Russia warns against US missile shield plans 41 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 6 years ago

BBC News - Russia in Europe missile threat

Russia in Europe missile threat Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that missiles could be deployed on the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans.

In a televised statement, he said "modern weapons systems" could be deployed in Kaliningrad if Russia, the US and Nato failed to come to a deal.

He added that Moscow may opt out of the New Start arms deal agreed with the US.

Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was "very disappointed" by Mr Medvedev's response.

Washington wants an anti-missile shield ready by 2020 but Moscow considers the idea a threat to its nuclear forces.

The US says the shield is intended to provide protection from the potential missile threat posed by countries like Iran.

Washington had originally intended to locate major parts of its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic under Bush-era plans.

But Russia had objected vigorously, and when President Obama took office he scaled-back these ambitions.

However, Moscow has yet to be satisfied that the revised plans do not pose a threat to its interests.

Writing on Twitter, Mr Rasmussen said: "The suggestion that deployment of missiles in the areas neighbouring the alliance is an appropriate response ... is very disappointing.

"Nato's missile defence system [is] designed to defend against threats from outside Europe. Not designed to alter balance of deterrence."

'Symbolic' move

President Medvedev's warning follows an announcement by the United States on Tuesday that it would stop sharing information with Russia on non-nuclear military forces in Europe.

The information was being provided to Moscow under the CFE (Conventional forces in Europe) treaty.

Russia suspended its observance of the treaty in 2007, but Washington had continued to provide the data while negotiations on missile defence continued.

Analysts say the US move is largely symbolic, although the US state department said it was aimed at bringing Russia back to the table at negotiations.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the New Start nuclear arms treaty - to reduce their nuclear arsenals - in April 2010 and it was ratified by the US Senate last December.

The agreement was described by Mr Obama as the most significant in nearly two decades, so if Russia followed through on its threat to opt out it would be a big blow to relations.

Yeah, the missile shield plans by the US under the pretext of a NATO defense against Iranian attacks has once again irked the ire of the Russians worried about the encroachment into areas they have interests in too. This wasn't the first time Russia did this threat though. Two articles detailing the similar problem over tensions from plans to make them in Czech Republic and Poland.

Obama Shelves U.S. Missile Shields in Poland and Czech Rep. - TIME

Poland signs missile shield deal with U.S. - CNN




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

Russian leaders have to constantly keep an image of "evil outside world" it seems. These are missile defence systems, but Russia is constantly threatening with Iskander ballistic missile deployment.

It seems Russia has some self-esteem problems with their diminished area of influence and have to threaten other countries to show up some muscles. It's sad they haven't got past Cold War.

No one is building attack missile systems on their borders.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#3 6 years ago

Rikupsoni;5588152Russian leaders have to constantly keep an image of "evil outside world" it seems. These are missile defence systems, but Russia is constantly threatening with Iskander ballistic missile deployment.

It seems Russia has some self-esteem problems with their diminished area of influence and have to threaten other countries to show up some muscles. It's sad they haven't got past Cold War.

No one is building attack missile systems on their borders.

Russians are very patriotic, not as in-your-face patriotic as Americans with their flags everywhere, but they are certainly proud of their technological achievements, especially where the military is concerned. So keeping the image of the evil Nato alive and threatening with missile deployments every once in a while probably pays off in the next elections.

As for the shield, their criticism is stupid anyway. Most Nato ICBMs are either stationed in the US or on submarines. So they should really be more worried about missile shields in Alaska or Canada as far as the strategic balance is concerned. Besides, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear weapons all the time and are thereby changing the balance in their favour. Given the increasing ideological differences between the west and Russia it doesn't seem like a good idea to let that happen.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago

From what I've read about this story, Russia is being adorably obnoxious. The "Deterrence" that they stress is damned unpopular in the post cold-war era where we've got better things to worry about than nuclear war; like the Broncos starting Tim Tebow, or whether or not Michael Jackson's doctor is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

In blunt layman's terms, Medvedev is a little late to the M.A.D. party, since all of the former followers are now balding alcoholics. Using the old "You can't do that because it removes my ability to do what absolutely nobody in the world wants to happen" argument seems a bit sketchy, especially when our purpose is so blatantly obvious.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,251 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,137 Posts

5 Threads

#5 6 years ago

A missile shield, like MIRVs were, is bad because it favours a first strike. Of course no-one in the world wants a nuclear war today. But who can say what energy price rises, a lack of rare minerals - and so on - will make of the future?

