# Russia Wins



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm

US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says. 

He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski's office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men. 

But Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, denied this. 

Russia opposes the US scheme and has announced plans to deploy missiles on Poland's border as a counter-measure. 

On Friday, EU leaders said the decision would not contribute to creating a climate of confidence or to the improvement of security. 

'No commitment' 

In a statement published on his website on Saturday, Poland's president said Mr Obama had "emphasised the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military co-operation between our countries." 

"He also said that the missile defence project would continue," the statement added. 

When asked about the declaration, McDonough said that the US president-elect had had "a good conversation" with Mr Kaczynski about the American-Polish alliance and discussed missile defence, but "made no commitment on it". 

"His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable," Mr McDonough told the Associated Press. 

In the past, Mr Obama has said he wants to review the plans for a missile defence system in central Europe to ensure it would be effective and not target Russia. 

But the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says the Russian government believes the plan to locate 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic will do exactly that. 

In his first state of the nation address on Wednesday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Moscow would neutralise the system by deploying short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland's border. 

The US military insists the shield is incapable of destroying Russian rockets and is designed solely to guard against missile attack by so-called "rogue states", such as Iran.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2008)

While not exactly surprising, there are some alternatives.

In the larger region, Israel has the Arrow and Patriot PAC III, and Oman is bidding on the THAAD (Theater High Altitude Air Defence) system. The US Navy has one or more Aegis cruisers in the Mediterranean with ABM capabilities as well.

Should Eastern European nations desire ABM systems and the Obama administration refuse them, they can go to Israel for the Arrow, as a developed ABM platform.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2008)

My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.


I think that in a few years, G.W. may not look so bad in hindsight, especially with Russia Resurgent.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2008)

In the future I can see us looking back on the Gee Dubyah years with much fondness


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2009)

And to no real surprise; North Korea is now dealing in:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/01/29/a-change-of-strategy/



> *A Change of Strategy*
> 
> January 29, 2009 8:18 pm Arran Gold American Politics
> 
> ...



I guess we won't even have to wait until 0300 for that phone call......


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jan 2009)

> I guess we won't even have to wait until 0300 for that phone call......



When they call it will be forwarded to voicemail.


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> ... especially with Russia Resurgent.



With the current economic downturn.... Russia doesn't have the petrocash to continue funding all those new projects.

Wither the Russian military once again ???


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When they call it will be forwarded to voicemail.



"Your call is important to us.  If this is a weapons of mass destruction threat, press 1.  If this is an encroachment on traditionally friendly areas, press 2....."


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2009)

If this is the first 30 days, then the remaining four years will be.....interesting:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/02/20/the_biden_prophecy?page=full



> The Biden Prophecy
> by Charles Krauthammer
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, had predicted last October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.
> ...


----------



## oligarch (21 Feb 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.



Your comments are misplaced. The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side - Poland and the Czech Republic. In fact, the public in the Czech Republic is vehemently opposed to having the project in their country. They even had a hunger strike against it.


----------



## geo (21 Feb 2009)

> the public in the Czech Republic is vehemently opposed to having the project in their country


Really? haven,t seen or read anywhere that they are that opposed.  They are opposed to the concept of being swatted down like they were in 1968.

When was the last demonstration of such rabid opposition ?


----------



## old medic (21 Feb 2009)

oligarch said:
			
		

> Your comments are misplaced. The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side



WRONG !  - NATO has backed this.   Get your facts straight, or don't post on subjects you are unfamiliar with.


----------



## oligarch (22 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Really? haven,t seen or read anywhere that they are that opposed.  They are opposed to the concept of being swatted down like they were in 1968.
> 
> When was the last demonstration of such rabid opposition ?



http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=85469&sectionid=351020606

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=312240

http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2008-06-04/Pressure_grows_as_more_join_Czech_hunger_strike.html



			
				geo said:
			
		

> WRONG !  - NATO has backed this.   Get your facts straight, or don't post on subjects you are unfamiliar with.



I am fairly familiar with the subject. Please read my post again and see that my comments did not say anything about whether NATO has "backed" the [US] project or not, but stated an undeniable fact that the project is not a deal with NATO, but a bilateral deal that would have taken place even without NATO backing. The US approached the specific countries first and engaged in dialogue with them for several years, not NATO. It is also paying the countries for the use of their land, improving Poland's millitary, and it is not paying NATO to the best of my knowledge. Hence, The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side, which just happened to be backed by NATO. 

Let me try to put this another way, if I back this project publically, will I become a party to it? I certainly think that I will not.

Further, and this is a personal opinion, I believe NATO's backing of the shield was a PR excercise. NATO simply didn't want to look toothless in the face of the US and didn't want to demonstrate to the world the lack of internal solidarity that it experiences due to continued expansion. Since the project would have continued bilaterally anyway - as it is today - they might as well sound in on it to make themselves look like they are in control. But this is a personal opinion, please don't ask me for references because then I would have to reference myself ))

Cheers!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2009)

So with over an hour of searching you got,....ONE poll, ONE hunger striker, whoops, sorry that now is "a chain"?? of hunger strikers, willing to fast for 24 hours in turn.

