West and Russian relations get worse - Russia moves in missile attack warning

RobitTV

The US-Russia standoff with regard to the US defense shield program and the possible strike in Syria worsened after the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev publicly sated that he has put the missile attack early warning system in combat mode.
Russia and China had earlier indicated that they will not tolerate any strikes in Syria by the Western world. Especially after the situation in Egypt and Libya.

Article

In a nationally televised speech, Medvedev says :
“First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.

Second, protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons, will be reinforced as a priority measure under the programme to develop out air and space defenses.

Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.

Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems if need be.

Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system, in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region”

Gareth2011

I see the US is making more friends. I thought Russia was all for letting the US put one of those missile defence system things in Russia? or is this not whats its about?

Joey the lips

I am not surprised to see this happen. I actually thought it a bit arrogant of the US to think they can deploy such a weapon on europe.

After all, assuming all things equal if missiles are destroyed over europe then i imagine the debris and fall out will land where?

Benny_Cake

I don't really get missile defence - it would possibly be able to take down a single missile, but if you throw enough missiles against it surely it would be overwhelmed? Now the Americans say that Russia is not the target of this, just rogue states, but a rogue state would probably be more likely to send it to America in a briefcase or shipping container. A waste of money.

Bullseye1

Gareth2011 wrote: »

I see the US is making more friends. I thought Russia was all for letting the US put one of those missile defence system things in Russia? or is this not whats its about?

The Russians offered NATO (US) a location in Southern Russia for their defensive system which would would be jointly run by Russia/US. From what i recall the US declined. Therefore the Russians are deeply suspicious of the US intentions when they do not want to include them in their plans. And who could blame them.

CamperMan

could this be the start of another world war?

dlofnep

CamperMan wrote: »

could this be the start of another world war?

no.

Bullseye1

Unlikely unless NATO attacks Syria which I cannot see. They should allow the Arab League handle this and just boycott Syrian oil and goods.

Benny_Cake

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Unlikely unless NATO attacks Syria which I cannot see. They should allow the Arab League handle this and just boycott Syrian oil and goods.

Absolutely,with Israel,Hezbollah and Iran in the same area a Western intervention there could turn into a major regional war very quickly.

Bullseye1

That's why the Arab league should be left to handle this. If the west starts to further interfer it could become serious. I guess that is why Russia is creating a buffer zone. Has NATO totally disregarded the UN?

gandalf

I would assume this has more to do with Putin running for President again and deflecting the opposition to that in a patriotic fervour.

Bullseye1

Actually the Russians are concerned that a destabilised Iran/Syria could have consequences for its southern borders. Nothing like having a war thorn country on your border.

BlaasForRafa

Gareth2011 wrote: »

I see the US is making more friends. I thought Russia was all for letting the US put one of those missile defence system things in Russia? or is this not whats its about?

Its just Russia sabre rattling really. They've lost a lot of face over the years by most of the ex-Warsaw pact states joining NATO, then the NATO starts messing about with Russian client states like Libya and Syria, they have to do something to make themselves look like a credible world power.

Benny_Cake

The Russians have a historic fear of encirclements.Given that NATO is now right up against their Eastern border this isn't too surprising.According to the treaty on the final settlement with Germany in 1990 NATO was forbidden from basing troops on the soil of the former German Democratic Republic but they now have forces in the Baltic states which rather goes against the spirit of the agreement.That said,it might not be completely unrelated to the Russian election either.

Dannyboy83

hmmmmm......reminds me of something...........the cu....the cu..........the bay of p..............no, forget it.

JustinDee

Surely you should be saying:

RobitTV wrote: »

In a nationally televised speech written by Putin's speech-writers, Medvedev was told to say . . .

anymore

RobitTV wrote: »

The US-Russia standoff with regard to the US defense shield program and the possible strike in Syria worsened after the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev publicly sated that he has put the missile attack early warning system in combat mode.
Russia and China had earlier indicated that they will not tolerate any strikes in Syria by the Western world. Especially after the situation in Egypt and Libya.

Article

In a nationally televised speech, Medvedev says :
“First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.

Second, protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons, will be reinforced as a priority measure under the programme to develop out air and space defenses.

Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.

Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems if need be.

Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system, in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region”

The funny thing about this is that those whose have a rabid hatered of the US will not appreciate that they are getting a glimpse of a wold where China is the economically and militarily strongest power in the world and Europe has slipped further down the list of former pwoers who have to eat humble pie to placate the Chinese - maybe the Chinese will allow us to buy oil dirctly from them, or maybe they wont !
Dont forget you were all warned !

Border-Rat

Poorly worded topic. Russia in missile retaliation warning.

Border-Rat

JustinDee wrote: »

Surely you should be saying:

Well, it beats having your speeches written by dual-citizens.

OS119

Joey the lips wrote: »

I am not surprised to see this happen. I actually thought it a bit arrogant of the US to think they can deploy such a weapon on europe.

bit arrogant of Russia to think they can tell their neighbours who they can be friends with and what they can park in their gardens, no?

unless, of course, you believe that the UK should have a veto over what weapons Ireland buys and who Ireland can be friends with.

or is that just different?

Joey the lips

OS119 wrote: »

bit arrogant of Russia to think they can tell their neighbours who they can be friends with and what they can park in their gardens, no?

unless, of course, you believe that the UK should have a veto over what weapons Ireland buys and who Ireland can be friends with.

or is that just different?

I dont think so. Do you think you would have the right to tell your neighbour not to build a pylon or turn there yard into a incinerator reprocessing plant?

If america deployed a defence shield in europe the missiles they destroy would be destroyed over europe. So the debris would land over europe.

Yes i do believe as europeans we should have weapons vetos.

snafuk35

Joey the lips wrote: »

I dont think so. Do you think you would have the right to tell your neighbour not to build a pylon or turn there yard into a incinerator reprocessing plant?

If america deployed a defence shield in europe the missiles they destroy would be destroyed over europe. So the debris would land over europe.

Yes i do believe as europeans we should have weapons vetos.

And you don't think the missile defense shield would be protecting Europe as well???

The most likely rogue nation to fire a ballistic missile with a conventional/biological/chemical/nuclear payload is Iran and Europe is well within current Iranian ballistic missile range:



What happens when an Iranian missile strikes a major European city? Even if it was just full of conventional explosive never mind carrying a WMD warhead can you imagine the fear and terror that would cause?

Iran has to be stopped. The Russians can hang.

anymore

Joey the lips wrote: »

I dont think so. Do you think you would have the right to tell your neighbour not to build a pylon or turn there yard into a incinerator reprocessing plant?

If america deployed a defence shield in europe the missiles they destroy would be destroyed over europe. So the debris would land over europe.

Yes i do believe as europeans we should have weapons vetos.

" We as Europeans " ? Have we gone back to being Europeans again ?
And who in Europe realy cares what 4 million people on a wind swept little dependency off the west coast of Europe think ????

OS119

Joey the lips wrote: »

...Yes i do believe as europeans we should have weapons vetos.

errr.... the countries that are hosting the US systems are doing so because they have decided that its in their interests to do so. the US asked them, and they said yes.

what, i may ask, do you think that has got to do with anyone else?

charlemont

snafuk35 wrote: »

And you don't think the missile defense shield would be protecting Europe as well???

The most likely rogue nation to fire a ballistic missile with a conventional/biological/chemical/nuclear payload is Iran and Europe is well within current Iranian ballistic missile range:



What happens when an Iranian missile strikes a major European city? Even if it was just full of conventional explosive never mind carrying a WMD warhead can you imagine the fear and terror that would cause?

Iran has to be stopped. The Russians can hang.

If Europe doesn't bother them, They won't bother us..

Russia is getting pissy because of a missile shield?
Why? Do they want the option to nuke Europe ?

To hell with them


Iran is one thing but Pakistan is volatile and has nuclear weapons. A missile shield is good. Be very foolish not to have one considering the destruction just one nuclear missile could cause.

junder

Nothing more then a bit of sabre rattling and brinkmanship on the part ignite russians. Sadly for them, they don't have the muscle that the ussr had

RDM_83 again

If the Russians aren't posturing they can do something that would really hurt NATO by derailing the Afghan operations (the bolded part indicates why they won't)

"Today, however, only 30% of US supplies and less than half Nato's travel through Pakistan, the result of the opening of the northern distribution network - a far longer, more complicated and expensive route that starts in Europe. Supplies are put on lorries and railways and moved across most of the Eurasian landmass before entering Afghanistan through the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Forty percent of US supplies are shipped in from the north, and another 30% are flown in.

The northern route, combined with stockpiling of essential equipment, means Nato operations could continue unaffected for several months, according to a western military official.

The development of the new route relied on Russian blessing. Despite being troubled by the large US presence in central Asia, Moscow concluded it has no interest in a Taliban return to power."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/27/pakistan-border-nato-afghanistan-supplies

snafuk35

charlemont wrote: »

If Europe doesn't bother them, They won't bother us..

Yeah!

'Europe, I command you to bow and face Mecca!' says the mullah.

'No bother!' says Europe.

With an attitude like that you should present your wrists for the manacles to be slapped on. Freedom is wasted on you pal.

darkman2

Sea alert: Russian warships head for Syria

Published: 28 November, 2011, 15:19







Moscow is deploying warships at its base in the Syrian port of Tartus. The long-planned mission comes, providentially, at the very moment when it could help prevent a potential conflict in the strategically important Middle Eastern country.

The Russian battle group will consist of three vessels led by the heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov.

Russian military officials insist that the move has no connection with the ongoing crisis in the region and was planned a year ago, the Izvestia newspaper reports. Apart from Syria, the aircraft carrier and its escort ships are set to visit the Lebanese capital, Beirut, Genoa in Italy and Cyprus, says the former Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Viktor Kravchenko.

Nevertheless, he added that the presence of a military force other than NATO’s is very useful for this region, because “it will prevent the outbreak of an armed conflict,” Izvestia quoted Kravchenko as saying.

The Soviet Union, the Admiral recalled, created a special naval squadron to deter Western military forces in the Mediterranean Sea. To repair and supply its ships, Moscow needed its own maintenance base in the region, and that was how the base in Tartus came into being.

http://rt.com/news/russian-aircraft-carrier-syria-363/

......

Nuke carrier leads US strike force into Syrian waters

Edited: 25 November, 2011, 22:34



Nuclear aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush has reportedly anchored off Syria. As an Arab League deadline to allow observers into the country passes with no response from Damascus, the possibility of intervention in Syria seems to be growing.

The George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group along with additional naval vessels are to remain in the Mediterranean to conducting maritime security operations and support missions as part of Operations Enduring Freedom and New Dawn.The US 6th Fleet is also patrolling the area, Interfax news agency reports.

Meanwhile, America and Turkey are urging their citizens to leave Syria. The US released a statement on Wednesday urging American citizens to “depart immediately while commercial transportation is available.”[...]

http://rt.com/news/syria-intervention-us-warship-229/

Palmach

Benny_Cake wrote: »

but they now have forces in the Baltic states which rather goes against the spirit of the agreement.That said,it might not be completely unrelated to the Russian election either.

NATO doesn't have forces in the Baltic states unless you count the armies of the Baltic states themselves.

anymore wrote: »

The funny thing about this is that those whose have a rabid hatered of the US will not appreciate that they are getting a glimpse of a wold where China is the economically and militarily strongest power in the world and Europe has slipped further down the list of former pwoers who have to eat humble pie to placate the Chinese - maybe the Chinese will allow us to buy oil dirctly from them, or maybe they wont !
Dont forget you were all warned !

