Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

So the trend which US follows basically is for arm race. It does not look aligned with freedom and liberty ideals.

Yeah ... but Putin and the siloviki are perfectly aligned with freedom and liberty ideals.

Let's not forget that the threat of pursuing the SDI plus the american support for the afghan resistance were the factors that exposed the true weakness of the soviet empire. I hope you are not a nostalgic for the old communist days of glory and the Great Soviet Union...

What would you want? The west to sit and wait to be gobbled by Czar Putin. piece by piece, while indulging in Chamberlain style politics?

Let's not forget that Russia is the aggressor in Georgia as it was forty years ago in Czechoslovakia, fifty years ago in Hungary, thirty years ago in Afghanistan .... it's the same thing: invading a small neighbor while launching a shameless propaganda campaign.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#*,

You're channeling too much neo-con.

Have a beer and calm down.

Putin and his siloviki are certainly not 'democratic', but neither are the various US government agencies and their banker buddies, or the government contractor/Cheney crowd, or the trial lawyer crowd, etc.

Certainly Russia is not doing itself a favor by following the script of a bully; a booting of Georgian troops out of S. Ossetia alone would have been indisputably an equitable action.

The opportunistic behavior in Abkhazia is understandable.

As for SDI and Afghanistan, the jury is still quite out as to whether it was a Soviet military weakness there or simply a lack of will and benefits. The US' turn there is still quite inconclusive.

I for one ascribe the fall of the Soviet empire to poor economic and agricultural policies exacerbated by a coalition between the middle east and the US - but then again it is equally possible that historians 20 years from now will say the same about this nation: an empire fallen due to poor economic and financial policies.

[metalman]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#*,

You're channeling too much neo-con.

Have a beer and calm down.

Putin and his siloviki are certainly not 'democratic', but neither are the various US government agencies and their banker buddies, or the government contractor/Cheney crowd, or the trial lawyer crowd, etc.

Certainly Russia is not doing itself a favor by following the script of a bully; a booting of Georgian troops out of S. Ossetia alone would have been indisputably an equitable action.

The opportunistic behavior in Abkhazia is understandable.

As for SDI and Afghanistan, the jury is still quite out as to whether it was a Soviet military weakness there or simply a lack of will and benefits. The US' turn there is still quite inconclusive.

I for one ascribe the fall of the Soviet empire to poor economic and agricultural policies exacerbated by a coalition between the middle east and the US - but then again it is equally possible that historians 20 years from now will say the same about this nation: an empire fallen due to poor economic and financial policies.

but unlike the soviets we can grow food! as long as we have oil to do it :eek:

[VIT]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

Yeah ... but Putin and the siloviki are perfectly aligned with freedom and liberty ideals.

Let's not forget that the threat of pursuing the SDI plus the american support for the afghan resistance were the factors that exposed the true weakness of the soviet empire. I hope you are not a nostalgic for the old communist days of glory and the Great Soviet Union...

What would you want? The west to sit and wait to be gobbled by Czar Putin. piece by piece, while indulging in Chamberlain style politics?

I never said that Putin and siloviki are better. My point is to resolve the issue we need to understand the roots, not labeling who is bad guy and who is good

- need to revise the concept "money are making money"
- need to have the tie between what you say and what you are doing (western countries are becoming more and more opportunistic)
- capitalism is based on constant expansion, when there is no place to expand the crisis occurs.
- much more

Fundamental crises could be hided by dozens layers. The human power is to look on the roots and fix the reasons not the outcomes.

The real outcome for this conflict I see is that many people starts to understand that their governments do not follow the recognized ideals of these nations. It feels bad for them. Like ancient Rome - free citizens of the Rome, but this principle was not extended for the entire "Rome world". You know the end.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#*,

You're channeling too much neo-con.

That's laughable. I have no love for neocons. Bush & Co are a disgrace for the West (you could add to that Tonny B Liar and afew other )

Have a beer and calm down.

Have a kvas and forget Pravda

Putin and his siloviki are certainly not 'democratic', but neither are the various US government agencies and their banker buddies, or the government contractor/Cheney crowd, or the trial lawyer crowd, etc.

Since you equate the US government with Putin's regime and you are a russian, should I understand that you would prefer to live in Russia???

Certainly Russia is not doing itself a favor by following the script of a bully; a booting of Georgian troops out of S. Ossetia alone would have been indisputably an equitable action.

