Thread: В Южной Осетии началась война

[quote=Оля]

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":18thp5ui

смотри на карте, и скажи, какое другое государство ближе к Ирану подходило бы?

Италия
Греция
Турция
(Все члены НАТО, между прочим)[/quote:18thp5ui]

А) разве Польше и чехия не члены НАТО?
Б) Если вы смотришь все вероятные траекторы ракет из Ирана, ты увидишь, что Польша найболее стратегическое место. Если Россия хотела нападать в США, им просто надо через северную полусу пускать и обходят лекго "эту грозу". А Иран никак иначе.

Возвращаемя к Теме: Прочитал очень хорошую статью в газете, и спешу поделить с вами. Прочитая это, я успокоился, может Запад начинает понимать позицию России?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/world ... ?ref=world

"Stung by Criticism Over Georgia, Putin Asks West for a Little Understanding"

MOSCOW — For three and a half hours on Thursday, in tones that were alternately pugilistic and needy, Vladimir V. Putin tried to explain himself.

More than a month has passed since Russia sent columns of armor into Georgia, asserting its sphere of influence with a confidence not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. But since the first hours of this crisis, Russian leaders have been asking the same question with mounting frustration: Why is everyone blaming us for this?

Mr. Putin, Russia’s prime minister, made his case on Thursday in Sochi, Russia, before the Valdai Discussion Club, a collection of Russia experts from around the world. Comments aimed at the West were, at times, rueful — he said he liked President Bush more than many Americans do — and even respectful, as when he asked for a moment of silence in honor of the victims of Sept. 11.

As for the criticism that has cascaded down on his government, Mr. Putin expressed only bafflement that those in the West did not accept Russia’s explanation that it had simply acted in defense of its citizens. How did they expect Russia to respond to the shelling of its peacekeepers in Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, he asked — with “slingshots?” Did they expect him to “brandish a penknife?”

“What else could we do?” the Interfax news agency reported him as saying. “Do you think we should have wiped the bloody snot away and hung our heads?”

His plea was serious. This week, Russia’s diplomatic relations with Europe frayed badly during negotiations about a withdrawal of troops from Georgia. President Dmitri A. Medvedev’s decision to recognize the enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has made even longtime allies like China and Serbia wary of standing with Russia.

But while Russia has been unbending across the negotiating table, what its leaders seem to want more than anything is to be understood.

Mr. Putin issued a great number of reassurances on Thursday: He said Russia had “no ideological conflict” with the West and “no imperial ambitions” in Eastern Europe; he said he supported eliminating stockpiles of nuclear weapons; he said he expected Georgians to oust their president, Mikheil Saakashvili, without any help from Russia. Russia, he said, is “not against anybody.”

Well, almost nobody. Mr. Putin spoke of the Western news media with unbridled contempt.

“I am surprised at how powerful the propaganda machine of the so-called West is,” he said. “This is awesome! Amazing!”

Early in the crisis, monitoring Western news sources from Beijing at the start of the Olympics, he said, he saw “absolute silence, as if nothing was happening. As if this was commanded. I congratulate you. I congratulate those who were involved in this.”

In his remarks to the group, which included prominent political scientists and journalists, Mr. Putin offered a detailed account of Russia’s thrust into Georgia, which he characterized as restrained.

For the first time, Mr. Putin suggested that the military action was aimed in part at quelling instability in the Russian north Caucasus, where he said “certain nongovernmental organizations in certain republics” had “raised the question of separation from Russia under the pretext of nonprotection of South Ossetia.”

“We would have had a new problem if we had not done that,” Interfax reported him as saying.

Mr. Putin is clearly still stung by language used by the European Union, which condemned the Russian invasion as “a disproportionate response” to Georgia’s attack on Tskhinvali. He said Russians had no choice but to proceed beyond the conflict zone to eliminate Georgian posts and ammunition depots — a move he compared to that of the Soviet Army in World War II, which pursued Nazi forces across Soviet borders and into Western Europe.

“By the way, it was not only Soviet forces that entered Berlin,” he said. “There were Americans, the French, the British there. Why did you go there? You could have done some shooting along the borders and called it a day.”

In this conversation — unlike a recent interview on CNN — Mr. Putin gave measured answers, expressing as much regret as defiance. At times, he seemed to be enjoying himself, as when he was asked about the power dynamic between himself and Mr. Medvedev, his prot

[quote=kalinka_vinnie][quote="Оля":2tjjfx9f]

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":2tjjfx9f

смотри на карте, и скажи, какое другое государство ближе к Ирану подходило бы?

Италия
Греция
Турция
(Все члены НАТО, между прочим)[/quote:2tjjfx9f]

А) разве Польше и чехия не члены НАТО?[/quote:2tjjfx9f]
Калинка, перечитай свой первоначальный вопрос. Ты спросил, какое другое государство ближе к Ирану, а не "какие государства члены НАТО".

Б) Если вы смотришь все вероятные траекторы ракет из Ирана, ты увидишь, что Польша найболее стратегическое место.

Прости, но я, видно, плохо разбираюсь в траекториях полета ракет, а из твоего поста я не вижу, чем Польша наиболее стратегическое место, чем та же Турция. Ты не мог бы объяснить?

смотри на глобус, и думай - какой самый короткий ход из Ирана к США?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

смотри на глобус, и думай

Грубовато.

Не надо предлагать собеседнику самому "дотумкать", почему ты прав. Тебе задали вопрос, попросили ответить - ответь. Не можешь - ну тогда конечно, надо сказать "сам(а) догадайся".

Прости, если не так выразался, просто мне не было времени объяснить. Довольно сложно объяснить по неродному языку и так со словами, без рисунок. Постараюсь. ракету пускают, на сами быстрый ход к врагу. Поэтому пускают на северным ходом, если хотят на другую сторону мир. Так и самелоты летают, чтобы менче бензин тратить. Вот. Чтобы ВСТРЕТИТЬ ракету, надо пускать его как ближе в его "путь" навстречу. Нечего там догонять ракету - это будет долго и может не успеть, они хотят ВСТРЕТИТЬ его чтобы попало самым верным мером... это понятно, или я бред польный говорю?

Вот картинка.

А у меня глупый вопрос (наверное, не к Калинке, а ко всем): а почему Америке вообще надо наносить удары по Ирану или Ирану - по Америке? Что, договориться нельзя? На дипломатическом уровне. Я знаю, что между ними нет дипотношений. Но если твоей стране грозят ядерные удары, можно ведь и пойти навстречу, попытаться подружиться, договориться, попросить прощения, все такое прочее...

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Вот картинка.

А если Иран пустит ракету через восточное полушарие? Расстояние примерно такое же.

kalinka, let me tell you a story. Two guys R and U are roommates. Their relationship is complex. In part, because U has recently knocked down to death one of R's business partners (let's call him H) and took over his business. And it's true that U has some trouble getting along with some of H's wives and therefore regularly gets it on his head with a pan, but still ...

One day, R comes home just to find a box mounted over his bed. The following conversation takes place:

