Utopia Talk / Politics / Who Started Cold War II?

crownroyal Member	Tue Aug 19 21:04:46 And now for a conservative view, albeit paleoconservative one. ----------------------------------------------- Who Started Cold War II? By Patrick Buchanan The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO. Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow's superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis. If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war. From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly. Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did -- nothing. These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians. The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost to within artillery range of the old Leningrad. Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far. And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have reacted to such crowding by the British Empire? As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West? For a dozen years, Putin & Co. watched as U.S. agents helped to dump over regimes in Ukraine and Georgia that were friendly to Moscow. If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us? The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him. What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light? Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this U.S. humiliation. The war in Georgia has exposed the dangerous overextension of U.S. power. There is no way America can fight a war with Russia in the Caucasus with our army tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor should we. Hence, it is demented to be offering, as John McCain and Barack Obama are, NATO membership to Tbilisi. The United States must decide whether it wants a partner in a flawed Russia or a second Cold War. For if we want another Cold War, we are, by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian and pushing NATO into her face, going about it exactly the right way. Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation's primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic. A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard or on the front porch of Mother Russia. Who rules Abkhazia and South Ossetia is none of our business. And after this madcap adventure of Saakashvili, why not let the people of these provinces decide their own future in plebiscites conducted by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe? As for Saakashvili, he's probably toast in Tbilisi after this stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American Enterprise Institute. http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080819/cm_uc_crpbux/op_337089
crownroyal Member	Tue Aug 19 21:06:47 "Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this U.S. humiliation. " Exactly. It is supremely naive to believe that Saakashvili did not call somebody in Washington, did not let anybody there know what he is about to do. No way.
crownroyal Member	Tue Aug 19 21:07:42 "Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did -- nothing. These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians." -------------------------------------- Ouch
Real Fred Moderator	Tue Aug 19 21:10:21 Excellent post as usual, CR.
crownroyal Member	Tue Aug 19 21:10:28 TY
Master Bates Member	Tue Aug 19 21:19:12 indeed
Garyd Member	Tue Aug 19 22:51:31 Yes indeed and the Indians at your local seven eleven, should be allowed to vote to make their store part of India.
Muslim Member	Wed Aug 20 01:20:33 *crickets* Lame, garyd, lame.
roland Member	Wed Aug 20 01:22:49 Gary, They are there for hundreds of years.
Thinking Is Evil Member	Wed Aug 20 01:49:56 "Yes indeed and the Indians at your local seven eleven, should be allowed to vote to make their store part of India." Well, we allowed the frenchies to vote, but they fail to take out the Quebec. Too bad. So you should do the same with the Natives.
Paramount Member	Wed Aug 20 02:21:44 Good article.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Aug 20 05:14:58 Buchanon only hated ussr becuz they was evil athiests now Buchanon dosnt want to figt religios war v. catholic orthodocx but they still is rushians. sashkivali chews tie and was recklous b4 figt and sneeky .i bet he started cold war ii by his self god bless him it needs figtin.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 06:31:05 CrownRoyal: "Exactly. It is supremely naive to believe that Saakashvili did not call somebody in Washington, did not let anybody there know what he is about to do. No way." I wouldn't bank on that. Eden did not tell Ike about Suez. And Saddam sought American permission from the US ambassador to Iraq to invade quwait, and was given an ambiguous reply ("It's a matter in which we have no interest") leading him to believe the US was unopposed. I suspect Saakashvali probably thought he would have American support against a Russian counter-attack if the Russians didn't just take it on the chin, based on the US's support for their NATO membership etc. etc. That or he took the US line on SO and Abkhazia (they are part of Georgia) at face value, assuming that meant the US would support him starting a war over them.
crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 06:53:03 "Eden did not tell Ike about Suez." Perhaps he did not officially contact the National Security advisor or something like that, but he must have sent some feelers. His government employs powerful lobbyist in DC, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor is one of them. (Russian government also has employed one of the the more well-known Washington lobby firms, but thats niether here nor there). I am sure he believed that US would support his decision to take Ossetia and Abkhasia by force, but there is support and there is support. He must have known that Putin has waiting for something like this, constantly provoking and baiting Georgia. Presumed moral support from the US is sort of not enough to actually start shelling Tshinvali, knowing that Russian citizens will certainly die, giving Putin all the pretext he needed. Eden was a PM of a former great superpower, attacking a third-world hellhole. I don't know if this is a valid comparison. And while Bush administration did support Georgia's NATO membership, Saakashvili must have known that several months before elections is not the time when lame-duck administrations decide to risk a nuclear war over some tiny enclave. The guy spent enough time in US to know that. No, somebody gave him some assuarances.
Master Bates Member	Wed Aug 20 06:56:05 Hmmm. Sounds fishy.
Master Bates Member	Wed Aug 20 07:21:41 Although it seems Russia surprised everyone with the sternness of their response, so it could be something went wrong there.
crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 07:24:54 "so it could be something went wrong there. " I don't think so. McCain got a bump in the polls and the issue to talk about and to scare people with. Looks like everything went right as planned.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 08:26:19 crownroyal: The problem with Eden was that the leader in question was acting very irrationally (he was quite ill and on a potent mix of medication). I look at Saakashvalli on TV and I wonder if perhaps this man is not somewhat unbalanced. The question is what he thought were assurances. When the American Ambassador to Iraq said that he viewed Iraq and Kuwait's disputes as an Arab matter in which America had no interest, he did not mean "and we will ignore your invasion". In that disinterested reponse, Saddam thought he detected "you are our man, we don't mind what you get up to, though obviously we can not say that as such". It is equally possible in putting out feelers, Shakashvalli detected in the official US line "We view South Ossetia of Georgia and regard Georgia's territorial integrity as fundamental" as a statement that it supported and would defend Georgia's right to do as it would in those regions without interference.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 08:29:32 Men who lead revolutions are risk takers also... Saakashvalli does not strike me as shrewd and cunning, but courageous and daring, which, are euphemisms for foolhardy and reckless when things go wrong. Saakashvalli has made a successful career out of gambles that have paid off. He gambled too far.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 08:33:07 Meh... The assumption that NATO forces would have backed Georgia in this mess is seemingly unfounded, nonetheless, it is also unclear what the Russian response would have been had Georgia been a NATO member to begin with. Saakashvili screwed up big time, the Russians, however, have also overplayed their hand, and continue to ruin whatever reputation they had with the west. It would appear they actually have a fairly substantial non-military stick to use against the west in their energy resources, however, being the morons they are, they decided to play these military games. Games it should be pointed out they have been playing for some time now with their poisonings and bomber flights. I think it is granted that the west is not going to do much more than bitch about Russia for the immediate, but the longer the Russians ignore the cease fire they agreed to the more likely it is that the peaceniks in the EU will begrudgingly give into the more hawkish amongst them (and who can blame the Baltics for feeling as they must, considering that Russia has already been cyber waring them for some time). What the outcome of that would be is anybodys guess, but its not going to be good for Russia.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 08:42:22 licker: Agreed, way overplayed their hand. Interesting to note Merkel is now unambiguously supporting Georgian entry to NATO compared to more equivocal noises made earlier. I'm predicting a more united NATO, though more concessions regarding integration of Ukraine and Georgia and any countries that were formally part of Russia, not just the USSR. I.e. proceede at a slower pace and with a more customised format than the normal procedures. On the wider strategy, it will probably see NATO shift more towards it's European theatre, which is probably bad news for the US's global strategy. Seems to me Russia is trying to bring back a bipolar world to enhance their influence. It won't work. Generally, the thing about NATO though, is that it is strongest when it is not put into unambiguous positions. It would not be wise to play the NATO card recklessly. Lets face it, if Georgia had been in NATO, and events had proceeded, nobody would have been prepared to escalate to WWIII and a direct conflict with Russia if the Russians had not backed down. There would have been a lot of debate about who started the hostilities, whether Article 5 could be invoked etc. etc. The nightmare situation for NATO is that one day, someone calls it's bluff. If the lines are clear and hard and concrete, that's good. If they are fuzzy, with shaky commitments, that encourages bluff calling, and if NATO decides not to go out on a limb for a country like Georgia, which is territorially disputed (and has been since inception), with dubious questions as to the legitimacy of the conflict, let alone as to which sides is the aggressor (morally and legally) it heavily undermines the credibility and encourages further gambling. We do not want NATO/Russia to be the Central Powers/Tiple enetente of the 21st century.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 09:50:41 Seb: "but courageous and daring" ?? Perhaps in a political sense, but he certainly lacks physical courage - as footage has shown on two occasions now. Here is what I think happened (for what its worth). Georgia did ask for permission - in a half assed way and got a half assed reponse: confirming that the US does indeed support the territorial and constitutional integrity of Georgia (or words to that effect). Georgia put in its best brigade (they just finished a rotation so Gulf War troops where back home) to rush South Ossetia and capture the tunnel entrance connecting the province with the North. The goal to serve Russia with a fait accompli and then put down bypassed insurgent strong points and arrange for sending Russian peacekeepers home. The attack bogged down at strong points, heavy missile ARTY used in a desperate attempt to supress the points and retain momentum. Failed. The rest is history. Its the only plan that would make sense. ========== A Georgian entry into Nato would be based on it losing 2 regions, so Merkels support is a poison pill. I don't think even that will work as Russia will benefit from keeping territorial disputes alive indefinitely. Even if the provinces gain independence, you will still have Russian troops in the buffer zones - and I see nothing that will ever have them leave. Russia is drawing a line. Interesting in the case of Georgia - but we are actually talking about the Ukraine.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Aug 20 09:58:47 If I was the ruler of Russia, I would swiftly invade the rest of Georgia and be done with it. They will be a bigger pain in the ass if they join NATO.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Aug 20 10:05:57 in politics sense he recklous and daring like i said . cunning and sneeky like chalibi too seeks same freinds in america even. if sashkavali got insurances from lame duck for globothermonucular war he woold be dum to belive it. he spent enoufh time in u s for that to. may be insurance, but like this. ''we dont see rushian mobilising'' . this cuz noone looking at rushia. then sashkavali think ''its easy to make fait accompli . putin at olympics good all so'' unless mccain super sneaky freind says ''we lookin and dont see rushian mobilising' as trick. sounds too much like conspirasy to me but may be.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 10:26:37 jergul: You should really dowload "yes, minister". Think Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Ah minister, that is a courageous move. I am sure the electorate will respect such a daring position" RE half arsed question and support, I suspect that would be the explanation, assuming Saakashvali is not as unstable as he appears. I have been perplexed by their failure to cut the tunnel. I would have thought they would have been better off with a commando raid putting the tunnel out of action. The Russian border patrol thing can be resolved. Once the territorial issue is resolved (Georgia has a choice: keep regions on paper, in the same way Taiwan used to claim China, recognised vaugely but in practice ignored, or join NATO), the grounds for Russian "peacekeepers" are tenuous. Let them join NATO, and send in NATO peacekeepers into that region. They are not going to stay in that zone after the territorial issue is resolved and Georiga has NATO membership. It's not worth their while any more to come into a conflict. The whole thing is conditional on pretext, and the pretext of Georgia revoking any formal acceptance of it's new borders is too tenuous to bare that weight.
eds Member	Wed Aug 20 10:58:30 It is inconceivable that Georgia sought any course of action it thought would lead to active conflict with Russia, even if they had assurances of military support from the West. He probably figured Russia would not intervene directly, but make a sputter and wage a diplomatic offensive which the US would blunt. It would offer some basic critisism in public about how Georgia needs to be more careful to avoid civilian death but then parrot on about how Georgia has the right to protect itself from "Ossetian militancy".
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 13:15:17 lol seb, you really believe I have not seen both yes M and yes PM (and incidentally read the novel version of the first series)? My English is quite decent for a reason :-). Sorry about missing that you were using courageous in the Minister sense of the word. Georgia would obviously have been better off with anything except what they did. But a commando raid without supporting elements racing towards the tunnel would be meaningless. We do not actually know if such an insertion was attempted or not. Georgia did initially claim the tunnel had "collapsed". I think an ongoing territorial dispute about a buffer zone in Russian hands would be enough to block Nato membership. Thinking otherwise and providing membership before that is resolved would be courageous indeed. Remember, we say Georgia, but we are talking about the Ukraine.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 13:38:26 jergul: Ah, well :) I've not read the novel. I keep meaning to look for it. Commando, or SOE style (terrorist would probably be the word to describe it), I had missed the claims that they had collapsed the tunnel. Yeah, they would need to race to the tunnel, but they would have had perhaps another day to do it had they managed to block the tunnel, say by causing a partial collapse at one end. Russian air power would still be used against them, but it would at least make it harder going for the Ossetians/Russians on the ground. The Ukraine is a different kettle of fish. EU membership the Russians might be persuaded to accept, full on NATO status would be way too much what with Sevastapol then sitting there like Guantanamo. Except not at all like Guantanamo as Cuba is not a credible threat to Guantanamo and Guantanamo isn't remotely important enough to the US position in the Caribbean.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 13:49:37 " EU membership the Russians might be persuaded to accept..." Remind us again why the Russians need to be persuaded to accept anything? Obviously we are a couple generations away before the hangerson from the USSR are finally purged from Russia, but paying lip service to these criminals is only prolonging their ability to lie to their countrymen about 'western intentions'.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 13:52:01 Here is my favourite Georgian joke (non slavic speakers won't get it). A Georgian goes to a bar and orders a coffee; "one coffee please" The waitress looks surprised and says: " I can hear you are not Russian, but amazing how well you speak our language - most Russians would have used neutral odno kofe instead of the correct masculine odin kofe like you said". "Why thank you" responds the Georgian, "may I also have odin butylka [bottle] vodka?". My favourite personal story was from traveling by train from the transcausasus region to moscow with a gf. Shared a compartment with very typical Georgian mobsters (polyester short sleeved shirts with a collar and keeping cash unfolded sticking out of their breast pockets - seriously - all four of them had a wad of cash about two inches thick). They started being semi-obnoxious in a lewd kind of way. We can't have that [seriously that is one of the few things you cannot shrug off when travelling with women over there]. I took out a huge ugly ring (to me it looked like someone had melted down a bunch of low grade silver jewelry and just made a 3 ounce lump with a loop for a finger about the size of my thumb. I had a reason for getting it, but thats a side story). One of them looked at it with interest and asked if it was silver. I said nope, it was made of platinium. I then took up my sami knife (http://www.magasinet.no/display.aspx?menuid=0&prodid=1977) and began to hone its blade with a small piece of sandpaper I had brought along for that purpose. We did not exchange another word over the next 16 hrs before arriving in moscow. The point of that Billahesque story is not how incredibly cool I am, but rather my anecdotal feeling of how Georgian machismo works. They are fucking brutes, but will back down swiftly if they become insecure (this was back in the early 90s - an innocent time in terms of tourist safety and would think a security service minder was likely close by somewhere. So it was in no way dangerous for me and I knew it. They were sober eh). Background for understanding why I was quite adamant on insufficient evidence (pre-chew on necktie) in regards to the Georgian president's moral fibre. Prejudicial sure, but Georgian posturing irritates me in a disproportionate way due to personal experience. I would probably withdraw my support of Nato if Georgia joined (it can get us into a lot of trouble) and would rather seek alternative EU security arrangements outside of any security commitments we may have made letting Georgia do stupid things.