What???? According to you logic it would be absolutely OK if NATO boots Russian troops out of Chechnya, Transdniestr "Republic" and Ukraine. Be careful for what you wish. I'm sure that right now in Foggy Bottom there are people examining plans for doing exactly that ( sending weapons to the Chechens, and asking the Fraudis for volunteers would be a first step ...)

The opportunistic behavior in Abkhazia is understandable.

I believe you want to talk about the opportunistic behavior of the Russian puppetmasters in Abkhasia... and it is not understandable at all for people in the free world ... but it may be perfectly understandable for communist propagandists.

If you are a russian and you try to teach us democracy and norms of international behavior, while defending Putin's policies, why don't you try to explain us what happened in Adjaria

How come that all the former sclaves of the Soviet Empire from Eastern Europe are not fooled by lies about "russian peace keeping" in Georgia? Because even if they understand very well that US and the West are far from perfect, there is nothing worse than Russian state barbarism/expansionism.

As for SDI and Afghanistan, the jury is still quite out as to whether it was a Soviet military weakness there or simply a lack of will and benefits. The US' turn there is still quite inconclusive.

Yeah right ... this is what Komrade Putin said ? Maybe it was all good old fashioned spleen

I for one ascribe the fall of the Soviet empire to poor economic and agricultural policies exacerbated by a coalition between the middle east and the US - but then again it is equally possible that historians 20 years from now will say the same about this nation: an empire fallen due to poor economic and financial policies.

Yeah right ... and Russia will rule the world. keep on dreaming
VIT this is not the online forum of Pravda ... there are here people who traveleld extensively in Russia, Eastern Europe and Caucasus, who see Russia at it is, not as presented by Putin's minions.

[touchring]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

Yeah right ... and Russia will rule the world. keep on dreaming
VIT this is not the online forum of Pravda ... there are here people who traveleld extensively in Russia, Eastern Europe and Caucasus, who see Russia at it is, not as presented by Putin's minions.

People traveled to Germany during Hitler invaded Europe. Fascists are not necessarily loners.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

People traveled to Germany during Hitler invaded Europe. Fascists are not necessarily loners.

Good point touchring. Look at this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121909625567750941.html

Schröder on Georgia

FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
August 19, 2008

As German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder famously called Vladimir Putin a "flawless democrat." He apparently hasn't changed that opinion. Now on the Kremlin's payroll with a plum job at a Gazprom-controlled consortium, Mr. Schröder is speaking the company line about Russia's invasion of Georgia.
In an interview with Der Spiegel published yesterday, Mr. Schröder blames only Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for the war. Asked whether he considers Russia at least partly to blame or its response excessive, the ex-Chancellor is first evasive, "this I cannot and don't want to judge," before claiming that "nobody in Moscow's leadership has an interest in military confrontations." Georgian civilians fleeing marauding Russian soldiers probably disagree.


Mr. Schröder, whose current job is to help build a pipeline to deliver Russian gas to Germany -- a project he pushed through as Chancellor -- denies that Russia wants to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He sounds like a Kremlin official when he cynically adds, "I don't think that there will be a return to the status quo ante."
While seeing no evil in his paymasters, he criticizes "serious mistakes by the West in the policy vis-à-vis Russia," including the planned antimissile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic and the presence of U.S. military advisers in Georgia. Mr. Schröder defends the "strategic partnership" between Moscow and Berlin, arguing that in this "multipolar" world, Europe must "create close relations with Russia."
"I don't think much of demonizing Russia. I consider Russia as part of Europe," Mr. Schröder told Der Spiegel. He did not say whether Moscow considers large chunks of Europe as part of Russia.
The late U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos last year called Mr. Schröder a "political prostitute" for "taking big checks from Putin." That's extreme language -- Lantos joked at the time that sex workers resented the comparison -- but Mr. Schröder would be a more credible advocate for the Kremlin's point of view if he weren't on its payroll.

And look what the East Europeans say about Russia's actions in Georgia:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0818/p01s01-woeu.html

As former slaves under Russian boot these guys know very well what Russian expansionism means ...;)

[VIT]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

VIT this is not the online forum of Pravda ... there are here people who traveleld extensively in Russia, Eastern Europe and Caucasus, who see Russia at it is, not as presented by Putin's minions.

You bet, watch for KGB spies on this forum, you nailed 2 already. Me and c1ue.

