Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles

[Fenix]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070602.wputin01/BNStory/International/home

Exclusive: Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles

DOUG SAUNDERS

June 2, 2007 at 5:34 PM EDT

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.

Mr. Putin, in an interview at his country residence outside Moscow, said he considers U.S. plans to build an eastern European anti-missile site to shoot down Iranian missiles a provocation aimed at Russia.

Asked what he might do to retaliate, he said he would return Russia to the Cold War status where missiles were aimed at European targets.

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.

"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."

He suggested that this could include powerful nuclear-capable weapons.

"What kind of means will be used to hit the targets that our military believe are potential threats to the Russian federation? This is a purely technical issue, be it ballistic missiles or cruise missiles, or some kinds of novel weapons systems - this is a purely technical issue."

Mr. Putin held a three-hour dinner interview with the Globe and Mail along with one newspaper from each of the G-8 nations. He defended his nation's economic policies and tough restrictions on political dissent, repeatedly criticized the U.S. as dangerous and hypocritical, and acknowledged that Russia needs to rid itself of corruption.

....

Discuss

[Snoshi]

Oh noes.. I am 100% sure that Russia never intended to hit Europe before this conflict....

[Skutatos]

Putin is an idiot and is just further isolating his country and actually probably increasing the likeliness that europe will accept the missile shield.

[Kippari]

It's because once the Europeans owned about half of the land mass of earth, and now have a huge no no for neo-expansionism. The politics are filled with all kinds of wussies and those who are not willing to act against any kind of threats and those blue-eyed greenies. That's the main reason why it's easy so to threaten Europe.

[Bert]

Cute. Russia has never been a country willing to leave at peace with its neighbours, letting its borders stay the way they are. They're always nervous about their 'sphere of influence', always need someone to step on. And even when leaders like Putin take over, they're willing to sacrifice all forms of accountability and rule of law simply to feel strong and powerful as a group.

The day this idiot tries to put his money where his mouth is, he's going to step on a Winter War x10.

[AgentX]

Putin cannot afford to deviate from the good old "Russia Strong!" path, if he must mark his presidential years as successful, before he leaves the Kremlin.

[Switek]

Russia has sufficient number of missiles and warheads to burn Europe right now...

So, is mr Putin's message to EU "ok, if US don't want to listen us (do exactly what we want) you will be forced to make them listen us" (couse we can nuke you)... ?

nervous guy, really

[CRAZY MERC]

I think Putin has a valid point. Don't target his country in the first place. All this talk about "Missile Shield" positioned in E.Europe against Iran and other rogue countries is pure BS.

[Jocker_89]

Putin can't reconcile with decline of USSR and he is trying by all possible means to make Russia superpower as there was formely

[IvanIII]

Putin has been very evil this year , i think even the communists dig himp-)

[Mamont]

Target again? That will take about half an hour. Maybe even less.

To target military installations is logical. Not only Russia has to chew up consequences of a pollitical game. So chewing up nuclear dust is what awaits Europe if things continue to develop as it is.

[Switek]

I think Putin has a valid point. Don't target his country in the first place. All this talk about "Missile Shield" positioned in E.Europe against Iran and other rogue countries is pure BS.


Could you be so kind to elaborate your point... ?

[hauptman]

Back to the Cold War era ...

[Jocker_89]

Back to the Cold War era ...

Exactly! I am curious what else Putin invent? :roll:

[Mr.K]

And who are the UK and French nuclear forces targeting?

[AgentX]

Each other?

[tooms]

If it's true he is stupid because british or french (not even to mention the american) could strike back. I thought this lose/lose strategy was 'has been'.

[Jocker_89]

And who are the UK and French nuclear forces targeting?
Russia ?!:roll:

[Serjey]

As i know nuclear weapons have 3 countries USA, Russia, China these are 3 nuclear imperies.
Well NK cant do anything against these 3 countries, they have some kind of nucear weapon but dont have enough tecnological level to succesfully strike =)
UK and France have nuclear weapons??? (IMO BS)

[Fenix]

France:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/index.html

United Kingdom:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/index.html

[AgentX]

UK and France have nuclear weapons??? (IMO BS)
They definitely fake it, just as most of the women do.