BushIsDaBestPresid Member	Wed Aug 20 13:55:07 "(it can get us into a lot of trouble) " ur rusin
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 14:13:12 "I would probably withdraw my support of Nato ..." I'm sure NATO cares alot... Anyway, no one seriously thought Georgia would be in NATO, it was clearly some politiking, and away to get into Georgias policies as well, its not all as one sided as your Russian masters make you believe. The funny thing is that NATO should be defunct by now, but the idiot Russians keep on screwing up and giving it an excuse for further existence. Hopefully in our lifetime Russia will purge itself of the remnants of the soviet leadership before they are able to create more. I've not read much about the NASHI lately, but who knows what's going on in Russia, aside from government sanctioned sexual harrasement.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 14:31:01 I'm a pretty staunch Nato supporter licker. What goes for me, goes for others.
Dakyron Member	Wed Aug 20 14:34:51 Two wrongs dont make a right, jergul. Georgian stupidity aside, Russia went beyond any legal or moral right in their destruction of Gori, the confiscation of all military assets, and the fact that they let South Ossetia militia run wild in areas they controlled.
eds Member	Wed Aug 20 14:37:01 NATO will not be defunct for a long time. The US has an interest in NATO: 1) It allows a certain degree of influence over European military policy. 2) It keeps Russian hardware out of (relatively) rich, industrialized weapons markets - which also happens to be reasonably consistent with whom the US is permitted to sell weapons to. NATO standards are incompatible with the largest weapons exporter in the world. Quite a few NATO members (mainly Eastern European) would prefer Russian hardware. One example is Turkey - they are in the market for high-alt air defence systems. Russia has the best offer - the best performer and it's still the best value. But the US has continued to state that the S-400 system is incompatible with NATO standards (implying Turkey should buy its Patriot system). Europe has an interest in NATO: Complain as they might about Iraq, the US provides NATO muscle/teeth where it would not have it otherwise. One might argue Putin has an interest in NATO for building political capital on the homefront. But I would argue that Russia has very little interest in seeing the continuation of NATO since its policies threaten Russia's national interest.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 14:40:57 Dakyron Humiliating Georgia is Real Politikk. We speak of Georgia, but actually, this is all about the Ukraine.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 14:46:08 "One might argue Putin has an interest in NATO for building political capital on the homefront. But I would argue that Russia has very little interest in seeing the continuation of NATO since its policies threaten Russia's national interest. " Uhhh.... That's what I said you know. Russia could have played nice and NATO would have either been gone, or on its way out. Soviet thinking just isn't good at long term planning apparently. "I'm a pretty staunch Nato supporter licker. What goes for me, goes for others." Then you're a fool if you think Georgia had any chance in hell of getting into NATO as it was being governed. NATO is more than just the defense organization it is supposed to be afterall, its a carrot and a stick as well. "Humiliating Georgia is Real Politikk. We speak of Georgia, but actually, this is all about the Ukraine." funny how badly the kremlin miscalculated then.
Dakyron Member	Wed Aug 20 14:58:40 It worked as the Ukraine is seeking a deal similar to that of Poland with the US. If the Ukraine has a defense-pact with the US, then its fear of Russian invasion will be nil.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 15:26:40 Yes, for who in gods name cares about what would be left of the Ukraine once the southern and eastern provinces declare independence? Kjev and a bunch of rural basket cases. Nato and the EU can have that if they want a cross made of lead to carry.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 15:33:56 Jergul must be scared shitless that the USSR won't actually be coming back. The kremlin screwed this up nearly as bad as Georgia did.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 15:35:33 Licker You get the point right? The Ukraine can forget about its territorial integrity if it chooses to seek Nato membership. The relatively prosperous provinces of the former Ukraine will leave under Russian sponsorship and protection.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 15:42:34 " The Ukraine can forget about its territorial integrity if it chooses to seek Nato membership. The relatively prosperous provinces of the former Ukraine will leave under Russian sponsorship and protection." Ehh... Or not. There are not currently breakaway provences in Ukr are there? Clearly not on the same level as Georgia. Though I don't put it past the soviet thugs to manufacture more discontent, ala the baltics. I'm not so sure NATO is really the issue anyway, Russia doesn't care about NATO, other than as an end to their own fucked up means. Putin is doing all he can to rebuild the empire, and he's not being very careful about it anymore. Too much hubris is a bad thing, I think you'll agree.
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 15:50:51 Russia cares about its buffers licker. Downright paranoid about it in fact. In an east vrs west contest involving the Ukraine, most of the prosperous provinces will side with the east. Discontent at this scale can only be manufactured through seeking Nato membership. Joining the EU would be considerably less explosive (not that the Ukraine qualifies, I am simply putting it into perspective). Georgia is about the Ukraine. Knowing this should help understand Russian "hubris".
