US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

[ASH]

Obama scraps plans for missile defense installations in Eastern Europe

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is overhauling Bush-era plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, based partly on the latest analysis of Iran's offensive capabilities, President Obama said Thursday.


President Obama on Thursday says the Bush-era missile defense plan will be replaced with a new system.

The "new missile defense architecture in Europe ... will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the... program" that former President George W. Bush proposed, Obama said.

Obama said the change of gears was based on an "updated intelligence assessment" about Iran's ability to hit Europe with missiles.

I'm on my way home from Redstone Arsenal, so this story seems apropos.

I had been critical of America's disregard for Russia's point of view regarding missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, reasoning that what we could get away with during a period of strength might return to haunt us in a period of weakness. I think this is a very important development for relations between America and Russia, and indicates that we are taking a more conciliatory approach. Perhaps we have bought help (or, forbearance to hinder, at any rate) in terms of access to the Afghan theater?

Note that contrary to the headline, the new proposal is for a different missile defense configuration in Europe that is less obnoxious to the Russians, rather than an abandonment of missile defense in Europe entirely.

[don]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

"Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history, removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France, and many other nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking on paths leading to death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial pre-condition of a world without war. (p71)

"If the Democrats win they will attempt in the name of 'progressive internationalism' to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslavian war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers built into the NATO system. There is important bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush was in the process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council of Foreign Relations' vague and banal statement of March 2004 report...which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old glory.

"Brzezinski is far subtler than most, and rejects the Bush Administration's counterproductive rhetoric that so alienated former and potential future allies. But he regards American power as central to peace in every part of the world and his global vision is no less ambitious that the Bush Administration's was. He is for the US maintaining 'a comprehensive technological edge over all potential rivals.' His is a call to 'transform America's prevailing power into a co-operative hegemony- one in which leadership is exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by assertive domination.' And because it is much more salable to past and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange of men and women who most recently guided American foreign policy." (p75-76)

from Gabriel Kolko's, World in Crisis (2009)

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

So a ten fold or more increase, but we don't exactly know where.

The Bush-era proposal called for the U.S. to set up a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland to counter the threat of Iran launching long-range missiles at America's allies in Europe.

...

At the briefing with Gates, the Pentagon's point man on the issue said the new system will have "hundreds" of missile interceptors.

It also will have mobile radars, including some in space, "that can move to wherever the threat actually emanates and wherever we feel we need to defend ourselves," said Gen. James Cartwright, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Cartwright contrasted the new sensor technology with the radar systems envisioned in the old plan, which he called "basically left over from the Cold War."

The new plan includes three types of missiles to shoot down incoming threats -- Patriot missiles, which defend a single location; SM-3 interceptors, which he said could protect "a general area like the area from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C."; and large ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.

The first phase of the system is due to be in place in 2011, with the subsequent phases rolling out around 2015, 2018 and 2020, he said.

"It's a more advanced system, more cost-effective and efficient," the senior administration official said before the president and Gates spoke.

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

"Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history, removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France, and many other nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking on paths leading to death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial pre-condition of a world without war. (p71)

"If the Democrats win they will attempt in the name of 'progressive internationalism' to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslavian war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers built into the NATO system. There is important bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush was in the process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council of Foreign Relations' vague and banal statement of March 2004 report...which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old glory.

"Brzezinski is far subtler than most, and rejects the Bush Administration's counterproductive rhetoric that so alienated former and potential future allies. But he regards American power as central to peace in every part of the world and his global vision is no less ambitious that the Bush Administration's was. He is for the US maintaining 'a comprehensive technological edge over all potential rivals.' His is a call to 'transform America's prevailing power into a co-operative hegemony- one in which leadership is exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by assertive domination.' And because it is much more salable to past and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange of men and women who most recently guided American foreign policy." (p75-76)

from Gabriel Kolko's, World in Crisis (2009)

Did he step into his own doo-doo?

West may suffer same fate as Soviets in Afghanistan: Brzezinski


GENEVA (New York Times) — Western powers now in Afghanistan run the risk of suffering the fate of the Soviet Union there if they cannot halt the growing insurgency and an Afghan perception that they are foreign invaders, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.

...

A new international conference would help devise a more refined strategy, Brzezinski said in a brief interview Sunday. Using the military to support a development strategy would help prolong the European presence, he suggested — “our European friends are less likely to leave us in the lurch.”

If the United States is left alone in Afghanistan, Brzezinski said Friday night, “that would probably spell the end of the Alliance.”

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=203302

[Slimprofits]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

People are probably sick of my comments on American politics, but here is another one.

I've received e-mails with links to articles on this subject, from not one, but several what I would call mainstream (small r, not insider) republican friends.

It's worth pointing out they all think this has something to do with acquiesing to Iran, not Russia.

That is the GOP partyline. Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...an_threat.html

Does anyone have thoughts on why the focus on Iran instead of Russia in this instance?

[Slimprofits]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

What defense contracts will be affected by this and whose districts are they in?

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

People are probably sick of my comments on American politics, but here is another one.

I've received e-mails with links to articles on this subject, from not one, but several what I would call mainstream (small r, not insider) republican friends.

It's worth pointing out they all think this has something to do with acquiesing to Iran, not Russia.

That is the GOP partyline. Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...an_threat.html

Does anyone have thoughts on why the focus on Iran instead of Russia in this instance?

There is a bit of talk about sanctions and military actions

Obama Urged to Ready Tougher Iran Sanctions, Military Strike

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should begin preparing crippling sanctions on Iran and publicly make clear that a military strike is possible should the Iranian government press ahead with its nuclear effort, a bipartisan policy group said.

“If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities,” said the study from the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.


...

The authors say a deadline of 60 days should be set for determining Iran’s seriousness once it commits to negotiations. If those negotiations fail, the administration should toughen sanctions and “prepare overtly for any military option.”

Such preparations could include deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.

In the absence of U.S. action, Israel is more likely to strike, the authors argue, saying that an Israeli strike “entails more risks than a U.S. strike.”

Israeli officials say that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to their country’s existence.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGXuRWqsEFos

edited to add:

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb

The Associated Press

VIENNA -- Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief.

The document says Iran has "sufficient information" to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/worl...y/1238341.html

[Scot]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Obama scraps plans for missile defense installations in Eastern Europe

I had been critical of America's disregard for Russia's point of view regarding missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, reasoning that what we could get away with during a period of strength might return to haunt us in a period of weakness. I think this is a very important development for relations between America and Russia, and indicates that we are taking a more conciliatory approach. Perhaps we have bought help (or, forbearance to hinder, at any rate) in terms of access to the Afghan theater?

Note that contrary to the headline, the new proposal is for a different missile defense configuration in Europe that is less obnoxious to the Russians, rather than an abandonment of missile defense in Europe entirely.

I think the timing could have been much better. This announcement came on a important day in Polish history. Seventy years ago on this day Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union.

Poland has been a loyal ally of the United States. With this announcement many Poles feel as though they've been abandoned by the US.

I hope this is only an example of Obama simply not knowing what he's doing. I'd hate to think he picked the 17th of September to make a statement.

[Diarmuid]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Poland has been a loyal ally of the United States. With this announcement many Poles feel as though they've been abandoned by the US.

.

Heard above on the BBC too. Funny how the official line when the missile deployment was going ahead, the line from Gates et al., was the defense shield had nothing to do with Russia and was all about Iran, and the Russians were acting irrational and beligerently, when threatening Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Region , now we hear a different story from the MSM.

Found this interesting too.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/03/...-done-deal.php

According to recent polling conducted by the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, 55% of Poles oppose the deployment of interceptors in Poland altogether [08.03.2008]

Possibly situation has changed after Saakashvili 5 day war summer last year.

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

So a ten fold or more increase, but we don't exactly know where.

The missiles in question are categorically different... the sort that could protect local targets in Europe from medium- and short-range missiles, but not the sort that would protect America from long-range missiles. Broadly speaking, these missiles are not relevant to Russia's nuclear deterrent against America (nor a future Iranian threat to America), but are more relevant to defending targets in Europe from an Iranian threat. Also, they are more technically mature, and are designed to perform an easier task, than the long-range interceptors.

[Diarmuid]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

So a ten fold or more increase, but we don't exactly know where.

D-Mack you probarbly know Enghdal already but here is his alternative point of view on defense sheilds to what you hear in the MSM, if not.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IC01Ag01.html

Washington’s obsession with Nuclear Primacy

What Washington did not say, but Putin has now alluded to in Munich, is that the US missile defense is not at all defensive. It is offensive, and how.

The possibility of providing a powerful state, one with the world’s most awesome military machinery, a shield to protect it from limited attack, is aimed directly at Russia, the only other nuclear power with anywhere the capacity to launch a credible nuclear counterpunch.

Were the United States able to effectively shield itself from a potential Russian response to a US nuclear First Strike, the US would be able simply to dictate to the entire world on its terms, not only to Russia. That would be what military people term Nuclear Primacy. That is the real meaning of Putin’s unusual speech. He isn’t paranoid. He’s being starkly realistic.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, it’s now clear that the US Government has never for a moment stopped its pursuit of Nuclear Primacy. For Washington and the US elites, the Cold War never ended. They just forgot to tell us all.

The quest for global control of oil and energy pipelines, the quest to establish its military bases across Eurasia, its attempt to modernize and upgrade its nuclear submarine fleet, its Strategic B -52 bomber command, all make sense only when seen through the perspective of the relentless pursuit of US Nuclear Primacy.

The Bush Administration unilaterally abrogated the US-Russian ABM Treaty in December 2001. It’s in a race to complete a global network of missile defense as the key to US nuclear primacy. With even a primitive missile defense shield, the US could attack Russian missile silos and submarine fleets with no fear of effective retaliation, as the few remaining Russian nuclear missiles would be unable to launch a convincing response enough to deter a US First Strike.

The ability of both sides—the Warsaw Pact and NATO—during the Cold War, to mutually annihilate one another, led to a nuclear stalemate dubbed by military strategists, MAD—mutual assured destruction. It was scary but in a bizarre sense, more stable that what we have today with a unilateral US pursuit of nuclear primacy. The prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation with no decisive advantage for either side, led to a world in which nuclear war had been ‘unthinkable.’