How far do we really have to go before we will be more than willing to nuke China and Russia, gas the middle east, and take what's left of the rarer resources for ourselves? What sort of technological capabilities can be rolled in under the cover of this new missile system?

Those must be the questions, or something very similar to them, being asked in Moscow. They're certainly the questions we'd be asking if Russia were doing as we are doing.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#6 6 years ago

From what I've read a lot of this Cold War rhetoric is that kind of pre-election, patriotism-stirring talk meant to drum up support for his party and such.

Russia wants to work with NATO and the US on this missile shield but NATO doesn't want to jointly run/operate the system with Russia. The Russians want a bigger piece of the pie and the US doesn't want to share. Russia isn't entirely at fault here, there is a reason they do these sorts of things and it's because they don't want to get screwed over by NATO/US creating a missile shield that would theoretically negate some of their strategic nuclear forces. NATO/Russia relations is a two-way street that since the 1990s has had some rather rocky stretches that account for a certain level of mistrust between the two parties.

The US can claim it's to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, but placing those ABM systems on or near Russia's borders and telling them they're not aimed at Russia, but at those far away guys whose missiles may or may not be able to reach Europe (even though Israel or the US are likely higher on Iran's hit list) isn't the most convincing argument.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago

Yeah, I agree Octovon and Nem. We got to be able to see this from the other perspective and consider that other countries have their own 'security' interests and eyes on maintaining if not expanding their sphere of influence.

Russia in particular's been hurting from its collapse of influence in Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the EU and NATO expanding in to those states that formerly it had economic influence over.

I guess this would be interesting to see how this plays out in regards to Russia's own stances on Syria now too. Medvedev is definitely escalating things on his end though.




Destroyer25

Overuses :cort:

50,545 XP

22nd March 2008

0 Uploads

4,732 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5588277Yeah, I agree Octovon and Nem. We got to be able to see this from the other perspective and consider that other countries have their own 'security' interests and eyes on maintaining if not expanding their sphere of influence.

Russia in particular's been hurting from its collapse of influence in Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the EU and NATO expanding in to those states that formerly it had economic influence over.

Do you think Eastern Europe wants to be in Russia's sphere if influence?

No, they don't. So it really doesn't matter what the Russians want. The Europeans want American missile shields there, and for good reason. If Russia doesn't like it then they should make an effort to show the West that they are done with petty Cold War politics. They can start by tossing Medvedev and Putin out of power, and then they can shoot anyone who was part of the KGB or Communist Party.

The West and Russia share a common enemy, Islamic Extremism. We should be working together to combat that common foe.

I guess this would be interesting to see how this plays out in regards to Russia's own stances on Syria now too. Medvedev is definitely escalating things on his end though.

Russia is just worried about losing one of their best customers. Really, they should be distancing themselves from Syria and Iran though. When the shit hits the fan you don't want to be associated with the maniacs who want to fire off nukes at Israel and the Gulf States.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#9 6 years ago
Destroyer25;5588286Do you think Eastern Europe wants to be in Russia's sphere if influence?

What about the reverse? Do they want to be under the influence of the US? Why should anyone be in another country's influence to begin with.

In my opinion much of this is just about superpowers trying to exploit other regions for their own gain. Their governments might be willing to go in bed with Washington, but it doesn't usually translate into support from the people.

No, they don't. So it really doesn't matter what the Russians want. The Europeans want American missile shields there, and for good reason. If Russia doesn't like it then they should make an effort to show the West that they are done with petty Cold War politics.

