Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Poland and Czech kicked in the nuts by the US
YelliChink    9/17/2009 10:33:06 AM
edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/missile.defense.shield/index.html [quote] But Biden explained the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat. "I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," Biden said in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip. ... "This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy. advertisement Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies. [unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27   NEXT
YelliChink       9/22/2009 6:48:02 PM

 Why? I sincerely ask since I've noted here that every now and then a poster is expected to see a connection between two seemingly separate issues. Is there one here; or are you asking a military history enthusiast from Finland about Finland's only modern war (if the Finnish view of three wars is neglected and all three are nicely thrown in to the WW2 -basket)? Surely there must be interpretations on the issue I am not aware of.  If so, bring it on.

 Mikko


Then you must know back then Finnish authority had to execute a pacifist in fear that Finnish army would crumble for that kind of mentality.
 
You must also know that when big guys want to assault you, they create a reason and do it anyway. There are two ways to avoid being targeted: either make yourself a hard target, or make yourself low in their priority. Finnish position is actually safer when Russia has tension with other powers, were it Germany or the US. It is no surprise that Peter the Great took Finland from Sweden when Poland-Lithuania was weak. It is also no accident that Stalin went for Finland to "secure Soviet flank" when he had a nonagresssion treaty with Hitler in effect, especially while most of Wehrmacht was deployed to western front. Oh, wait, where was that Nazi threat to Soviet Union when they were too busy fighting in Denmark, Norway and Rheinland?
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       9/22/2009 7:39:40 PM


 Why? I sincerely ask since I've noted here that every now and then a poster is expected to see a connection between two seemingly separate issues. Is there one here; or are you asking a military history enthusiast from Finland about Finland's only modern war (if the Finnish view of three wars is neglected and all three are nicely thrown in to the WW2 -basket)? Surely there must be interpretations on the issue I am not aware of.  If so, bring it on.


Then you must know back then Finnish authority had to execute a pacifist in fear that Finnish army would crumble for that kind of mentality.

You must also know that when big guys want to assault you, they create a reason and do it anyway. There are two ways to avoid being targeted: either make yourself a hard target, or make yourself low in their priority. Finnish position is actually safer when Russia has tension with other powers, were it Germany or the US. It is no surprise that Peter the Great took Finland from Sweden when Poland-Lithuania was weak. It is also no accident that Stalin went for Finland to "secure Soviet flank" when he had a nonagresssion treaty with Hitler in effect, especially while most of Wehrmacht was deployed to western front. Oh, wait, where was that Nazi threat to Soviet Union when they were too busy fighting in Denmark, Norway and Rheinland?

Ok, let's talk about Finland then. Would have not even dreamt about it on my first day as a poster here:) 
 
On your first statement: Finnish authorities executed spies, saboteurs and some of our own deserters. Pretty much all Finns are and were pacifists if you consider me one. Preferring peace doesn't mean one couldn't have good reasons to defend themselves - and being serious at that. (maybe I missed your point here, but put it on cultural differences and my young age)
 
My point in the previous posts was not primarily about Finnish national integrity, maybe yours wasn't either. Of our safety I'm not even slightly worried. But now that you mentioned it, I don't think it is no more possible to separate a conflict between Russia and Finland from a much larger context. We will not be the only ones, and the best or even the second best equipment they have will never be brought against us. 
As a lighter sidenote, half of the mothers of the soldiers in the Leningrad Military District seem to have summer cottages in Finland. Those folks wouldn't risk tracks messing up their petunias.
 
Outside their immediate sphere of influence, all Russians want is money, money, money (/ must be..) and respect. Neither you seem to get by force. 
 
Mikko
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    DA   9/22/2009 7:42:35 PM
 
  Why should the USA deploy ABM in Poland?  "Because the Russians do not want it!". We also made a contract and now look like Hitler and Stalin carving up Poland. I would suggest you then study what happened next.
 
  DA, I wonder who it was that said when Obama took over as President "The attacks would increase on all 3 fronts?". And you know damn well what 3.
 