R: Hey! What's that? Who put that box over my bed?
U: Never mind, it's mine. Don't worry.
R: And why is that over my bed?
U: Simple. You see that black bird wants to fly through our window and hurt me. So, I have a small hammer to scare the bird off. And I store that hammer in the box over your bed.
R: But why is that over MY bed? Put it over YOURS if you want!
U: Well, the window has an opening by your side of the room.
R: I can't care less! How would you feel if I put my box over your bed?
U: You kidding! You can't really do that. The opening is by your side of the room.
R: But I don't care about the bird! And what had that bird done to you anyways?
U: It looks evil. Besides, it wants to eat that funny little snake.
R: But that snake is poisonous! And it said clearly it will sting the bird before it could even fly!
U: Yeah! That's my snake! Isn't it funny?
R: You know, I don't care too much about the bird. You buy my oil. We're friends. I don't feel comfortable having this thing over my head. What if it falls down at night?
U: Not with my high-tech screws! Sleep tight!
R: But why don't you go out and just kill the bloody bird?
U: Yeah, I think I should do it too.
R: Then, no box over my head?
U: Sorry, the box stays.
R: Dude! That doesn't make any sense! I'm cool with the bird and the bird is cool with me. It's YOU who have an issue here. I don't want to be involved!
U: You wouldn't. Don't worry. I'm buying your oil. We're friends. Sleep tight.
R: But H was also your friend! I clearly remember you were buying oil from H too and even more! You and H used to try and catch that bird together some time back! What happened? The dude is now a permanent client of Mount Pleasant! Can't you see my point?
U: Not really. I don't see how all that involves you in any manner.
R: The hammer, moron! The hammer over my bed!
U: It's because the bird ...
R: Whoa! Wait a minute! Is that what you really want to do? Knock me with that hammer?
U: What harm a small hammer could ever do to you? You're working out every day!
R: I don't know! Maybe you will replace the hammer with a knife. Maybe you will use the hammer to knock my nerves by the knee so I couldn't fight you back. Too many "maybe!" Given the history with H, I don't want to take on that risk.
U: Nah! Nothing of that could ever happen. I'm buying your oil. We're friends. Stop being paranoid!
R: Easy of you to say! No one keeps a hammer over YOUR head. And you didn't let me do it some time ago, remember? We almost started fighting that day. And also I see you bought more boxes!
U: Stop being paranoid. Sleep tight. We're friends. Don't be chicken.
R: I'm sick and tired of that talk! If you don't get down that box in ten minutes I will dismantle it myself!
U: I dare you to knock it down.
R: So, you think I'm chicken, huh? I'll take your box with all your high-tech screws and stick it in your ***!
U: You talk like that to your mama, *******!
R: ******* your ***! I'm gonna ****** your ****** with your ****** ****** bird and your ******* ******* and ********, ********!
U: You wanna piece of me?
R: I want the whole of ya!

Kalinka, ты думаешь оно того стоит?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

kalinka, let me tell you a story...

Ацко отжиг

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Вот картинка.

А если Иран пустит ракету через восточное полушарие? Расстояние примерно такое же.

Ты имеешь в виду, на восточное побережье США? Действительно, чтобы полностью защищаться, надо какие-те американские базы в России!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

kalinka, let me tell you a story

An amusing story, I must admit! Of course, that's all what it is... an amusing story. Now listen, folks, I am not saying that America should put a missile base in Poland, I am just trying to explain why America wants it there. And, contrary to your belief, it isn't to attack Russia.

Originally Posted by Оля

А у меня глупый вопрос (наверное, не к Калинке, а ко всем): а почему Америке вообще надо наносить удары по Ирану или Ирану - по Америке? Что, договориться нельзя? На дипломатическом уровне. Я знаю, что между ними нет дипотношений. Но если твоей стране грозят ядерные удары, можно ведь и пойти навстречу, попытаться подружиться, договориться, попросить прощения, все такое прочее...

Это не глупый вопрос, а довольно остроумное. Я считаю, что США сама виновата. Их агрессивная зарубежная политика отстранит и союзников - государств, простых людей и прочих. Поэтому появятся популярные лидеры в других стран, которые популярные только потому, что они против США. Одна надежда: смена власти в Белом доме!

я так считаю.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Now listen, folks, I am not saying that America should put a missile base in Poland, I am just trying to explain why America wants it there. And, contrary to your belief, it isn't to attack Russia.

True words. All I was trying to say is that Russia has all the rights in the world to get alarmed. You see, if Russia doesn't get the explanation about a missile base in Poland (however convincing might that explanation be from the US' point of view) it can lead to much more dangerous situation than what we have today with Iran. And that in my opinion is the sufficient reason to stop the "box" process.

The same could be said about "buying more boxes." If the US, say, invests in military coaching of Georgia, what would the military target for Georgia be? Iran? Unlikely. So if Georgia wants to be "an integral part of the West" why should that necessarily imply the membership in NATO? If Georgia wants to save on the amount of its army but still feel confident, that doesn't necessarily imply NATO membership either. By no means was Kosovo a member of NATO. However, NATO gladly helped it in need. And to Kuwait as well. Had Kuwait ever been a NATO member? I can assure you that if Georgia would have been attacked by Russia, NATO wouldn't stay still regardless of whether Georgia is actually a member of NATO or not.

And again, I'm not trying to say that NATO is longing to attack Russia. Most probably not. But things like NATO expansion near Russian borders should run by Russia first. And if not approved by Russia, the expansion should be terminated. Regardless of Iran. Does that make sense?

[quote=kalinka_vinnie]

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":1dr4r3u3

Вот картинка.

А если Иран пустит ракету через восточное полушарие? Расстояние примерно такое же.

Ты имеешь в виду_ на восточное побережье США? Действительно, чтобы полностью защититься, надо какие-то американские базы и в России!
[/quote:1dr4r3u3]
Нет, как раз на западное. В Калифорнию, к примеру. Тогда не в России, а в Китае нужны перехватчики.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Ты имеешь в виду_ на восточное побережье США? Действительно, чтобы полностью защититься, надо какие-то американские базы и в России!

Нет, как раз на западное. В Калифорнию, к примеру. Тогда не в России, а в Китае нужны перехватчики. [/quote]

я сказал восточное восточное побережье, а хотел сказать западное. В любом случае, если смотришь на глобус, самый короткий путь тменно через Россию (и Казакстан). А через китай намного дальше.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

True words. All I was trying to say is that Russia has all the rights in the world to get alarmed. You see, if Russia doesn't get the explanation about a missile base in Poland (however convincing might that explanation be from the US' point of view) it can lead to much more dangerous situation than what we have today with Iran. And that in my opinion is the sufficient reason to stop the "box" process.

But Russia has received the explanation, it just doesn't accept it. I think all this about missile base = west vs. russia is all rhetoric on Russia's part, to get more attention

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The same could be said about "buying more boxes." If the US, say, invests in military coaching of Georgia, what would the military target for Georgia be? Iran?

I think, and I won't speak for the American adiministration here, that the goal of the Americans with training the Gerogians was:
1) A favor returned for Georgian helping in Iraq
2) To create a well-trained army as a deterrent for anybody who would want to invade this American ally (and we all saw how that was a waste of time and money) and "democratically" elected government

I don't think the Americans were smart enough to realize that the Georgians would use the american equipment to attack their own citizens. Of course, now they have to cover their guilt by blaming it on the Russians!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Unlikely. So if Georgia wants to be "an integral part of the West" why should that necessarily imply the membership in NATO? If Georgia wants to save on the amount of its army but still feel confident, that doesn't necessarily imply NATO membership either.

NATO membership implies (in many goverments view) protection from outside threats. But NATO membership isn't automatically given to any willy-nilly country who wants it. That process is long and demanding, and Georgia (and Ukraine) is FAR from membership. however, with the recent events, they might be closer.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

By no means was Kosovo a member of NATO. However, NATO gladly helped it in need. And to Kuwait as well. Had Kuwait ever been a NATO member? I can assure you that if Georgia would have been attacked by Russia, NATO wouldn't stay still regardless of whether Georgia is actually a member of NATO or not.

The NATO campaigns you mentioned are indeed controversial, no doubt about that. But you can't say they were not unprovoked. I am don't have the foresight to tell what would have happened if Georgia was a part of NATO. I guess, if it was, it wouldn't have internal breakaway conflicts which I believe is a criteria for NATO membership.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And again, I'm not trying to say that NATO is longing to attack Russia. Most probably not. But things like NATO expansion near Russian borders should run by Russia first. And if not approved by Russia, the expansion should be terminated. Regardless of Iran. Does that make sense?

While in a perfect world, everybody would be invovled in everybodies decisions, then in that world NATO would be unneccesary. However, I don't see why Russia shouldn't join NATO themselves?

