Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The US offers Russia carrots in Missile Shield and they say......
RaptorZ    4/11/2007 8:12:54 AM
No! Clearly the Russians can not be trusted any more. They blame the west for continuing the cold war yet they've never given it up, and so it comes down to this. Is Europe/NATO on board with the US or is it not? Here's the article Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2054142,00.html what do we do?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
RaptorZ       4/12/2007 10:05:11 AM
What we do is actually paste the article this time I guess...
============
 
 

Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence



Kremlin accuses US of deception on east European interceptor bases

Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday April 11, 2007
The Guardian


Vladimir Putin, the Russian presidenthttp://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/04/11/Putin372.jpg" width=372 border=0>
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has been critical of US foreign policy in recent months. Photograph: Antoine Gyori/Corbis
 


Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a cold war-style arms race.
The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic stability".
The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole, where they are virtually undetectable.

Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.

In an interview with the Guardian, the Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed. We were never informed in advance about these plans. It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability."

He added: "We feel ourselves deceived. Potentially we will have to create alternatives to this but with low cost and higher efficiency." Any response would be within "existing technologies", he said. As well as military counter-measures, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, also wanted "dialogue" and "negotiations", he added.

The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says.

But this claim has been greeted with widespread incredulity, not just in Russia but also among some of the US's nervous Nato allies. They include Germany, where the Social Democrat leader, Kurt Beck, warned last month that the US and Russia were on the brink of another arms race "on European soil".

Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The geography of the deployment doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."

The threat of a new arms race comes at a time when relations between Russia and the US are at their worst for a decade. In February Mr Putin accused the Bush administration during a speech in Munich of seeking a "world of one master, one sovereign". On Friday Russia's duma, or lower house or parliament, warned that the US's plans could ignite a second cold war. "Such decisions, which are useless in terms of preventing potential or imaginary threats from countries of the middle and far-east, are already bringing about a new split in Europe and unleashing another arms race," the declaration - passed unanimously by Russian MPs - said.

The same day Russia ruled out cooperating with the US over the shield. "Despite certain signals received in recent days from the US side ... I see no political foundation for it," said Sergei Ryabkov, a foreign ministry spokesman. Moscow now had little choice but to take the bases "into account in our strategic planning", he said.

Analysts said there was a common feeling in Russia that the US had reneged on an agreement after the collapse of the Soviet Union to abandon cold war politics. "Cold war thinking has prevailed, especially on the western side," Yevgeny Myasnikov, a senior research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, told the Guardian. "Russia has been deeply disappointed by what has happened after 1991. Nato started to expand, and the US started to think it had won the cold war. We had hoped for a partnership. But it didn't happen."

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       4/13/2007 8:57:00 AM
Personally I'm not all that happy about our (European) meddling in what traditionally has been Russia's sphere of influence.




 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2007 9:10:21 AM

The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole, where they are virtually undetectable.

Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.

 
Hollow arguments intended for the home audience ...

Upgrade its nuclear missile arsenal - currently depending on 30 year old SS-18 Satan missiles and deploying SS-27 Topol M missiles at a glacier like pace due to budget.  Not likely a good response to less than a dozen interceptors located nearby.
 
Putting more missiles on mobile launchers - Topol M again - okay so what if you run it on a Russian SUV.  This makes no difference except to increase your costs.  Not a good response either.
 
Move Boomer subs to the North Pole?  First, what subs are we speaking of?  The Typhoons are being decommissioned and the follow on class is being delayed by years because of no missile to put onboard.  Again, not a very cost effective move.
 
Move Iskander missiles closer - okay I can buy that one.  Cheap, simple, and potential threat to the local ABM sites but no big deal since the ABMs are not going to go after the Iskander but No Dong and Shahab missiles.

Moscow's biggest defense problem is  - No Bucks - No Buck Rogers.
 
Quote    Reply

RaptorZ       4/13/2007 9:18:44 AM

Personally I'm not all that happy about our (European) meddling in what traditionally has been Russia's sphere of influence.






No Offense but a sphere of influence according to whom?   I highly doubt the Polish or Ukranians want to have Moscow be their decision makers.   Is the US supposed to just ignore these countries b/c it was part of Russia's buffer zone in the late 80's?    
 
My suggestion is Russia get on board with us, but they seem like they don't want to do that...so fine...we're not going to start denying friends b/c Russia says it's wrong...especially ones that helped us in Iraq and elsewhere.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman       4/13/2007 2:42:50 PM
I am from a country formerly dominated by the Soviet Union, but I still agree with FJV. Russia has simply been pushed far too hard for more than a decade and the strength of the Russophobia that is currently in vogue is almost difficult to believe. Russia is a major country with legitimate interests in its neighbourhood (imagine, for example, what would happen if China supported the establishment of a government hostile to the U.S.A. and friendly to itself in Mexico...), but we (Europeans in general [my country included]) have simply ridden roughshod over them. Now that they have recovered somewhat from their societal malaise and seek to protect their interests and influence we throw hysterical fits and attempt to lecture them at every opportunity. If this continues, it is bound to end badly for both us and Russia. This would not be a war, I am sure, but an expensive and destructive struggle for influence, the creation of an abrasive relationship, lots of missed opportunities for cooperation, and a diversion of attention from serious long-term trends/threat, such as China. It is not too late to avert the crisis and make Russia our partner if we get off our high horse and curb our meddling in Russia's internal matters, and recognize and accept that Russia, like any major country, is bound to have an influence on its neigbourhood (we seem to accept this with all other major powers anyway).
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       4/13/2007 2:54:22 PM
"Personally I'm not all that happy about our (European) meddling in what traditionally has been Russia's sphere of influence."