You missed the point they were making. And this isn't just 'petty' cold war politics. This conflict between regional powers will always exist, regardless of what flag they are under.

Which "Europeans" want the Missile Shield? Their governments or the people? I think you'll see there's a disconnect in this regard, especially with the ongoing economic problems and decay of social services. This is especially magnified in Eastern Europe.

They can start by tossing Medvedev and Putin out of power, and then they can shoot anyone who was part of the KGB or Communist Party.

Why would they go through with that? Just to make the Americans happy? I don't think Putin or Medvedev are going anywhere any time soon.

And shooting people because of their prior employment and party affiliation? Wow, that's just a really bad comment.

TBH I don't see how the CPRF fits into all this. Or the other communist break offs. Has it crossed your mind that Putin, United Russia, or anything else on that camp isn't even Communist? Only thing here is Putin was KGB- but you'll find in many of these countries you couldn't get anywhere with out working with the government. If you desired political advancement, that's what happened.

And here you are talking about leaving behind 'petty' cold war politics.

The West and Russia share a common enemy, Islamic Extremism. We should be working together to combat that common foe.

If only it was that simple. If only we could boil everything down into these ideological disputes and the clash of civilizations. No, what the problem is that Iran doesn't jive with the US's policies in the region and the Russians want to restore the influence they once had in the region.

"Islamic Extremism" isn't a problem in itself. The US has shown it was willing to work with those groups in overthrowing the Taliban. The current groups in Afghanistan base their constitution off Islamic jurisprudence, even as the Americans rant about 'sharia' here and there. Many of the militias involved in the NATO intervention in Libya were what could be called 'Islamic Extremists', as are the ones in Syria right now. Never mind Saudi Arabia and the emirates.

What we are seeing is differences in foreign policy and differing interests in the Middle-East and elsewhere. It isn't a crusade to stamp out 'Islamic Extremism'.

Russia is just worried about losing one of their best customers. Really, they should be distancing themselves from Syria and Iran though. When the shit hits the fan you don't want to be associated with the maniacs who want to fire off nukes at Israel and the Gulf States.

Sure, Iran is a good trade partner with Russia. As is India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, Turkey, etc. They're very much intertwined with the region. I wish it was as easy as the big evil and the forces of good, but it's not like that. Iran is a despicable country but I don't trust either the United States or Russia to 'fix' that.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#10 6 years ago
Commissar MercZ;5588293What about the reverse? Do they want to be under the influence of the US? Why should anyone be in another country's influence to begin with.

A defensive missile shield would limit the degree to which a power like Russia could extend its influence over European states. The last years have shown the Russia has no scruples of uniliterally using economic and even military action in what it considers its sphere of influence, so it isn't surprising that a bunch of eastern European countries would prefer military ties to Nato.

If only it was that simple. If only we could boil everything down into these ideological disputes and the clash of civilizations. No, what the problem is that Iran doesn't jive with the US's policies in the region and the Russians want to restore the influence they once had in the region.

"Islamic Extremism" isn't a problem in itself. The US has shown it was willing to work with those groups in overthrowing the Taliban. The current groups in Afghanistan base their constitution off Islamic jurisprudence, even as the Americans rant about 'sharia' here and there. Many of the militias involved in the NATO intervention in Libya were what could be called 'Islamic Extremists', as are the ones in Syria right now. Never mind Saudi Arabia and the emirates.

What we are seeing is differences in foreign policy and differing interests in the Middle-East and elsewhere. It isn't a crusade to stamp out 'Islamic Extremism'.

I think Destroyer makes a valid point there. Islamic terrorism is a big problem for Russia. It has been over the last few decades in Chechnya and it is really bad now in Dagestan. It would make a lot of sense for Russia to cooperate more with western nations. Aside from terrorists there is also Afghanistan, which seems to be the origin of a lot of drugs going to Russia, then there are economic ties to Europe which are rather important and finally the Russians can't really be sure about China, a nation with an incredible population bordering its sparsely populated Siberian regions.