Did I miss something in forum rules when registered here :cool:

[ASH]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

To ASH:
You made the good points, but I like to add some more:

- USA constantly increases the military spending - now 50% of the world
- USA got out from anti-missile agreement thus undermines the concept of non-use of nuclear power
- USA seems to be world-wide aggressive last years
- In future it could be a case somebody in White House will decide the risk of nuclear response is small.
- And all these US military concepts of pre-emptive strike and local use of nuclear weapons do not add optimism.

So the trend which US follows basically is for arm race. It does not look aligned with freedom and liberty ideals.

Why we have all these wars if every county has the defensive ministry, but no one offensive. Stanislav Lem.

Excellent points, VIT. I fear I shall not be so succinct, as I have some fairly detailed thoughts on this matter.

I share some of your perspective on the present situation, but I suppose my expectations for the future diverge.

On American military spending....

American spending on its military is indeed greatly out of proportion to that of other countries. Presently, we have technical capabilities unmatched by any other power, and a very well-trained force. Yet, since the end of the Cold War, the size of the force structure is smaller. This data is from Table 7-5 on pages 212-213 of the National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2007:

1987 (Cold War peak) total military manpower = 2.244 million
1990 (Gulf War I) total military manpower = 2.144 million
2007 total military manpower = 1.406 million

Some of this is doubtlessly related to the use of private contractors for non-combat support tasks, such as food preparation. However, there was also a substantial contraction of the actual combat force structure. The following "Cold War" numbers are from Table 24.1 of American National Security (5th Ed.):

Active Army Divisions: Cold War = 18; currently = 10
Active Marine Divisions: Cold War = 3; currently = 3
Aircraft Carriers: Cold War = 15; currently = 12
Battle Force Ships: Cold War = 546; currently = 280
Air Force Fighter Wings: Cold War = 24; currently = 19

My numbers for the current force structure are from Wikipedia (Army and Air Force), personal knowledge (Marine Corps), and the United States Navy for both the number of carriers and the total battle force. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a convenient tally of Air Force fighter wings, so my count could be off -- I just counted the number of units described as fighter wings by Wikipedia.

Anyway, my point is that we have spent on upgraded equipment and training our force, but have trimmed our total numbers. This has left us with the capacity to kill people and destroy materiel very efficiently, and an expeditionary capacity that is unique in the world, but barely enough boots to occupy and hold ground in a small country. We have indeed invested a lot of money on the tools required to win battles, but not the force structure required to conquer. We are kitted out to meddle in other peoples' affairs -- to defend the status quo here and bomb an unfriendly regime there, but not to seize their lands by conquest and hold them.

Going forward, I think it likely that this capacity will diminish, because the bill on our entitlement programs is about to start coming due. The United States will look less and less like a good credit risk, reducing our ability to finance our budget deficit. Right now, the government borrows money from itself to pay itself notional interest on money it has already loaned itself... all building up about $4 trillion in government account series bonds which the Baby Boomers are counting on to finance their retirement. Funny thing is, since those bonds represent almost half of the national debt, in order to collect on any of that money, the Boomers will have to get everyone to agree to cut spending in other areas and raise taxes to the point that we're no longer running deficits and are actually paying off the national debt. I suspect that our military expenditures will get cut back at that point.

Regarding our abrogation of the ABM treaty, and the potential for a future American first strike...

That was a serious provocation to the Russian government. Ironically, I think that the United States naively did this because it no longer regarded nuclear conflict with Russia as a likely possibility, and rightly argued that a missile defense system capable of defending against a full-scale Russian attack is technically infeasible -- hence how would it undermine deterrence? The Russians saw things very differently. In the first place, the implication that Russia was no longer a peer competitor -- and the demonstration that this was so by ignoring Russian objections -- was highly offensive to Russian dignity. Second, and more importantly, while a missile defense system cannot protect America from a Russian first strike, it might very well protect America from the few Russian missiles that survive an AMERCIAN first strike. In fact, this argument, which was put forward in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article got a lot of attention in Russia. Now, you have to understand that missile defense is my bread and butter -- every time Iran or North Korea does something screwy, that's money in the bank for me -- but I do think that our indifference to Russian objections was very short-sighted. I don't see the percentage in a first strike on Russia, but I am very sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint that our behavior has been both threatening and insolent at the same time. There is no reason we should expect Russia to trust our good intentions, or that we wouldn't one day use "nuclear primacy" to pressure Russia. It is so typical of Americans to think of ourselves as wearing white hats, that we often fail to consider what we might look like to others, wearing black hats.

On recent American aggression:

The pattern of behavior you identify is real enough, but I doubt it can continue. Financial arguments aside, the political circumstances which enabled it have changed. (Disclaimer: I did, and do, support the war in Iraq, albeit for different reasons than articulated by my government. That is a different discussion. I mention this as an aside, because while agreeing with you that those activities are aggressive, I didn't want to imply that I opposed them. One of the many reasons I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after I completed my Ph.D. is a notion of personal integrity -- if one feels elective wars ought sometimes to be fought, then one should be prepared to fight them.)

On the question of an arms race:

With whom? Actually, the avowed strategy of the American military is full-spectrum dominance:

"Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.

While full-spectrum dominance is the goal, the way to get there is to "invest in and develop new military capabilities." The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection."

The game plan was to develop an overpowering military capacity. The hope was that no one else had both the motive and the money to engage in a race with us, which would make it practical to actually achieve full-spectrum dominance on a limited budget. In fact, this has been temporarily achieved, since our military spending as a percentage of GDP is actually below Cold War levels. Coming out of the Cold War, the only countries with the money required to engage in an arms race with the United States were already our allies -- those market economies that benefited from the protection and stability provided by our military. The problem is that since then China has developed a strong economy and energy wealth is changing the fortunes of Russia. If the United States is running in an arms race, it had intended to be running alone. If equally well-financed competitors emerge, then perhaps the strategy will have to be re-thought. Even without the entitlements problem, if military supremacy starts to cost more as a fraction of GDP, then less confrontational strategies will begin to look appealing.

[Shakespear]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

Maybe that happens because those Eastern Europe countries know very well what russian occupation means ... and who is the main aggressor ;) and their citizens cannot be fooled by the russian propaganda...

The people in Eastern Europe know who Russia is and what a bad idea looks like. The Shield is a bad idea which is reflected in the polls in Poland and Czech Republic. Recent poll in Poland has 50% against it.

The problem is that those in gov. think they understand the situation better :-)

Isn't it like that all the time !!!

Here is what a MIT professor thinks of the shield

http://www.estarwars.net/tedpostal.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-00za.html

So the only sense of this exercise is to get closer to the bear. A Dangerous Game :-(

[EJ]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

The people in Eastern Europe know who Russia is and what a bad idea looks like. The Shield is a bad idea which is reflected in the polls in Poland and Czech Republic. Recent poll in Poland has 50% against it.

The problem is that those in gov. think they understand the situation better :-)

Isn't it like that all the time !!!

Here is what a MIT professor thinks of the shield

http://www.estarwars.net/tedpostal.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-00za.html

So the only sense of this exercise is to get closer to the bear. A Dangerous Game :-(

I agree. The decision to build the missile shield around Russia is a hugely disruptive escalation of nuclear tensions by the west with Russia. Building a nuclear missile shield is hostile and leaves Russia with few options. Here's why.

If two men face each other with guns and each does not shoot the other first because each man knows that the second shooter can shoot and kill first shooter before the first shooter dies, that is an effective deterrent. However, if one man places a steel shield before him with a hole in it where his gun sticks out, now one man can shoot shoot and kill the other and the second is unable to retaliate. The deterrent is no longer effective. If Poland and other nations build a shield and at the same time they dismantled their nuclear arsenal then balance is maintained. They will not, of course, because they are not confident enough in the shield's effectiveness and so want to be able to return missiles.

The uncertainty of the effectiveness of the shield means that while it is being built the Russians will decide to: 1) try build an equally effective shield at the same time and rate so that deterrent balance is maintained, 2) determine that the US developed shield will be more effective than the Russian shield, either due to design or rate of installation or both, and therefor they must destroy the US version in Poland and elsewhere while it is being built. Those are the only two logical options that follow from the destabilization of the nuclear deterrent by one side building a shield.

The decision to build the shield, then, is a decision to start either a new arms race or war. The first may evolve into the other. I don't think most observers understand the danger.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

You bet, watch for KGB spies on this forum, you nailed 2 already. Me and c1ue.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger: "Who's this we, white man?"

Seriously though - the ironic thing is that I see far more dissenting opinion based on detailed analysis in Russia on the Russian government than I see here in the US.

