Russian ICBM Test...

[A.Pottinger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...091131,00.html

Rather concerning.
AP

[swanbourne]

And we thought we were all friends. Peace on you.

Eddie

[A.Pottinger]

The Russians use the US insistence on a missile sheild, incl. erecting listening posts and forward bases in Poland and the Czech republic as justification, and the US, well, I'm not altogether sure for that justification given the previous track and understandings between the nuclear powers.

'Options For Change' could not have got it more wrong, imho-as I thought at the time-we now need a larger military than a smaller one, and the world is a more unstable place than during much of the cold-war.

AP

[worlok]

and the world is a more unstable place than during much of the cold-war.

That's an understatement. ;-) When I read books on or watch movies about the Cold War, I get this warm fuzzy like it was the "good old days".... :( ;-)

Ah sweet comrades, I'd trade all of the current crop of crazies for you guys any day. At least you were somewhat predictable and not suicidal. :twisted:



It's all bollocks of course. They certainly were scary "back in the day".

[mart broad]

Iwas in Russia just after the "Glasnost"changes and a guide said about the statue removals from public places that if you were clever you did not smash up the statues of Lenin and Joe Stalin you stored them for when you needed them next.

If anybody thought theese guys could be bought for a MacDonalds and some trinkets you were mistaken,trust me the bear will come out of hibernation.


Martin

[A.Pottinger]

It's not really a question of one or the other, more that the US has in part helped to create current state of affairs, with pursing some of the polices post-the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As I wrote, e.g. the US 'missle shield' undermines and has undermined the confidence building measures and underlying confidence for this in unilaterally reaching for a missle shield programme which goes against the understanding of th nuclear balance which helped at the heart to foster a sense on nuclear d'etente. On the Russian side one could hear them say 'what do you expect us to do?' and what do you expect them to do , ep in the face of USFP initiatives that have been little short of disasterous in the last 5 or more years?

Russia is continue to be a powerful group, even if in some aspects weaker, it is still intent to impose it's place in the world stage, all the more if others are not, or wish to too much.

AP

[Griff]

All we need now is a roll of drums and a return of this bleeder or his ilk!!!

[Julian]

Commit hari kari .Vote for Barry .

[worlok]

Putin is just using it to deflect criticism of his antidemocratic policies. Chavez uses the US to deflect criticism and whip up public support. Castro has done it for years, as has Iran and others. I'm not saying that the US is all innocent all of the time, but it's an old trick used by dictators and strongmen for decades. If you can't see that well then...... ;-)

[A.Pottinger]

I can see it, it takes more than just Putin wanting to whip up support; there has to be a latent and consequent support for the action; a particular resonance in the nation, for it to be of effect. That is the matter in question in regard to then comparing the Russian action in view of US policy and practice. The US has going against the dis-armament regimes in spirit and to the letter, which, one can see objectively, will lead to Russia taking reciprocal or resulting actions as any nation usuallydoes: this is the definition, in short, of an arms race. The Putin aspect is a description of the dressing rather than what is behind the presentation.

AP :)

[worlok]

I meant a generic "you", not specifically you. ;-)

Many Russians were raised to believe that their nation was a superpower and an important nation. Many resent the plunge it has taken. A plunge which can be squarely blamed on the Communist system and then weak and corrupt quasi democratic ones. Now they have a strongman who has been under intense criticism for his domestic policies, and has also had deteriorating relations with the UK over this murdered spy situation. Dontcha think that he is looking for ways to take the focus off of himself? Of course he will get a certain amount of support domestically.

That being said I do wonder why my government is going for that missile shield and seems to be provoking them. It's not for no reason. It could be to weaken him, while actually having the opposite effect. It wouldn't be the first time that someting was miscalculated. Another reason might be to protect those border countries from a possible future Russian grab, or to perhaps not have to rely on Western Europe for certain things, like bases and such, which let's face it a strong Russian influence would discourage. :?: That area provides reach into the Middle East and other areas. I don't think that the reason is to attack or to bother Russian, but of course it does bother them a lot. I'm not saying that they are all wrong. Several years ago a war was almost caused by Russian missiles 90 miles off FLorida. ;-)

I don't pretend to know what motivations lie deep within Moscow or Washington. It's all guesswork.

[A.Pottinger]

I understand that it was 'you' plural but am speaking for myself :wink:

Yes, regarding the plunge in power, but it takes more than that to motivate and to bring out an new ICBM, that is in Russia's interest to do so: the US, politically and in reference to the NPT and arms-limiting protocol, agreements , has in the Bush years, gone against the understandings reached between the US and Russia and at that the Int'l community as regards such weapons. This is very clear.

Understandably if Russia cannot effectively strike the US if the US were to attack, she will develop a new counterstrike weapon. The US introduced a scheme that would deny Russia a right of response in regard to the mutual d'etente, so in terms of the logic of defence, and the misturst the US created by instituting the missle-shield what was one to expect? Russia to say, fine, come into our historic area of influence, situate listening and missle detection and guidance stations on our door-step and we against the agreements that you have gone against, as well as our security, not to mention prestige, will not respond!

The US has made wrong moves so it is understandable that another nation that has a history of distrust, and visa-versa, will respond as both of them have; as those faced with such a scheme would, rationally. The sooner the US understands, (e.g. Iraq and Vietnam and other places) other peoples will rightly or wrongly not stand up holding their hands in subjugation and say welcome, do take over or do bring this and that and we do not get such a say in it (nuclear politics is about bargains as much as anything) the more understanding there shall be, and confidence in US actions and further intentions. Perhaps, moreover, a new arms race would be less probable.

I hope it does not happen, but the way the US has gone on this, it is about the best way to retart it, and a missle shield is fine, but the real problem are the reasons a country might want to lauch a missile in the first place more than: well if you do it won't work! (then what can the US do one wonders?-as they are human too).

The shield flys in the face of agreements reached and the complex and proven system of safeguards and understandings. The other countries ask, why, as teh regime was working-what is the intention of the US? -look at Iraq, the Neocons, etc. etc. It does not instill confidence.

Best wishes,
AP

[worlok]

I understand what you mean. :wink:

[andrew]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...091131,00.html

Rather concerning.
AP

I note the self-obsessed Russian paranoia regarding the defence shield, with Putin now pointing his missiles at YOU. (ME as well, although not for much longer.)

Interesting that proposed Eastern European defence system will have 10 (ten) warheads. No wonder the Russians are shouting about it - they have only 16,000 (that's sixteen thousand) of them to counteract with.

[Griff]

Is Bush creating a new cold war

[worlok]

Is Bush creating a new cold war

Yes, most definitely. It has nothing to do with the tyrant in the Kremlin. :twisted:

If anyone on Earth, especially Putin, seriously thinks that the US has any plans to invade Russia.... Well, I have a large bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. ;-) I'm not sayin' that the US isn't being somewhat instigatative... Lord knows I'm not sayin' that.....

[worlok]

Okay, now this comes as a bit of a surprise. Anyone make anything of Czar Putin's suggestion to put the missile defense in Azerbaijan? :?:

[swanbourne]

He's only trying to be friendly.

Eddie

[Pararescue]

Nuke 'em, nuke 'em all...