Ты имеешь в виду, на восточное побережье США

Да блин У Калинки правильно было, с запятой.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Поэтому появятся популярные лидеры в других стран, которые популярные только потому, что они против США.

Умная мысль. Весьма проницательно.

Originally Posted by Оля

Ты имеешь в виду, на восточное побережье США

Да блин У Калинки правильно было, с запятой.

Сорри, запятые моё больное место.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

But Russia has received the explanation, it just doesn't accept it.

Exactly! That's the whole point. And (back to my story) given the recent history with Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction explanation the further State Department's "explanations" should be taken with a bit of skepticism, wouldn't you agree? So, maybe it's a little bit more from Russian side than just "rhetoric on Russia's part, to get more attention."

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

The NATO campaigns you mentioned are indeed controversial, no doubt about that. But you can't say they were not unprovoked.

I agree. Also, I'd say that almost nothing is ever unprovoked. And if Russia ever attacks Georgia, that would be a good enough provocation for NATO to intervene, right? If yes, then no NATO membership for Georgia is necessary.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

However, I don't see why Russia shouldn't join NATO themselves?

Honestly, I have no clue. My guess would be that the rationale for Russia of not joining NATO might somewhat be similar to the rationale for the US of not joining the Russian-Belarussian union. And the rationale is "WHY SHOULD WE DEPEND ON SOMEONE ELSE IF WE CAN DO IT OURSELVES?"

Kalinka, you should consider the following:

1. Iran has no ballistic missile designs that are capable of hitting the US territory (in fact, Iran can't hit even EU with its current missiles).
2. It would be years or even decades before Iran could create an intercontinental ballistic missile.
3. It would take years to enrich enough Uranium to create at least one device.
4. Even if we imagine that Iran has the technology, funds and facility to create such weapons, the most probable target would be Israel rather than USA.

5. From the other hand, North Korea has succeeded in testing its ballistic missiles which experts say could soon be powerful enough to hit targets in North America. And it succeeded in testing a nuclear device also.

There are several questions:

1. Why the US don't make haste in building an ABM installation near Korea considering more real a threat from there?
2. Why wouldn't US build an ABM facility in Turkey instead? Turkey is the most advantageous region for that purpose - you could hit enemy missiles on the acceleration phase when they are vulnerable the most. And Turkey is the NATO member - you don't need tons of paperwork as it has been with Poland and Czech.
3. Russia has the radar in Azerbaijan that covers the whole Iran territory. Why didn't US use it?

I'll tell you why.
Building radar facilities in Poland allows NATO cover the whole European part of Russian airspace. US can claim we're friends but this doesn't demean the fact that this ABM facility gives an early warning about ballistic missile launches. So this facility provides an advantage in case of hypotetical nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. Thus many russian nuclear silos risk being destroyed even before missiles are launched (some older types of missiles require 20-30 minutes to fuel up while SLBM launched from the sub in Arctic can hit the launch site in 5-10 minutes).
The nuclear parity has been guaranteeing peace for the last 60 years, now USA is trying to shift the balance. Of course its 10 interceptors won't hold the whole Russian arsenal, but who said that there will always be only 10 of them?

There's more:
If USA is concerned about nuclear program of Iran it could invade it and bomb it to dust as it did with many other countries, but no - they mantain that they're building the site for defending Europe from some hypotetical nuclear threat in future while they could spy on Russian airspace even today with this radar. I repeatt - it will be years or even decades before Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear payload onto USA (if this ever happens).

Originally Posted by Ramil

Kalinka, you should consider the following:

1. Iran has no ballistic missile designs that are capable of hitting the US territory (in fact, Iran can't hit even EU with its current missiles).
2. It would be years or even decades before Iran could create an intercontinental ballistic missile.
3. It would take years to enrich enough Uranium to create at least one device.
4. Even if we imagine that Iran has the technology, funds and facility to create such weapons, the most probable target would be Israel rather than USA.

