T Nation

Missiles Threaten Peace

It seems Putin is close to withdrawing from the CFE treaty and the Varsaw pact because of the missiles the US is putting across Eastern Europe.

[i]Russia on Thursday stepped up its row with the United States over American plans to build a missile defence shield in Europe by announcing that it was considering withdrawing from a Soviet-era weapons treaty.

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was considering a moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE), under which Nato and the Warsaw Pact agreed to reduce their conventional armed forces at the end of the cold war.

Nato had failed to implement the treaty, he said. Unless it did so Russia, would dump it unilaterally.

Putin described the US plan to site missile interceptor and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as a “direct threat”. Nato countries were “building up military bases on our borders and, what’s more, are also planning to station elements of anti-missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic”[/i]

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=306021&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: Sergei Lavrov confirmed President Putin’s statement made this morning that Russia is suspending, he used the word moratorium, its adherence to the adopted CFE treaty. I can tell you that that message was met by concern, grave concern, disappointment and regret.

It goes without saying that the majority of Poles and Czechs oppose the missiles and other military installations, the US is building on their soil.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e4d8d75d-f619-4c9b-9bea-6e38d9c63936

I think we can all agree that putting missiles and bases around the world (737 base on every continent in more than 130 countries) is threatening world’s peace and inciting other countries to arm themselses up. Is anyone else besides radical nationalists and weapon manufacturers benefiting from such escalations? Any thoughts?

[quote]lixy wrote:
It seems Putin is close to withdrawing from the CFE treaty and the Varsaw pact because of the missiles the US is putting across Eastern Europe.

[i]Russia on Thursday stepped up its row with the United States over American plans to build a missile defence shield in Europe by announcing that it was considering withdrawing from a Soviet-era weapons treaty.

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was considering a moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE), under which Nato and the Warsaw Pact agreed to reduce their conventional armed forces at the end of the cold war.

Nato had failed to implement the treaty, he said. Unless it did so Russia, would dump it unilaterally.

Putin described the US plan to site missile interceptor and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as a “direct threat”. Nato countries were “building up military bases on our borders and, what’s more, are also planning to station elements of anti-missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic”[/i]

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=306021&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: Sergei Lavrov confirmed President Putin’s statement made this morning that Russia is suspending, he used the word moratorium, its adherence to the adopted CFE treaty. I can tell you that that message was met by concern, grave concern, disappointment and regret.

It goes without saying that the majority of Poles and Czechs oppose the missiles and other military installations, the US is building on their soil.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e4d8d75d-f619-4c9b-9bea-6e38d9c63936

I think we can all agree that putting missiles and bases around the world (737 base on every continent in more than 130 countries) is threatening world’s peace and inciting other countries to arm themselses up. Is anyone else besides radical nationalists and weapon manufacturers benefiting from such escalations? Any thoughts?[/quote]

Tell me lixy, what does these missiles do…? Do they have any offensive capability at all…?

Since Lixy lacks a basic understanding of the issue, this article by Austin Bay is a good primer for anyone with a sincere interest.

The prime beneficiary of an anti-ballistic missle system would be the people living in the intended target zone.

Of course the Iranian missles could always be destroyed in place before firing…a more high probability of success solution that solves a lot of issues.

An ABM for Europe?

by Austin Bay
April 18, 2007

Who wants to protect Europe from Iranian missiles?

The Czech Republic’s Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek supports an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) shield. Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, disdains it – or, at least, that was his government’s diplomatic stance a few news cycles ago.

The current bout of “Euro-ABM” diplomacy vaguely echoes the 1990s’ diplomacy of NATO expansion. In the 1990s, former Soviet satellites like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic demanded immediate entrance into NATO. The Kremlin objected, describing NATO expansion as a dire threat. Kremlin politicians claimed expansion was a slow invasion by the West – an appeal to Russian historical fears. Marxism may have been discredited, but Marxist rhetoric provided another propaganda ploy. NATO expansion was also called a cloak for U.S. imperialism.

NATO expansion proved to be no threat to Russia. For better and for worse, the Russia of 2007 isn’t the resigned and deflated Russia of 1995. On the plus side, the Russian economy is meshing with the rest of Europe’s, for the benefit of all. The rest of Europe needs Russia’s resources, and Russia needs the European market. A stable, confident, economically productive Eastern Europe has proved to be a boon to Russia. NATO’s role in creating political confidence in Eastern Europe may not have been pivotal, but it certainly bolstered that confidence.

On the down side, Russia’s government acts with increasing authoritarianism, jailing political opponents and bullying dissidents. Charges of involvement in the assassination of journalists and dissidents tag Putin’s Kremlin.

As for the Euro-ABM issue, at the moment key Eastern European nations support the ABM, while a deeply suspicious Russia vacillates between belligerent rejection and tentative cooperation.

NATO’s Poland and the Czech Republic are seriously discussing their future roles in an ABM system. The Czech Republic would accept a radar site, while Poland would deploy ground-based interceptor anti-missile missiles.

The Russians, however, are saber-rattling – and portraying the Euro-ABM as a system designed to shoot down Russian missiles. That’s demonstrably false. The proposed system is poorly positioned and much too “thin” to counter Russian missiles. Nevertheless, in March Russia said it could upgrade its missile arsenal if a Euro-ABM were built. One Russian foreign ministry official “ruled out” ABM cooperation.

Germany’s Angela Merkel understands the threat posed by rogue nations like Iran. Merkel wants to construct a “common position” in Europe regarding missile defense – escaping the United States versus Russia template and assuring the Kremlin that this will be a cooperative defense system. Merkel believes Europe cannot afford to split on the ABM issue, as it did on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Everyone, including the Kremlin, seems to agree that we now face 21st century threats very different from the 20th century’s East-West bloc confrontation.

This week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko sent a mixed signal, saying that Russian cooperation with NATO depends “on the choice of final configuration of the layered missile defense system being developed.”

The evolving Russian position appears to be a begrudging “yes” to a NATO-European system, a “no” to a U.S. system. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma’s foreign affairs committee, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on April 6 that “Russia has every reason to be interested in close cooperation in creating Eurasian missile-defense systems.” But Kosachev also said Russia and Europe risk “humiliation” by remaining dependent on the United States to run the system.

In other words, Russia wants a strong say in the system’s deployment and operation. Never say never – Russian operational participation could be part of a final deal.

The U.S. Department of Defense says that Iran could have ICBMs by 2015, so there is time to deploy. At the minimum, a Euro-ABM gives the West a “deterrent in place,” which creates diplomatic leverage in a crisis. Poland’s interceptors are only part of the system envisioned. A “layered” system could include short-range ABMs near European cities. The United States estimates this system would have a 60 percent to 80 percent chance of intercepting an Iranian missile fired at London.

Is that worth the expense and political tradeoffs? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mark Pekala recently noted 60 percent “is a whole lot better than zero percent.”

On a side-note. Lixy’s radical friends in norway tried to riot when Nato had their informal meeting in Oslo, Norway. Throwing of rocks, bottles and similar items seemed to be the prefered rethoric.

Of course, Lixy’s basic premise looks like this:

  1. US is bad, pointing missiles all up in people’s business

  2. Russia is good, minding its own business but suddenly feeling pressed upon by a mean bully

Nevermind that Putin’s Russia is a dark place with an agenda for dominance. Nevermind that Russia is sniffing around for world power.

The playbook is always the same, at every level of politics - from welfare checks to intercontinental ballistic weapons: US is the bad actor, everyone else is innocent reacting victim that must do things to stand up for itself.

Brainless neo-Marxism at its finest - and as dumb then as it is now. But man, the kids love it!

[quote]hedo wrote:
Since Lixy lacks a basic understanding of the issue, this article by Austin Bay is a good primer for anyone with a sincere interest.

The prime beneficiary of an anti-ballistic missle system would be the people living in the intended target zone. [/quote]

It seems the people living in that “intended target zone” seem to lack that basic understanding as well. Not to mention the danger of Russia and others not buying your rhetoric.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Since Lixy lacks a basic understanding of the issue, this article by Austin Bay is a good primer for anyone with a sincere interest.

The prime beneficiary of an anti-ballistic missle system would be the people living in the intended target zone.

It seems the people living in that “intended target zone” seem to lack that basic understanding as well. Not to mention the danger of Russia and others not buying your rhetoric.[/quote]

It seems like you try to speak for all Europeans… which you ofcourse can’t… :slight_smile: Wrong on all accounts as usual.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Since Lixy lacks a basic understanding of the issue, this article by Austin Bay is a good primer for anyone with a sincere interest.

The prime beneficiary of an anti-ballistic missle system would be the people living in the intended target zone.

It seems the people living in that “intended target zone” seem to lack that basic understanding as well. Not to mention the danger of Russia and others not buying your rhetoric.[/quote]

My rhetoric? Funny coming from a bigot like you. How goes your Jihad? It’s failing miserably on T-Nation I see.

Should those hapless victims feel honored to be blown up by the great Islamic bomb.

The Eastern Europeans just got rid of the Russians. They are certainly not going to take military advice from their new enemy. All that money wasted on the program and you can’t even kill any infidels with it…must piss you and the Iranians off.

It seems the people living in that “intended target zone” seem to lack that basic understanding as well. Not to mention the danger of Russia and others not buying your rhetoric.

Your rhetoric? You mean Nato’s rhethoric?

The people living in the “intended target zone” were also living under Russian Communist domination for a quarter century and guess what, they loved it so much that they said screw you, WE WANT THE MISSILE SYSTEMS IN OUR COUNTRIES.

We are not shoving the systems down their throats, they WANT THEM as a deterent to future Russian encroachment or as a deterent to Iranian aggression aimed at Europe.

Check out how much the Estonians love “the Peaceful Russians”:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=7772§ionid=3510206

They must feel threatend by those defensive missiles huh? why would that be unless they planned on attacking.

[quote]hedo wrote:
My rhetoric? [/quote]

No idiot! “Your” stands also for plural possesive. In this case, I meant the official Washington line. 0

???

Every poll shows the majority is opposed to the project. Nobody is asking them to take military advice from anyone. They’re just smart enough to know that putting those things on their soil means trouble.

Also, since you claim to be so knowledgeable about the US military, explain to me the rational why did you withdraw from the Anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002? How is breaking up treaties doing anything to foster peace on Earth?

Lixy, can you please post these polls, because everywhere else it seems like they asked us for these? or do you not count people who asked for it as people? do you only listen to those who don’t support it?

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
My rhetoric?

No idiot! “Your” stands also for plural possesive. In this case, I meant the official Washington line. 0

The Eastern Europeans just got rid of the Russians. They are certainly not going to take military advice from their new enemy.

???

Every poll shows the majority is opposed to the project. Nobody is asking them to take military advice from anyone. They’re just smart enough to know that putting those things on their soil means trouble.

Also, since you claim to be so knowledgeable about the US military, explain to me the rational why did you withdraw from the Anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002? How is breaking up treaties doing anything to foster peace on Earth?[/quote]

Black-white rethoric without any realistic or rational point.

Let us look at another example… Canada withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction several years ago, if we were to follow your black-white logic, that would be HORRENDOUS!!

but it isn’t. It is infact positive, it helps conserve the enviroment… You should try to think for yourself lixy, it does wonders. (I guess lixy will ignore this answer too… you see, he has realized that he is a tad (or ten) too slow for me… I guess I’ll just keep preaching to the rest of the thread readers… :wink: )

Lixy:

Maybe this will anwser your questions:

let’s see those polls.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
My rhetoric?

No idiot! “Your” stands also for plural possesive. In this case, I meant the official Washington line. 0

The Eastern Europeans just got rid of the Russians. They are certainly not going to take military advice from their new enemy.

???

Every poll shows the majority is opposed to the project. Nobody is asking them to take military advice from anyone. They’re just smart enough to know that putting those things on their soil means trouble.

Also, since you claim to be so knowledgeable about the US military, explain to me the rational why did you withdraw from the Anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002? How is breaking up treaties doing anything to foster peace on Earth?[/quote]

Hey asshole. You are really slipping you know. In your petty attempt to be the T Nation grammar bitch…you spelled “possessive” wrong. Too fucking funny.

The ABM treaty didn’t offer any benefit for the US. The Russians can’t build an anti-missle weapon that works. Why shouldn’t we protect our cities from attack? A protective system gives us options besides destruction. World peace? Well it protects us and our allies. Not the enemy. It would deter a rational enemy. Nations are not attacked because they are strong. They are attacked because they are percieved as weak.

Since you know nothing about military affairs and strategic matters why don’t you go back to your coffee house and whine to somebody who cares.

Your bigotry is old and tiresome. Try working out to vent some of your stress.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Lixy, can you please post these polls, because everywhere else it seems like they asked us for these? [/quote]

Sure thing.

[i]PRAGUE, Czech Republic: A growing number of Czechs oppose a proposal to locate a U.S. radar station at a military base near Prague, a survey indicated Tuesday.

According to the CVVM polling agency, 68 percent of respondents said they opposed the proposal, while 26 said they approved. In February, 61 percent said they opposed the idea in a similar poll.

The government-sponsored polling agency said it questioned 1,011 people on April 2-9, and said the margin of error for the survey was plus or minus three percentage points.[/i]

WARSAW – Six out of 10 Poles oppose a U.S. plan to base missiles in Poland as part of a shield Washington says is needed to protect against attacks from rogue states, according to a poll published on Monday. The poll was published on the eve of a visit to Poland by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who on Tuesday was due to discuss the plans with Polish officials.

The poll in question found that 63 per cent of Poles are against the project, 23 per cent are in favour, while 14 per cent do not have an opinion.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e4d8d75d-f619-4c9b-9bea-6e38d9c63936

I know about a dozen poles, NONE of which want their country to have anything to do with US missiles. One told me that they held many rallies to protest that. I’ll ask him if he has any pictures of the manifestations.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy:

Maybe this will anwser your questions:


[/quote]

It might surprise you but, just like you, I read the Csmonitor and was made aware of that development back in February. I didn’t find much meat in that particular article though. All they did was quote a bunch of ultra-conservatives that were welcoming the idea. Nothing to do with the popular sentiment of distrust prevailing among the Poles and Czechs.

These missiles are only meant to intercept enemy missiles. Which means that it is harder for Russia to attack Eastern Europe now. But why should they be mad about that? Do they want to attack eastern Europe?

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
These missiles are only meant to intercept enemy missiles. Which means that it is harder for Russia to attack Eastern Europe now. But why should they be mad about that? Do they want to attack eastern Europe? [/quote]

May have something to do with the US setting a precedent by unilateraly abrogating a major international treaty.

It’s like looking Russia and the international community in the eye and saying: “What’cha gonna do about it?”. Not exactly the kind of attitude that gets you friends. It just shatters whatever credibility you have left.

Lixy, they want the missiles(eastren europe that is). Russia and Iran have nothing to fear unless they where trying an attack? So either you believe they are going to attack, or your just a BIGOT agaisnt America even tho they are helping alot of people out.