Heady opposition, I must say.......


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2009)

> Most voters are afraid the radar base, which the Bush administration claimed to be aimed at deterring attacks from "rouge states" against its European allies, *could expose the nation to terrorist or military attacks* in the event of a conflict between the United States and another country.
> 
> *The rising concerns also pertain to severe opposition to the plan from Russia*, which has strongly objected to the programs as a grave threat to its security. Moscow is threatening to take retaliatory measures "if the United States continues to bring elements of its strategic forces closer to Russia's borders, including missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic."



Oligarch...
From what I can see, the Czech population are afraid of the Russians.... which brings us back to what happened in 1968


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Feb 2009)

It seems a touch premature to say that shutting down a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a sign of Obama backing down to the Russians.  There are a couple of reasons:

A.  The missile shield can't ACTUALLY stop Russian missiles; and

B. All the missile shield was really accomplishing was speeding up the Russian resurgence by boxing them in and making them feel threatened.

Last time I checked, Russia was supposed to be friendly with us.  It would seem to be the west more than Russia itself that is pushing a new cold war by building anti missile systems around a "friend"


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It seems a touch premature to say that shutting down a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a sign of Obama backing down to the Russians.  There are a couple of reasons:
> 
> A.  The missile shield can't ACTUALLY stop Russian missiles; and
> 
> ...



The missile shield is directed towards Iranian missiles (more prescient since Iran has launched a satellite, indicating the capability to reach targets throughout Europe).

As for Russia's supposed friendship, you should review their actions after Boris Yeltsin's administration to judge how "friendly" they have been. If it wasn't the missile shield then other pressure points would have been targeted like the US airbase in central Asia or energy supplies to the EU (and thus NATO alliance). Oh wait.....


----------



## oligarch (24 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Oligarch...
> From what I can see, the Czech population are afraid of the Russians.... which brings us back to what happened in 1968



They oppose the project, whatever their reason may be. If the Czechs are "only opposed because they are afraid of the Russians", does it suddenly make it morally right to force a shield on them and forego democratic principles?


[quote author=Bruce Monkhouse ]
So with over an hour of searching you got,....ONE poll, ONE hunger striker, whoops, sorry that now is "a chain"?? of hunger strikers, willing to fast for 24 hours in turn.
[/quote]

Yes Bruce, I've spent the whole hour time searching the internet just for you. I've provided three links. Next time you want to prove something, I suggest you find ways to do it constructively. Descructive criticism is only practiced in kindergarden, not in the area of intelligent discussion. For example, a constructive argument would entail finding a quote that says the Czech public wants the shield or explaining why the government doesn't want the issue to go to referendum.

And yes, I've been thinking of this response since the last time I wrote. I didn't sleep, I didn't eat, just sat here thinking.

lol


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2009)

And here I'm thinking that before I claimed I was "fairly familiar with the subject", I would be able to produce a whole lot more than what you did.

Remember, I don't claim to know SFA about this subject, I'm just here waiting with bated breath for you to convince me since state you have the knowledge.


----------



## oligarch (25 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And here I'm thinking that before I claimed I was "fairly familiar with the subject", I would be able to produce a whole lot more than what you did.
> 
> Remember, I don't claim to know SFA about this subject, I'm just here waiting with bated breath for you to convince me since state you have the knowledge.



To convince you of what? The Government refuses to hold a refendum on the subject, the majority is against it. Period. What is there to convince you of.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32861/most_czech_adults_oppose_missile_shield

Seriously, just type into google "Czhecs oppose missile base" and "Czechs support missiles base" and see how many results you get in each. I was not able to find one source that said the Czech public is for this. Seriously, you need to take your blinders off.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Feb 2009)

I typed "missile defense czech" and all I got was 380, 000 hits of mostly Russian whining.......the biggest protest I could find was 150 people.
Of course, nice to see now that there is finally some freedom in a lot of Eastern Bloc countries that protests are actually allowed.

I would at least hope you are smart enough to know that a 'google' search hits words and nothing else, certainly not intent..........blinders indeed.......


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

Ralph Peters on how Russia is still cleaning our clocks:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/04/ralph-peters-putin-wins-again.html



> *Ralph Peters: “Putin Wins Again”*
> 
> This is what columnist and former US Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters has to say about Vladimir Putin in the New York Post:
> 
> ...



The last paragraph is the blogger and not Col Peters. There is an element of truth in there, and regardless of how powerful or cunning Putin is, the ultimate fate of Russia is demographic decline (although this will be a problem starting in the 2020's rather than today). How we deal with Russia today sets up the conditions for dealing with a declining and failing Russian state a decade from now...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2010)

With the Obama administration disrespecting our allies the Chinese and Russians will probably score more gains vs the marxist leaning Obama administration. Its a sad day when the government is more sympatico with terrorists and leftist dictators than our friends. The Chinese may decide that Taiwan is right for the picking,hell I could even see Obama cutting a deal with the PRC. No question that Iran will be allowed to gain nuclear weapons which means that Iranian proxies would have them as well. Certainly a much more dangerous world ahead of us in the next several years.


----------

