Moscow may target weapons at Europe

[Lamri]

Oh for fecks sake, as if there isn't enough tension in the world right now!

The Old Bear has New Claws!

 

[Not_a_boffin]

And they stopped when exactly?

Doesn't take a genius to work out that when the FSB is more active than ever and we're all convinced sand-based COIN is the future that Ivan will look after number 1...

 

[andym]

And who controls the supply of Gas to the UK??????He doesnt really need Missiles!

 

[Lamri]

And they stopped when exactly?

Doesn't take a genius to work out that when the FSB is more active than ever and we're all convinced sand-based COIN is the future that Ivan will look after number 1...

Erm, second paragraph mate, if you can believe THAT

 

[sussex2]

Tit for Tat with the U.S. probably as don't they want to use Poland for some of their stuff.

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

Shouldn't this be "Moscow may target Europe with weapons"? Just a minor point; you aim weapons and, err, target targets (ie designate). Had it been "on" Europe, common usage may have allowed a pass.

 

[Lamri]

Shouldn't this be "Moscow may target Europe with weapons"? Just a minor point; you aim weapons and, err, target targets (ie designate). Had it been "on" Europe, common usage may have allowed a pass.

Go and ask the BBC, its a quote

 

[Not_a_boffin]

Sorry Lamri

That's what I meant - I don't believe that lot (BBC) for a second, let alone that nice Mr Putin.

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

Lamri; sorry, I wasn't having a go at you and I should have clarified that point. It's a constant source of annoyance to me that civilians, journos and "celebrities" in particular, take milspeak and mangle it beyond recognition. Things like the oft heard "targeting resources" is just one example. The other one that grips me is the phrase "to go ballistic"; meaning to depart from controlled and sustained flight in its original aviation expression. Sorry, rant over.

To topic, the Russian view is not difficult to understand. If two opposing blocs agree throw weights under previous SALTs, deploying, for whatever reason, enhanced countermeasures on one side does tip the balance unfavourably. I don't think Putin is daft enough to suggest that the missiles deployed in former Warsaw Pact states are a direct threat. It does make it theoretically possible, though, for the West (whatever that is these days) to play the nuclear strike card without risking a significant counter strike.

If this is a serious antidote to rogue States or fanatical groups, maybe the Russians should be invited to take part. We do tend to forget that Johnny Ra***ad is just as likely to poke Ivan the Bear at some juncture.

 

[Maxi_77]

Lamri; sorry, I wasn't having a go at you and I should have clarified that point. It's a constant source of annoyance to me that civilians, journos and "celebrities" in particular, take milspeak and mangle it beyond recognition. Things like the oft heard "targeting resources" is just one example. The other one that grips me is the phrase "to go ballistic"; meaning to depart from controlled and sustained flight in its original aviation expression. Sorry, rant over.

To topic, the Russian view is not difficult to understand. If two opposing blocs agree throw weights under previous SALTs, deploying, for whatever reason, enhanced countermeasures on one side does tip the balance unfavourably. I don't think Putin is daft enough to suggest that the missiles deployed in former Warsaw Pact states are a direct threat. It does make it theoretically possible, though, for the West (whatever that is these days) to play the nuclear strike card without risking a significant counter strike.

If this is a serious antidote to rogue States or fanatical groups, maybe the Russians should be invited to take part. We do tend to forget that Johnny Ra***ad is just as likely to poke Ivan the Bear at some juncture.

I'm affraid Dear Mr Putin is suggesting missiles park in Poland are a direct threat, what ever the motivation for putting them there in the first place are. This is back to good old cold war stuff, and I think in the coming moths we will see much more of Punchy Putin. After all if he gets this deployment stopped it is a big victory for him with his electorate, and it helps his chum Imadinnerjacket as well, so even more arms sales to Persia.

 

[Lamri]

Thing is, its probably all misrepresentation. Poland must've signed this deal to let the US place that missile silo there eons ago in political terms, and Russia are probably just trying to bully the Poles around (again). This has parallels with the "Stop and erm, not search" Law over here in the respect of "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear". By that I mean that why is Russia so set against an anti-missile silo in Poland unless they are thinking of launching against the West? Worth thinking about, lets face it, Russia is still in massive decline and theres nothing like a war (Cold at least) to boost the economy. Are we playing into the hands of Putin? I think maybe we are.

 

[Maxi_77]

Putin is certainly a force to be reconned with, he clearly has the organs of state well under his control, perhaps this is not surprising for some one who has his rots in the KGB. Even so now that Russia is relatively democratic he does need the popular vote to stay in power and has an election coming up next year. Thsu I suspect we will see a lot more sabre rattling from him over the coming months as he works to prove he is the strong man to restore Russian prestige and improve the economy. Now he has probably squeezed gas prises as far as tey can do he needs more exports and arms are an area where there could be growth, and being able to have comparisons made between his goodies and the Yankee stuff is in his eyes a good move. Some of his best customers are looking more to the west, with the exception of Persia so a little sabre rattling and aiming to return some of the old cold war polarisation may well seem to him to be good for business.

 

[UncleAlbert]

Shouldn`t worry about it …..Russia can`t feed itself and until it can will never be a threat to the west….
That may seem to be an oversimplification but Russia needs us more than we need them and the people with their fingers on the buttons know it.




…

 

[Maxi_77]

Shouldn`t worry about it …..Russia can`t feed itself and until it can will never be a threat to the west….
That may seem to be an oversimplification but Russia needs us more than we need them and the people with their fingers on the buttons know it.




…

The fact they have problems feeding themselves is in fact a potential cause for war, just to take our food. Countries with such basic internal problems as food production are often the most unstable and see foreign adventures as a means of pulling the nation together in a unified cause. Just think if the Ruskies wanted to get food from the EU mountains and the EU played hardball perhaps some one like Putin would unlease the red horde, as to do anything else would be political suicide, and guys like him do not deliberately commit suicide.

 

[Not_a_boffin]

I could have sworn that at one time, we used to take Soviet cereal production figures VERY seriously, particularly when they diverged from what the overheads were telling us. Why could that have been.......?

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

I think we need to make it clear that the missiles and fire control systems that are causing the fuss are anti ICBM and Putin understands that.

BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6719507.stm Mr Putin issued his warning in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of the G8 meeting.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we will have to have new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.


Russia has tested a new ballistic missile to restore 'strategic balance'

He said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the US was seeking to shoot down.

"We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.

Top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iran's missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.

Mr Putin said Washington had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

He hoped US officials would change their minds about the missile plan, and said that if an arms race resulted it would not be Russia's fault.

Last week, Moscow announced it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

These missiles are seen by Russia as an indirect threat that upsets the nuclear balance. That is why we can expect the Russians to increase their warhead numbers. They need to saturate the ICBM screen. I think he also has a point about the timing. Developing a screen is one thing but deploying it before "rogue states" are even close to a strike capability is another. I am so glad that the US Government is our bestest friend!

Maxi makes a very good point that a Russia in crisis and unstable is more dangerous than one that isn't. If Putin wants an excuse to be justifiably beligerant, it's being handed to him on a plate. The diplomacy of the OK Corral isn't going to get us very far.

 

[Backpacker1uk]

Thing is, its probably all misrepresentation. Poland must've signed this deal to let the US place that missile silo there eons ago in political terms, and Russia are probably just trying to bully the Poles around (again). This has parallels with the "Stop and erm, not search" Law over here in the respect of "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear". By that I mean that why is Russia so set against an anti-missile silo in Poland unless they are thinking of launching against the West? Worth thinking about, lets face it, Russia is still in massive decline and theres nothing like a war (Cold at least) to boost the economy. Are we playing into the hands of Putin? I think maybe we are.

Now not siding with the Russkies for one min. But!!

I recall a thing called "The Cuban Missile Crisis" where instant sunshine was nearly here. Yet is ok to offload anything and everything in new claimed friends land. USA are the good guys remember.

Like I say not siding with the Russkies!!

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Their SS20's ,etc were always targeted at us anyway, unless you believe CNDs propaganda lifted directly from Red Star. Perhaps we should offer to retarget all our weapons on France in return for unilateral military disarmament by the Russian Empire? Nice to see the old certainties of Pax Russica return.

 

[stumpy]

It is worrying, especially given the whole picture:

Russia threatening to retarget Europe (which means they probably have anyway).

Russians, allegedly, using Pollonium to assassinate on UK soil.

Russia killing journos in Russia.

Increasing Russian control over our fuel supplies.

If you see the Cold War not as Capitalism vs Communism, but the West dealing with Russian nationalism under Communist cloathes then it is time to order more Astutes...!

 

[Lamri]

I recall a thing called "The Cuban Missile Crisis" where instant sunshine was nearly here. Yet is ok to offload anything and everything in new claimed friends land. USA are the good guys remember.

I agree that there are definitely similarities between the two episodes.
Maybe Russia want the technology but the US obviously won't pass it on because it'll be sold within the hour to Iran. These aren't offensive weapons remember, they are purely defensive and as far as the US is telling everyone, they are to protect against North Korea and Iran both of which have, I think, quite close ties to Russia. I still think that this posturing has more to do with an attempt at bullying Poland coupled with an attempt to kick-start some kind of cold war, all for Russia's economy and standing on the world stage.