• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia general says missile plan not shelved

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Russia general says missile plan not shelved | International | Reuters

ZURICH (Reuters) - Russia's top general said on Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland had not been shelved, despite a decision by the United States to rethink plans for missile defense in Europe.

Now, there's some Russian split-personality going on here:

But a former Russian diplomatic negotiator indicated he thought the deployments in Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland, unlikely to go ahead. Alternative U.S. proposals for sea-based defenses appeared less likely to raise Kremlin objections.

Which is consistent with:

The Kremlin always said Russia would only deploy the missiles as a counter-measure if Washington went ahead with its missile shield. Moscow said the shield threatened its national security and would upset the strategic balance in Europe.

But then there's this:

When asked about the matter on Monday, the chief of Russia's general staff, Nikolai Makarov, said: "There has been no such decision. It should be a political decision. It should be made by the president."

"They (the Americans) have not given up the anti-missile shield; they have replaced it with a sea-based component," Makarov told reporters on a plane from Moscow to Zurich.

The general was accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev on a trip to Switzerland.
 
Of course the complaints of a shield was little more than a smoke screen. Russia just wants to show its muscle and keep Eastern europe in line. With the expansion of probable NATO, and the EU, and Russia coming off worse than most developed countries in the current recession, I don't know how they can do this without very skillful/dangerous manuevering
 
Now that they know our president's a pushover, they will take advantage of the situation, of course. Just like everybody else will. Sad
 
Just points out that Russia/Russians cannot be trusted and that they are what they always have been a gang of barbarians with the moral standards of baboons.
 
Which is one of the better reasons not to put a gladhanding noob in the big chair.

More to the topic, if someone tells me theirsecurity is based on ME not having a SHIELD, I tell that obvious potential aggressor OFF and build a bigger shield.
 
I'm still trying to undertsand how Mr. Obama can break a treaty that Mr. Bush signed with the Polish Govn. on this subject. Hmm guess that if your in control of Congress you can do anything like violated terms of Treatys that Congress signs off and only Congress can over-ride.
 
I don't think the Senate approved it, or even voted on it.

It does, though, make our word to our allies worth less, if not worthless.
 
The whole argument over this shield is amusing. Iran is far from having a delivery system, the cost of such a shield is huge, and the fact of the matter is that no one even knows how effective the shield would be. From the beginning it was nothing more than a stab at Russia and Obama's goal is to improve relations with Russia in hopes they and China will be more active in reigning in Iran. If such a case were to unfold, then the U.S. saves lots of money in building the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, maintaining bases in both countries, and keeping troops there to staff them as well, and Iran is still controlled. What's the problem here?
 
The whole argument over this shield is amusing. Iran is far from having a delivery system, the cost of such a shield is huge, and the fact of the matter is that no one even knows how effective the shield would be. From the beginning it was nothing more than a stab at Russia and Obama's goal is to improve relations with Russia in hopes they and China will be more active in reigning in Iran. If such a case were to unfold, then the U.S. saves lots of money in building the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, maintaining bases in both countries, and keeping troops there to staff them as well, and Iran is still controlled. What's the problem here?

the naivete of the idea that improving relations with russia will somehow improve relations with china...and that china will ever have the will or the inclination to effectively reign in iran...the naivete of the idea that caving so easily to foreign interests--at the expense of our own allies and existing treaties--makes russia more amiable toward us. In reality they are already pushing for more concessions and our credibility is degraded.

and if the missile shield's effectiveness was so uncertain, why did russia raise such a big stink about it? If it was such a waste of our time and money, then russia would have promoted the idea.

I remember not long ago we were able to effectively take down a satellite that broke atmo with a missile. Both the sattelite and the technology used to destroy it were relatively analogous to the missile shield technology--and we scrapped the satellite with a single shot..
 
The whole argument over this shield is amusing. Iran is far from having a delivery system, the cost of such a shield is huge, and the fact of the matter is that no one even knows how effective the shield would be.
1: The point is that you deploy the defense -before- they have the capability
2: The cost of a nuke going off over Paris is far less
3: Same can be said for every other weapons system ever deoplyed.

From the beginning it was nothing more than a stab at Russia...
Given the ABM system would have no effect on Russian deterrence -- how can this be?

and Obama's goal is to improve relations with Russia in hopes they and China will be more active in reigning in Iran.
So, he sold out our European allies to gain some degree of favor with the Russians.
This sounds familiar.
Maybe we should start referring to The Obama as The Neville.
 
With all due respect, Russia's general should be shelved - that was not the Kremlin's statement.
 
1: The point is that you deploy the defense -before- they have the capability
2: The cost of a nuke going off over Paris is far less
3: Same can be said for every other weapons system ever deoplyed.


Given the ABM system would have no effect on Russian deterrence -- how can this be?


So, he sold out our European allies to gain some degree of favor with the Russians.
This sounds familiar.
Maybe we should start referring to The Obama as The Neville.

Yeah because Obama obviously ceded Czech to the Germans. Good lord the Aegis System that Obama proposed we use would cover the same amount of territory as the land based system.
 
Yeah because Obama obviously ceded Czech to the Germans. Good lord the Aegis System that Obama proposed we use would cover the same amount of territory as the land based system.
And so how do the Russian's argument not equally apply?
 
Your complaint was that he ceded Europe when he replaced one defense system for another
1: PART of my complaint
2: That doesnt answer my question.
 
Last edited:
Neither system would be a deterance so what is your actual complaint?
Neother systesm has any effect on Russian deterrence, and so Russians complaints to that effect apply equally to both system.

Therefore, nothing here changes the relationship between the Russians and US/Europe in that the Russians can and will make exactly the same complaint and the same useful idiots that bought into the last complaint will buy into the next one.

As I said befoere -- the Russians know their audience.
 
Neother systesm has any effect on Russian deterrence, and so Russians complaints to that effect apply equally to both system.

Therefore, nothing here changes the relationship between the Russians and US/Europe in that the Russians can and will make exactly the same complaint and the same useful idiots that bought into the last complaint will buy into the next one.

As I said befoere -- the Russians know their audience.

News today, Russia will agree to further sanctions on Iran.
 
Neother systesm has any effect on Russian deterrence, and so Russians complaints to that effect apply equally to both system.

Therefore, nothing here changes the relationship between the Russians and US/Europe in that the Russians can and will make exactly the same complaint and the same useful idiots that bought into the last complaint will buy into the next one.

As I said befoere -- the Russians know their audience.

So if neither system would deter Russia what was with your complaint about Obama being Neville Chamberlain and ceding Europe if its outside his control?
 
So if neither system would deter Russia what was with your complaint about Obama being Neville Chamberlain and ceding Europe if its outside his control?
That should be obvious.
We said we'd do something to help protect our allies.

We then decided we'd not do that something because to do so brings a dishonest complant from someone that used to occupy those allies.

So, we sold out our friends because the Russians are lying to everyone.

Now, we are, supposedly, going to put the Aegis system in place -- but that system has the same effect on Russian deterrence (that is, none), and so the Russians, seeing that their lies worked the first time, have no reason to not continue to lie about the arrangement. When they do so, there's no reason the useful idiots will not demand that we cave into those lies as well.
 
That should be obvious.
We said we'd do something to help protect our allies.

We then decided we'd not do that something because to do so brings a dishonest complant from someone that used to occupy those allies.

So, we sold out our friends because the Russians are lying to everyone.

Now, we are, supposedly, going to put the Aegis system in place -- but that system has the same effect on Russian deterrence (that is, none), and so the Russians, seeing that their lies worked the first time, have no reason to not continue to lie about the arrangement. When they do so, there's no reason the useful idiots will not demand that we cave into those lies as well.

What exactly did we reneg on? We're still doing missile defense to cover the same area. Neither system would deter russia, the previous system or the new one. So you're complaining that he sold people out by still doing missile defense. Doesn't seem to make sense. So he's damned either way.
 
I'm still trying to undertsand how Mr. Obama can break a treaty that Mr. Bush signed with the Polish Govn. on this subject. Hmm guess that if your in control of Congress you can do anything like violated terms of Treatys that Congress signs off and only Congress can over-ride.

The agreement was not actually a "treaty."
 
The whole argument over this shield is amusing. Iran is far from having a delivery system, the cost of such a shield is huge, and the fact of the matter is that no one even knows how effective the shield would be.

Far from having a delivery system to do what? You have to draw a distinction between a delivery system to hit the US (which is estimated to come between 2015-2020) or systems to hit Europe, Israel, and our troops in Iraq etc.. If that is the target, they already have delivery systems capable of reaching most of those areas.

As for how effective the shield would be, that is true, we need more testing, but even 50% effectiveness is better than 0% is it not?

From the beginning it was nothing more than a stab at Russia and Obama's goal is to improve relations with Russia in hopes they and China will be more active in reigning in Iran.

If the goal was to gain Russian help in dealing with Iran, why not use the Polish deployment as a bargaining chip instead of giving it away and hoping for the best?

If such a case were to unfold, then the U.S. saves lots of money in building the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, maintaining bases in both countries, and keeping troops there to staff them as well, and Iran is still controlled. What's the problem here?

We are not actually going to save any money. We are still going forward with short and mid-range missile defense in Europe, and Aegis systems are much more expensive than the GMD system that was to go in Poland. Additionally, Aegis systems still need forward radar deployments which will cost money, and to effectively cover Europe in the manner we hope, more Aegis ships will need to be built.

Given that the SM-3 Block IIA is not yet operational, the shield will rely on the SM-3 Block IA which has limited range, has large coverage gaps in Europe, is not fast enough to even conduct an intercept in many areas, and is more expensive.

The CBO did a study in February on this issue and the cost of an Aegis system was more than double the cost of a GMD system. Frankly, what we need is both systems, because by 2018 when we deploy ground based SM-3 Block IIA's (which will require hardened silos and permanent bases, aka costly) it will be again more expensive than the GMD system, and offer still a limited coverage area for the US mainland. It would require the US to operate with interceptors in Alaska and California which only allows for a shoot-look-shoot scenario that means we get one shot and have no redundant capability for the mainland.

Overall, we save no money with the new system, and we get no new leverage. Russia will still be upset, as the new plan still calls for ground based interceptors. Basically, we gave away Poland for free.
 
Far from having a delivery system to do what? You have to draw a distinction between a delivery system to hit the US (which is estimated to come between 2015-2020) or systems to hit Europe, Israel, and our troops in Iraq etc.. If that is the target, they already have delivery systems capable of reaching most of those areas.

As for how effective the shield would be, that is true, we need more testing, but even 50% effectiveness is better than 0% is it not?



If the goal was to gain Russian help in dealing with Iran, why not use the Polish deployment as a bargaining chip instead of giving it away and hoping for the best?



We are not actually going to save any money. We are still going forward with short and mid-range missile defense in Europe, and Aegis systems are much more expensive than the GMD system that was to go in Poland. Additionally, Aegis systems still need forward radar deployments which will cost money, and to effectively cover Europe in the manner we hope, more Aegis ships will need to be built.

Given that the SM-3 Block IIA is not yet operational, the shield will rely on the SM-3 Block IA which has limited range, has large coverage gaps in Europe, is not fast enough to even conduct an intercept in many areas, and is more expensive.

The CBO did a study in February on this issue and the cost of an Aegis system was more than double the cost of a GMD system. Frankly, what we need is both systems, because by 2018 when we deploy ground based SM-3 Block IIA's (which will require hardened silos and permanent bases, aka costly) it will be again more expensive than the GMD system, and offer still a limited coverage area for the US mainland. It would require the US to operate with interceptors in Alaska and California which only allows for a shoot-look-shoot scenario that means we get one shot and have no redundant capability for the mainland.

Overall, we save no money with the new system, and we get no new leverage. Russia will still be upset, as the new plan still calls for ground based interceptors. Basically, we gave away Poland for free.

Good post. Mad props. But I think you are missing a huge point, why are we paying for the protection of Europe? Yes, they are our allies, but the EU has plenty of money to fund their own defense. I do think we must continue to cultivate Poland and other Eastern European states as good allies as well, but the plan Bush put into play was not it at all. Russia has already agreed to more sanctions on Iran if progress is not made in the six-party talks scheduled for next week. Now China is the problem.
 
Good post. Mad props. But I think you are missing a huge point, why are we paying for the protection of Europe? Yes, they are our allies, but the EU has plenty of money to fund their own defense.

Well, under the Bush proposal, the GMD system in Poland, and the radar in the Czech Republic, was a long range interceptor that was designed more to cover the United States than Europe. Therefore the shift to short and mid-range defenses is really the shift to European defense in my opinion.

That said, we have thousands of troops and bases in Europe that would be covered with this shield, so that is a plus. We are a member of NATO (along with much of Europe) so basically we are tied to their defense through treaty as well, as under Article V an attack on one is an attack on all.

All of that said, I am no expert on the EU, but NATO does spend a decent (kind of) amount of money of defenses as well. Keeping NATO together is going to be important I think as the splits between Russia, China, and the US grow, because we can go to NATO for legitimacy is seeking to act in certain situations that are frozen in the Security Council due to politics.

I would also argue the trade and diplomatic leverage we get with the EU is considerable due to our presence and defense, which I would argue, far outweigh the cost of defending Europe. Further, our positions in Europe give us leverage in other parts of the world as well, as we can use our bases there as staging areas, or supply hubs, for operations outside of Europe. That cuts down on the cost that might otherwise be inherent in such an operation.

All in all, I think that if we start backing off from Europe, the transatlantic gap will only widen, and a rising, more independent Europe, will dilute American influence in many sectors of the world.
I do think we must continue to cultivate Poland and other Eastern European states as good allies as well, but the plan Bush put into play was not it at all. Russia has already agreed to more sanctions on Iran if progress is not made in the six-party talks scheduled for next week. Now China is the problem.

I have seen that Russia agreed more sanctions "may" be inevitable. I am wary of such a claim until I see the actual wording and implementation of a Security Council Resolution authorizing them. If they do not declare that the Iranian nuclear program is a "threat to international peace and security" then most likely the sanctions will have little effect.

That said however, I agree that we ought to be reaching out to Eastern and Central Europe.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom