Russia Threatens Nuclear attack

marcsignal

marcsignal wrote: »

and the west are extremely suspicious of Russia, and we believe our own propaganda too

Personally I like the idea of Ivan sticking it to the yanks, I mean Bush has a neck like a jockeys bollix lecturing the Ruskies, or anyone else, about territorial integrity, considering........

Yup thats what the russians will say and it will be a fair point.
But the rest of what they say can be found on the Russia Today channel on sky and lets put it this way...If that sort of biased one sided coverage was ever put out on RTE,there would be a furore over at the BCI and heads would roll at RTE.

faceman

It will come to this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWP_rEWG2xk

Moscow announced the start of nuclear fuel deliveries to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, which Russian contractor Atomstroyexport is building in southern Iran

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/iran-to-continue-uranium-enrichment-despite-russian-fuel-supplies/

One plan on the table in Moscow, DEBKAfile's sources report, is the establishment of big Russian military, naval and air bases in Syria and the release of advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran (the S-300 air-missile defense system) and Syria (the nuclear-capable 200 km-range Iskandar surface missile).

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5513

sink

marcsignal wrote: »

Ehhhh, quite right, we have learnt nothing

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Another sucker of the youtube generation.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/iran-to-continue-uranium-enrichment-despite-russian-fuel-supplies/





http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5513

ok. and whats Your opinion on that :cool:

marcsignal

sink wrote: »

Another sucker of the youtube generation.

I think you misunderstood my point there sink, I was actually agreeing with you. It would indeed seem that we've actually learn't nothing.

sink

marcsignal wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point there sink, I was actually agreeing with you. It would indeed seem that we've actually learn't nothing.

Oh yeah I get it now.

Playboy

jonny72 wrote: »

The Russians are extremely suspicious of the West. They believe their own propaganda. Everyone seems to be lightheartedly joking about going back to the Cold War era, but I don't really see the situation improving. The Bush model and to a lesser extent the Israeli model shows, that if you can back it up, you can ignore the rest of the world and do what you want.

Some people have talked about this "missile shield". I've yet to hear any military expert say it is anything but useless.

This missile shield is a direct threat to Russia by the US and nothing else. The US might as well come out and tell Russia that they are going to nuke them if they dont behave. Tbh I think Russias threat against Poland is entirely understandable if you know what the missile shield is for. This missile shield only works in a situation where a nuclear attack is expected. If you join the dots you can see that this missile shield in fact gives the US first strike capability against Russia while negating Russia's ability to retaliate effectively. Can you imagine the Reaction from the US if Russia put a similar missile shield in Canada or Mexico. This is a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis and we all know who was the real cause of that and it wasnt the USSR.

Stupid aggressive neo-con US administration are not going to be happy until the world is burning

Kama

Hmm Neocons weren't actually that aggressive; they're looking even more chickenhawk than usual over Georgia. Course, you can look at it a little like wedge issues with the cultural-conservative Right in the States...its not an issue to be won, but one to stir people up in self-righteous indignation. Whining about the Russian Bear is cheap, sells well, and requires no real commitment to any kind of action. Fail foreign policy tho...

Jerome a Paris has a nice take on the Neocons and Georgia on eurotrib...

Even granting that Russia has conducted an aggessive, outward bound foreign policy towards the former Soviet Republics and beyond, this whole episode should disqualify the neocons from ever speaking about foreign policy again - they claimed the need for strength, the need to call Russia on its imperialism, the need to beef up the military of the threatened countries and to support them with the full force of the alliance of democracies - and they dumped Georgia at the first opportunity, after Russia showed it was actually serious about fighting when it got under way?


We get the worst of both worlds: military build up, diplomatic tensions and deep mistrust within (former?) allies in the West, and defeat when the inevitable confrontation happens.


Either Russia is a real danger, and we need consistent policies to address that or it is not, and we need to start talking with them and listening to them - and maybe avoid things like bringing our soldiers to their borders, cancelling unilaterally treaties signed with them, and endlessly calling them an enemy.


Either we actually do realpolitik, or we don't. Realpolitik is meant to be distateful, but effective. What we have now is certainly distateful, but effective is the last word that can be used to describe it.

