[Chongo]

Russia is now threating Poland

Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles



By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 56 minutes ago

MOSCOW - A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

The root of the problem goes back to influence...

Interesting, and makes sense.

Thank you.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Russia is now threating Poland

Well, to be fair, it's Poland that is threatening Russia.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Honest question: Who are missiles in Poland supposed to protect us from? Mid-East threats?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The missiles will protect us from Democratic candidates who might win unless there's a pointless and expensive defense contract that they'll oppose but which frightened middle America can be convinced is necessary to keep them safe .

If you feel the need to give this response to someone looking for real information, it's time to take a sabbatical from the PL.

[Helmling]

The missiles will protect us from Democratic candidates who might win unless there's a pointless and expensive defense contract that they'll oppose but which frightened middle America can be convinced is necessary to keep them safe .

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Well, to be fair, it's Poland that is threatening Russia.

How so? By having a defense against missile attacks?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How so? By having a defense against missile attacks?

Yes. You understand how missile deterrence works, right?

[vmarks]

Krauthammer points out that we have options:

1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.

2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.

3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin's dictatorship long made Russia's presence in this group of industrial democracies a farce, but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. (And if Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, who has been sympathetic to Putin's Georgia adventure, wants to stay, he can have an annual G-2 dinner with Putin.) Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.

4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusan and Jamaican bobsled teams.

All of these steps (except dissolution of the G-8, which should be irreversible) would be subject to reconsideration depending upon Russian action -- most importantly and minimally, its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.


I say:
The Soviets were expansionist for the entirety of their existence. Putin is a Soviet - he came up through the KGB and shows no indication of having changed. His Russia is an expansionist one, and we have the opportunity to show that this isn't something we tolerate - Russia will not bully former Soviet states from exerting their independence as free societies.

[zombie punk]

VMarks, you're missing the point. The US and EU need Russia more than Russia needs them. You're living in the 80's still my boy.

[vmarks]

The EU is reliant on Russia, and a strong Russia flexing its muscles is not good for the EU.

The US is not reliant on Russia. Let's not allow it to become so.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The EU is reliant on Russia, and a strong Russia flexing its muscles is not good for the EU.

The US is not reliant on Russia. Let's not allow it to become so.

That is the whole point of the invasion. Russia wants control of the oil pipelines running through Georgia. This way they have control of the EU's oil source.

[vmarks]

I'm not seeing how you and I are in disagreement.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm not seeing how you and I are in disagreement.

We aren't

The Ukraine has thrown their collective hat in the ring.

Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US

Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.

By Damien McElroy in Tbilisi
Last Updated: 11:24AM BST 17 Aug 2008

The proposal, made amid growing outrage among Russia's neighbours over its military campaign in Georgia, could see Ukraine added to Moscow's nuclear hitlist. A Russian general declared Poland a target for its arsenal after Warsaw signed a deal with Washington to host interceptor missiles for America's anti-nuclear shield.

The move came as the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a cease-fire deal that sets the stage for a Russian troop withdrawal after more than a week of warfare with its neighbour Georgia.

[nonhuman]

I'm somewhat amazed that no one has commented on the fact that Russia has threatened a nuclear strike on Poland. I'm also somewhat surprised that no one seems to recall the reason the Cold War was what it was: Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal.

A prospective war with Russia is nothing like any conflict we've been involved in for the past several decades. We can't afford a real war with Russia, for the same reasons that we couldn't afford one with the Soviet Union. The fact that we're now weakened not only in terms of the men and resources we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in terms of our political will to act on the one hand, our political will to disregard rhetoric and face the real challenges on the other, and the rise to power of a generation that doesn't really remember what war actually is, why we engage in it, or what's at stake are all factors that make a Russia/US conflict more attractive to Russia than it has been at any point since 1945.

The possibility that Russia could once again become a valid threat to Europe and America should be a uniting factor. Instead we're continuing to squabble over the same bullshit that, while it certainly matters, pales in comparison to the potential shitstorm that a newly invigorated and expansionist Russia stands to drop on our heads. We, both the Europeans and Americans, have spent the past several decades living as though we'd grown out of our turbulent youth and are no longer subject to real threats. We've stopped seeing war as a means of survival against an enemy and started seeing it as a tool for manipulating smaller, weaker nations.