Now, the US pursues the possibility of nuclear war as ‘thinkable.’ That’s really mad.

The first nation with a nuclear missile shield would de facto have ‘first strike ability.’ Quite correctly, Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, Director of the US Air Force missile defense program, recently called missile defense, ‘the missing link to a First Strike.’

More alarming is the fact no one outside a handful of Pentagon planners or senior intelligence officials in Washington discusses the implications of Washington’s pursuit of missile defense in Poland, Czech Republic or its drive for Nuclear Primacy.

It calls to mind ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses,’ the September 2000 report of the hawkish Project for the New American Century, where Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were members. There they declared, ‘The United States must develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world.

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Does anyone have thoughts on why the focus on Iran instead of Russia in this instance?

I think it is an obviously political "Obama is a weak leader who will give in to our enemies" talking point. They are framing it in terms of Iran, because Iran is more demonized than Russia, and because accommodating Iran would be more disgraceful in the eyes of hawks than accommodating Russia. Also, it was the Republican position that the missile defense hardware to be positioned in Eastern Europe was irrelevant to Russian security, so it isn't as easy to depict this as being about Russia in the same narrative. Anyway, painting Democrats as "soft on fill in the blank" is one of the oldest Republican political themes.

The article I linked specifically mentions engaging Russian cooperation on Iran. The least sensational interpretation of this -- and the pointless "Iran has enough unenriched uranium to make a bomb" pronouncement from awhile ago -- is that the Obama administration is gearing up to take a serious go at compelling Iran stop developing its nuclear technology, for which it needs the diplomatic cooperation of Russia. Of course, that's not to say that if soft power fails, they won't resort to hard power.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

A bullet proof vest can be offensive; a handgun can be defensive. It depends on the intentions and actions of the owner. If I saw an escaped con with a history of violent bank robberies purchasing a bullet proof vest, I would suspect he was up to no good. If I saw the gentle old lady next door purchasing a handgun, I would suspect her intention was self defense.

We cannot tell from the technical nature of these weapons which they are, nor can we tell from the public speeches of foreign leaders how these weapons are actually viewed.

[Diarmuid]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

A bullet proof vest can be offensive; a handgun can be defensive. It depends on the intentions and actions of the owner. If I saw an escaped con with a history of violent bank robberies purchasing a bullet proof vest, I would suspect he was up to no good. If I saw the gentle old lady next door purchasing a handgun, I would suspect her intention was self defense.

We cannot tell from the technical nature of these weapons which they are, nor can we tell from the public speeches of foreign leaders how these weapons are actually viewed.

TPC, I will admit from my own fairly narrow point of view, the US government (and by extension its allies), which is now eating its own population alive (fiscally), and without salt, has being doing the same to much of the rest of the world for some time, in order to do so and to continue to do so, a fairly large hand gun and bullet proof vest is necessary - so at least imo in this case it is not the metaphorical old lady buying the weapons.

I view all such pronouncments from said entity, which has been shown to be utterly corrupt, with great skepticism.

On the other hand I have great repect for the ideals the USA is supposed to enshrine in its declaration of independence etc.. and a great fondness for Americans per se, having been over there many times and experienced much decency, warmth and community, this decency and sense of fairness, I think is also repersented well by many of the members on this particular forum, I hastened to add ;).

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

D-Mack you probarbly know Enghdal already but here is his alternative point of view on defense sheilds to what you hear in the MSM, if not.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IC01Ag01.html

I've read one book, but it was more history and finance.

But I'm familiar with the first strike scenario. And it looks like Russia is relying only on nukes from now on.

Russia Gives Up Mass Army

Leading Russian military expert Vitaly Shlykov spoke during one of the sessions of the Valdai Discussion Club last week about the sweeping reform of the country’s armed forces, which begins in December and will cut the number of tanks from 20,000 to 2,000 and reduce the number or reservists to just 100,000. The reform, which Shlykov described as nothing short of a revolution, will significantly affect the Kremlin’s approach to the composition of and future cuts to the country’s military arsenal.

...


Q. And what kind of effect is it going to have on Russian nuclear arsenal?

A. Well, the military ought to be not necessarily prepared for a large-scale war, but certainly ought not exclude it completely from its planning. And for the time being nukes are the replacement - and mostly tactical nukes, because strategic nukes are a political weapon. The tactical nukes are actually the replacement for those reserves, dozens and dozens of reserve divisions in case of something happening. It is not considered a real threat at the present time. But when they speak about Chinese spread or NATO spread, you cannot just dismiss it as something impossible. Still, in the planning and they ask: “Are you ready to respond to a large-scale Chinese attack?” Of course, those small brigades of 3,000-4,000 men would not be serious force compared to the Chinese. So what about the nukes?


Leading Russian military expert Vitaly Shlykov (Part 3)

That’s the old tactic of NATO against the Soviet Union, when it had an overwhelming conventional power in Europe. NATO was relying on nukes. That’s not a new project, just takes over the old NATO approach to…


http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20090914/156124823.html

At 53 minutes a former soldier from the German military talks about the first strike scenario.