For all the public 'freedom of speech' and 'American Way of Life' crap, the reality is that the majority of the US population is brainwashed in a way that would make any totalitarian regime proud.

Even the so called 'rebels' against Bush are like 12 year olds being contrary: they are rebels like all their friends.

It may well be that this is purely a symptom of a protracted period of prosperity, but nonetheless it is still sad to see.

[Raz]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#* wrote: "...about the expansion of NATO and EU, I disagree. I believe these are good things regardless the idiocy and incompetence proved in the Balkans."

$#*, here is where you and I part company. In 1948 Stalin overthrew the elected government of Checkoslovokia, terrifying the nations of Western Europe. Their Foreign Ministers met in Brussels to arrange an alliance before the Red Bear swallowed them all. They were bankrupted by the war and were individually helpless before a Red Army of almost 6,000,000 which Stalin had not demobilized. The Foreign Minister of Great Britain, Ernest Bevin, said that they needed a treaty that would accomplish three things: " ...bring the Americans in, keep the Russians out, and hold the Germans down". So in 1949 NATO was formed to defend the free nations of Western Europe.
Well, the Soviet Union no longer exists. Germany has long since been neutered. But they still want to "keep the Americans in". There is no 2.5 million man Red Army (1985), no Warsaw Pact, only a dysfunctional and hopelessly corrupt nation of 143 million which is dying demographically. They are not possessed by a malignant ideology hell-bent on spreading itself throughout the world.
What is the present purpose of NATO? Why should we defend Western Europe? Why the hell can't they defend themselves? They have more than TWICE the population of Russia and MANY TIMES the GDP. The same goes for South Korea. I have had a gut-full of the utopian bulls%#t of Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush. Russia has had its nose bloodied by Poland in the past, and if the Germans, French, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, etc. collectively aren't up to the job now, with a collective economy that is bigger than ours, well then, as they say in Russia, "tough shitski". We are providing them with a "moral hazard" in similar fashion to the one provided depositors and investors by the U.S. Government. Why should they spend enough money and keep sufficient active military forces to deter Russia if we are foolish enough to do it for them?
In his farewell address Washington warned us to stay out of the entanglement of foreign alliances. Ditto the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Unless the vital national interests of the United States are directly threatened, then I stand with Pat Buchanan - and the very wise men who gave us this republic.

Raz, the erudite (and humble);)

PS. You are right about the upcoming election. I never thought I would say this, but Obama might do less damage in foreign relations than McCain. I plan to vote either Constitution Party or Libertarian.

[Shakespear]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

I rememberer how the Israel's were unhappy with the effectiveness of the Patriots during Gulf I.

In the following we see what they were all arguing about.

http://http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED8123FF932A05753C1A9679582 60


http://http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

The following from the above is good

"Our review indicated in general that the Army and supporting contractors overcame significant obstacles to provide tactical missile defenses in Saudi Arabia and Israel, but that the Project Manager's assessment that the Patriot was successful against 70 percent of Iraqi Scuds was not supported." (Testimony of Richard Davis Director Of Army Issues National Security and International Division before the House Government Operations Committee, April 7, 1992)

"The Patriot system can defend only a particular point, such as a presidential palace, not an entire area." (See "Asian Star Wars", Far Eastern Economic Review, June 6, 1996)

Perhaps things are better now but it is certain that the attacking side will have improved the technology to send decoys and make the real missile much harder to identify.

Based on the inherent weakness of this system why would anyone want to welcome this weak system and pretend to believe that it will improve the defense of their nation. In the mean time antagonizing the one who may potentially sock it to them even more. :-)

Stupidity IMHO :-)

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

You bet, watch for KGB spies on this forum, you nailed 2 already. Me and c1ue.

Did I miss something in forum rules when registered here :cool:

VIT this is not a soviet propaganda soap opera. It's just a debate.... Nobody is catching any spies.

It's just about the fact that Russian invasion in Georgia in an attempts to take control over Abkhasia and Ossetia is unjustifiable and IMHO the free world has to react on that. I don't believe that an appeasement approach would be good for the West.

It wouldn't be good even for Russia for that matter, be cause the neo-comm siloviki Putin regime would be reinforced by an unchallanged military aggresion against Georgia. In the end the ordinary russians would be the ones to suffer most from the irresponsible actions of their leaders.