  
 
Iran Shows Modern Ballistic Missiles
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Armed Forces displayed the most modern home-made ballistic missiles during military parades here in Tehran on Tuesday.


 
Sejjil missiles, considered as the third generation of Iran-made long-range missiles, were displayed during the parades at the mausoleum of the Founder of the Islamic Republic, the Late Imam Khomeini, in southern Tehran.

Iran successfully tested second generation of Sejjil missiles and brought it into mass production earlier this year.

The solid-fuel, two-stage Sejjil missile with two engines, is capable of reaching a very high altitude and therefore has a longer range than that of the Shahab 3 model.

The missile has boosted the Islamic republic of Iran's defense capabilities.

Various units of the Islamic Republic Army, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basij (volunteer) forces attended the military parades to commemorate the start of the Week of Sacred Defense.

During the parades Shahab 1, 2 and 3, and Zelzal missiles were also displayed.

The liquid-fuel Shahab 3 missile has a range of up to 1,250 miles (2000 kilometers) and is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram warhead.
 
Iran Building New Generation of Centrifuges
TEHRAN (FNA)- Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi Tuesday announced that Iranian experts are building a new generation of centrifuges.


 
"Our engineers are building a n
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    DA   9/22/2009 8:03:46 PM
"That's not a dream. That's what this is all about. The Russians aren't interested in Iran going nuclear. They are just using them to get as many concessions out of the USA as possible to secure their periphery from further erosion. At some point the USA, Allies or Israel will act independent of Russia against Iran. That may even include accepting a nuclear Iran. At that point the Russian position collapses."
 
Well, I could see Obama going for his original "Plan B" or "accepting a nuclear Iran" but I doubt the Israelis will. Maybe that is why Biden said some of the things he did about "Israeli sovereignty."
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       9/22/2009 8:06:13 PM
Mikko, first of all, let me say it's good to have some new faces around here at SP.  Welcome aboard. 
 
Second of all, the Finns are some tough customers, which you proved in World War II and in successfully steering a middle course during the Cold War.  That said, you want a strong United States in your corner.  While I doubt that Putin has designs on Finland, I felt the same way about Georgia two years ago.  Finland isn't part of NATO.  A Russian attack on Finland--which would be stupid, but bear with me--would not merit a response from anyone but the UN.  Good luck with that. A US (or an EU, if you like) that shows that it's willing to stick up for smaller countries against grabby thugs will make it less likely that aforementioned grabby thugs will not try anything...knowing that the response could be devastating. 
 
Sadly, Obama seems bent on showing the US to be a paper tiger, in trying to be "fair" to men who don't understand the word. 
 
The post by Gates does nothing to buttress Obama.  Gates has already shown himself to be incompetent.  You might as well post Brezinzski's latest gas.
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       9/22/2009 8:30:08 PM


this is an article by George Friedman, head of Strafor, discussing President Obama's decision not to deploy ground based interceptors in Poland. 

 

h**p://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090921_bmd_decison_and_global_system?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090921&utm_content=readmore


 

By George Friedman


The United States announced late Sept. 17 that it would abandon a
plan for placing ballistic missile defense (BMD) installations in
Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead of the planned system, which was
intended to defend primarily against a potential crude intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM) threat from Iran against the United States,
the administration chose a restructured system that will begin by
providing some protection to Europe using U.S. Navy ships based on
either the North or Mediterranean seas. The Obama administration has
argued that this system will be online sooner than the previously
planned system and that follow-on systems will protect the United
States. It was also revealed that the latest National Intelligence
Estimate finds that Iran is further away from having a true
intercontinental missile capability than previously thought, meaning
protecting Europe is a more pressing concern than protecting the United
States.


Poland and the Czech Republic responded with a sense of U.S. betrayal, while Russia expressed its satisfact....
Russian envoy to NATO Dmitri Rogozin said Moscow welcomes the decision
and sees it as an appropriate response to Russia?s offer to allow U.S.
supplies to flow into Afghanistan through Russia. Later, the Russians
added another reward: They tentatively announced the cancellation of
plans to deploy short-range ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad, which
they previously had planned as a response to the components of the U.S.
BMD system planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.

- Ultimately, the United States has mostly gotten something back when giving something to Russia, do we agree ?  (why am I thinking of a certain Alaskan "Govenouress" right now ?!?)

Polish Despair and Russian Delight


Polish despair...
(and Warsaw seemed far more upset than Prague) and Russian satisfaction
must be explained to begin to understand the global implications. To do
this, we must begin with an odd fact: The planned BMD system...
did not in and of itself enhance Polish national security in any way
even if missiles had actually targeted Warsaw, since the long-range
interceptors in Poland were positioned there to protect the continental
United States; missiles falling on Poland would likely be outside the
engagement envelope of the original Ground-based Midcourse Defense
interceptors. The system was designed to handle very few missiles
originating from the Middle East, and the Russians obviously have more
than a few missiles.


Given that even small numbers of missiles easily could overwhelm the system, the BMD system in no way directly ...:
The Russian strike capability — against both Poland and the continental
United States — was not affected at all. Indeed, placing the system on
ships is no less threatening than placing them on land. So, if it was
the BMD system the Russians were upset with, they should be no less
upset by the redeployment at sea. Yet Moscow is pleased by what has
happened — which means the BMD system was not really the issue.


For Poland, the BMD system was of little importance. What was important was that in placing the system in Poland, the United States obviously was pre

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nasty German Idiot   9/22/2009 11:06:58 PM

Thanks for posting this article.  Nice to see some serious discussion (on this forum) going on again, although seriously interrupted by flaming.


I concur. I'm afraid the flaming is the best many on this site can do though. That's why I mostly disregard such post now rather than lower the bar for them. It's ok to have a different view but it would be nice to read logical well thought out counter arguments rather than propaganda, Jimmy Carter comparisons, political rhetoric or the enacting of Godwin's Law. It seems that all the adults in the room all the way up to SecDef and every serious analyst and blogger concur with the assessments here. Can't wait to see how things play out over the next 2 weeks. This is a big deal.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/22/2009 11:36:12 PM

 
Outside their immediate sphere of influence, all Russians want is money, money, money (/ must be..) and respect. Neither you seem to get by force. 
 
Mikko



Yes, Russians want money. Who doesn't? You can work hard to make money like Chinese do, or you can extort to get money like Palestinians do. Russians want to get money by monopolizing energy supply to Europe, particularly Germany. Guess where the pipes go? Wouldn't Poles or Czechs also want a bit more for themselves? You see, everybody is greedy. Just follow the money and you already see many reasons for conflict. And I've not started on security part.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/22/2009 11:49:36 PM

Can't wait to see how things play out over the next 2 weeks. This is a big deal.

-DA

I don't want to debase Robert Gates, but he was all over the world last year trying to sell the idea of missile shield in Poland and Czech Republics. He contradicted himself of 10 months ago. Indeed the pact was sort of a knee-jerk response to Russian aggression against Georgia, but the idea was around since late 2007.
 
And, what things do you expect to be played out over the next two weeks?
 
Israeli Air Force bomb Iran => not gonna happen.
 
UNSC approve sanction against Iran => not gonna happen
 
Ahmadinejad suddenly finds his conscious => well, that'll be good, but not gonna happen
 
USAF bomb Iran => could happen, but lacks international support and legal ground, not something a lawyer would do
 
USA total war with Iran => ROTFLMAO, very unlikely before 6 million Jews are vaporized
 
Absolutely nothing but diplomatic bickering => most likely scenario
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    YelliChink   9/23/2009 12:24:00 AM
LMAO, I appreciate your last post and the injected humor. "Ahmadinejad suddenly finds his conscience", hahaha, damn that was funny. Many truths are said in jest!
 
Let me try one!
 
Obama taken seriously in the Middle East => not gonna happen
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy