Thread: NATO Missiles in Poland --- Back on track... :-(

Poland and Czech Rep. have been told by the US that there'll be no missiles there after all. Great! Obama is scrapping the old plan by the Bush government.

The planned missile sites were creating tension between Russia and Nato. Of course, in extension those European countries that are members of Nato. This is not what we need in Europe.

Ex-president Bush made the laughable comment that the missiles were to defend Europe against attacks from Iran or North Korea... What a totally ludicrous idea! Nobody European with half a brain-cell or rudimentary knowledge of geography would fear either of those countries. The proposed placement of these missiles was such that it was obvious that Russia was the potential target.

Do we need this kind of war-mongery in Europe? No! It's great news that Obama realised this and backed off. Story about this in two leading British papers which have slightly different political persuations.

The Independant (Liberal I think) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-1788887.html
Times (Semi Conservative) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6838058.ece
This is no doubt also covered in Conservative "The Daily Telegraph" and Labour "The Guardian"

Well, I think the main reason for this decision is a financial crisis . But Obama is a brave man after all. I'm starting to respect him. Of course that cowboy neocon project was completely insane, but it was a part of official US security policy. Now Obama takes a risk being accused in showing "weakness" to "dictator" Putin bla bla bla. But despite that he maked this decision and killed two hares with one shot: saves a lot of money and takes a chance to improve US-Russia relationship. Again, my respect.

America did this to please Russia, but I wonder what would be the price for that?

Originally Posted by Ramil

America did this to please Russia, but I wonder what would be the price for that?

I'm hoping it's vodka!

Well it's a serious question - what does vodka have to do with it? Those missile plans were just like something from the Cold War but with different borders. Very depressing.

I for one think it's time that Europe defend aitself (e.g. scrap Nato and create an EU self defence organisation).

Besides, if there are any serious threats to Europe they are not from Russia but from the poverty in North Africa or possibly from the inflamed situation in the Middle East. Gosh - Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart... that should be proof enough that it is not aggressive!

I think it's completely clear that Russia has no aggressive intentions apart from possibly supporting Russians caught up in situations such as South Ossetia. I don't know why the European continent is packed with American bases 20 years after the end of the Cold War and 75 years after the end of the second world war which brought them there.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I think it's completely clear that Russia has no aggressive intentions [...]

Um... I somewhat find it hard to believe that almost ANY country would have "aggressive intentions". The governments might. And the governments change... from aggressive to defensive and vise versa. (And there's, of course, always a danger things can spin out of control accidentally.) So, fundamentally, I find there's nothing wrong with a country like US trying to protect itself as much as possible against as many threats as possible. Of course, the defense missiles in Poland have most likely very little to do with Iran as opposed to the way the previous US State Department had been trying to assert. But then again, the governments change... so the present State Department has other priorities.

And I am worrying about North Korea. It is a closed country, there even tourists walk with two korean guides who are watching for them. And this country develops nuclear program. Hm... Looks like they are preparing for WWIII.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Well it's a serious question - what does vodka have to do with it? Those missile plans were just like something from the Cold War but with different borders. Very depressing.

I for one think it's time that Europe defend aitself (e.g. scrap Nato and create an EU self defence organisation).

Besides, if there are any serious threats to Europe they are not from Russia but from the poverty in North Africa or possibly from the inflamed situation in the Middle East. Gosh - Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart... that should be proof enough that it is not aggressive!

I think it's completely clear that Russia has no aggressive intentions apart from possibly supporting Russians caught up in situations such as South Ossetia. I don't know why the European continent is packed with American bases 20 years after the end of the Cold War and 75 years after the end of the second world war which brought them there.

The vodka comment was a joke. Lighten up.

Until (if ever) all nuclear bombs are gone from the planet I cannot blame ANY country from trying to defend themselves from nuclear attack.

Originally Posted by fortheether

Until (if ever) all nuclear bombs are gone from the planet I cannot blame ANY country from trying to defend themselves from nuclear attack.

I think that is true until the point there are so many "defenses" that they somehow start firing. And then, of course, there's the nuclear parity rule - "I need a nuclear bomb because you have (or might have) one." It's not at all easy.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I for one think it's time that Europe defend aitself (e.g. scrap Nato and create an EU self defence organisation). [...]

Interesting... what makes you think it's a good idea?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gosh - Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart... that should be proof enough that it is not aggressive!

What an interesting and unusual point of view ... You might consider to have some background research before you're saying anything like that though. The following might be a good starting point:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the _USSR

On March 11, 1990, the Lithuanian SSR, led by Chairman of the Supreme Council Vytautas Landsbergis, declared restoration of independence. However, the Soviet Army attempted to suppress the movement. The Soviet Union initiated an economic blockade of Lithuania and kept troops there "to secure the rights of ethnic Russians."

On January 13, 1991, Soviet troops, along with KGB Spetsnaz Alpha Group, stormed the Vilnius TV Tower in Vilnius, Lithuania to suppress the nationalist media. This ended with 14 unarmed civilians dead and hundreds more injured. Later that month in Georgian SSR, anti-Soviet protesters at Tbilisi demonstrated support for Lithuanian independence.

On the night of July 31, 1991, Russian OMON from Riga, the Soviet military headquarters in the Baltics, assaulted the Lithuanian border post in Medininkai and killed seven Lithuanian servicemen.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

I for one think it's time that Europe defend aitself (e.g. scrap Nato and create an EU self defence organisation). [...]

Interesting... what makes you think it's a good idea?

The question that's more interesting is why the richest continent in the world isn't able to defend itself but needs the help of a country from across half the globe and with quite different political agendas and objectives. The time for American bases in Europe is long past and their departure is overdue. EU joint defence has been on the agenda in Brussels for at least a decade but like everything in the EU it is moving very slowly and Britain in particular is not in favour.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

Gosh - Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart... that should be proof enough that it is not aggressive!

What an interesting and unusual point of view ... You might consider to have some background research before you're saying anything like that though. The following might be a good starting point:

Lithuania is one republic of 15 and it is the events that led to the declaration of independence are just as interesting as the events that you are referring to. But a "liberation war" with only 21 casualties is not exactly going to go down in history as a very dramatic war! (With all due respect to the 21 Lithuanian casualties.)

I can hardly blame Russia for occupying the Baltic States since my country (Sweden) did the exact same thing for a couple of hundred years. Germans have been there several times too. A LOT more than 21 lives were lost when they Sweden lost that area...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by fortheether

Until (if ever) all nuclear bombs are gone from the planet I cannot blame ANY country from trying to defend themselves from nuclear attack.

I think that is true until the point there are so many "defenses" that they somehow start firing. And then, of course, there's the nuclear parity rule - "I need a nuclear bomb because you have (or might have) one." It's not at all easy.

If not impossible.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The question that's more interesting is why the richest continent in the world isn't able to defend itself but needs the help of a country from across half the globe

You aren't serious, are you? Earlier, you said there are still some US bases across Europe. And how many are there European bases across the US? Anything close to Cuba to help the US out? So who's helping whom?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Lithuania is one republic of 15 and it is the events that led to the declaration of independence are just as interesting as the events that you are referring to. But a "liberation war" with only 21 casualties is not exactly going to go down in history as a very dramatic war! (With all due respect to the 21 Lithuanian casualties.)

Well, not only. There were also events in Georgia in 9 April 1989 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7986282.stm). Actually, USSR did try to stop the republics with the military force, but wasn't successful.

You must have misread my post. The continent I was talking about was Europe. The country that I was referring to that's "helping" with the defence was the United States. My point is that it is high time for Europe to take care of its own defence, without involvement by the United States. Europe has the money and it has the skills. But if you are Canadian, why would you care either way about US bases in Europe?

As for your other point, the BBC says "The clashes left 20 people dead," So the toll is at 41 people if the Lithanians are included, and there is a gap of two years in between the two events. I am no expert on Russian history, but if you compare the demise of the USSR with that of any other empire known to man, the loss of lives is miniscule. Compare British empire.. More people probably died in car accidents across the USSR on that particular day in 1989, than in those clashes in Georgia.

Originally Posted by Johanna

My point is that it is time for Europe to take care of its own defence, without involvement by the United States. Europe has the money and it has the skills. But if you are Canadian, why would you care either way about US bases in Europe?

Canada is also a NATO member and it respects the treaties. If you think Europe should desert a military treaty (NATO) I think you should have a really good point. Something more profound than: "Well I need the US to help me while I'm weak and in need, but when I'm strong enough I dump the US and will not help them when they are in need." If you replace the existing military bureaucracy with a new one, you would promote the local staff to the upper ranks so the present colonels become generals with the better offices, more power, and the better pay. And thus they have a strong incentive to promote that idea. But what's in that for you?

Originally Posted by Johanna

if you compare the demise of the USSR with that of any other empire known to man the loss of lives will minimal however you look at it.

I would have agreed with you had the USSR ever mentioned either of the republics were conquered. The claim was always the republics joined willingly and happily. The USSR never ever mentioned it was an "empire". So, when the uprisings started and the military was used it hurt the public image of the USSR so very much hinting it was indeed the empire. Also, the USSR ceased to exist as a result of Belovezhskaya Pushcha Pact, 1991 and not as you mentioned by "Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart". Rather, Russia as a country came about once the USSR fell apart and Yeltzin finally got the level of power he hadn't had before.

Originally Posted by Johanna

More people probably died in car accidents across the USSR on that particular day in 1989, than in those clashes in Georgia.

Please, please, please I beg you never say that. This way you can play down just about anything including terrorism, shootings in schools, serial killings and what not.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The question that's more interesting is why the richest continent in the world isn't able to defend itself but needs the help of a country from across half the globe. [...] You must have misread my post. The continent I was talking about was Europe.

By the way, I'm sorry I have misread your post. I was partially mislead by the fact that according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_dist ... _of_wealth the US alone owns 32.65% of the world's net worth while the entire Europe owns 29.19%. So, I dared to assume the US is presently the richest. But that has nothing to do with our main discussion, so let's just ignore that as an off topic.

Originally Posted by Johanna

You must have misread my post. The continent I was talking about was Europe. The country that I was referring to that's "helping" with the defence was the United States. My point is that it is high time for Europe to take care of its own defence, without involvement by the United States. Europe has the money and it has the skills. But if you are Canadian, why would you care either way about US bases in Europe?

Hopefully some day Europe will not need our "help" in defense. I image it costs a lot of money to be there and some people clearly do not appreciate the "help".

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Hopefully some day Europe will not need our "help" in defense. I image it costs a lot of money to be there and some people clearly do not appreciate the "help".

Yeah... unfortunately an army doesn't usually work that way. It costs a lot to build a base, a lot to maintain the base, and a lot to dismantle the base. And then, if the base is required again (as the governments change sometimes) it costs a lot to build the base again, etc. I wish there would be a better way...

Originally Posted by Johanna

Well it's a serious question [...] Russia even allowed the USSR to fall apart... that should be proof enough that it is not aggressive! I think it's completely clear that Russia has no aggressive intentions [...]

Johanna, please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else. And I'm really sorry if I did. I'm just trying to have an open conversation. And the fact that you posted in Politics section so much invited me to suggest you have some interests in it. Having said that, I'm pretty sensitive when it comes to repeating conclusive decisions without sufficient justification, especially when it comes to questions of life and death for some people.

So, perhaps the following story might take you to where I'm standing and not be offended.

Imagine yourself as a team leader in a think tank. Recently, your organization has received a very important request from your government: assess the level of aggressiveness of the Russian Federation foreign politics. That conclusion would be taken into consideration by the Parliament Defense Committee to devise their strategies and submit the funding request to the Parliament for the upcoming 3-year period. That would be used to prepare the budget according to which some highly skilled people would be fired, others would require some multimillion spending to get trained; a certain arms would be put to conservation and/or modernized, and so forth. Since of it's high importance, the government submitted that request to three competing analytical organizations such as yours. The quality of your organization's report would influence its position as a preferred vendor in the future governmental orders.

You hold a meeting with your team of young and brilliant analysts and brief them as follows:

"Alright, guys, there's an important job being assigned to us - we need to evaluate how aggressive is the foreign Russian politics. Here, on the table are the Russian military production over the last five years, the military intelligence reports, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statements over the last 10 years, economic reports, political analysts editorials over the last three years, ten most influential political blogs and twitters. Round up your sleeves and get to work. You would have to split, so each of you would only receive 3 volumes of 500 pages. In two week you have to produce a conclusive report of up to 10 pages with the solid analysis. And don't copy-paste in your reports, save on space, but provide reliable references to each word you're saying. And off you go!"

So, the two weeks passed and you invite each of your team to submit their report in person. You get the reports full of graphs and tables, extensive lists of references, etc. And then one guy would bring a one-page report with one line of text that states the following: "Presently, Russia has no aggressive intentions because Russia allowed the USSR to fall apart 18 years ago."

And here's my friendly rhetoric question to you: how long would you keep that guy in your team?

So, if you can't convince anyone by stating that thing, how do you allow yourself to be convinced????

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by fortheether

Until (if ever) all nuclear bombs are gone from the planet I cannot blame ANY country from trying to defend themselves from nuclear attack.

I think that is true until the point there are so many "defenses" that they somehow start firing. And then, of course, there's the nuclear parity rule - "I need a nuclear bomb because you have (or might have) one." It's not at all easy.

Well, if everywhere was defended it would be benefitial to launch every nuke, that way they would all be destroyed and there would be no more threat from them.