Considering how Putin treats his enemies, journalists included, I can see how you would want to distance yourself from anything dangerous, trying to avoid war at all costs.

Then again, that is was the plan with Hitler too.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Putin does not matter for this.   4/13/2007 5:25:43 PM
This is not about Putin and this is not about appeasement. In my opinion it is better for the long term of the region if Russia and it's neighbours to run their own region without unnecesary meddling from Europe. It just not makes geopolitical sense to me. Also it creates unnecesary foreign entanglements for Europe.

Taking away the regional influence of a larger nation will eventually create all kinds of problems. It's in the nature of things that larger nations will have a say on what goes on in the region even must have a say (within reason) in regional affairs if you want the democracies there to have peace and stability. Just look what happened when Germany was permanently denied it's natural say in regional matters after WW1.

Now I don't have a problem in temporarily limiting this regional influence should that larger nation go through a phase of irresponsibility. I do however have a problem with taking this influence permanently. Giving NATO/EU membership to nations within Russia's traditional sphere of influence is pretty permanent. As a rule we do not kick nations out of NATO.

My opinion is that by taking away Russia's regional influence in a semi permanent way, we close the door shut on any possibilty for Russia to be a major source of peace, stability and prosperity for the democracies in the region (when Russia starts to behave more responsible). Russia could be for the region what Germany was for Europe after WW2.

When Russia is in a position to resume such a role it would have to first get back it's regional influence from Europe. Having seen how our politicians cling to any power they've once gained such a process would not be without pain. That process would be a lot more painfull if Europe was permanently entangled in the region. (painfull for everyone in the region)





 
Quote    Reply

RaptorZ       4/13/2007 6:35:22 PM
Roman and FJV, while I respect your opinions even more so than others that have not understood the domination of the USSR personally, I must ask why you feel this way?
 
If the roles were reversed, say the Soviets were on top.   Do you believe they'd stop?   Why should a country like Poland be treated as it doesn't matter?   B/C it's a smaller country?   Russia has so many issues within itself that it must deal with yet they want to throw their weight around in Iraq, Iran, Serbia, China, India, Ukraine, former Baltic states etc...and everytime they do throw their weight around it's in direct conflict with NATO or the US.  
 
I am all for Russia being with us, I personally don't see why they don't get on board.   Ultimately we're on the same side.   Yet during this time Russia should be concentrating on itself it continues to threaten against every decision made by the US.    Furthermore, I think the US has stayed out of their business quite a bit.    Chechnya, years ago we were all about telling Russia to make peace etc, I am pretty sure Bush has stayed out of that said very little on the subject and now it seems that Russia has taken care of that issue for the most part.   But there  is no credit for that....The US has helped Russia out in many areas, especially witht he Nukes....costing billions of US taxpayer dollars b/c Russia couldn't do it themselves.   And now we're supposed to feel sorry for them as they openly threaten a new Cold War or that Europe areas will be targeted, or help China with tech to defeat the US?  
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       4/24/2007 4:29:28 AM
The problem with 'accommodating' the Russians is that the Russians -- at least among those who still carry hangovers from the good ol' Soviet days -- perceive their state as much bigger than it deserves.  In other words, Russia sees itself at least as the 'equal' to the US, the EU, NATO -- Russia as a mere 'member' of the latter two would be something it is not likely to accept.  The current pattern of Russian geopolitics should give us a plenty of hints:  Russia flirting with China and Iran, reasserting its presence in non-Russian ex-USSR, intimidating its western neighbors with energy price & control, playing up anti-Western sentiments, selling arms to states likely to be at odd with the West, snuffing out dissidents in foreign countries, etc..  On the idiotic side, these things will not bring back the Russian superpowerdom, though they will be pain in the ass for the Western interests for some time.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    FJV   5/11/2007 7:59:31 PM
 "This is not about Putin and this is not about appeasement. In my opinion it is better for the long term of the region if Russia and it's neighbours to run their own region without unnecesary meddling from Europe. It just not makes geopolitical sense to me. Also it creates unnecesary foreign entanglements for Europe."
 
 1} So i guess it was ok for Stalin to team up with Hitler and crush Poland hand in hand? Opp's that's right "Hitler later ran several million men down their throat for payment!"
 
2} So i guess it was ok for Stalin to continue to involve himself in the internal affairs of "Eastern Europe" after WW2? Opp's thats right "Places like Hungary did not think so and got ran down for their troubles!"
 
3} So i guess it was ok for Europe to start not 1,but 2 World Wars? Opp's that's right "The USA didn't start them,but those from Europe called on us to finish them!"
 
4} So i guess it was ok when Russia invaded Afghanistan 1st? Opp's thats right "Russia would not meddle in the affairs of others" nor would they "Deploy nukes to Cuba" or "Pilots to Vietnam!".
 
5} So i guess it was ok for Putin to cut off the gas and use "Frozen Family" as a way to subjugate nations which don't wish to still be called "Warsaw Pact"? Opp's that's right "KGB Putin still wishes to achieve his dream and be a police state!".
 
                                                              Have A Nice Evening!!!
                                                                
                                                                         tigertony
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics