Thread: U.S. + Russia = Soon War?

Why did my post show up on the front of the thread? and I can't delete it because it says I did not post it.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/...issile_defense

The United States and Poland signed a deal Wednesday to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia — a move followed swiftly by a new warning from Moscow of a possible military response.

For many Poles — whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally — the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.

Negotiators sealed the deal last week against a backdrop of Russian military action in Georgia, a former Soviet republic turned U.S. ally, that has worried former Soviet satellites across eastern Europe. It prompted Moscow's sharpest rhetoric yet over the system, which it contends is aimed at Russia despite Washington's insistence the site is purely defensive.

After Wednesday's signing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion the 10 missile defense interceptors — which Washington says are intended to defend Europe and the U.S. from the possible threat of long-distance missiles from Iran — represent a threat to Russia.

"Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one," Rice said. "It is in our defense that we do this."

She denounced an earlier threat from a Russian general to target NATO member Poland, possibly even with nuclear weapons, for accepting the facility.

Such comments "border on the bizarre, frankly," Rice told reporters in Warsaw. "The Russians are losing their credibility," she said, adding that Moscow would pay a price for its actions in Georgia, though she did not specify how.

"It's also the case that when you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."

Poland has been a staunch U.S. ally in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It sent combat troops into Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition and had 2,300 troops deployed there at its peak. That has been reduced to about 900, who will be pulled out in October. At the same time, Poland has been building up its military presence in Afghanistan, where it currently has some 1,600 troops.

Hours after the signing, Russia's Foreign Ministry warned that Moscow's response would go beyond diplomacy. The system to be based in Poland lacks "any target other than Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles," it said in a statement, contending the U.S. system "will be broadened and modernized."

"In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic" channels, it said without elaborating.

Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who leads a key appropriations panel for missile defense, praised the deal. But she said that Democratic lawmakers intend to withhold funding for the interceptors planned for Poland until they are properly tested, a move that could delay the deployment for years.

The deal follows an earlier agreement to place the second component of the missile defense shield — a radar tracking system — in the neighboring Czech Republic, another formerly communist country now in NATO.

"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told Rice after the signing.

Many Poles agreed. "After what happened in Georgia, I believe that this is good protection for us," said Kazimierz Dziuba, 49, a hospital worker in Warsaw.

The Georgian conflict "made the Americans agree to this deal sooner because the Russians are getting too bossy," Dziuba said.

Not all Poles were happy, however.

Alina Kesek, an 82-year-old retired office clerk who lived through World War II, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between them, and then experienced four decades of Moscow-dominated communist rule, said the Patriot missiles were a "kind of provocation" toward Russia.

"This means a threat from the Russian side," said Kesek. "I am not very pleased with this deal."

Some residents in the northern Polish town of Redzikowo, where the missile defense facility will be located, fear it may expose them to retaliatory attacks or other dangers.

Along with the main deal, the two nations signed a so-called "declaration on strategic cooperation," which is to deepen their military and political partnership.

It includes a mutual commitment to come to each other's assistance immediately if one is under attack — enhancing existing obligations both have as NATO members.

The declaration also was accompanied by a promise from the U.S. to help modernize Poland's armed forces and to place a battery of Patriot missiles there by 2012.

Rice said the deal "will help both the alliance and Poland and the United States respond to the coming threats."

Poland and the United States spent a year and a half in formal talks, which snagged in the final phase on Poland's demands for the Patriot missiles and other points.

However, the deepening U.S.-Polish friendship dominated Wednesday's proceedings.

"In troubled times the most important thing is to have friends," Rice said. "But it is more important to have friends who share your values and your aspirations and your dreams. And Poland and the United States are those kind of friends."

Approval for the missile defense sites is still needed from the Czech and Polish parliaments. No date has been set for lawmakers in Warsaw to vote, but the deal enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as of the government.

We have Rice saying Russia is going to pay for what they did to Georgia, but not specifying what.

Russia is saying that there will probably be a military response to the missile defense system we're trying to place in Poland.

War looks possible!

But, I think it was Poland that told Russia they could send inspectors over to observe the system and see that it's not aimed at them.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of Russia's aim here is to influence the U.S. presidential election. They've done quite well with a militaristic C student in office over here; now they have the prospect of a militaristic D student stepping into office, if they can just get 'Mericans sufficiently skeered.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I wouldn't be surprised if part of Russia's aim here is to influence the U.S. presidential election. They've done quite well with a militaristic C student in office over here; now they have the prospect of a militaristic D student stepping into office, if they can just get 'Mericans sufficiently skeered.

I'd say they are trying to scare the U.S., but I also think Russia has been flexing their muscles, trying to provoke a response from a few countries.

I think they want something to happen from how they keep flying into airspaces, and how they attacked Georgia, and how they're threatening with possible military response against Poland and any allies.

This is what happens when you put an overly ambitious U.S. foriegn policy plan into play with the current Washington administration in the drivers seat. Russia is more than likely trying to win back what had been lost during the first post-Soviet decade of the 1990's. I'm pretty sure Washington understand their position, not to mention Russia is extremely irritated mostly when the U.S. interferes in certain areas of interest which poses the assumption that Washington actually has no strategic interest. Not only that, the U.S. aggravates this irritation when it opposes any issue that strenghtens Russia's position in any way. Washington however, by no means is prepared to impose any limitations on itself and would definately squeeze everyone else whenever, wherever and however they can. It's the old traditional rule of 'realpolitik', taking into account the interests of others to the extent that they do not contravene one's own interests, is being violated. And that my friends is the bottom-line.

*flabergasting* incomprehensible!!!! . . .what year is this?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

It's the old traditional rule of 'realpolitik', taking into account the interests of others to the extent that they do not contravene one's own interests, is being violated. And that my friends is the bottom-line.

What do you mean, here? That Russia has acted against their own interests without realizing, or that they have acted in their own interests against the interests of the U.S. and NATO? I cannot see how Russia's actions can benefit them over a medium-to-long timeline, even though they gain short term stature by exploiting our investment on other fronts with enemies of lesser stature. Unless they have some killer cards in the hole, creating a more tense and fearful global scene can only stifle their economic expansion, and they were in no territorial danger to begin with.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What do you mean, here? That Russia has acted against their own interests without realizing, or that they have acted in their own interests against the interests of the U.S. and NATO? I cannot see how Russia's actions can benefit them over a medium-to-long timeline, even though they gain short term stature by exploiting our investment on other fronts with enemies of lesser stature. Unless they have some killer cards in the hole, creating a more tense and fearful global scene can only stifle their economic expansion, and they were in no territorial danger to begin with.

Very true, if they keep acting like they have been they'll just lose any respect they already have, and make relationships with countries worse than they are. The path they're going, if they continue, really will hurt their economy like you said. I'd say they're drawing attention from NATO countries pretty good with their actions as of late. If they do go to war with the U.S., or allies and draws a response from the U.S., I don't know how much support they'll have. Do you know any allies of Russia? I'd say Iran is one, but other than that I have no idea. Maybe Korea, or some middle eastern countries?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What do you mean, here? That Russia has acted against their own interests without realizing, or that they have acted in their own interests against the interests of the U.S. and NATO? I cannot see how Russia's actions can benefit them over a medium-to-long timeline, even though they gain short term stature by exploiting our investment on other fronts with enemies of lesser stature. Unless they have some killer cards in the hole, creating a more tense and fearful global scene can only stifle their economic expansion, and they were in no territorial danger to begin with.

I understand what you're saying, but I really think it's much deeper than that. The position of global leader is obvioiusly a dangerous one. The U.S. by no doubt is a global power with global interest and global ambitions. I don't think Russia's actions are neccessarily long-term effects on a positive level but perhaps this isn't a concern for them. After the Sept. 11, attacks the fact that U.S. territory could be threatened from remote regions of the world forced a reassessment of Washington's security policy. As a result, the entire planet became a sphere of vital U.S. interests. Of course this has boost the U.S. interest on a global level, this aquired position that the U.S. has maintained since the declared winner of the Cold-war has been a like a thorn in Russia's ass.

Now on the other hand Russia is also a global power with regional ambitions and interests. Moscow possesses well defined levers in different parts of the world from Latin America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East. With the help of these instruments, Russia will more than likely pursue its strategic interests in Europe and Asia. Why? Because Alliances in these specific areas of interest are needed in order to gain bargaining chips in the game against rivals. This helps counterbalance U.S. expansion in countries that used to be Soviet republics.

Most countries are willing to agree that the U.S. and Nato are virtually one in the same. Don't forget that Poland has approached the United States directly, bypassing NATO, for security guarantees to protect it against what it perceives to be a threat from Russia. Of coures this has increased U.S. Russian tensions even more. Moscow considers direct U.S. military guarantees to Kiev and Tbilisi as an even greater provocation than NATO membership in and of itself.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I understand what you're saying, but I really think it's much deeper than that.

No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying, because it was a question and you didn't provide an answer. Do you think Russia's actions are in their medium-to-long-term interests, or do you think they've made a bad move?

I'd have to say they've made a bad move, unless they can bring, say, China into the game. Given China's considerable investment in the U.S., I'd say that's a longshot.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying, because it was a question and you didn't provide an answer. Do you think Russia's actions are in their medium-to-long-term interests, or do you think they've made a bad move?

I'll be straight up with you, I really don't care what you are saying I was just giving my opinion. You responded to me, not the other way around. Besides, I've already answered that question if you would've taken the time to read my posts you've would've notice.

I don't think Russia's actions are neccessarily long-term effects on a positive level but perhaps this isn't a concern for them.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'd have to say they've made a bad move, unless they can bring, say, China into the game. Given China's considerable investment in the U.S., I'd say that's a longshot.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that they've made a bad move.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that they've made a bad move.