Make no mistake about it, if Russia is willing to take an aggressive posture and not only escalate conflict(s) with former Soviet republics but threaten nuclear strikes, they are certainly ready and capable to back that posture up. If puny and essentially toothless nations like Iraq and Iran have been able to defy the UN and other world powers in their attempts to do anything we didn't want them to, Russia, with centuries of experience at this, massive amounts of remote land, and an aging, but still substantial military and industrial base is capable of far more.

To make matters worse we're talking about abandoning our allies, and giving up on independent democracies just because it's not worth the trouble to defend them from Russia. Surely Russia will just take over a bit of it's former territory and stop there, right? We should just give her a few sacrificial lambs to sate her appetite and get it out of her system. We've gotten so used to the idea of Russia nothing more than the weak, defeated husk of the Soviet Union that we no longer give credence to the idea that she was once tied with the US for most powerful force in the world. Russia has not forgotten, nor has she given up on the idea of restoring the former glory of the Russian Empire, and several decades of being shat on and laughed at by the rest of the world really hasn't helped.

And yes, I realize that there are contradictory ideas here. On the one hand, I'm saying we can't afford war with Russia. On the other, I'm saying we can't afford to let Russia go unchallenged. These things are both true, despite the fact that they contradict each other. This isn't a matter of a soft, yielding Left that's afraid of war and confrontation vs. a hawkish Right that wants another conflict just to satisfy their egos. This is about being matched up, once again, with the only force that has ever really threatened our very existence. If we were both at the top of our games it would be a stalemate. But neither the US nor Russia is, so the question is who's been weakened more, and who can recover more quickly

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm somewhat amazed that no one has commented on the fact that Russia has threatened a nuclear strike on Poland.

Perhaps that's because Russia hasn't threatened a nuclear strike on Poland. A Russian general merely stated the obvious ("in the event of conflict, you side with the opposition and hold their snowballs for them, you become a valid target").

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

... Putin's dictatorship ... The seven democracies ...

I agree with each of your points, but wasn't Putin elected?

[vmarks]

Yes and no.

He was elected to the Presidency of Russia, but he was not elected to the Prime Ministership. He was nominated by his successor to the Presidency, who is regarded as a puppet of Putin's. This reputation is not un-earned, as Putin worked to throw the election by denying Kasparov media coverage.

Remember, the old Soviets were masters of manipulating the media, and Putin is an old Soviet.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Perhaps that's because Russia hasn't threatened a nuclear strike on Poland. A Russian general merely stated the obvious ("in the event of conflict, you side with the opposition and hold their snowballs for them, you become a valid target").

He didn't merely state the obvious, he specifically mentioned nuclear weapons. That's pretty much an implicit threat. They're raising the stakes and raising the serious possibility of using nuclear weapons: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4547883.ece

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yes and no.

He was elected to the Presidency of Russia, but he was not elected to the Prime Ministership. He was nominated by his successor to the Presidency, who is regarded as a puppet of Putin's. This reputation is not un-earned, as Putin worked to throw the election by denying Kasparov media coverage.

Remember, the old Soviets were masters of manipulating the media, and Putin is an old Soviet.

Gotcha

[vmarks]

At this moment, I also want to bring up a distinction which I always make:

We should not mistake societies with a fetish for voting with "democracy."

I support freedom-based societies, where it is possible to criticize the government in the public square without repercussion, and I oppose fear-based societies where doing so will get the critic killed.

Putin is former KGB, an entity belonging to a government well-known for 'disappearing' people.

[TETENAL]

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Georgia was, before this incursion, on an ok track to NATO membership -- not fast, but ok. NATO members are obligated to defend other members. However, the West has no desire to defend Georgia against a resurgent Russia. It gives some NATO members enough ammunition to deny NATO to Georgia and others. Left in the cold and facing an unpredictable Russian military response to disputes, these weaker nations will slowly defer to Russia's will in its sphere of influence.

From today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/wo...pe/19rice.html

Originally Posted by New York Times

August 19, 2008
U.S. Won’t Push NATO to Admit Georgia

By HELENE COOPER
BRUSSELS — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the United States would not push for Georgia to be allowed into NATO at an emergency meeting on Tuesday, a tacit admission that America and its European allies lack the stomach for a military fight with Russia.

Instead, NATO foreign ministers convening here to devise a response to the Russian invasion of Georgia are expected simply to affirm that they would like to see Georgia and Ukraine eventually start the process of getting into NATO, known as a Membership Action Plan, or MAP, as the ministers did at an April meeting in Bucharest, she said. ...