# Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine



## Mike Baker (14 Feb 2008)

LINK


Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 7:57pm GMT 12/02/2008



Russia has threatened to target the Ukraine with nuclear warheads if the former Soviet republic joins Nato and accepts the deployment of United States anti-missile defences on its territory. 


President Vladimir Putin of Russia warned Ukraine's leader Viktor Yushchenko of "retaliatory actions" should his country join the Western alliance during a joint press conference in Moscow.

"It's frightening not just to talk about this, but even to think about, that in response to such deployment, the possibility of such deployments - and one can't theoretically exclude these deployments - that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory," he said. 

The Russian and Ukrainian leaders had just held emergency talks in the Kremlin to avert a energy supply crisis over Kiev gas bill - a similar dispute two years ago led to power cuts across Europe. 

Mr Yushchenko responded to the Russian pressure by insisting on Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy while stressing that his country's constitution would not allow US military bases on its territory. 

"You understand well that everything that Ukraine does in this direction is not in any way directed at any third country, including Russia," he replied.

"We follow the principle that any nation has the right to define its own security. Our constitution does not allow deployment by a third country or bloc on Ukrainian territory." 

Mr Putin has condemned Washington's plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield as a "new phase in the arms race". 

Russia fears the shield will threaten its national security and tip strategic military balance in Europe.

"The goal [of the missile shield] is to neutralise our nuclear capabilities," said Mr Putin. 

"This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action."

Moscow has already declared that Russia will pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which came into force in 1992 and restricts the deployment of troops and tanks near sensitive European frontiers. 

Last week, John Chipman, the head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned that the "next target of Moscow's assertive revisionism "could be the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987.

Both would be moves that would allow Russia to build a new generation of medium-range nuclear missiles capable of striking Western Europe. As relations between Russia and many of its near neighbours deteriorate, Ukraine has submitted a formal membership request to Nato, to be considered a summit of alliance leaders in the Romanian capital of Bucharest this April. 

Mr Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the meeting and Russia's parliament last month voted to stop using Soviet-built military radars in Ukraine because of Kiev's Nato ambitions.

The prospect of Nato membership is also deeply controversial in the Ukraine, where opinion polls show that over half of the country opposes it. 

Russia has revived the long-range air patrols that were once a standard feature of the Cold War and US defence officials confirmed that a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers overflew a US aircraft carrier in the western Pacific at an altitude of 2,000 feet (660 meters) over the weekend.

Four F-18 fighters jets intercepted the Russian bombers on Saturday morning, but not before they had overflown the USS Nimitz. 

It was the second time since July 2004 that a Russian Bear bomber has overflown a US aircraft carrier. 

It was not immediately known whether the United States issued any protests with the Russians.


----------



## Charon (14 Feb 2008)

No offense but this article is not just little alarmist.  Russia has previously stated that if any of their former republics or client states joined NATO, they would be targeted.

Russia also pulled out of the CFE because they got tired of waiting for NATO to ratify the document.  This is just the same old same old, in Russian foreign policy


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Feb 2008)

A little Island in the Caribbean has been in the penalty box for almost 50 years for taking a much smaller step toward ICBMs at 10 paces than this one.  Maybe if the embargo on Cuba was lifted, there might be a case for a bit of moral tub thumping here.  My flu med addled take, anyway.


----------



## oligarch (2 May 2008)

Being fairly familiar with Russian Politics and being of Russian decent myself, I can say with plain certainty that this articule is merely fear mongering disinformation designed merely to do one thing... SELL SELL SELL... people find this interesting in Canada and buy into the whole "new cold war" rhetoric. Russia did not by any means "threaten an attack", as the title of the article implies, but it has pointed out that in case Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will have to re-aim some of its missiles to new targets which it sees as a possible threat. Re-aiming of Russian missiles at areas into which NATO expands does not constitute a threat any more to NATO than the expansion of NATO itself closer to the borders of Russia. There is a lot of potential for Russian-Canadian co-operation in the arctic, fishing, lumber, and other areas. This has to stop!!!!


----------



## oligarch (6 May 2008)

Upon review of the above posts, I'd also like to make another comment. Perhaps it is more of a question I have for critics of Russian "withdrawl" from the CFE, which is actually not a "withdrawl", but a moratorium untill Russia's western partners ratify the treaty, as they have promised they would. Why should Russia NOT impose a moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty if NATO members refuse to ratify it? Is the whole point of a bilateral treaty not to make BOTH sides feel safe? If NATO members ratified the treaty, as a bilateral and equal partnership would require them to do, and as is stated in the tready, then Russia would have no problem with it. Why should Russia unilaterally disarm and limit the movement of its Armed Forces and millitary bases on its OWN TERRITORY if it is not seeing reciprocity in the west? That would be... just... well... stupid? I'd also like to say that the Georgian and Transdniester argument is nothing but a red heirring, as the CFE is by no means linked to those regions, and neither are those regions NATO members. There are no legal grounds to use the Russian bases in these regions as a delay mechanism for ratification by Russia's western partners.


----------



## Greymatters (7 May 2008)

You know, you cant keep making excuses for everything Russia does.  Putin made a public statement making a threat, and Western papers perceived it as serious.  Sending Bears to overfly a USS carrier doesnt help either.  Its a combination of political and military posturing that cant be made to disappear with a few on-line denials...


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

Russia is a nuclear power and has one of the strongest armies in the world. It does not need to “make excuses” for everything it does. It am merely explaining the rationale, which – to me – seems valid. “If you take out your weapon, I’ll take out mine”. I fail to see how that constitutes to be a “threat”. I’ve watched the over 2 hours of Putin’s press conference in Russian in which he said this, without translations or added reporter commentary, and this is the information I am trying to get across. I believe the over flight occurred in international waters?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> It am merely explaining the rationale, which – to me – seems valid. “If you take out your weapon, I’ll take out mine”. I fail to see how that constitutes to be a “threat”.



The proposed US forces for Ukraine (I believe it has already been proposed, however I may be mistaken) is for a missile shield. Not an offensive weapon. So, if I'm understanding your rationalization and we take it down a few levels, if two parties are holding a longstanding grudge against each other, and one puts bullet resistant glass on their car, does this make it valid for the other party to draw a gun, or a howitzer for that matter?



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> I’ve watched the over 2 hours of Putin’s press conference in Russian in which he said this, without translations or added reporter commentary, and this is the information I am trying to get across. I believe the over flight occurred in international waters?



International waters or not, provocation is provocation is provocation. A bomber flying towards an aircraft carrier at low altitude is provocative, and what should happen if the carrier fires on the Bear in self defense because it was perceived as an imminent threat?

Midget


----------



## Captain Coffee (7 May 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> The proposed US forces for Ukraine (I believe it has already been proposed, however I may be mistaken) is for a missile shield. Not an offensive weapon. So, if I'm understanding your rationalization and we take it down a few levels, if two parties are holding a longstanding grudge against each other, and one puts bullet resistant glass on their car, does this make it valid for the other party to draw a gun, or a howitzer for that matter?



Actually the analogy would be more like, if two parties had a grudge but were at peace and each carried swords.  One party tried to put a concrete block on the end of the others' sword.  Does this make it valid for the other party to aim their sword at the bag of concrete?

Missile Defence is not all about defence it's about "We can use ours, but you can't use yours."

See what the Americans would say if Russia was deploying a missile defence network of its own!  Make this little spat look like an Episode of the Full House!


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> The proposed US forces for Ukraine (I believe it has already been proposed, however I may be mistaken) is for a missile shield. Not an offensive weapon. So, if I'm understanding your rationalization and we take it down a few levels, if two parties are holding a longstanding grudge against each other, and one puts bullet resistant glass on their car, does this make it valid for the other party to draw a gun, or a howitzer for that matter?



Captial Coffee pretty much summed up my point of view on this issue, I had a simmilar analogy. For the US and Russia the missiles are already aimed at each other and the other side is effectively putting on a vest after BOTH sides have drawn their guns. Of course, my reaction would to redirect some of my efforts on eliminating the advantage of the bullet proof vest (or block of concrete).



			
				uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> International waters or not, provocation is provocation is provocation. A bomber flying towards an aircraft carrier at low altitude is provocative, and what should happen if the carrier fires on the Bear in self defense because it was perceived as an imminent threat?



I'm actually not familiar with this incident in detail, I only know it occured and that it was in international waters. If we get into a discussion on this I will research it, but the way I see it, international waters are for everyone. This includes the Russians, Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Indians, practically anyone who has the ability to get out there. According to this logic, the Russian plane has an equal right to be there as the US carrier. Besides, I was under the impression that according to US rules of engagement the carrier is not to fire unless fired upon, especially in peacetime. Seeing something as a threat does not always give someone a right to open fire, especially when it comes to planes and warships, this is serious stuff and having occured in international waters it would constitute an act of war. So I guess what should happen if the carrier fires on the jet is that the jet should respond and whoever ordered the strike on the american side should be court martialed BY the american side. This is exactly why the carrier DID NOT open fire.