They do stand to gain in the short term, particularly given their virtual irrelevance internationally in the last decade or more. I'm inclined to consider their long game before I dismiss their ongoing actions, but I can't see any advantage to be won here, unless they're counting on the decline of U.S. influence, which is a fair bet in a general sense, but probably not enough to make their current moves pay off. They may even bring military power to the forefront enough to improve U.S. standing.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I understand what you're saying, but I really think it's much deeper than that. The position of global leader is obvioiusly a dangerous one. The U.S. by no doubt is a global power with global interest and global ambitions. I don't think Russia's actions are neccessarily long-term effects on a positive level but perhaps this isn't a concern for them. After the Sept. 11, attacks the fact that U.S. territory could be threatened from remote regions of the world forced a reassessment of Washington's security policy. As a result, the entire planet became a sphere of vital U.S. interests. Of course this has boost the U.S. interest on a global level, this aquired position that the U.S. has maintained since the declared winner of the Cold-war has been a like a thorn in Russia's ass.

Now on the other hand Russia is also a global power with regional ambitions and interests. Moscow possesses well defined levers in different parts of the world from Latin America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East. With the help of these instruments, Russia will more than likely pursue its strategic interests in Europe and Asia. Why? Because Alliances in these specific areas of interest are needed in order to gain bargaining chips in the game against rivals. This helps counterbalance U.S. expansion in countries that used to be Soviet republics.

Most countries are willing to agree that the U.S. and Nato are virtually one in the same. Don't forget that Poland has approached the United States directly, bypassing NATO, for security guarantees to protect it against what it perceives to be a threat from Russia. Of coures this has increased U.S. Russian tensions even more. Moscow considers direct U.S. military guarantees to Kiev and Tbilisi as an even greater provocation than NATO membership in and of itself.

According to the U.S. and Poland it isn't for defense against Russia, it's against Middle Eastern nations (mainly Iran) that have the capability of launching long range missiles.

Source:
http://poland.usembassy.gov/poland/o...gust-2008.html

This BMD interceptor site would provide a defensive capability to protect Europe and the United States against longer-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East, and will be linked to other U.S. missile defense facilities in Europe and the United States.

Also, the U.S. will be placing a radar tracking system in the Czech Republic.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...tchy/3023053_1

The Bush administration also is planning to place a sophisticated tracking radar in the Czech Republic .

Russia sees this as a defensive system against them though, to neutralize their strategic nuclear missiles. The U.S. and Poland have said Russia can send inspectors to Poland to look at the system if they want to, but I haven't heard anymore about that.

Also, according to the pact that the U.S. and Poland signed, the U.S. will also be improving the air defenses of Poland, and modernize their military.

Under the pacts, the United States also will improve Poland's air defenses, including deploying a Patriot air-defense battery operated by American troops.

The United States also will help modernize Poland's military, which already receives more American military aid than any other European nation.

I found the website about the entire U.S./Poland pact if any of you want to check it out.
http://poland.usembassy.gov/

Er. No-one wants to live amongst war. But this insane society seems to insist on rushing headlong into their own destruction.

Rumors of wars.....

The end times I guess.

There's no such thing as "end times". And if you people would stop believing in end times and heaven and all that, wars wouldn't happen.

Presidents are more likely to send troops to war if they belief the troops will be rewarded in an afterlife, wouldn't you say? Or did I just blow your mind?

So in your mind world war 1 and 2 is because of belief in heaven and end times. You are an interesting study.

if you people would stop believing in end times and heaven and all that, wars wouldn't happen.

If only things were that simple.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

So in your mind world war 1 and 2 is because of belief in heaven and end times. You are an interesting study.

LOL

It's the end of the world as we know it, its the end of the world as we know it, its the endddd of the world as we know it and I feel fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

So in your mind world war 1 and 2 is because of belief in heaven and end times. You are an interesting study.



If only things were that simple.

Learn to read. Either that or learn how logic works. Belief in heaven is necessary, but not in itself sufficient, to go to war.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Learn to read. Either that or learn how logic works. Belief in heaven is necessary, but not in itself sufficient, to go to war.

How do you know every president and other political figure has a religion, or that they all believe in heaven? Religion fuels some wars, but not most, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

How do you know every president and other political figure has a religion, or that they all believe in heaven? Religion fuels some wars, but not most, in my opinion.

Your opinion is uneducated, frankly. And it goes against common sense. Or perhaps I shouldn't say common sense, because it isn't common anymore. Rationality is a better term. To think that belief in heaven doesn't have anything to do with deciding to send someone else's sons to war is quite irrational.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Your opinion is uneducated, frankly. And it goes against common sense. Or perhaps I shouldn't say common sense, because it isn't common anymore. Rationality is a better term. To think that belief in heaven doesn't have anything to do with deciding to send someone else's sons to war is quite irrational.

So you're telling me everyone that has control over sending troops out believes in heaven? I know some do, hence the reason i said "Religion fuels some wars," but most wars, or sending out troops, are not based on religion or heaven.