[Switek]

As i know nuclear weapons have 3 countries USA, Russia, China these are 3 nuclear imperies.
Well NK cant do anything against these 3 countries, they have some kind of nucear weapon but dont have enough tecnological level to succesfully strike =)
UK and France have nuclear weapons??? (IMO BS)

You missed Pakistan, India, Israel, South Afica (officially removed some time ago)...

[Switek]

And who are the UK and French nuclear forces targeting?


Russia ?!:roll:

O'rly???

;)

[MZKT]

Where shoudl Putin direct those missiles at? Papua-Neuguinea?

[Switek]

Where shoudl Putin direct those missiles at? Papua-Neuguinea?

Good idea!

[daily666]

Putin is making some Tarzan noises, while retargetting those ICBMs propably doesn't take too long so who the hell cares?


So chewing up nuclear dust is what awaits Europe if things continue to develop as it is.

Russia STRONG1!11!!1eleven at it's best.

[Xaito]

what you guys crying about?
Its your own fault - you don't feel comfortable hearing you'll be targeted oficially again? well then don't build a ABM shield which makes Russia feel uncomfortable as well, easy as that.
You say Russia threatens others to do what they want - ever tried looking at it from an other perspective?
Its a security risk for Russia and it doesn't matter how big it is - if Russia doesn't act what comes next?

[daily666]

what you guys crying about?
Its your own fault - you don't feel comfortable hearing you'll be targeted oficially again? well then don't build a ABM shield which makes Russia feel uncomfortable as well, easy as that.
You say Russia threatens others to do what they want - ever tried looking at it from an other perspective?
Its a security risk for Russia and it doesn't matter how big it is - if Russia doesn't act what comes next?

It's all over again so I'd put it simple

1. ABM system is not against Russian missiles
2. Noone is crying about Putin's threats
3. Even if Euro countries were not targetted (hardly believable) they could be in a matter of minutes,
4. We heard those threats in 1999 when Czech Rep, Hungary and Poland joined NATO.

again, WHO CARES?

[IvanIII]

Russia should point them at Poland and czech republic where the shield/radar gona be.

But i see this missile shield thing as a way for US to split EU from Russia.

[cepera]

Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?

[AgentX]

Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?
"Do as I say, not as I do."

[IvanIII]

Russia should start mass build anti-satellite ballistic missiles incase of an Alien invasion and remeber its not target at US satellites its vs Alien spaceshipsp-)

[daily666]

Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?

Care to explain how is the offensive nuclear instalation in Cuba relevant to the defensive ABM station in EE?

Why didn't Russians whine few years ago when ABM station became fully operational few hundred miles from their coast?

[Windsurfer]

Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?
Are you saying that an ABM system is the same as having nuclear missiles a 100 miles off of your coast?

[Mamont]

:) Aliens? No, better some terraforming project. A little sea inplace of Czech republic, and a couple of big lakes instead of Poland will surely liven up the european terrain, of course after radiation fell out. Just imagine possible tourist trips, resorts etc.

ICMB's will be pointed at military targets, that's for sure. And if they happened to be in Poland or Czech republic, than they'll be targeted. Most probably not by ICBM's alone, as it will be a waste of resources.

[Midav]

Then let Putin target These nations. There is not a doubt in my mind that European nations as well as the US have been targeted long before as is. Sure it's speculation on my part, but I never had a doubt otherwise. I do not for-see nukes being used anyway. I wouldn't look much into it.

There won't be a war with Russia. There is no reason. The closest I can think why a war would start is about what's going on around Russia's neighbors i.e. political influence. Should it come to war then it proves humanity has not evolved enough and maybe we need some chlorine in the gene pool.

It may sound pessimistic, but this childish bs between politicians acting like a bunch of preschoolers is getting old.

[Xaito]

It's all over again so I'd put it simple

1. ABM system is not against Russian missiles
2. Noone is crying about Putin's threats
3. Even if Euro countries were not targetted (hardly believable) they could be in a matter of minutes,
4. We heard those threats in 1999 when Czech Rep, Hungary and Poland joined NATO.

again, WHO CARES?

1. ABM system is against ICBMs. Russia has ICBMs.
2. Yes you are
3. knowing that the other guy has a gun and seeing him pointing it at you are different things - even if the safety is still on it has a psychological effect.
Knowing that both guys have a gun if one starts putting on a bullet proof vest the other one gets nervous even if he can still shoot the other one in the head.

if you wouldn't care you guys wouldn't start a "russia is evil" thread every second day.
We had the ABM story at least in 10 threads now and its not always russians who start them.
Its a serious topic don't try to act cool.

[MichaelF]

Big difference between the Cold war and a near-future (<2025) round of hostilities between NATO/EU and Russia is that Russia no longer has a foothold in Central Europe. No more Russian-dominated "buffer States".

The NATO/EU MLR starts in Poland and the Ukraine. With the exception of Serbia, most of the SE European states are now firmly aligned with the EU and NATO.

This doesn't really affect the Nuclear battlefield, but throws the conventional arena into a cocked hat.

Having to fight your way across 1000km of hostile territory, in order to jump off into the enemy heartland, is a vastly different situation from that which faced the Warsaw Pact.

Essentially, the "Russian Defense" (trade space for time and attrition, while falling back on your own LOC, as the invader outruns his LOC) is now a strategy which can be used on the Russians themselves. NATO/EU is now too big to conquer in one campaign, and not conquering the whole thing leaves you with the rump forming a hostile base on your new, disorganized, frontier. Conventional military operations against Europe are now a no-go.

With that new strategic reality, Russia now has to find other avenues to exercise it's military options. Hence the reinforcement of the strategic weapons forces and the carriers. I would not be surprised to see them standing up rapid-deployment parachute/airlanding regiments, analogous to SETAF or the Ranger Battalions (rapid intervention across intercontinental ranges).

If the Petro-rubles continue to flow in, then it is possible Russia could (re)inherit the USSR's Superpower status. It won't happen overnight, though.
The Russian conventional military must both professionalize (or at least stiffen the conscript force with professional* NCOs and Officers, suitably compensated, as in the ~1963 US Army) and catch up with the US in doctrine and capability.
The Standard of Living must be at least on par with Europe as well, or the population decline will not be arrested.





*-"Professional", in this discussion, to be defined as "long service career personnel", not just guys who volunteered and got promoted quickly to JNCO or JO. Squad Leaders and Platoon Sergeants with ~4 and ~7-10 years TIS (respectively) are largely responsible for the success of the US Army, since Day One.

[cepera]

Cute. Russia has never been a country willing to leave at peace with its neighbours, letting its borders stay the way they are. They're always nervous about their 'sphere of influence', always need someone to step on. And even when leaders like Putin take over, they're willing to sacrifice all forms of accountability and rule of law simply to feel strong and powerful as a group.

The day this idiot tries to put his money where his mouth is, he's going to step on a Winter War x10.

Bert..can you go a little bit further then just calling Putin an idiot and see why russians actually do this ?

Russia would love to live at peace with their neighnours if only one smart@ss "former rival" wasnt subsidizing political turnovers in nearly all former soviet republics and installing American-grown puppets there. Im not discussing Poland or the Baltics here..they've never gotten along with us for reasons I can understand.
Its like building a fire at a gas station.....you just dont do it!

[Midav]

Guys.. some of you need to get laid. Too much testosterone. Putin's an idiot, like most any other politician on Earth. I can and will say the same about Bush so chill.

Times are not the same as they were during the cold war. Russia has enough nukes to overwhelm the ABM as is. The ABM is not designed to go up against Russia. Matter of fact, there will be no war with Russia. If a war started with Russia it would not be supported anyway. There is too much to lose and wtf is there to gain? Especially if it goes nuclear.

Think my fellow mp.netters.. THINK!!! Use your brains and not your emotions.

[cepera]

Are you saying that an ABM system is the same as having nuclear missiles a 100 miles off of your coast?

Im saying that any military installation, directed against somebody gives them direct reason to take actions.

[wholagun]

if nukes fall on Poland and the Czech Rep, then Europe NATO and the world as a whole would have much greater problems then a couple of nukes lauched at two countries.

Luckily MAD and the basic human instinct for self preservation and the unwillingness to see WWIII will keep statesmen in line.