Dakyron Member	Wed Aug 20 16:07:05 Why would they side with the east? EU membership would be far more prosperus for the Ukraine than any kind of partnership with Russia.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 16:10:10 "Russia cares about its buffers licker. Downright paranoid about it in fact. " Which is why I keep on mentioning the fact that the exsoviets in charge are behaving in an unacceptable mannor. Honestly, what do they hope to accomplish? The days of empire are gone, everyone else who aspires to being a 1st world country understands this, why don't the russians? "In an east vrs west contest involving the Ukraine, most of the prosperous provinces will side with the east. " Very unlikely without blatent russian interference, but that's exactly what there will be, so you might as well be right, if for the wrong reasons. "Discontent at this scale can only be manufactured through seeking Nato membership." Now now... the kremlin is already manufacturing discontent don't you think? Baltics, Georgia, Ukrane, pretty much everywhere they think they can get their filthy hooks in. I've already said NATO should be phased out, whatever replaces it (if it is truely replaced) can deal with member issues. However, russia has repeatedly made it clear to its former vassals that it has no intention of actually moving away from empire, so those former vassals are understandably nervous. This is not primarily a US/Russia issue either, hopefully we agree on that. "Georgia is about the Ukraine. Knowing this should help understand Russian "hubris"." Georgia is about many things, mostly Russia deciding they want to be a world player again, even if it is in a most foolish way. You've not answered the question though. Just how badly did the Kremlin screw this one up?
jergul Member	Wed Aug 20 16:31:35 Daky You misunderstood. The EU might be ok (that was my point), but certainly not Nato. Licker In reverse order. I don't know how badly they screwed up. No one does, it remains to be seen. Georgia is mostly about the Ukraine then. Its as primarily a US/Russian issue if and only if politicians decide that is the case. Manufacturing disconsent (to make a play on words to the book title I think you are referring to - you only pretend to be semi-literate:) is probably a misleading term. Managing it is a better term. The current Ukrainian president is already complaining that Yulia's presidential campaign seems to be run from Moscow - and she is not the most pro-Russian figure you might imagine. So certainly Russian interference. They hope to secure vital national security interests as they see them. It has nothing to do with empire. They will go a long, long way to achieve what they think they need. Georgia is nothing - Russia is even being a bit decent about the whole thing as these things go.. Its mostly a question of utter humiliation and not of resetting the economy and infrastructure. That it is unacceptable may be fair enough. It remains to be seen if we accept it.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 16:37:42 licker: "Remind us again why the Russians need to be persuaded to accept anything?" 6000 nuclear weapons. Moving on...
Dakyron Member	Wed Aug 20 16:40:42 "You misunderstood. The EU might be ok (that was my point), but certainly not Nato." I was just pointing out that if you must choose one or the other, the west is the better choice. Im not saying the idiots in eastern Ukraine would make that choice, but its clearly the best choice. Also, the EU isnt going to let in some fascist dictatorship.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 16:43:47 "I don't know how badly they screwed up. No one does, it remains to be seen." I think they screwed up pretty badly. Not by going into Georgia in the first place, but by reneging on the cease fire agreement, and by invading Georgia proper. What the ramifications are remains to be seen, though europe is beginning to circle the wagons, which is definately not in the interests of Russia. The effect on america will have to wait until we have a new president and see if they are willing to expend any of their new political capital on the issue. "Georgia is mostly about the Ukraine then. Its as primarily a US/Russian issue if and only if politicians decide that is the case. " Well you keep on repeating this, and I think you overstate the point. Georgia is about Russia first and foremost, Ukraine plays into it certainly, but the conditions in Ukraine vs Georgia are too different to paint with the broad strokes you are using, and the US is really not as involved in this matter as they could otherwise be. "They hope to secure vital national security interests as they see them. It has nothing to do with empire. They will go a long, long way to achieve what they think they need." And they are actively sabotaging themselves if they think playing hardball with their military is going to gain them anything other than more buffer states who are only too willing to turn to the west to get out from under the soviet style heel. But yes, they will go to whatever means they feel they need to to acheive these ends, however misguided and ultimately destructive those ends are. Putin is out of the spotlight and trying to remind everyone he's still in charge. "Georgia is nothing - Russia is even being a bit decent about the whole thing as these things go.. Its mostly a question of utter humiliation and not of resetting the economy and infrastructure. " Decent? Compared to the 50s maybe, otherwise completely unacceptable, and every country who matters has said as much. That the Kremlin refuses to withdraw and hold to the cease fire they agreed to only underscores how indecent they actually are. Georgian villages, homes, people destroyed, and if not by the russians clearly with their support. Now lets not play the stupidity of who started what, two wrongs do not make a right... "That it is unacceptable may be fair enough. It remains to be seen if we accept it." Well short term the west has no choice but to accept it. Longer term the west is not going to be nearly as receptive to Russian interests as it would otherwise have been. How far Russia wants to isolate itself remains to be seen though.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 17:01:30 licker: NASHi have basically disbanded. Putin does not want any power organisations he might not be in control of (youth eh), it was just there to ease the transition to the puppet regime. Incidentaly, you are getting het up on sovietism. Arguable, the reason Communism, which should be a wishy washy kind of anarco-liberalism that largely spawned hippies in the west, spawned monsters in Russia is partly due to the socio-economic history of Russia. Russia is still locked into zero-sum 18th century quasi-imperial foreign politics. The behaviour of the USSR should be seen in terms of the political culture and foreign outlook of the dominant political entity: Russia and Russians, rather than something innate to "sovietism" and distinct from Russian political culture. RE Crimea and East of Ukraine... It became part of the Ukraine in 1957... faced with a stark choice between adopting EU/Russian borders and the more loose existing ones, there will be internal dissent. We are not talking about some Russian settlers, we are talking about a huge transfer of land under the pen of some twit in Moscow when the lines did not matter and nobody thought the USSR wouldn't matter. It would be like Scotland walking off with Northumberland after gaining independence from the UK following some hideous redrawing of constituency boundaries. The people of Northumerbland would not care about it too much, so long as Scotish rule didn't change much. When Scotland decided that it was going to leave the UK, and NATO, declare generic neutrality and make close economic ties with Norway whilst putting up a bunch of trade barriers and regulation preventing trade with Yorkshire, then suddenly, it would be quite a big issue. Paticularly if support for these moves was high in the rest of Scotland but split down the "old" border between England and Scotland, which some coked up autocrat who never left London drew on a map one day to balance numbers on a spreadsheet. And then we come to defence infrastructure. At best, you would hope Russian military infrastructure would end up like Guantanamo. In practice, that can't happen if Ukraine is in NATO. I believe, as a defence pact, it is fairly exclusive. In practice, think what would happen if the UK tried to eject the US from the sovereign British territory of Diego Garcia, by threat of force. Expect the US to throw everything bar the kitchen sink at the UK in terms of economic and political interference, before claiming that Diego Garcia is US territory and refusing to budge the military forces stationed there. Talk about principle all you like, we are firmly into real-politik here. Russia may be a shadow of it's former self, but Sevastapol and the Crimea, which has been part of Russia through most of history, not Ukraine, and is a key part of their military infrastructure... it may well be something they are prepared to go to war over, and something they believe they are more willing to go to war over than you are. And weak as they are, they still have lots of nukes. Whatever the principle, any sane person would at this point stop and think carefully.