----------



## Celticgirl (7 May 2008)

I had a student from the Ukraine a couple of years ago, and from what he told me, the Ukraine is divided right down the middle into pro-Russia and anti-Russia regions. He was on the pro-Russia side. He spoke Russian and hailed all things Russian and hated the 'other' Ukraine. It seemed bizarre to me, but I didn't know the history behind it, so I couldn't (nor did I really care to) understand it. However, reading this thread, I'm wondering...if Russia does go to war with the Ukraine, would it just be with the 'enemy' side as opposed to the entire country?


----------



## Sythen (7 May 2008)

Sorry I fully support this move by the US.. I have NO problem at all being hypocritical, and not letting Russia have the same advantages we do. And to say we're at peace now? Who cares, we were actual allies during WW1, and we saw how that went.. War could break out at any time, and I am more then willing to be called a hypocrite to say we can use ours, but you can't use yours.

In my eyes, this move does not need to be justified. If Russia is willing to risk Nuclear war over this, and we back down, whose to say they won't say they will nuke someone if they don't get into the WTO, or NATO, or whatever else they want?


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

Sythen,

In that case, Russia has the same right to aim the missiles at Ukraine, and if the US wants to risk nuclear war over the missile shield, it can go ahead. I am using your logic to prove the other side, right? Again, to make a correction Russia has not said it will attack anyone, it said it will re-aim its missile, just in case a war happens, which can "happen at any time", they want to be ready. Essentially, by re-aiming enough of their missiles at the sheild (or taking some from stand-by and aiming them at the Ukraininan base), they will neutralise it. Besides, hypocracy is what starts wars anyway. One side acts unilaterally and hypocritically, the other side gets pissed off and responds. This is what starts fights on the street, this is what starts major wars, same shit... different scale.

To take this on another level, I'm sure Sythen believes in democracy. Lets hold a referendum and ask the Ukranians whether they WANT the missile shield! Lets ask Ukranians whether they want NATO on their beaches. There were countless protests against such things there and I believe that polls say it is mainly 30% that favor any western presence, with 10% undecided. So I guess if the US is doing this to spread liberty and democracy, they would be doing it... undemocratically?


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I had a student from the Ukraine a couple of years ago, and from what he told me, the Ukraine is divided right down the middle into pro-Russia and anti-Russia regions. He was on the pro-Russia side. He spoke Russian and hailed all things Russian and hated the 'other' Ukraine. It seemed bizarre to me, but I didn't know the history behind it, so I couldn't (nor did I really care to) understand it. However, reading this thread, I'm wondering...if Russia does go to war with the Ukraine, would it just be with the 'enemy' side as opposed to the entire country?



What you found during the Cold War, was that the Russians moved large populations of Russians into many of their "Satellite States", such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc.  This is what created the problem that you have stated.


----------



## Greymatters (7 May 2008)

I'm definately seeing a trend - its a pity we are all so stupid that we cannot see the brilliance of Oligarch's arguments.    :  

Although you claim to be Canadian-Russian, you sound a little too Russian and not enough Canadian for my tastes.  Enjoy your time here while it lasts...


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I'm definately seeing a trend - its a pity we are all so stupid that we cannot see the brilliance of Oligarch's arguments.    :
> Although you claim to be Canadian-Russian, you sound a little too Russian and not enough Canadian for my tastes.  Enjoy your time here while it lasts...



I’m sorry Greymatters, did I offend you in some way? Did I make any personal attacks on anyone or say anything anti-Canadian?? Why do you question my allegiance? I did not give an allegiance to the United States, I gave one to Canada. Is Canada the one putting missile shields in Europe? Or is it that you now see Canada and the US as a whole, such that in order for me to be a Canadian I must agree with everything the United States does? I thought the whole point of democracy, the lack of which you try to criticise Russia for, was that you can have free and open dialogue without being attacked or being told to shut up? Does a democracy not allow me to disagree with certain actions of the governing party, which so far I have not done often in the case of Canada? By no means am I saying anything that I don’t see as being in the best interests of Canada. I will be waiting for someone to make a point about my argument, rather than fallaciously attack the arguer. I will gladly address such mature and intelligent concerns in a mature and intelligent way. This is exactly what everone else has been doing so far, including those who disagree, and which is what I have been trying to do so far. This kind of dialogue, where you can express differing points of view is what I see as one of the things that makes Canada great.