Hotblack Desiato

Playboy wrote: »

If you join the dots you can see that this missile shield in fact gives the US first strike capability against Russia while negating Russia's ability to retaliate effectively.

Nonsense. Russia can overwhelm it many times over (assuming it works as advertised, few are convinced) and the Russians damn well know that, too.

,8,1

Em the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after 911 the Iraq war didn't start till march 2003. Afghanistan was a necessary war and NATO had no choice but to retaliate as the west had been attacked. Iraq was unnecessary and was started purely by choice mainly due to the naivety of the neo-con administration of George Bush and their lust for profits from oil from arms manufacturing amongst many other factors. Don't get the two mixed up.

Actually do mix them up because they are both fundamentally connected. They are connected to the same US/Israeli geopolitical planning which lefties like to call "neo-conservatism", "rich white guys like George Bush" and "war for oil". Referring to the Middle Eastern restructuring project in these terms is a cop-out.

sink

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually do mix them up because they are both fundamentally connected. They are connected to the same US/Israeli geopolitical planning which lefties like to call "neo-conservatism", "rich white guys like George Bush" and "war for oil". Referring to the Middle Eastern restructuring project in these terms is a cop-out.

There is no oil in Afghanistan or any other economic or strategic advantages for a western state. It's situated on the outskirts of the middle east and southern Asia. If the west wasn't attacked by people who were trained in Afghanistan we wouldn't give a crap what happened there. The neo-cons tried to connect a completely unrelated country to the war in Afghanistan. Iraq was not involved in terrorism nor did it have any first strike capability, it was not a danger to anyone but itself but it has feck loads of oil and is in a geopolitically significant location right in the centre of the middle east. Separating Iran and Syria and close to the US's allies on the Arabian peninsula.

The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan are connected is because the neo-cons wanted them to be and no other. Afghanistan is a war of self defence and stabilisation, Iraq is purely an imperial war. So by painting the two separate conflicts with the one brush you are playing right into their hands.

ejmaztec

I see that the Polish deal has been signed - but has yet to go before the Polish parliament.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4571821.ece

Condoleezza Rice today signed an historic and highly controversial deal to build a US missile base in Poland.

The US Secretary of State signed the agreement to a build a missile defence shield in the former Soviet satellite state in exchange for greater American military support for Poland.

“The negotiations were very tough but friendly,” Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, told Dr Rice at the signature ceremony. “We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure,” he said.

Moscow is furious that US missiles will be stationed within easy striking distance of Russia and that, as part of the deal, Poland will get 96 Patriot missiles, a permanent garrison of American troops and an agreement that the US will offer greater protection to the Poles in case of any conflict.

President Kaczynski of Poland told a sceptical public last night that the deal would not make the nation a potential target for Russian aggression. During a television broadcast he declared today to be “an important day in our history”, which “strengthens Poland’s position in the world”.

For the Polish Government, the deal is welcome at a time when Russia’s actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. They see it as offering a form of protection beyond that of Nato.

The President insisted that the missile shield was purely a defensive system and not a threat to its neighbours. “For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it,” he said.

President Medvedev of Russia sees it differently, however, claiming that the deployment "has the Russian Federation as its target”.

American officials say the 10 interceptor missiles will be installed at a base 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier as a safeguard against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

On Friday, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian armed forces' deputy chief of staff, described it as an act of aggression against Russia and warned Poland that it was leaving itself open to retaliation - and possibly even a nuclear attack.

“Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 per cent,” he said.

Nato held an emergency meeting in Brussels yesterday in which officials discussed the threat. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary-general, used unusually strong language to denounce the Russian bellicosity. “It is pathetic rhetoric,” he told reporters. “It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere.”

The missile shield agreement was signed today by Ms Rice and Radoslaw Sikorsk, the Polish Foreign Minister, after 18 months of negotiations.

Washington has already has reached an agreement with Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield, a radar tracking system, in the Czech Republic, Poland’s southwestern neighbour and another former signatory of the Warsaw Pact.

The deal with the Czech government still needs approval from the parliaments of both the Czech Republic and Poland.

No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreements, but they should be passed comfortably in Warsaw where the largest opposition party as well as the government is in favour of the missile shield.

Kama

Nato had 'no choice' but to invade Afghanistan? When did Afghanistan invade America? Defence clauses for invasion and invasion in response to a terrorist attack = not same. Or to put it another way:

Should the UK have invaded Ireland after Canary Wharf?

Plz to say why different...


How Afghanistan, and placing bases in the surrounding areas, has 'no strategic advantages' is slightly beyond me. The Shanghai Co-Operation Organization wasn't exactly pleased...

SeanW

Plz to say why different...

Because the Taliban were (in addition to brutalising their own people) giving sanctuary to Al Quaeda, openly allowing them to run bases, plan attacks from Afghan territory.

Kama wrote: »

Should the UK have invaded Ireland after Canary Wharf?

I forget ... was Sinn Fein in government at that time? Did the IRA operate with the full approval of our government? I guess not.

But yet again, another thread is derailed with "America is teh evilzorz" type of comments.
Remember this thread is about Russia threatening to nuke Poland, or did you forget?

Kama

Hardly 'derailed' or 'teh evilzorz'; I queried some assumptions on the invasion or Afghanistan, as a military response to a terrorist act, and whether that's A: appropriate or B: justifies self-defence under Nato articles. Which is offtopic, but response to tangent in thread re invading countries.

The IRA example is to draw attention to the conveniently-forgotten fact that, until relatively recently, this country 'harboured terrorists' to a significant extent. There is a differentiation between terrorist support and invasion; support for terrorism as a cassus belli is a dangerous move, and an internationally destabilising one.

There was always going to be a limit to how much encirclement/containment and integration of ex-Pact states into Nato would be acceptable to Russia; putting missile bases on their border seems clearly antagonistic in intent, and looks like nuclear escalation.

Which I think we can all agree, is the last thing anyone needs...

sink

Kama wrote: »

Hardly 'derailed' or 'teh evilzorz'; I queried some assumptions on the invasion or Afghanistan, as a military response to a terrorist act, and whether that's A: appropriate or B: justifies self-defence under Nato articles. Which is offtopic, but response to tangent in thread re invading countries.

The IRA example is to draw attention to the conveniently-forgotten fact that, until relatively recently, this country 'harboured terrorists' to a significant extent. There is a differentiation between terrorist support and invasion; support for terrorism as a cassus belli is a dangerous move, and an internationally destabilising one.

There was always going to be a limit to how much encirclement/containment and integration of ex-Pact states into Nato would be acceptable to Russia; putting missile bases on their border seems clearly antagonistic in intent, and looks like nuclear escalation.

Which I think we can all agree, is the last thing anyone needs...

How would you propose to deal with a terrorist attack originating from a country with a barbaric government who condones the terrorist actions and allows them to work freely within the confines of their state. Do you just put up your hands and say 'Oh dear, there's nothing we can do them being a sovereign country and all, might as well just sit hear and wait for them to attack is again. Hopefully someone will be kind enough to tip us off so we can catch em when the enter our country.'.

While I agree with you to a certain extent about Russia, I completely disagree with you about Afghanistan. In my view the west completely missed the opportunity to draw in Russia as a friend and equal partner. All they could see was the opportunity to give Russia a slap on the face, talk about bad conflict resolution skills.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

There is no oil in Afghanistan or any other economic or strategic advantages for a western state. It's situated on the outskirts of the middle east and southern Asia.

Not entirely true.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2903

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Not entirely true.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2903

Thanks I was not aware of that. It is worth keeping in mind that it is only recently that this pipeline has been revived due to the rise in natural gas prices. In 2001 when the war started natural gas was about $4 per btu. At the end of may it reached almost $14 it has since fallen down closer to $8. There seemed to be no plan to build the pipeline in the years 2001-2007. It seems if building the pipeline was a strategic goal for the US when they invaded they would have done so already. Also the cost the war far outstrips any money the US could make out of the pipeline. Whereas in Iraq the neo-cons believed the opposite was true since then cost have spiralled.

RedPlanet

Not so.
World players (ie USA) had previously courted the Taliban to mine oil in Afghanistan, and used them for their own ends in leui of pipelines.
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Islam-Fundamentalism-Central/dp/0300089023/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219247932&sr=8-32

Problem is it's very difficult to keep the pipelines secure, there's always some variety of banditry out to sabotage whoever is the current regime.