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 17:19:53 licker: NASHi have basically disbanded. Putin does not want any power organisations he might not be in control of (youth eh), it was just there to ease the transition to the puppet regime. Incidentaly, you are getting het up on sovietism. Arguable, the reason Communism, which should be a wishy washy kind of anarco-liberalism that largely spawned hippies in the west, spawned monsters in Russia is partly due to the socio-economic history of Russia. Russia is still locked into zero-sum 18th century quasi-imperial foreign politics. The behaviour of the USSR should be seen in terms of the political culture and foreign outlook of the dominant political entity: Russia and Russians, rather than something innate to "sovietism" and distinct from Russian political culture. RE Crimea and East of Ukraine... It became part of the Ukraine in 1957... faced with a stark choice between adopting EU/Russian borders and the more loose existing ones, there will be internal dissent. We are not talking about some Russian settlers, we are talking about a huge transfer of land under the pen of some twit in Moscow when the lines did not matter and nobody thought the USSR wouldn't matter. It would be like Scotland walking off with Northumberland after gaining independence from the UK following some hideous redrawing of constituency boundaries. The people of Northumerbland would not care about it too much, so long as Scotish rule didn't change much. When Scotland decided that it was going to leave the UK, and NATO, declare generic neutrality and make close economic ties with Norway whilst putting up a bunch of trade barriers and regulation preventing trade with Yorkshire, then suddenly, it would be quite a big issue. Paticularly if support for these moves was high in the rest of Scotland but split down the "old" border between England and Scotland, which some coked up autocrat who never left London drew on a map one day to balance numbers on a spreadsheet. And then we come to defence infrastructure. At best, you would hope Russian military infrastructure would end up like Guantanamo. In practice, that can't happen if Ukraine is in NATO. I believe, as a defence pact, it is fairly exclusive. In practice, think what would happen if the UK tried to eject the US from the sovereign British territory of Diego Garcia, by threat of force. Expect the US to throw everything bar the kitchen sink at the UK in terms of economic and political interference, before claiming that Diego Garcia is US territory and refusing to budge the military forces stationed there. Talk about principle all you like, we are firmly into real-politik here. Russia may be a shadow of it's former self, but Sevastapol and the Crimea, which has been part of Russia through most of history, not Ukraine, and is a key part of their military infrastructure... it may well be something they are prepared to go to war over, and something they believe they are more willing to go to war over than you are. And weak as they are, they still have lots of nukes. Whatever the principle, any sane person would at this point stop and think carefully.
licker Member	Wed Aug 20 17:20:38 "Russia is still locked into zero-sum 18th century quasi-imperial foreign politics. The behaviour of the USSR should be seen in terms of the political culture and foreign outlook of the dominant political entity: Russia and Russians, rather than something innate to "sovietism" and distinct from Russian political culture. " I'm using the term soviet as a generational descriptor. What you say is true for the 'soviet' generation, not necessarily true for the more recent generations, unless the old generation manages to delude them into the same perverse notions of economics as they believe. I thought it was clear enough, I am not saying the USSR is back, I'm saying former soviets are running the show as though they want it to come back. I'm also not saying Ukraine should be in NATO, hell, seems I've been saying frequently I think NATO should go away and be replaced by something a little more open and workable to the new 'europe' (and not necessarily for defense). However, Russia has basically sabotaged any good will the west may have held for them with their actions in Georgia. As to the nukes... I'm not sure that anyone thinks Russia would do anything other than threaten to point them somewhere, as they have been doing for years now anyway. That assumes that there is no major ground conflict involving NATO or whomever actually invading Russia proper. Perhaps I give Putin too much credit. In my mind Russias military is largely unneeded for defense against the west, the paranoiacs who think NATO is actually going to invade them need to get a grip on the world situation, and realize you are better defended by integrating your economy than by having lines of tanks.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 20 18:01:22 licker: My point, you might as well say the Romanovs, or Peter the Great... I agree by overplaying their hand so far in Georgia and the petulant threats RE missile defence, they have basically screwed themselves over. "I'm not sure that anyone thinks Russia would do anything other than threaten to point them somewhere" Equally, they may well think that you won't actually stop them when they refuse to budge from Sevastapol (as America refuses to budge from Cuba, and they would presumably refuse to budge from Diego Garcia were the archipegalo to get their independence from the UK). My point here is this, if we don't stop and take account of Russian oppinion and mindset, and the distinct difference between certain bits of Georgia (Russian since 1800) and bits of Ukraine (Russian until about 50 years ago), and, say, Poland, we actually may be sleepwalking into a conflict. Once shooting starts, it is difficult to back down. Their miltiary posturing is pathetic. I am not at all worried about them threatening to point nukes at us, my worry is over accidentally getting into a military conflict that escalates though mutual incomprehension.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 02:31:28 Seb You are not listening to what they are saying. Poland is now officially part of Russia's buffer zone. While Russia will use conventional munitions to push back US aero-space defence assets in the face of a conflict, I Nato considers using Poland as a staging ground for conflict with Russia, then they employ a burnt earth strategy to defeat such an attempt. Meaning simply a limited nuclear war involving Poland only. If the west chooses to escalate, then so be it.
redblooded Member	Thu Aug 21 05:17:01 The EU relies on Russia for 30% of its energy needs. And an even greater percentage if you include the countries in Russia's influence sphere. The EU has invested EUR 30bln in Russia, there's an annual trade of over EUR 250bln a year and increasing every year. War and politics are all extensions of economic interests. France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, in fact the EU excluding the UK, who follows the US lead, and some eastern European countries do not wish to allow Georgia and the Ukraine, because of the almost certain potential conflict with Russia. The unambiguity regarding Georgia in NATO concerns the promise that one day Georgia could be allowed to join NATO (when there is no cause for almost certain potential conflict with Russia)... Germany's attempt to extend the EU's neighbourhood policy to Georgia and other countries in that region, including Kazachstan can be seen in the light of establishing an alternative route to CAR oil and gas other than from Russia. However, it is clear that those lines are not safe if Russia wants to cause problems.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 05:18:14 jergul: Then they need to listen what we are saying. We do not regard Poland part of their buffer zone. Military interference or attack on an EU member and a NATO member such as Poland would result in a dramatic escalation. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Public anger against such a strategy would be over-whelming, and a nuclear response likely on a "use it or lose it" lines, and need to maintain credibility. Parts of Russia would end up a corresponding nuclear burnt "buffer zone".
