Russia & USA

Kevster

Hey,

Who do you think is right in this political battle: USA or Russia? I can see both sides' views but I feel that the Americans are once again stirring trouble, unintentially. They're a cheery, friendly people but it's like they expect every other nation to be too. This isn't, and has never been the case.


Why did the Czechs and Poles agree to this? What are they getting from it?


Kevin.

mike65

Bigging up a crisis suits Putin pefectly. He has the state apparatus pretty much in his grasp all ends up and this kind of carry-on keeps him as Russias strong man. As for the US I wonder how effective this 'shield' would be and if the programme will last much longer than Bush being in power.

Czechs and Poles get to feel wanted and some money I imagine.

Mike.

r3nu4l

The Czech Republic and Poland get to become key players in an evolving military strategy and also get to feel protected from Russia. I think that if these countries have US missiles on their territory the US would leap to their defence should Russia ever decide to make any expansionist moves in the future.

I know that the US say that this is a response to the threat from Iran but I get the feeling that it really has more to do with gaining a further foothold in Europe, closer to Russia, the Middle East and China.

I dislike both US and Russian policy at the moment and do feel that both are to blame for the current state of affairs. As Mike65 said, Putin is bolstering his position by adopting the role of a "strong leader facing down the bullies". Bush is strengthening the global position of the US by gaining a foothold in new territories that 20 years ago the US could only have dreamed about.

Although things have moved on,isn't it ironic that having missiles in Cuba was such an issue all those years ago.
Russia wanted them there and obviously the U.S didn't.

This has a lot to do with mussle flexing and of course money.

Kevster

Good point Tristame... ...nice analogy. Russia (to me anyway) is slowly becoming a big player in the world again after their huge collapse all those years ago. So, the US has to worry about China AND Russia now. Well, they don't have to worry about them; they choose to.

Sand

Russia (to me anyway) is slowly becoming a big player in the world again after their huge collapse all those years ago. So, the US has to worry about China AND Russia now. Well, they don't have to worry about them; they choose to.

Russias rising power and confidence has led to several attempts to intimidate and threaten Central and Eastern European states, including members of NATO and/or the EU. I dont think the US is poking Russia with a stick for laughs and giggles, I think they just dont "get" why Russia is so up in arms about the missiles being located in Czech Rep and Poland - they are clearly not able to challenge the sheer number of missiles the Russians possess.

I think its down to the fact, as already noted, once the launchers are in place in Poland and Czech Rep the US will backup both states against any intimidation from Russia. Russia fears this loss of influence and is doing its best to prevent it, but their moves to date have been pretty counterproductive - threatening Europe doesnt exactly weaken the argument for the launchers and a closer alignment with the US. I think the Russians are hoping to manipulate the usual rent a mob into protesting like they did back in the cold war.

Theres no other logical cause for the Russians to be so upset - the launchers wont prevent a Russian nuclear strike, and IIRC the Russians were boasting only last week they had a missile that could defeat the launchers. So, its not the launchers that are going to upset the balance of power but a closer US alliance with Central/East European countries who have a lot of reason to feel distrust and fear of Russia.

Although things have moved on,isn't it ironic that having missiles in Cuba was such an issue all those years ago.
Russia wanted them there and obviously the U.S didn't.

Different scenario though, as the Cuban missiles were offensive whilst the US is deploying launchers to shoot down missiles.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Although things have moved on,isn't it ironic that having missiles in Cuba was such an issue all those years ago.
Russia wanted them there and obviously the U.S didn't.

This has a lot to do with mussle flexing and of course money.

This latest standoff, as with the cuban missile crisis, is a demonstration of the total hypocrisy of the United States.

The only weapons that are allowed are American weapons. With the Cuba crisis, America had nukes positioned on the Russian border far before the Russians decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. America hates it's own medicine.

(Oh, and the shield is pathetic and doesn't work and will only make the world a more dangerous place)

Sand

Oh, and the shield is pathetic and doesn't work and will only make the world a more dangerous place

Plastic bags make the world a more dangerous place...

Manic Moran

The ABM system has been hitting targets in the last couple of tests. I guess it's a case of 'a moderate chance to intercept a nuke is better than no chance at all.' As mentioned above, there's little chance the system will stop a strike from Russia, there would be just too many targets.

NTM

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

This latest standoff, as with the cuban missile crisis, is a demonstration of the total hypocrisy of the United States.

Ah Personally I wouldn't define hypocrisy that literally as thats way more than 40 years ago.I'd call it ironic like many ironies.

The only weapons that are allowed are American weapons. With the Cuba crisis, America had nukes positioned on the Russian border far before the Russians decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. America hates it's own medicine.

Different era though, We all <8 our freedom though and I'm pretty sure if there was no western alliance in the cuban missile crisis era we'd not be seeing starbucks in moscow never mind in Dublin... Ask jan... He'll tell you!

Jan Grzebski wrote:

"When I went into a coma there was only tea and vinegar in the shops, meat was rationed and huge petrol queues were everywhere," Mr Grzebski said.

The following year's elections ushered in eastern Europe's first post-communist government.

(Oh, and the shield is pathetic and doesn't work and will only make the world a more dangerous place)

What sand said.

SeanW

The way I see it is this: Bush and Putin are both jumped up imperialists. Sure Bush and his necons have been making war all over the Middle East and telling porkies to support their warmongering. Indeed, if you look in detail at the Bush family/U.S. (under various administrations) history of imperialist agressiveness in Central Asia, South America etc, what you find is very, very disturbing. But then again Russia has been getting very agressive these past few years.

One thread was started here on Politics recently about the flare up in tension between Russia and Estonia, during the routine movement of a Russian statue to a military graveyard, the Estonian Embassy was besieged by the youth wing of Putin's party, the Estonian government website was DDoS attacked from multiple locations in Russia. And of course there were the mass riots in the Estonian capital. This, the article in the thread suggested, was more to do with a gas pipeline that Russia wanted to build through waters contested by the Estonian government than anything about a flippin' statue.

That thread is probably a few pages back on this forum by now, but if those allegations are true, it shows that Russia is determined to become a bigger, more audacious bully than the US ever was. As for the Czech Republic and Poland, I'm sure they have a keen interest in moving closer to the West. The only question is, will we stand by them if/when Russia starts bullying these countries too?

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

Russias rising power and confidence has led to several attempts to intimidate and threaten Central and Eastern European states, including members of NATO and/or the EU. I dont think the US is poking Russia with a stick for laughs and giggles, I think they just dont "get" why Russia is so up in arms about the missiles being located in Czech Rep and Poland - they are clearly not able to challenge the sheer number of missiles the Russians possess.

I think its down to the fact, as already noted, once the launchers are in place in Poland and Czech Rep the US will backup both states against any intimidation from Russia. Russia fears this loss of influence and is doing its best to prevent it, but their moves to date have been pretty counterproductive - threatening Europe doesnt exactly weaken the argument for the launchers and a closer alignment with the US. I think the Russians are hoping to manipulate the usual rent a mob into protesting like they did back in the cold war.

Theres no other logical cause for the Russians to be so upset - the launchers wont prevent a Russian nuclear strike, and IIRC the Russians were boasting only last week they had a missile that could defeat the launchers. So, its not the launchers that are going to upset the balance of power but a closer US alliance with Central/East European countries who have a lot of reason to feel distrust and fear of Russia.



Different scenario though, as the Cuban missiles were offensive whilst the US is deploying launchers to shoot down missiles.

I don't accept the Russia fears the loss of influence argument they have already lost the influence other than the threat to turn off the Gas and they will still have that

The truth is that this upsets the balance and the Russians are upset at that just as much as the US would be upset by an anti missile system being installed in Mexico or Cuba no matter how ineffectual the sytem may or may not be in the real world the fact that it is there is the issue.

Maybe the US would like to go back to the days of a tangible bogey man rather than the intangible bogey men of Al queda

jonny72

Sand wrote:

Russias rising power and confidence has led to several attempts to intimidate and threaten Central and Eastern European states, including members of NATO and/or the EU. I dont think the US is poking Russia with a stick for laughs and giggles, I think they just dont "get" why Russia is so up in arms about the missiles being located in Czech Rep and Poland - they are clearly not able to challenge the sheer number of missiles the Russians possess.

I think its down to the fact, as already noted, once the launchers are in place in Poland and Czech Rep the US will backup both states against any intimidation from Russia. Russia fears this loss of influence and is doing its best to prevent it, but their moves to date have been pretty counterproductive - threatening Europe doesnt exactly weaken the argument for the launchers and a closer alignment with the US. I think the Russians are hoping to manipulate the usual rent a mob into protesting like they did back in the cold war.

Theres no other logical cause for the Russians to be so upset - the launchers wont prevent a Russian nuclear strike, and IIRC the Russians were boasting only last week they had a missile that could defeat the launchers. So, its not the launchers that are going to upset the balance of power but a closer US alliance with Central/East European countries who have a lot of reason to feel distrust and fear of Russia.

So by this logic then the Americans Shouldn't be upset if the Russians setup a missile umbrella in Greenland or wherever. Forget your bias for one second and just think of it as two countries that used to be enemies. One country is putting a missile defense system RIGHT beside the other country, even though they are thousands of miles away. Theres your main reason.

fly_agaric

Tristrame wrote:

We all <8 our freedom

We are all slaves. Wouldn't you much rather be incinerated in the ten million degree heat of (...the centre of) a "nucular" fireball than be a wretched slave to Starbucks and other Satanic multinational corporations!:)

Manic Moran

jonny72 wrote:

So by this logic then the Americans Shouldn't be upset if the Russians setup a missile umbrella in Greenland or wherever. Forget your bias for one second and just think of it as two countries that used to be enemies. One country is putting a missile defense system RIGHT beside the other country, even though they are thousands of miles away. Theres your main reason.

Is Greenland in NATO? I think there's a NATO base up there, and there are those long ties to Denmark.

I guess part of the question is over just who is actually going to 'own' the system once in place, if it's NATO or the US. For example, look at NATO's ownership of E-3 aircraft. Back when they were deployed, they were strategically a massive shift in the balance of air power. US-designed, US-built and funded in large part by the US, but they have "NATO+OTAN" printed on the side, and Luxembourg flags. (Luxembourg doesn't have an air force, and they had to register the things somewhere). Of course, Russia wasn't happy about it then, but back then they were the enemy, so nobody cared.

My understanding, though I admit I haven't researched this thoroughly, is that the European-based ABM is really far more suited for stopping missiles aimed at Europe than at the US. I'm sure the US isn't doing it purely out of the goodness of its heart, but I think there's more to it than a pure 'American ABM for Americans, to hell with everyone else' than there might appear to be on the face of it.

NTM

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Different scenario though, as the Cuban missiles were offensive whilst the US is deploying launchers to shoot down missiles.

Missiles in Cuba were meant to counteract the missiles in Turkey. So in essence they were defensive.
The anti-missile system in Czech Republic and Poland is part of a larger strategy to keep Russia and China in check. Put that with the sadistic moron's nuclear weapons program and pooh poohing the NPT and you can see why Putin isn't happy.
Had Russia been the one to start putting the same kind of system in Latin America we would possible have another war.
It's the poster boy of hypocrisy telling Putin "the cold war is over". Especially when many of the idiots in the Bush regime were the main characters. NATO itself is a Cold War relic.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Oh my eyes! Can't stop hating America....gaaahhhh drool.
...and the Russians are entitled to point their guns at them.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Is Greenland in NATO? I think there's a NATO base up there, and there are those long ties to Denmark.

I guess part of the question is over just who is actually going to 'own' the system once in place, if it's NATO or the US. For example, look at NATO's ownership of E-3 aircraft. Back when they were deployed, they were strategically a massive shift in the balance of air power. US-designed, US-built and funded in large part by the US, but they have "NATO+OTAN" printed on the side, and Luxembourg flags. (Luxembourg doesn't have an air force, and they had to register the things somewhere). Of course, Russia wasn't happy about it then, but back then they were the enemy, so nobody cared.

My understanding, though I admit I haven't researched this thoroughly, is that the European-based ABM is really far more suited for stopping missiles aimed at Europe than at the US. I'm sure the US isn't doing it purely out of the goodness of its heart, but I think there's more to it than a pure 'American ABM for Americans, to hell with everyone else' than there might appear to be on the face of it.

NTM

Whatever about NATO the system is being put in their back yard. Were Russia to do the same thing there would be breathless calls for war war war from you know who. It's pretty straightforward really. It isn't the first step in another arms race. Bush **** on any pretense of following the NPT years ago.

r3nu4l

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But the thing is Dave, who will control these missiles? We assume it will be the US. Why do I assume that? Well Britain has a nuclear deterrent but funnily enough the United States own the software controlling, and some of the hardware that is in British nuclear missiles. In theory, (and this is something the US reminded Britain about coming up to the Iraq war), if the US disagrees with a British decision to launch a missile, the US can deactivate the warheads and take guidance control of the missiles thus rendering the British so-called 'independent' nuclear deterrent, ineffective.

So, by relying on the US to develop, pay for and build an ABM system and not developing your own back up system you are essentially bending over for the US and may be subjected to some puppet string pulling in the future. Any sovereign state should be wary of that tbh. These countries are in effect relying on the US for protection. Britain now has multiple air bases in the UK, British spy centres must pass on certain data to the US and what do they get in return? Protection...on US terms.

Despite everything I've said, I am not anti-US, I'm anti-Bush yes but not anti-American. I really like America and American people (the ones I've met anyway) and I've enjoyed my time in the US but it is important to be wary of what you are getting into and beware US presidents bearing gifts (or cigars if you're an intern!)

Zebra3

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't recall the US trotting out that line when Iraq did (not) have a few weapons.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

A few days ago, the US offered the ABM technology to Russia.

Today, Putin suggested that he didn't have an issue with the ABM system, if it was placed in Azerbaijan instead of Eastern Europe.

I really don't think it's just an issue of balance of power, there are definitely political games going on here.

Well Britain has a nuclear deterrent but funnily enough the United States own the software controlling, and some of the hardware that is in British nuclear missiles. In theory, (and this is something the US reminded Britain about coming up to the Iraq war), if the US disagrees with a British decision to launch a missile, the US can deactivate the warheads and take guidance control of the missiles thus rendering the British so-called 'independent' nuclear deterrent, ineffective

You have anything like a valid source for that? The only nukes that the US had 'veto' power over were the Canadian ones, as the US held the codes.

If the UK didn't believe it had its own independent nuclear system, I doubt it would have withdrawn its nuclear-armed bombers.

NTM

Sand

I don't accept the Russia fears the loss of influence argument they have already lost the influence other than the threat to turn off the Gas and they will still have that

Fair enough - your agreement isnt required. It might be worth noting that Poland has requested a closer political and military pact with the US as a price of hosting the missile shield. Bulgaria has requested that the missile shield also protect its territory. Now, ask yourself - have the Russians welcomed or resisted closer ties between the US and its neighbours?

So by this logic then the Americans Shouldn't be upset if the Russians setup a missile umbrella in Greenland or wherever.

Eh, no I dont believe they should be upset. The missile system is a hail mary option that *theoretically* could take down a small handful of missiles - it absolutely positively could not stop an all out US nuclear attack. The US deterrent would remain practically unaffected. The US might very well get upset, but it certainly wouldnt be because the Russians had the possibility of shooting down 2 or 3 missiles.

Forget your bias for one second and just think of it as two countries that used to be enemies. One country is putting a missile defense system RIGHT beside the other country, even though they are thousands of miles away. Theres your main reason.

So much wrong with that...but at least you recognise the Russians arent the slighest bit worried about the AMS affecting their side of the MAD equation.

Missiles in Cuba were meant to counteract the missiles in Turkey. So in essence they were defensive.

Yes from a certain perspective that is true. It might also be the case that from a certain perspective the missiles in Cuba were defensive in the same way a system designed to shoot down a few missiles is defensive. It is also true that from some perspectives, up is down.