Yes but that won't stop the US haters and the self loathing hate-the-west brigade. They are beyond help.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Yeah!

'Europe, I command you to bow and face Mecca!' says the mullah.

'No bother!' says Europe.

With an attitude like that you should present your wrists for the manacles to be slapped on. Freedom is wasted on you pal.

He is not alone. America should be bending over to placate Russia and it's thuggish elite. NATO should tell the Russians that they'll place missiles where they like within NATO and Russia can lump it.

Killer Pigeon

CamperMan wrote: »

could this be the start of another world war?

The Soviets used similar, if not worse, rhetoric during the Cold War so the chances of any World War III scenario happening any time soon with the Russians are extremely unlikely.

charlemont

snafuk35 wrote: »

Yeah!

'Europe, I command you to bow and face Mecca!' says the mullah.

'No bother!' says Europe.

With an attitude like that you should present your wrists for the manacles to be slapped on. Freedom is wasted on you pal.

So I should sacrifice my freedom for the US and Israel's interests in the region, Is it ?

snafuk35

charlemont wrote: »

So I should sacrifice my freedom for the US and Israel's interests in the region, Is it ?

The Iranians want to blackmail us with nukes whether we are pro-US/Israel or not.

Do you think they give a curse about Irish neutrality?

Mr.Micro

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Iranians want to blackmail us with nukes whether we are pro-US/Israel or not.

Do you think they give a curse about Irish neutrality?

They would not be the first to do that then. Its common place, the nice Russians, the nice Chinese, the nice North Koreans, and maybe but the not so nice Iranians. Who cares?

Manic Moran

Palmach wrote: »

NATO doesn't have forces in the Baltic states unless you count the armies of the Baltic states themselves.

A flight (usually 4) of fighters is always based in Lithuania to protect the Baltic States airspace. Currently the Royal Danish Air Force is providing the force, it rotates every few months. France was before that, Germany before that.

Not that four F-16 to cover three countries is, as a practical matter, a significant threat to anyone, but it does still invalidate your statement.

NTM

FreudianSlippers

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't really get missile defence - it would possibly be able to take down a single missile, but if you throw enough missiles against it surely it would be overwhelmed? Now the Americans say that Russia is not the target of this, just rogue states, but a rogue state would probably be more likely to send it to America in a briefcase or shipping container. A waste of money.

In reality it's protecting Israel.

charlemont

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Iranians want to blackmail us with nukes whether we are pro-US/Israel or not.

Do you think they give a curse about Irish neutrality?

Hysterical...Don't be afraid just yet !!

Do you think they give a curse about Irish neutrality? I don't think they care either way about Ireland, why would they ??

johngalway

charlemont wrote: »

If Europe doesn't bother them, They won't bother us..

That worked well for Poland.

charlemont

johngalway wrote: »

That worked well for Poland.

So Iran is gunning for Polish blood now, Yea..:D

johngalway

charlemont wrote: »

So Iran is gunning for Polish blood now, Yea..:D

Most likely not

But, if someone has a weapon capable of hurting you, it's only prudent to take precautions to ensure the effectiveness of that weapon is as limited as possible. It doesn't mean they want to hurt you now, it does mean they can hurt you in the future.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away

Jaafa

johngalway wrote: »

Most likely not

But, if someone has a weapon capable of hurting you, it's only prudent to take precautions to ensure the effectiveness of that weapon is as limited as possible. It doesn't mean they want to hurt you now, it does mean they can hurt you in the future.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away

Israel has weapons capable of hurting the US now (some 200 nukes). They probably don't want to hurt them now, but it does mean they can them in the future.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away....so why are they ignoring this problem?

Iran despite want you may has been told, is not a sucide state run by manic leaders just itching to attack israel or the US or europe, so they can get bombed back to the stone age. They will never attack unless attacked first. They're not stupid.