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 06:30:42 Seb Oh, I think it quite clear that they listened when the deal was signed with Poland. Russia has also been quite clear. They will remove the aero-space assets with military force at (or as) the onset of any conflict and they will use nukes to keep Poland from being used as a military staging ground for major operations against Russia. Leaving it up to Nato to determine if a nuclear exchange should evolve from that point (you could probably nuke Belo-Russia in retaliation - but not Russia proper without a massive response). What we make of this is up to us. Me - I think I am going to consider Poland a buffer zone and would not want to use its territory for major Nato deployments. You are free to hold a different view, but just understand what Russia is telling us and do a cost benefit analysis.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 08:09:34 jergul: That's not how it would play out. You are buying into a reflection of Russian doctrines by the NATO side. NATO doesn't think of Poland as a buffer zone. An attack on Poland is not an attack on the US's buffer zone, it's a nuclear attack against NATO proper, as serious as (AFAIAC) if it plopped a nuke on London. They need to know that and understand that. Attack poland, and they move from a conventional skirmish into strategic warfare. NATO can not function on the basis of treating (doctrinally or, if it ever comes to it, in practice) some countries as lesser members than others, that can be nuked and the issue treated as a limited affair. Incidentally, should we consider Norway a buffer zone also, if attacked? Where does the line of expendable buffer zones end? The atlantic?
redblooded Member	Thu Aug 21 08:40:08 NATO resolve should be clear and unquestionable. Poland is a member of NATO and it should not be doubted that NATO is not prepared to defend or to retaliate when one of its members is attacked. Also if NATO should attack Belarus for what Russia has done, it will "look very bad" for NATO. The missile shield is a monster which does not benefit Europe at all, but only serves as an instrument to divide Europe by the US. US and European interests are diverging. US interests and leadership should not dictate European policy. It is not in Europe's interests. The EU armed forces does not need the US. Better would be if NATO would be disbanded and the US, Russia, the EU and other countries of importance would form a new entity to discuss and agree on military matters. Putin and Medvedev, the Russians in general aren't madmen. They're intelligent and rational people. Over half of Russian foreign trade is with the EU and 70% of all FDI is by the EU. Russia's government's and corporation coffers are filled with cash. Europe and Russia need eachother. It is improbable that they would nuke Poland, EU and NATO member, in a first strike.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 09:04:04 Seb Fair enough. All it means is that if Poland is used for major operations against Russia, then we all die. Not using Poland for the base of major operations is of course the solution to the dilemma. Mechanisms for conflict resolution not invoking total war should perhaps be considered at some point (what would be a proportionate response to Russia destroying a missile launch site is worth pondering on). Russia does not care about the North Flank, the plan there is to use nuclear weapons and pre-existing nuclear infrastructure along communications and water supplies to scorch earth the Kola peninsula and parts of Finnmark.
licker Member	Thu Aug 21 09:14:24 "Putin and Medvedev, the Russians in general aren't madmen. They're intelligent and rational people." Are you sure about that? Their recent actions would seem to indicate otherwise. Poland is not Georgia, Ukraine, baltics... Russia realizes this as well as the EU, bluster over Russia nuking Poland is so overdone its ridiculous. If that comes to pass though, Seb is correct, it means MAD, and while I don't think Putin and his soviet cohorts are playing this round of their game with any intelligence, I don't think they are quite that stupid either. Russia needs to realize that the west is not intent on going to war with them, but the west needs to realize that Russia may indeed not realize this until the soviet regime is out, and take appropriate action. Really the greens should be overjoyed at this, as it could play into an energy solvent EU that much faster.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 09:20:17 jergul: Taking out some of their early warning radars I guess... Are you crazy? A nuclear attack on strategic defence infrastructure would have to be considered a prelude to all out war. Use it or lose it. Like it or not, the missile base in Poland, though functionally irrelevant in a Russian/NATO nuclear exchange due to it's scale, is tied in with NATO's general strategic defences. Degrading strategic infrastructure relating to early warning and long range missile defences, doctrinally, is treated as part of a first strike. A Russia attack on the Polish silos and/or any radar stations would leave NATO with minutes to determine whether it was part of a first strike, in what would be a highly confused environment. The analogue would be, if we found ourselves in a shooting war over a situation like Georgia, for us to begin by shooting up their early warning radars and attempting to take out communications with their equivalent of the DSP satellites.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 09:26:49 Licker It simply means that using Poland for major combat operations versus Russia invokes MAD.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 09:39:58 Seb The putting the stuff in Poland is incredibly stupid. Those kind of assets are dual purpose you know (the launcher silos can be used for a number of missile types). Projecting an air defence zone too deeply is inherently dangerous. They will however no use strategic missiles for the job, so you need not worry about the first strike aspect, but rather merely consider it as one of several steps towards a nuclear war. Its not a "seeing" site in terms of early warning though. The radar station that may or may not be set up in Czechoslovakia is more a jamming target than one that would be attacked physically. But it will be targeted of course. Short term - I see Russia countering with AD systems (which are ballistic defence capable) on Cuba and in Syria to go along with base establishment in both places. Do not be surprised if the current Syrian visit to Moscow will result in full activation of the Russian naval base in that country. My it is fun playing ball.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 09:42:52 jergul: No, it doesn't. Or, NATO could say "If Russian forces so much as shoot at our men... it invokes MAD". It's not a credible escalation. Their doctrine is indistinguishable from the opening stages of a first strike, and therefore would have to be treated as such, and responded to as such. They probably know that. NATO's official response so far has basically said "we don't believe you would, bite me". Russia has opened up a credibility gap in it's nuclear doctrine, that is a mistake for Russia. As big as for the West to think that the Crimean peninsular and Eastern Ukraine joining NATO should be treated as a matter of principle Ukrainian sovereignty, rather than like Europe re-leasing US key nuclear defence structures and key air bases to Russia at short notice.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 09:43:14 (some of my keys jam occasionally, so toss in the missing letters please).
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 09:45:55 Seb You are not listening to what the Russians are saying. Its no surprise that they have reserved the first strike option (both Russian and the US have), but they are laying down the law in terms of what will trigger first use. Using Poland for major combat operations versus Russia will trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Period. I don't see the credibility gap. You might, but that would be your miscalculation in my mind.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 09:49:55 jergul: Poland is not a buffer zone. Russian air defence covers a large tract of Europe, are they planning to decommission it any time soon? thought the syrians already had a deal with Russia and naval bases. Frankly, I do not care what basing rights Russia gets overly. Syria cozying up to Russia is preferable to western strategy in the middle east, as it gives the Syrians an alternative partner to Iran. The nature of the attack on nuclear defence infrastructure is not the issue, it is the depletion of capacity. Currently, their threat includes nuclear weapons, but even a conventional attack on strategic defence would have to be seen in the light of degrading defence and response capabilities prior to an imminent attempt at a first strike. Silos in Poland, even if housing nukes, are basically irrelevant compared to trident subs wondering the oceans. Attack a strategic asset like that during a limited conventional war is escalatory. Attempting to reserving the right to escalate isn't big or clever... "I'm just going to blind you a bit... don't worry... I promise not to kill you".
