you have used some data to come to your conclusions, hope I am not mistaken, and you simply didn't provide it in the interest of economy).
> 
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_armed_forces
> 
> Russia has 1,245,000 active and 1,690,000 reserve troops. 
> ...




Remember remember...

----------


## sidster

> Remember remember...


The "dead or missing count" is actually 126,875 according
to Wikipedia.

Also according to Wikipedia, the moral of Russian army was
affected by the Great Purge




> With up to 50% of army officers executed, including the vast majority of those of the highest rank, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers.



Always consider the facts ...

----------


## Hiki

> The "dead or missing count" is actually 126,875 according
> to Wikipedia.
> 
> Also according to Wikipedia, the moral of Russian army was
> affected by the Great Purge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always consider the facts ...


Yeah the estimates change often, but still we beat the odds overwhelmingly

----------


## rpfan2008

> pacelli, GROM is awesome. two thumbs up.


The composition of the Russian Air Force is estimated by a number of sources to be as follows: 90 strategic bombers, including 

*16 x*  Tu-160s (Blackjack)





> General characteristics
> 
>     * Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, defensive systems operator)
>     * Length: 54.1 m (177 ft 6 in)
>     * Wingspan:
>           o Spread (20° sweep): 55.70 m (189 ft 9 in)
>           o Swept (65° sweep): 35.60 m (116 ft 10 in)
>     * Height: 13.10 m (43 ft 0 in)
>     * Wing area:
> ...



*74 x* Tu-95MSs (Bear); // OLD

*124 x*  long-range Tu-22M3 (Backfire) bombers





> General characteristics
> 
>     * Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, defensive systems operator)
>     * Length: 42.4 m (139ft)
>     * Wingspan: 112ft 5in
> 
>     * Spread (20° sweep): 34.28 m (112 ft 6 in)
> 
>     * Swept (65° sweep): 23.30 m (76 ft 5 in))
> ...


*20 x* A-50 early warning aircraft; 


*800 x* tactical bombers 



Su-24 (Fencer) 

[QUOTE]    * Powerplant: 2× Saturn/Lyulka AL-21F-3A turbojets
          o Dry thrust: *75 kN* (16,860 lbf) each
          o Thrust with *afterburner: 109.8 kN* (24,675 lbf) each
    * *Fuel capacity: 11100 kg (24,470 lb)

Performance

    * Maximum speed: *1,315 km/h* (710 knots, 815 mph, *Mach 1.07*) at sea level; *Mach 1.35* at high altitude
    * Range: 615 km in a lo-lo-lo attack mission with *3000 kg* (6,615 lb) ordnance and external tanks (330 nm, 380 mi)
    * Ferry range: 2775 km (1,500 nm, 1,725 mi)
    * Service ceiling 11000 m (36,090 ft)
    * Rate of climb: 150 m/s (29,530 ft/min)[/QUOTE]


and Su-34 (Fullback) fighter bombers 



*725x*  interceptor fighters

MiG-29 (Fulcrum)


and Su-27 (Flanker)
including Su-27SMKs, Su-33;




* 300 x*  
An-12, 

An-22, 

An-124 (Condor) 

and Il-76 (Candid) airlifters and Il-78 (Midas) tanker planes;

* 650 x* Mi-8, Mi-17, Mi-24, Mi-26, Ka-50 and Mi-28N helicopters. 


In addition, it has *1900 x*  anti-aircraft missile launchers, *(10 times faster than sound)* 
*S-300V*, <--- "strike pilot's worst nightmare"


B]S-300P[/B] Favorit,  



*S-400*  Triumf and other systems.






> However, he said the system is highly capable of destroying stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with an effective range of up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and a speed of up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> ...
> 
> Further, there is no evidence to suggest that this system does anything to protect America from Russian missiles,  ...


http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...33612420080817

"Washington says the shield will be aimed at protecting the United States and its allies from long-range missiles that could be fired by Iran or groups such as al Qaeda."

One could infer, that it would likewise be able to protect from Russian missiles, which in line with points in my earlier post disturbs the balance under M.A.D doctrine.

Also, this type of response sounds like a dare (arrogance on par with the Russian threats) to the Russians, which is not helpful if one is trying to resolve a conflict.

" WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pentagon chief Robert Gates dismissed as "empty rhetoric" on Sunday Russian warnings that Moscow would target Poland for a possible military strike because Warsaw agreed to host part of a U.S. missile shield.

"Russia is not going to launch nuclear missiles at anybody," Defense Secretary Gates said on ABC News' "This Week." "The Poles know that. We know it." "

Imagine if Russians dared US to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Most certainly US would have done so in response or face humiliation on the world stage.

So things are heating up. Russia may not launch nukes, but they may bomb with conventional weaponry any such missile shield system that gets built.

Russians are not afraid to use ballistic missiles either:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/russia-fires-ss-21-ballistic-missiles/story.aspx?guid={BBA6D0C0-0C68-4870-AD17-D64189FBD05F}&dist=hppr

" Over the last few days Russia has fired over two dozen SS-21 Ballistic Short Range Missiles into the country of Georgia, integrating ballistic missile strikes with their conventional military forces. The SS-21 is a road mobile, solid fuel, single stage ballistic missile, which is maneuverable in flight and carries a high-explosive warhead weighing up to 1060lbs. with 150 meter accuracy. "

----------


## DAFTEK

*heh.... * *http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2867.htm*

----------


## TheEvilDetector

Interesting article

http://www.independent.ie/world-news...r-1457607.html

"The heat is on as Russia and West play at Cold War
But the Kremlin's response to the US missile shield in Poland wasn't a surprise, writes Adrian Blomfield

LAST month, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's hawkish ambassador to Nato, refused to reveal how the Kremlin would retaliate if Poland agreed to co-host an American missile defence shield. But he did promise that the response would come as a "pleasant surprise'' for the West. Just as he intended, the Kremlin's reply was neither pleasant nor, entirely, a surprise.
*
Alongside the ambitions of Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato, missile defence has been the principal source of tension between Moscow and the West.*

Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, has threatened to retrain nuclear missiles on Europe for the first time since Soviet times and Russia has walked away from an arms treaty that was pivotal in ending the Cold War.

Friday, the Russians went even further. Poland faces not just the prospect of having Russian missiles pointing in its direction but also risks "100 per cent'' a military attack. And not just any attack, if General Anatoly Nogovitysn is to be believed, but a nuclear attack.

*The country's deputy chief of staff explained that, under Russia's military doctrine, the Kremlin had every justification to launch a nuclear strike against Poland if the missile shield is built.*

We have yet to see whether this is mere bluster. Dmitry Medvedev, the president, struck a slightly more moderate note but Mr Putin, the real power in Russia, has not yet given his reaction.

Poland, unlike Georgia, is already a member of Nato. A Russian military assault would, if Warsaw were to invoke article five of the Nato treaty, oblige the alliance's other members to come to Poland's rescue. It could be the beginning of World War III.

*While Moscow likes to use direct vocabulary of the kind that makes Western leaders blench, it is unlikely that Russia would have been this blunt just over a week ago.*

Even as East-West relations have deteriorated to their lowest since the Cold War in the past two years, the US and the European Union have been at pains to describe Moscow as a valued partner. Every criticism that Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, has directed towards the Kremlin, has been prefaced by a reminder that Russia is "not the Soviet Union''.

After the invasion of Georgia a week ago, the pretence of normality has been all but dropped. The word "partnership'' is used less and less, in Washington at least, and replaced with threats of diplomatic retribution and international isolation.

The US is finally talking tough and even the EU, much more reluctant to offend the Kremlin, is being forced to re-evaluate its relations with Russia. The talk of a new Cold War is growing ever louder. Yet, even now, that description is fallacious, not least because history rarely replicates itself so precisely. Beyond self-aggrandisement and nationalism born from an over-confidence built on energy resources, Russia has no ideology to export.

Nor, despite a rapidly growing military budget and the restoration of long-range bomber patrols, does it have the military might of the Soviet Union.

Its 1.2 million-strong army is dominated by poorly-educated conscripts, its naval vessels keep breaking down and tests on new nuclear missiles fail with humiliating regularity. Russia may talk itself up but it carries a fairly small stick. *That does not mean that Russia is not a dangerous foe.
*
*The past week has shown that the Kremlin is more unpredictable than many assumed* and, arguably, more ready to believe its own propaganda of a superpower reborn.

Besides, any country with such a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and so voluminous a supply of energy (on which Europe is increasingly dependent), is a foe to be reckoned with.

Nor does the lack of an ideology mean that the brewing confrontation with Russia is ideologically bereft. At a security conference in Munich 18 months ago, Mr Putin launched his first serious salvo against the West, railing against American "hyper-imperialism'' and the concept of a unipolar world. His words were deliberately chosen and intended to send a message.

Rejecting arguments that the shield's aim is to protect Europe from a nuclear missile strike by Iran,* Moscow argues that it will dilute Russia's ability to initiate or defend itself in the event of a nuclear war.* The US contends that this is an odd argument as the system envisages placing just 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic.

*Analysts predict that Russia will now pull out of a second Cold War treaty banning it from holding medium-range nuclear missiles*. Belarus will be pressured to pull out of the Lisbon Treaty forbidding it from hosting Russian warheads.

Short-range nuclear missiles could also be placed in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, while pressure will mount on ex-Soviet states to do as they are told.

*The theatre of international relations will have the scenery of the Cold War*. But the play being staged is much more likely to resemble the Great Power diplomacy of the 19th century."

These developments are very dangerous for global stability. It feels like some people in charge are itching for war.

----------


## Truth Warrior

And 12 very old Pollock jokes suddenly spring to mind.

----------


## DAFTEK

*How Television Affects Your Brain Chemistry *

----------


## pacelli

> And 12 very old Pollock jokes suddenly spring to mind.


Out of respect for those of us who have Polish ancestry, I'm asking nicely, please don't go there.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

I think this conflict backfired on Georgia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/...georgia_russia

Excerpt

Russia: Georgia can 'forget' regaining provinces

"By DAVID NOWAK and CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writers Thu Aug 14, 7:34 PM ET

TBILISI, Georgia - *The foreign minister of Russia said Thursday that Georgia could "forget about" getting back its two breakaway provinces,* "

----------


## Truth Warrior

> out of respect for those of us who have polish ancestry, i'm asking nicely, please don't go there.


ok!

----------


## hypnagogue

> "Washington says the shield will be aimed at protecting the United States and its allies from long-range missiles that could be fired by Iran or groups such as al Qaeda."


 In that article, that is the only statement which could suggest that the shield somehow protected the mainland US. I don't think it's a proper interpretation, however. I am certain that Washington used the phrase, "protect the United States and it's allies," to describe Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or any other foreign intervention. Besides, I strongly suspect that the continental US is already covered by a missile defense shield. There's no need to place it in Poland if the intent is to defend the US. 

Here's a few references for our existing missile defense system. 
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-...course_Defense

I see no rational justification for Russia taking offense at the Poland based Missile Shield. I also agree with Gate's description of Russia's nuclear threats as empty rhetoric. They are not going to launch any nuclear missiles. Neither are we. The international ramifications would be extreme. As would the ramifications be if Russia were to launch an aggressive war against Poland for hosting a defensive system.

If Russia carries through with their saber rattling, it will not be because they were justifiably provoked, it will be because they are nuts. Russia would have to be crazy to start a war over this. The whole world would be against them, and they are in no way the super power that they once (arguably) were. That's all I'm trying to say really. It would be foolish to go down the path their threatening, and I for one, don't believe Russia are fools.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> In that article, that is the only statement which could suggest that the shield somehow protected the mainland US. I don't think it's a proper interpretation, however. I am certain that Washington used the phrase, "protect the United States and it's allies," to describe Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or any other foreign intervention. Besides, I strongly suspect that the continental US is already covered by a missile defense shield. There's no need to place it in Poland if the intent is to defend the US. 
> 
> Here's a few references for our existing missile defense system. 
> http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-...course_Defense
> 
> I see no rational justification for Russia taking offense at the Poland based Missile Shield. I also agree with Gate's description of Russia's nuclear threats as empty rhetoric. They are not going to launch any nuclear missiles. Neither are we. The international ramifications would be extreme. As would the ramifications be if Russia were to launch an aggressive war against Poland for hosting a defensive system.
> 
> If Russia carries through with their saber rattling, it will not be because they were justifiably provoked, it will be because they are nuts. Russia would have to be crazy to start a war over this. The whole world would be against them, and they are in no way the super power that they once (arguably) were. That's all I'm trying to say really. It would be foolish to go down the path their threatening, and I for one, don't believe Russia are fools.


Good points.

I may not necessarily agree with all of them, but to avoid going in circles I will just say let's see what happens and let's hope we don't get anything serious.

----------


## hypnagogue

> Good points.
> 
> I may not necessarily agree with all of them, but to avoid going in circles I will just say let's see what happens and let's hope we don't get anything serious.


 *hand shake* Hopefully these national leaders are more stable than some of us fear.

----------


## Pericles

> good point about Russia and Iran being allies. Russia is also working with Iran on/for thier nuclear program. Probably selling equipment to Iran. Strategically I see Georgia and the Caucasus region as important militarily as Georgia sits on the land mass which connects Russia to Iran. My guess is that would be an important route for supplies etc for both of them otherwise they have to go around the Eastern side of the Caspian Sea through Azerbajan and Turkenistan I think. Having Georgia as a staunch US ally essentially splits the two apart. Personally this whole thing is BS and our MSM is lacking as usual on the topic.


 I'm happy to see the forum at least has some members who can look at a map and think.

----------