Mr.Micro

Jaafa wrote: »

Israel has weapons capable of hurting the US now (some 200 nukes). They probably don't want to hurt them now, but it does mean they can them in the future.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away....so why are they ignoring this problem?

Iran despite want you may has been told, is not a sucide state run by manic leaders just itching to attack israel or the US or europe, so they can get bombed back to the stone age. They will never attack unless attacked first. They're not stupid.

Indeed, the Iranians want to live too, I presume like other nations in the region, its not as if its going to build a nuke so that it can destroy itself and others and that is its only purpose. Imagine Israel as top dog in the region, sitting on its WMD s and wanting more territory, or else. A bit of Iran, a bit of Iraq and wherever else.

johngalway

Jaafa wrote: »

Israel has weapons capable of hurting the US now (some 200 nukes). They probably don't want to hurt them now, but it does mean they can them in the future.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away....so why are they ignoring this problem?

Iran despite want you may has been told, is not a sucide state run by manic leaders just itching to attack israel or the US or europe, so they can get bombed back to the stone age. They will never attack unless attacked first. They're not stupid.

Uhm, I don't believe I mentioned any state in particular? With the eception of Poland

Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism, not stupid, but not benign either. I'm not comfortable with states such as Iran, Pakistan, North Korea possessing Nuclear weapons - in any form.

And regardless of what you may have been told, it is still prudent to take measures to control the effectiveness of weapons of mass destruction held by possibly hostile countries - when and if you can.

Jaafa

johngalway wrote: »

Uhm, I don't believe I mentioned any state in particular? With the eception of Poland

Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism, not stupid, but not benign either. I'm not comfortable with states such as Iran, Pakistan, North Korea possessing Nuclear weapons - in any form.

And regardless of what you may have been told, it is still prudent to take measures to control the effectiveness of weapons of mass destruction held by possibly hostile countries - when and if you can.

The point I'm trying to make is that neither Iran or Israel poses ANY, mark that, ANY threat to American or European soil. They have no reason,none what so ever, to attack. There zero benefit.

So why is all the focus on Iran?

johngalway

johngalway wrote: »

Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism.

Jaafa wrote: »

So why is all the focus on Iran?

Oooo, that's a toughie

Iran having a nuclear weapon plus delivery system is infinitely different than, say, Andorra having the same.

I would still support a missile shield (if it works, if the USA can afford it). It's a practical precaution. I've never been in a car crash, but I still wear my seatbelt each time I get into a car.

Jaafa

johngalway wrote: »

Oooo, that's a toughie

Iran having a nuclear weapon plus delivery system is infinitely different than, say, Andorra having the same.

I would still support a missile shield (if it works, if the USA can afford it). It's a practical precaution. I've never been in a car crash, but I still wear my seatbelt each time I get into a car.

Don't be so obtuse. I'm clearly saying why the focus on Iran, when Israel already has nukes, taking into account that they are just as likely to use them as Iran. (ie never)

johngalway

Jaafa wrote: »

Don't be so obtuse. I'm clearly saying why the focus on Iran, when Israel already has nukes, taking into account that they are just as likely to use them as Iran. (ie never)

Asked & answered.

Jaafa

johngalway wrote: »

Asked & answered.

State sponsor of terrorism? That's it? What about Israeli support for the SLA? Or American support for the MEK? Every nation use's proxy forces to do it's dirty work. When Israel or America does it, its supporting freedom fighters. When Iran does it its terrorism.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

State sponsor of terrorism? That's it? What about Israeli support for the SLA? Or American support for the MEK? Every nation use's proxy forces to do it's dirty work. When Israel or America does it, its supporting freedom fighters. When Iran does it its terrorism.

Didn't you claim not to be one of those people who comes on here just to slate the US/Israel?

conorhal

You have to wonder, with Putin's popularity on the slide and his party only managing 49% of the vote in a rigged election, if all this 'hard man posturing' and nationalist sabre rattling isn't little more than a dangerous attempt to shore up his support? Naaaa....I must be wrong, that would be just too cynical for words!