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 09:50:13 jergul: No, it doesn't. Or, NATO could say "If Russian forces so much as shoot at our men... it invokes MAD". It's not a credible escalation. Their doctrine is indistinguishable from the opening stages of a first strike, and therefore would have to be treated as such, and responded to as such. They probably know that. NATO's official response so far has basically said "we don't believe you would, bite me". Russia has opened up a credibility gap in it's nuclear doctrine, that is a mistake for Russia. As big as for the West to think that the Crimean peninsular and Eastern Ukraine joining NATO should be treated as a matter of principle Ukrainian sovereignty, rather than like Europe re-leasing US key nuclear defence structures and key air bases to Russia at short notice.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 09:51:15 weird.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 10:05:00 Seb Is it the same? Russian air defences in Syria would both be a part of their strategic network and also exclude IDF air power from operating over Syria and Lebanon (and over Israel itself for that matter). In effect containing Israel. And by your logic, any Israeli move would amount to the preliminary stage of a first strike and thus any response would be justified. Which is not quite how the Russians view it, though Israel would of course regret targeting Russian assets for any reason. The silos in Poland should be considered the equivalent of a Russian air defence system. Can either be touched? Yah in the Russian mind (they know the risks linked to projecting an air defence grid over Israel proper) but only if it is pretty important. The US can respond to the destruction of the battery as if it were a nuclear attack if it wants to of course. Entirely up to the president of the day. And Russia will use nukes if Poland is use as a staging ground for major operations against it. What fun. If we are both right, then we should expect a nuclear war within a reasonable length of time.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 10:10:51 jergul: Air defence as opposed to systems that were anti-ICBM or related primarily to non-conventional early warning. Hitting Syrian air defences is one thing, taking out an equivalent to the Russian equivalent of the USs polish base in Syria would be quite foolish. If Israel did it, that would be one thing (and quite foolish of Israel). The US doing it, quite another.
redblooded Member	Thu Aug 21 10:15:42 Their actions against Georgia are quite intelligent and rational. A lot of Russians and the Russian military are of the opinion that when you hurt Russia "by the sword, you will die by it." Not acting by force in retaliation to Georgia's attacks would be political suicide by Putin and Medvedev. Also Russia was able to show its power and resolve to the US and Europe. It also shows that Europe is wise to resist the US efforts to allow Georgia and Ukraine into NATO as long as certain crucial matters are still unresolved with Russia. Russia also showed the vulnerability for Europe to rely on an alternative route to energy so close to Russia's borders without Russia's approval. Russia probably also realises that open warfare is unlikely, although Russia is probably worried that certain people in the US may be stupid enough to believe that using nuclear arms is an option to them once the missile shield is in place and working. But try to look at it from the Russian POV, the NATO was founded as an alliance against the Soviet Union/Russia. The Soviet Union no longer exist, but NATO still exist and it is annexing countries that used to be on Russia's side in case of a conflict. Russia also allows Europe and the US to invest in Russia and to hold certain strategic positions, but Europe and the US make it difficult for Russia to do the same in the US and Europe. That is also partly why Russia is now somewhat cracking down on US and European holdings in Russia. Russia feels encircled and isolated. Imagine how the US would react if Russia together with Europe would try to gain allies in Canada, Mexcio and the rest of America in a defensive alliance excluding the US and implicitly meant as an alliance against the US. I agree that Europe should look for alternative resources, although unlike the "greens" I think that nuclear energy should be one of the main focal points.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 10:19:49 The Russian equivalent is an air defence system with anti-ballistic capabilities, quite similar to the US system in doctrinal use. I am not sure Russia draws a fine distinction between what Israel might do and what the US might do as it would assume any Israeli attack had been fully cleared with the USA. The point being that they do not consider it the same huge deal you seem to suggest they should.
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 10:25:18 "Russia needs to realize that the west is not intent on going to war with them, but the west needs to realize that Russia may indeed not realize this until the soviet regime is out ..." licker: Or we could simply realize that the Soviets are simply an aggressive expansionist former superpower hell bent on recovering their lost glory. Maybe just maybe their objections to NATO creeping up to their border has less to do with any perceived threat and more to do with their ambition to re-dominate their neighbors. Maybe everyone needs to quit making excuses for Putin and his ex-KGB henchmen.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 10:34:01 redblooded: NATO is a voluntary membership organisation. Annexation is totally the wrong word to use.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 10:36:33 jergul: Different capabilities. Russian air defences are not anti-ICBM capable. Also depends on how Russia designates their facilities.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 10:39:42 Neither is the US system. Which is why they are saying it defends Europe from rogue states and their inter-theatre stuff.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 11:00:56 jergul: ICBM capable against two or three missiles, not a volley. They say it defends Europe to sell it to Europe. It is mainly to defend the US. I'm not sure if it even has sufficient timing to defend Europe from an attack from Iran.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 11:19:40 lol seb, its time to get into the specifics. What missile do you think they will deploy there? We need that before we look at ICBM flight paths and see if Russian ICBMs would even be in range. Or would you accept that it is actually an intra-theater / air defence system without going into such trifling details?
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 11:28:36 Their stationing their NMD missiles there, AFAIK, aiming to cover against possible middle eastern launches. It's badly sited for countering a Russian launch, their trajectories would be northward, and Russians have subs which limit this systems applicability in the event of a Russian missile launch.
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 11:50:16 Exactly. SLBMs render this shield irrelevant to the Soviets.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 11:54:16 I will take that as you accepting that it is actually an intra-theatre / air defence system.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 12:34:01 Then I will take that as you accepting that the moon is made of cheese. The system is barely capeable of intercepting single missiles. As an air defence system it is the most expensive lunacy. Intra theatre in can be saturated even by small countries like Iran. It fits with middle east trajectories and thing aimed at key US infrastructure in the north of Europe (just), but is too close to Russia to be much use. Attacks from west Russia, the interceptors would be chasing the missiles, north Russia would be trans-polar, east Russia would be going totally the wrong way. Intra-threatre, Russia would be using smaller balistic missiles, cruise missiles and bombers. Again, saturation would take care of the missiles stationed there. Meanwhile, sub missiles would be launched from different positions. It is aimed at taking out a limited number of ICBM's launched from the middle east towards north Europe/North America. That is if they system is even capable of that.
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 13:28:36 The system is not capable of taking out ICBMs on those trajectories (and using an ICBM to target Europe from the ME is redundant duplication of an intra theatre trajectory anyway). That is not its role either. What it can deal with are inter-theatre and aviation. And yes, a single 10 missile battery is insufficient to do much beyond creating an air defence umbrella in a several 100 km radius. Ignoring the rogue state argument (and much as I hate to admit it - that argument is a factor), its main function is access denial over Kalingrad, the Baltic states and the Baltic sea, with a secondary function in shooting down inter-theatre missiles if the need arises. It is about as vexing for Russia as a similar complex in Syria would be for Israel. A chain of such complexes would be a lot more worrying for Russia, than Russia building a similar chain in Iran would worry the USA. Saturation is a first strike is the obvious solution to any number of such bases if a serious conflict ever seems likely, which makes me wonder why you have trouble seeing that Russia will do this at a much lower threshold that you have indicated. What cost are you operating with in regards to this battery?
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 13:29:22 replace intra with inter above.
licker Member	Thu Aug 21 13:29:54 Why are you still stuck in 1980s thinking jergul? Is it because Russia hasn't advanced past 1980s technology?
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 13:55:04 For the sake of argument, lets say Russia leases a base outside of Bushwer (Iran) in order to protect its interests and citizens in the area. At some juncture in time, the US attacks something Russian and in retaliation Russia destroys the US base (with a similar legal status as GITMO) in Poland. You think it impossible the US might attack something Russian in Iran (like for example strafing an embassy column en route to Syria), or merely implausible that Russia would tit that tat? I am not to sure messing with Russia is a good idea - it seems dangerous somehow.
licker Member	Thu Aug 21 14:50:17 "I am not to sure messing with Russia is a good idea - it seems dangerous somehow." Yet you seem sure that Russia messing with the west is a good idea?!?!?? For the sake of argument lets assume that a NATO member decides they want missile defense which they create themselves and install themselves... For the sake of argument lets assume that Russia decides to divest itself of its soviet past and join the 21st century... Also what Russian citizens are there in Iran who need mothers protection?
jergul Member	Thu Aug 21 15:05:01 We are not the cornered rat licker. Russia is. None of the relevant Nato countries are capable of building and deploying their own missile defence (I would be very interested to see what would happen if Estonia and the US decided to deploy an aero-space missile battery covering most of the Leningrad military district. 1500 Russian citizens are currently on site in Iran working on a nuclear facility. Iran just announced the tender for another for nuclear power plants in the same general vicinity (the location would have to be linked to defence of sites, and not economic optimization of energy production). The tender will go to Russia almost certainly.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Aug 21 16:41:05 Jergul - Russia is at least sane and rational. They calculate their moves, and have a goal in mind. Nuclear war is not that goal. They want to avoid conflict with the United States because there is no way for them to win that battle. The US has the ability to invade Russian territory via conventional troops. Russia does not have the same ability to invade US territory with conventional troops. Its options: 1. Fight a defensive war hoping the US public sours on the gov't war and forces a withdraw(ala Vietnam). 2. Surrender. 3. Use nuclear weapons or threaten use of nuclear weapons to force a negotiated peace.
licker Member	Thu Aug 21 16:55:44 "We are not the cornered rat licker. Russia is. " Only due to their archaic soviet mindset. Kill off the old guard and these problems mostly disappear. "None of the relevant Nato countries are capable of building and deploying their own missile defence..." None of them? Are you sure about that? However, it was a hypothetical anyway, certainly eventually some of them will be able to, so what will Russia do then? Attack them for building defense installations within their borders? and I'm sure there are Russians outside of Russia, however, the question was, why do they need mothers protection.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 21 19:08:41 "The system is not capable of taking out ICBMs on those trajectories" Post your figures PM in muzzle, I'll look at them in October. I think they are wrong. A mid-pacific intercept should work on a mid-east to US trajectory. And you should know the difference between range and trajectory. Iran to Northern Europe US bases (Greenland, England, north Germany) is not intra theatre. No existing BM defences are rated to make such an intercept. 10 missiles isn't an umbrella. Kinetic kill vehicles = you can take out ten planes. I'd be more worried about an F22 squadron.
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 19:55:14 "I am not to sure messing with Russia is a good idea - it seems dangerous somehow." Oh brother! Overrun a small defenseless country, and suddenly you are Jack Johnson? :o)
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 20:00:29 "The US has the ability to invade Russian territory via conventional troops." Milton Bradley: How do you figure? Beyond capturing a few stray islands, there is no f'in way that the US could invade Soviet territory. Certainly not without European cooperation ... and good luck with that.
Rugian Member	Thu Aug 21 20:01:51 We should have nuked their stupid frozen wastelands back in the 40s when we had the chance.
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 20:04:03 Correct. :o)
jergul Member	Fri Aug 22 01:09:58 Milton Licker mentioned the 80s. The main difference between Russia and the USSR is that Russia has followed Nixon's advice and added an irrational element to their policy to avoid linear predictability. It will fight a defensive war for as long as Poland is not used as a base for major combat operations. If Poland is used as a base, then Russia will use nukes in Poland. Licker You have a point. I am 41 years old and am the last generation that reacts with disgust and shock when I hear German voices combined with the marching of boots on Norwegian soil. Happened a few years back with some visiting Nato troops trampling back to their ship after a night on the town. The reaction is sort of hardwired, even though they are our friends today. Putin and Medvedjev would be the last generation with that profound sense of distrust in terms of their national security. None of the relevant Nato countries. Its a pretty short list - the baltic states an poland. Russia has reserved the right to protect its nationals abroad. Seb Simply compare apogees. ICBMs have ones in the 1900 km range. The defence missiles have one in 150 km range. Which is of course why I said trajectory, not range. Thule would require ICBMs from Iran (I did not actually think of Greenland as being part of Northern Europe - which is probably quite correct of me). The rest require inter-theatre missiles. Though you could find other rogue nations where an ICBM is required and where its trajectory is suitable (North Korea comes to mind - I actually think the location by the Baltic sea is optimized for that interception - but have not checked properly - perhaps my global awareness is screwed). A battery is not an unbrella. But it represents a doctrinal shift the Russians really do not like. The Russians would feel they are actually looking at the establishment of at least another 7 batteries at air bases in Eastern Europe / Baltic States and that the US would follow its general surge policy in regards to these bases. It being no coincidence that lower echelon AD (patriot system) is the second part of the US-Polish deal. They consider the plan an attempt to secure air dominance over Russian territory (where of course forward deployed f-22s would play a part when bases are surged). Murder I think they are just humiliating Georgia (though will keep the 12 km security zone indefinitely). If I am wrong and they stay inside beyond that point, them my view will change.
redblooded Member	Fri Aug 22 05:31:12 As long as Russia is excluded from military alliances and the defence market of the US and their allies and villified by the US and their allies it will remain suspicious and apprehensive. Also bear in mind that all former Warschau Pact countries joining NATO had to switch from Russian equipment to US and European equipment. Although this is good for the US and European military industry, it is a big loss to the Russian military industry. Politics and war are extensions of economic interests and needs. Seb, annexing is in effect what is done, although it indeed has some negative connotations, especially from the Russian viewpoint. US and European interests are diverging. US interests and leadership should not dictate European policy. It is not in Europe's interests. The EU armed forces does not need the US. Better would be if NATO would be disbanded and the US, Russia, the EU and other countries of importance would form a new entity to discuss and agree on military matters.
Rugian Member	Fri Aug 22 05:32:10 Let's nuke Russia
	show deleted posts