----------



## oligarch (7 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What you found during the Cold War, was that the Russians moved large populations of Russians into many of their "Satellite States", such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc.  This is what created the problem that you have stated.



True, there are Russians spread accross all CIS regions and now find themselves their full citizens. In most states they enjoy equal rights but certain Baltic states deny them voting rights purely for racial reasons. The problem with Ukraine, however, began before the cold war. During WWII there were Ukrainians who fought with the NAZIs and those who fought with the Soviet Union, and the western Ukranians are now begining to promote SS monuments and such, and its pissing off the Eastern guys. Western Ukraine I believe never has been part of the Russian Empire but Eastern Ukraine was, so this conflict is a rather historic one. However, the re-aiming of missiles is as far as it will go, they will never be fired lest god forbid come armagedon.


----------



## Celticgirl (7 May 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> True, there are Russians spread accross all CIS regions and now find themselves their full citizens. In most states they enjoy equal rights but certain Baltic states deny them voting rights purely for racial reasons. The problem with Ukraine, however, began before the cold war. During WWII there were Ukrainians who fought with the NAZIs and those who fought with the Soviet Union, and the western Ukranians are now begining to promote SS monuments and such, and its pissing off the Eastern guys. Western Ukraine I believe never has been part of the Russian Empire but Eastern Ukraine was, so this conflict is a rather historic one. However, the re-aiming of missiles is as far as it will go, they will never be fired lest god forbid come armagedon.



Thanks for that explanation, Oligarch. Now that I have read your post, I do recall it was the East and West that my student talked about, and he was from the East. He liked to talk a lot about Russian/Ukranian politics, but as he was in a class with mostly Asian and Middle Eastern students who - like their teacher - did not know much about European history and politics, there wasn't anyone able to truly engage him in such heady political discourse.  

Anyway, I hope you are right in saying that this current situation will not go any farther than it already has.


----------



## Greymatters (8 May 2008)

For the sake of dialgue and the freedom of expression you seek and desire, I'll provide more detailed responses concerning your comments...



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> I’m sorry Greymatters, did I offend you in some way?



Its not you personally.  I find it annoying when people who immigrate to Canada cant leave their former personal and national issues alone, and insist on dragging them out to flog in public here.  If its not food, then its demands for monetary benefits, political intervention, military intervention, or any number of other complaints, in your case greater efforts at cooperation, which we already do plenty of as it is.  And yes, my family also came from another country, which I could care less about because Canada is my country, not where my family came from. 



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> Did I make any personal attacks on anyone or say anything anti-Canadian?? Why do you question my allegiance?



You did not make personal attacks, however, if you look back on your previous posts, most every line is a defensive statement or rebuttal concerning Russian actions.  Your viewpoint is from the Russian perspective, not the Canadian one.  As an example, you say we have no claim to claim territory in the Arctic, citing the Russian argumetn rather than teh Canadian one.  It is fair enough to speak of cooperation and friendship, but these require signs of authentic willingness to do so, not offering peace with one hand and shaking a big stick in the other. 



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> I did not give an allegiance to the United States, I gave one to Canada.



Good on ya'...



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> Is Canada the one putting missile shields in Europe? Or is it that you now see Canada and the US as a whole, such that in order for me to be a Canadian I must agree with everything the United States does?



Why do you keep dragging the US into this?  If you want honest dialgue, keep the US out of it.  What they do and what we do are usually two completely different animals. 



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> I thought the whole point of democracy, the lack of which you try to criticise Russia for, was that you can have free and open dialogue without being attacked or being told to shut up? Does a democracy not allow me to disagree with certain actions of the governing party, which so far I have not done often in the case of Canada?



I havent told you to shut up, nor am I attacking you.  You will find I love a good argument and am more tolerant of disparaging views than might be expected.  I am pointing out, however, quite firmly, that I think you are portraying Russia in a rosy light and ignoring or defending actions that shouldnt be defended and require no explanation, as their purpose is quite self-evident.  For example, flying an aircraft over the military warship of any country, regardless of flag, friend or foe, regardless of whether it is in port or in international waters,  without the permission of the commander of that vessel, is considered a sign of disrespect if not an offensive act (in both the military sense and the merchant sense).



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> By no means am I saying anything that I don’t see as being in the best interests of Canada.



I agree.  But I do think you are spinning things to fit your viewpoint.



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> I will be waiting for someone to make a point about my argument, rather than fallaciously attack the arguer. I will gladly address such mature and intelligent concerns in a mature and intelligent way. This is exactly what everone else has been doing so far, including those who disagree, and which is what I have been trying to do so far. This kind of dialogue, where you can express differing points of view is what I see as one of the things that makes Canada great.



If I see an argument, I would gladly respond and inquire as to your viewpoint.  Sorry, 'viewpoints', as you are all over the map here, touching on too many issues to be coherent.  Unfortunately, so far all Ive seen is opinions, not arguments, many of which I disagree with.  


Okay, there you have it.  No personal attacks, no slams, no fire-breathing tantrums, just my opinion on your comments.  Yes, there is pessimism and sarcasm.  But what argument are you proposing to put forward?


----------



## oligarch (8 May 2008)

Greymatters,

My apologies on the parts I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you were questioning my allegience, which you say you did not do. I have written quite a bit, and I thought thought those were considered to be arguments. Anyway, was it a Canadian carrier? Then why are you, in one sentence saying that we should not bring the US into this, and in another you, yourself, are bringing up a US carrier? Yes, there are tensions between Russia and the United States, and these tensions should not include Canada. On the issue of the arctic, I am not bringing up the "Russian argument", I am bringing up this thing that may seem strange to you called "international law". It appears to me that you are confusing the words "arctic" and "north pole". Yes, parts of the Arctic are Canadian territory, just as other parts of the artic are Russian territory. In fact, I have a friend who has a place in Murmansk, a populated Russian city within the arctic circle. Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to a 320 kilometre (200-mile) economic zone around their coasts, which include the arctic circle, the area beyond that is administered by the International Seabed Authority. Notice the word "international" does not include words like "motherland" nor words like "arctic sovereignty". Besides, the Canadian arctic sovereignty campaign is less about the north pole than about the North-West passage, which I'll let you research on your own. I don't understand the issue of the North-West passage to discuss it in-depth, but my preliminary assessment is that it is Canadian territory, and Canada should have the right to impose transit fees and fishing regulations in this region of the arctic. The Russian argument about their claim to a chunk of the arctic (which does not in any way encroach on land claimed by Canada) is that there is a seabed that extends further into the artic, allowing them an extra 200 or so miles north of their present territory. I do not support this argument because, to the best of my knowledge, international law uses the word "coast". Further, it is my understanding that the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" only allows nations to make territorial claims to the arctic during the 10 year period after its adoption. Given this circumstance, even if Russia proves that the shelf extends beyond that which was previously believed, the period in which Russia could make such a claim expired in 2007. However, it may be that the countdown begins after ratification by all member states. If anyone understands the text of the treaty, please enlighten me. Now back to the discourse. Do you think that explaining international law, correctly stating that the economic conditions of most Russians is drastically better today than 10 years ago under Yeltsin do not count as "arguments"? I mean, inflation under yeltsin was in the triple digits and it is now down to around 10%, while real GDP growth this past year was 8.1%. This year Russian GDP per capita at purchasing power parity equaled that of Italy and several other EU states. This growth is on par with the growth of China and India. How is this for an argument? I'll seperate it so that you can see it easily: ***The reason Russia imposed a moratorium on the CFE is because the other members of the treaty have not ratified it, and it would be stupid for one nation to impliment a multilateral treaty unilaterally!*** Why should the Russians not withdraw from the CFE treaty, given that most states have never ratified it? The Russian withdrawl is widely cited as a "return to the cold war" move by the Russians. So my *argument* is that this move was provoked first by those who did not ratify the treaty. I'm glad you say you like argument, so let me give you an analogy to explain what has happened here with the CFE. 

You live in space A (east of space B)
I live in space B (west of space A)
I and you don't like each other, but to make each other feel safe we decide to move our forces as far away from each other as possible. You ratify the treaty and move all of your foces away from your border with space B to your far eastern border of space A (as far away from space B as possible). I - rather than do the same - refuse to ratify our treaty and say "nah, I change my mind, I will not move my forces, in fact, i'll move them closer to your borders, just in case you try anything". You go "what the...", and decide to impose a moratorium on our treaty, after which you can place your forces wherever the heck your want in your space A. Seems fair?

Now in such a scenerio, how is it that YOU (the owner of space A, analogous to Russia in my "argument") are starting a "new cold war"? It seems to be that your actions are by nature..... reactionary!


----------