5. On the other hand, North Korea has succeeded in testing its ballistic missiles which experts say could soon be powerful enough to hit targets in North America. And it succeeded in testing a nuclear device also.

1. But they are trying to develop some, something that their recent missile test shows
2. What makes you say that? That's a pure guess from anybody except for those who have the intelligence. And with a little help from the right people, they could have the capability in the very near future.
3. Why does the world's largest producer of natural gas suddenly want nuclear technology? Years turn fast into days and minutes. The eventual base in Poland won't be built in a day either. Why wait until the threat is imminent?
4. A) Israel already has the patriot missiles capable of intercepting low-flying targets B) From a pure risk mitigation scenario, I don't think USA is likely to accept the risk of a nuclear strike on their country just because Israel is more likely to be hit first.
5. Very true. And no country is in the trajectory path, analogous to Poland. I am sure the US Navy has deployed similar missiles in the Pacific ocean.

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are several questions:

1. Why doesn't the US make haste in building an ABM installation near Korea considering a more real threat from there?
2. Why wouldn't US build an ABM facility in Turkey instead? Turkey is the most advantageous region for that purpose - you could hit enemy missiles on the acceleration phase when they are the most vulnerable. And Turkey is a NATO member - you don't need tons of paperwork as it has been with Poland and Czech.
3. Russia has the radar in Azerbaijan that covers the whole Iran territory. Why didn't US use it?

1. As I tried to explain to Оля, for the technology to work, you need to be at the right location near the trajectory of the ballistic missile. Apart from Russian Kamchatka, there are no foreign territories to place them in. But I am sure the US Navy has thought about that threat and taken the appropriate measures. Implying otherwise is simply ludicrous.
2. A) This whole deal is done outside of NATO. NATO has not sanctioned this American plan.
B) Both Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO members
C) Turkey isn't in an as advantageous location as Poland. Add to the fray a Muslim country with strong resentment to America... you get the picture.
3. That's a good point, and Putin did offer it to Bush. According to the American officials, it is too close to Iran to serve as a mid-course radar, which is the operation range of the ABM. Add to the mix that the American military would have to rely on Russia for their homeland security, then you can understand why they are a little hesitant. Especially when the reliability of Russian support (and gas) has been, in the West's eyes, questionable.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'll tell you why.
Building radar facilities in Poland allows NATO cover the whole European part of Russian airspace. US can claim we're friends but this doesn't demean the fact that this ABM facility gives an early warning about ballistic missile launches. So this facility provides an advantage in case of hypothetical nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. Thus many russian nuclear silos risk being destroyed even before missiles are launched (some older types of missiles require 20-30 minutes to fuel up while SLBM launched from the sub in Arctic can hit the launch site in 5-10 minutes).
The nuclear parity has been guaranteeing peace for the last 60 years, now USA is trying to shift the balance. Of course its 10 interceptors won't hold the whole Russian arsenal, but who said that there will always be only 10 of them?

Again, this isn't a NATO installation. Besides, NATO already has powerful radars in Latvia and Estonia looking deep into Russian territory. The world is an evolving place, and what worked for 60 years might not be suitable for threats of the future. Look at it from America's standpoint. If this threat from Iran is real (and that is debatable), they need to do something to prevent it from happening. This is exactly what they are doing. Russia has the right to be suspicious and the right to express their concerns, but I think they are greatly exaggerating.

Originally Posted by Ramil

There's more:
If USA is concerned about nuclear program of Iran it could invade it and bomb it to dust as it did with many other countries, but no - they maintain that they're building the site for defending Europe from some hypothetical nuclear threat in future while they could spy on Russian airspace even today with this radar. I repeat - it will be years or even decades before Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear payload onto USA (if this ever happens).

You seem to be an expert on Iranian technology capabilities, quite excellent! And bombing Iran is an option that Israel is actively considering. I don't think America has the willpower or the capability to start another war. The forces are stretched too thin and some generals have even publicly said that would be a great mistake. Furthermore, the American people are fed up with the Iraq war, and you'll see that reflected in the presidential election...