Kama

There are resources in Afghanistan; whether sufficient reason I'm not convinced. Pipelines are also an issue. But my main issue is geopolitically with regard to Russia and China, large territorial gains have been made, whether you think in terms of acquisitions, military lilypads, or capacity for systems and resource denial.

Dirk Gently

sink wrote: »

How would you propose to deal with a terrorist attack originating from a country with a barbaric government who condones the terrorist actions and allows them to work freely within the confines of their state.

Don't arm and train them in the first place?

faceman

sink wrote: »

How would you propose to deal with a terrorist attack originating from a country with a barbaric government who condones the terrorist actions and allows them to work freely within the confines of their state.

Give them an Assembly and allow them a public holiday on July 12th.

Kama

I think you're kinda right. What else is there to do? You either bomb someone senseless, or look impotent and unmanly. Luckily, bombing somewhere senseless to get the aggression out and look manly can accord with strategic geopolitical planning. [/sarcasm]
Less glibly, I'd say that invading countries on a pretext that they have terrorists seems counterproductive, and open-ended. I don't think Russia should stomp Chechnya for the same, or Cuba invade the US after the Bay of Pigs, etc. Its a terrible precedent.

Meh, now am derailing: back to Polish nuklar. From Stratfor.

By invading Georgia...Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.


The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

Pappy o' daniel

Russia is afraid, if ukraine joins NATO there could be 30,000 US troops on their border. Remember, one if the reasons Stalin grabbed so much land during WW2 was to create a buffer zone so no-one could invade russia without warning.

25 million russians killed in WW2. I think russia will invade ukraine before it joins NATO.

People should realise that their pushing a country with 6000 nukes into a corner

Overheal

Russia is afraid, if ukraine joins NATO there could be 30,000 US troops on their border. Remember, one if the reasons Stalin grabbed so much land during WW2 was to create a buffer zone so no-one could invade russia without warning.

25 million russians killed in WW2. I think russia will invade ukraine before it joins NATO.

People should realise that their pushing a country with 6000 nukes into a corner

yea I'd buy those odds for a dollar ruble.

sink

clown bag wrote: »

Don't arm and train them in the first place?

All well and good with the benefit of hindsight. Pity they didn't have a time machine to go back and change history. Do you have a practical solution that would have worked in 2001?

Kama

Arming them was during an 'exceptional period', the Cold War. Replacing them with a different group came during another 'exceptional' period, the GWOT. Not arming them then would have been a 'practical solution' to the 'current problem'.

The trend of 'exceptionism' seems part of the problem. Was Kosovo an 'exception'; is South Ossetia one also? And so forth. Is Poland an 'exception'?

The broadstroke picture on our side has been one of expansion into what was Russias sphere of influence, in violation of earlier promises post-Cold War. Whether we view Poland silos as a response or escalation, it seems clear that Russia views it as an aggressive move close to their capital by a foreign state. Hence, sending a signal that it increases risk rather than security.

Call Me Jimmy

Kama wrote: »

Nato had 'no choice' but to invade Afghanistan? When did Afghanistan invade America? Defence clauses for invasion and invasion in response to a terrorist attack = not same. Or to put it another way:

Should the UK have invaded Ireland after Canary Wharf?

Plz to say why different...


How Afghanistan, and placing bases in the surrounding areas, has 'no strategic advantages' is slightly beyond me. The Shanghai Co-Operation Organization wasn't exactly pleased...

Is it not different because the Taliban government actively supported the terrorism against the US? They harboured the organisation behind the biggest foreign attack on american soil in recent times. I'de say that essentially amounts to a declaration of war.

Kama

Think this may need a thread spun for it...Apogise to anyone for this tangent to the Polish issue.

Well, the Saudis also directly supported the Taliban, as did ISI in Pakistan, and have closer links to the actual funding and implementation of 911 > the Taliban state.

But the basic point is whether the actions of sub-state actors should count as a cassus belli in international relations. If they do, its a can of worms, with all sorts of nasty reflexive consequences.