Russia Wins

[Nobunaga]

... The President pulls the plug on the US commitment for a Polish/Czech-based missle shield.

... Good or bad?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... e-defence/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_ ... le_defense

[Titanic]

Its not Russia winning, its common sense provailing. Also, you have no idea what backroom deals were done because without a doubt Russia would have made some concessions to force this issue. I guess the next few months will possibly tell us what they are.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Well we were actually training to fight Russians before 9/11...Although I cant say what will happen now.

[jonesthecurl]

This certainly seems good to me. And, while it may be a "win" for Russia, i don't think it's a "lose" for anyone.

[spurgistan]

Yeah, this is really is a win for people who don't like needlessly antagonizing Russia. Even the Poles are dead-set against it. And we all know how well Poles and Russians get along.

[GabonX]

How exactly do you guys interpret this?

These were not offensive missiles, rather this was a defensive shield designed to shoot down offensive missiles. Russia's opposition to this is based in that they want to maintain their ability to launch weapons at Europe and be sure that they will hit their targets. The only threat to Russia that the missile shield would have presented is that Russia would ostensibly lose their ability to kill everyone in Western Europe via nuclear holocaust.

So once again, how exactly do you guys interpret this? Why is this a good thing?

[72o]

^^ Wow, someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

[spurgistan]

How exactly do you guys interpret this?

These were not offensive missiles, rather this was a defensive shield designed to shoot down offensive missiles. Russia's opposition to this is based in that they want to maintain their ability to launch weapons at Europe and be sure that they will hit their targets. The only threat to Russia that the missile shield would have presented is that Russia would ostensibly lose their ability to kill everyone in Western Europe via nuclear holocaust.

So once again, how exactly do you guys interpret this? Why is this a good thing?

Obviously, you missed the last 50 years. Fair enough.

See, the relative peace we've had globally (at least in the developed world) has been attributed to this doozy of a thing called Mutually Assured Destruction. You know, if the Russkies stepped out of line, we'd remind 'em we had thousands of nukes pointing at them, and the Russians would do the same if we were making them nervous. Paradoxically, the fact that we could both blow each other off the face of the Earth kept us from getting too antsy. But then comes missile defense. That really screws with the whole paradigm, ya dig? We can chuck missiles into Moscow, but the Russians don't have the ability to retaliate in kind. And that makes everybody antsier. Which leads to bad things. However, right-wing governments who are in bed with the military-industrial complex and really seem to really get hot when needlessly irritating Russians sign up to place missile defense systems in areas that have very little strategic importance. Until we come to our senses. So there you have it.

Also, these things are massively expensive. We have more important things to spend money on.

[72o]

Also, these things are massively expensive. We have more important things to spend money on.

Obama's latest figures showed a planned spend of $10 billion through 2015 for the old system.

We spent $3 billion in 4 weeks on cash for clunkers. I think that statement says it all. If you want more, there's more where that came from.

Money is not the issue.

[GabonX]

How exactly do you guys interpret this?

These were not offensive missiles, rather this was a defensive shield designed to shoot down offensive missiles. Russia's opposition to this is based in that they want to maintain their ability to launch weapons at Europe and be sure that they will hit their targets. The only threat to Russia that the missile shield would have presented is that Russia would ostensibly lose their ability to kill everyone in Western Europe via nuclear holocaust.

So once again, how exactly do you guys interpret this? Why is this a good thing?

Obviously, you missed the last 50 years. Fair enough.

See, the relative peace we've had globally (at least in the developed world) has been attributed to this doozy of a thing called Mutually Assured Destruction. You know, if the Russkies stepped out of line, we'd remind 'em we had thousands of nukes pointing at them, and the Russians would do the same if we were making them nervous. Paradoxically, the fact that we could both blow each other off the face of the Earth kept us from getting too antsy. But then comes missile defense. That really screws with the whole paradigm, ya dig? We can chuck missiles into Moscow, but the Russians don't have the ability to retaliate in kind. And that makes everybody antsier. Which leads to bad things. However, right-wing governments who are in bed with the military-industrial complex and really seem to really get hot when needlessly irritating Russians sign up to place missile defense systems in areas that have very little strategic importance. Until we come to our senses. So there you have it.

Also, these things are massively expensive. We have more important things to spend money on.

^That's a lot like the argument we use as to why people should be allowed to carry guns.

The problem is that this isn't a question of individuals, but rather entire nations of people. The recent invasion of Georgia (as well as the little known of cyber attack which preceded it by several months) demonstrated that Russia does pose a threat to it's neighbors..

Here's the thing that kind of nullifies your position..
.. The Russians have their own anti missile platforms (see Tor Tor M-1 etc.). They aren't anywhere near as functional as what the United States has, but Dimitri Medvedev has pledged to modernize the Russian military. A huge amount of GDP is being pumped into the development of new weapon systems. Opposing anti missiles defenses is like opposing cars, or airplanes was in the past. It's on par with opposing stem cell research today, the point being that it IS going to be(being) developed.

The only decision we have to make is whether we are going to continue advancing along with the rest of the world..

[Symmetry]

It's a pretty complicated issue.

First, yeah, there is the issue of a return to a cold war style arms race. Taking away another country's nuclear deterrent is a pretty radical move. While it might be portrayed as a purely defensive measure, the placement of the system basically suggested that Russia's nuclear arsenal was to be neutralised. The system that Gates and Obama seem to want now is far more defensive in nature.

Second, there is the issue of spheres of influence. Russia may be holding on to a backwards cold-war era mode of thinking in this respect, but several countries in the region have been making overtures towards NATO, so there is a certain justification for their paranoia. They don't want to be encircled by a military alliance hostile to their interests. Georgia is a good case in point. I remember following it and being disgusted at Russian actions. Then slowly the full story emerged, and it turned out that Georgia had attacked an ethically Russian region that had been independent for 15 years. Whether the Russian response was justified or not, they clearly felt that they were stepping in to protect Russians. NATO nations condemned Russia, but it rapidly became clear that Georgia had started the war and expected NATO support.

Anyway, the third issue I think regards Iran itself. Russia has taken a much softer line with Iran, seeking to form diplomatic and economic ties with the country. A missile shield ostensibly for use against Iran was never going to be something they would support. Indeed, some commentators have pointed out that removing the plan for the missile shield might actually help bring Russia on board in terms of dealing with Iran, leaving China isolated.

Basically, I think it was a dumb and antagonistic move in the first place, mostly founded on "Russia is bad, m'kay" thinking. Removing it and switching to an alternate plan was diplomatically a smart move.

[Symmetry]

Actually, I'll bung my last post in the other thread- no point discussing the same issue in two place, eh?

[spurgistan]

The only decision we have to make is whether we are going to continue advancing along with the rest of the world..

^This sounds like the rationale for every liberal American cause, ever.

[GabonX]

It's a pretty complicated issue.

First, yeah, there is the issue of a return to a cold war style arms race. Taking away another country's nuclear deterrent is a pretty radical move. While it might be portrayed as a purely defensive measure, the placement of the system basically suggested that Russia's nuclear arsenal was to be neutralised. The system that Gates and Obama seem to want now is far more defensive in nature.

Second, there is the issue of spheres of influence. Russia may be holding on to a backwards cold-war era mode of thinking in this respect, but several countries in the region have been making overtures towards NATO, so there is a certain justification for their paranoia. They don't want to be encircled by a military alliance hostile to their interests. Georgia is a good case in point. I remember following it and being disgusted at Russian actions. Then slowly the full story emerged, and it turned out that Georgia had attacked an ethically Russian region that had been independent for 15 years. Whether the Russian response was justified or not, they clearly felt that they were stepping in to protect Russians. NATO nations condemned Russia, but it rapidly became clear that Georgia had started the war and expected NATO support.

Anyway, the third issue I think regards Iran itself. Russia has taken a much softer line with Iran, seeking to form diplomatic and economic ties with the country. A missile shield ostensibly for use against Iran was never going to be something they would support. Indeed, some commentators have pointed out that removing the plan for the missile shield might actually help bring Russia on board in terms of dealing with Iran, leaving China isolated.

Basically, I think it was a dumb and antagonistic move in the first place, mostly founded on "Russia is bad, m'kay" thinking. Removing it and switching to an alternate plan was diplomatically a smart move.

The conflict began before Georgia move (which was essentially a police maneuver). What kind of country can function with internal communities taking arms against the government and proclaiming allegiance to a rival nation?

If Russia's actions were a reaction to Georgian aggression, why was the physical war preceded by a cyber war which occurred before the physical conflict. The cyber attacks severely disrupted the Georgian government's infrastructure..

Why are there people who claim to be Russian citizens living in Georgia in the first place? Is this not an invasion of sovereignty in itself?


Why should the United States step down it's military efforts and development of anti missile systems while Russia is not?

[GabonX]

The only decision we have to make is whether we are going to continue advancing along with the rest of the world..

^This sounds like the rationale for every liberal American cause, ever.

Great, I'm all for advancement.

We should be leading the world as we have been for the last hundred years and not allow ourselves to be drug down by it.

Also..you dodged the question...

[Symmetry]

The conflict began before Georgia move (which was essentially a police maneuver). What kind of country can function with internal communities taking arms against the government and proclaiming allegiance to a rival nation?

If Russia's actions were a reaction to Georgian aggression, why was the physical war preceded by a cyber war which occurred before the physical conflict. The cyber attacks severely disrupted the Georgian government's infrastructure..

Why are there people who claim to be Russian citizens living in Georgia in the first place? Is this not an invasion of sovereignty in itself?

Why should the United States step down it's military efforts and development of anti missile systems while Russia is not?

A few good points there. Firstly, it really depends on how far back you want to stretch the conflict. There was certainly provocation from both sides. I'm not sure about the cyber-war stuff. I think you might be thinking of Estonia. All the sources I can find suggest that internet based attacks on Georgian websites occurred during the conflict itself. Daily Telegraph story here

Clearly Georgia's actions were military, and not police based. Georgian forces began shelling the city of Tskinvhalli, placing civilians and Russian peacekeepers under threat. Georgian forces claimed that they had been shelled first, but independent monitors all deny that any fire came from the South Ossetians.

As for why Russian citizens were living in South Ossetia- it's purely a case of the ethnic divisions still present after the break up of the USSR. The South Ossetians identify more with Russian culture than Georgian. They formed their own government. They did not feel part of Georgia. Much the same as Taiwanese people don't feel part of China. If you want to justify Georgia's claim to South Ossetia, then China has a right to march in to Taiwan.

Finally- (and you do ask a lot of questions), the US has every right to develop missile defence technology, and will, I presume, continue to do so. The placement of the technology was the issue, and I hope I roughly outlined why it was a problem in my post above.

[Nobunaga]

... Read in an article today in the WSJ possible reasons for what has happened.

... Russia perhaps has promised to assist the US in dealing with Iran. As a trade off the missle defense was scrapped. Also we are to gain continued use of their airspace for supply flights to Afghanistan.

... Same article points out that Russia is very nearly bankrupt and that a war between Israel and Iran would drive up the cost of oil to somewhere near 300 dollars a barrel. Russia would profit hugely from just such a war.

... So, we trust Putin?

...

[Hologram]

I refer you to my post at the end of jay's post concerning the Democrats being soft on defense.


In short, it's a good thing.

[Simon Viavant]

^That's a lot like the argument we use as to why people should be allowed to carry guns.

Exactly. The ideal situation would be for nobody to have nukes, but since that's not gonna happen, both sides having them is the best thing we're gonna get.

Guns on the other hand can be controlled.

[Titanic]

... Read in an article today in the WSJ possible reasons for what has happened.

... Russia perhaps has promised to assist the US in dealing with Iran. As a trade off the missle defense was scrapped. Also we are to gain continued use of their airspace for supply flights to Afghanistan.

... Same article points out that Russia is very nearly bankrupt and that a war between Israel and Iran would drive up the cost of oil to somewhere near 300 dollars a barrel. Russia would profit hugely from just such a war.

... So, we trust Putin?

...

Which I pretty much said in the first reply...

Btw Russia is nearly bankrupt? Wtf? Where'd u get that from?

[Pedronicus]

Its not Russia winning, its common sense provailing. Also, you have no idea what backroom deals were done because without a doubt Russia would have made some concessions to force this issue. I guess the next few months will possibly tell us what they are.

nuffin to do wiv the fact that them there ruskies are sitting on loads of oil and are too big to invade.....

[Titanic]

Its not Russia winning, its common sense provailing. Also, you have no idea what backroom deals were done because without a doubt Russia would have made some concessions to force this issue. I guess the next few months will possibly tell us what they are.

nuffin to do wiv the fact that them there ruskies are sitting on loads of oil and are too big to invade.....

How is that even relevant to the thread?

[Semigall]

... The President pulls the plug on the US commitment for a Polish/Czech-based missle shield.

... Good or bad?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... e-defence/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_ ... le_defense

Damn commie lover Obama...

[Titanic]

... The President pulls the plug on the US commitment for a Polish/Czech-based missle shield.

... Good or bad?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... e-defence/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_ ... le_defense

Damn commie lover Obama...

Because Russia is communist?!?

[jonesthecurl]

isn't he crypto-libero-islamic-commie-fascist? And isn't he black too?