The anti-missile system in Czech Republic and Poland is part of a larger strategy to keep Russia and China in check. Put that with the sadistic moron's nuclear weapons program and pooh poohing the NPT and you can see why Putin isn't happy.

Were talking about a system that cannot even dream of defeating the Russian arsenal. Were talking about Putin, who was boasting only last week that Russias missiles could defeat this AMS.

The AMS plays no role in the calculation of Russia and US power in Central and Eastern Europe. The MAD principle remains wholly intact.

A closer alliance between the US and Central and Eastern European democracies definitly does. Russia detested the concept of its former possessions joining NATO, and it detests the idea of those same states being locked into a strong alignment with the US.

Had Russia been the one to start putting the same kind of system in Latin America we would possible have another war.
It's the poster boy of hypocrisy telling Putin "the cold war is over". Especially when many of the idiots in the Bush regime were the main characters. NATO itself is a Cold War relic.

If there was to be a hypothetical war it would be due to American fears of Russian influence in Latin America [which lay behind a lot of their meddling and interventions in Latin America as it turned out], not due to a theoretical missile shield that may or may not take down a handful of missiles. I dont see the hypocrisy in some cold warriors telling an ex KGB man that the cold war is over - it is, the Russians lost. And thank christ for that.

So, by relying on the US to develop, pay for and build an ABM system and not developing your own back up system you are essentially bending over for the US and may be subjected to some puppet string pulling in the future. Any sovereign state should be wary of that tbh. These countries are in effect relying on the US for protection. Britain now has multiple air bases in the UK, British spy centres must pass on certain data to the US and what do they get in return? Protection...on US terms.

Well, you get the security of knowing that no one can attack your nation without giving the worlds military superpower cause for war. This is probably why the Polish and Czechs like the idea. Certainly, it doesnt seem to have done the UK any harm. Most of those bases probably provide a few hundred jobs in their locality at the very least. And given the fact the US A) looked the other way when dealing with some very unwholesome regimes [like Uzbekistan] and was kicked out of countries quite rapidly when they did tackle those unwholesome regimes on their embarrassing activities [Like Uzbekistan] then I dont think the relationship is a one way domination like you portray it.

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

You have anything like a valid source for that? The only nukes that the US had 'veto' power over were the Canadian ones, as the US held the codes.

If the UK didn't believe it had its own independent nuclear system, I doubt it would have withdrawn its nuclear-armed bombers.

NTM

AFAIR the UK deterrant consists of a US missile system fitted with UK designed and built atomic warheads loaded on UK submarines and the UK is in full control of its use.
I suppose the fact that the missile technology for the Uk's one and only delivery system is American may give the US some extra leverage when it comes to UK policy on using nukes??

Bad bad man

Kevster wrote:

Hey,
Why did the Czechs and Poles agree to this? What are they getting from it?


Kevin.

I suspect that the Czechs and Poles remember the brutality of Soviet oppression. Most former Eastern bloc nations ar very pro-US having seen what Communists do first-hand

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

Fair enough - your agreement isnt required. It might be worth noting that Poland has requested a closer political and military pact with the US as a price of hosting the missile shield. Bulgaria has requested that the missile shield also protect its territory. Now, ask yourself - have the Russians welcomed or resisted closer ties between the US and its neighbours?



.

I am well aware that my agreement is not required I was giving my opinion


What is your point

We all know that the US is closer to the "New Europe" and that the Russians are not to happy with it. It seems like they had good justification to not being to happy about it as the US is about to deploy an anti missile system on their doorstep one would presume that it is exactly this type of thing the Russians feared when their former allies started getting pally with the US.

fly_agaric

Voipjunkie wrote:

one would presume that it is exactly this type of thing the Russians feared when their former allies started getting pally with the US.

The Eastern Bloc states were vassal states [run by puppet govt's propped up by the USSR's military power]. They were totally incapable of deciding who to ally themselves with (USSR/US??) at that point.

Manic Moran

The Bulgarians are complaining about the ABM system as well. Apparently their complaint is that the US isn't planning to install a related facility in their country.

NTM