[daily666]

if nukes fall on Poland and the Czech Rep, then Europe NATO and the world as a whole would have much greater problems then a couple of nukes lauched at two countries.

Luckily MAD and the basic human instinct for self preservation and the unwillingness to see WWIII will keep statesmen in line.

Mamont would be disappointed not to see nukes falling on Poland...

[Mamont]

Yeah, you're right, daily666. Actually i find nuclear explosions quite beautifull, although a terrifying sight. The epitome of human's search for power. Even without russian icbms, if ABM will be used on live targets Poland surely will experience the full glory of them.

[Xaito]

you should move to poland then if you like nuclear explosions so much ;)

[Mamont]

You know, you have to look at picture from a distance to grasp it's beauty.:) And nuke is such a big picture that requires big distance. :)

[roland]

Why the hell Russia would launch those missile ? they can put as many missile they want I don't care. Russia isn't Communist and don't try to spread Communism anymore.
There are a lot of cold war nostalgic both side looking for attention it seems :roll:

[dez000]

Yeah, you're right, daily666. Actually i find nuclear explosions quite beautifull, although a terrifying sight. The epitome of human's search for power. Even without russian icbms, if ABM will be used on live targets Poland surely will experience the full glory of them.

You must have a very small *****.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Are you saying that an ABM system is the same as having nuclear missiles a 100 miles off of your coast?Not intending to defend Putin's threats but I think there is some logic there I can see..

It is all about nuclear balance, ergo keeping the principle of mutually assured destruction. According to this logic, having nuclear missiles or a defensive ABM umbrella 100 miles off your coast is the same.

To clarify this a bit, imagine a goaltender of your team who makes a tremendous save. And then imagine a center who shots on goal and scores. Which one of these did a better job for his team/did more damage to the opponent? The most people would probably say that it is the scorer, but is it really so?

[Eusebius]

Let Russia do as they wish, frankly it is better for NATO to have Russia as an enemy, it would encourage some political unity at a time when it is badly needed between the NATO allies and other European nations.

I am sure Russians have more than enough sense not to actually launch those missiles, and the US nor Europe will likely strike first anyhow, so hopefully this issue will ensure the Europeans move into cooperation with the Americans.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Why the hell Russia would launch those missile ? they can put as many missile they want I don't care. Russia isn't Communist and don't try to spread Communism anymore.
There are a lot of cold war nostalgic both side looking for attention it seems :roll:
It is not about spreading communism, but about expanding the sphere of influence. And this is not being spread by launching missiles, but by threatening to launch the missiles. ;) You are very right by not giving a damn, I personally do exactly the same. Is there any difference in Russia having 3000 or 7600 nuclear warheads? Not at all..

[roland]

Let Russia do as they wish, frankly it is better for NATO to have Russia as an enemy, it would encourage some political unity at a time when it is badly needed between the NATO allies and other European nations.

I am sure Russians have more than enough sense not to actually launch those missiles, and the US nor Europe will likely strike first anyhow, so hopefully this issue will ensure the Europeans move into cooperation with the Americans.

That's exactly what a lot think the Yanks try to do. But it's not Europe's interest. The Russians are our brothers like America is and we have been separated for way too long from Russia since 1917 me think.


It is not about spreading communism, but about expanding the sphere of influence. And this is not being spread by launching missiles, but by threatening to launch the missiles. ;) You are very right by not giving a damn, I personally do exactly the same. Is there any difference in Russia having 3000 or 7600 nuclear warheads? Not at all..

and what's wrong with Russian influence ? that's not as if we cannot have influence in Russia ourselves no ?

[Windsurfer]

Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?


Are you saying that an ABM system is the same as having nuclear missiles a 100 miles off of your coast?


Im saying that any military installation, directed against somebody gives them direct reason to take actions.

Slight difference between offensive and defensive weapons.

[cepera]

Slight difference between offensive and defensive weapons.

Tell me then why does so much stink arises when Russia attempts to sell simple air-defence systems to other countries ?

[Mr.K]

Do you think NATO will do nothing after intercepting a missile?
You can bet that after the defensive weapon is used, the offensive ones will be raining on whoever started it.
Or NATO will be more at ease of striking first, knowing the that the ABM shield will protect them from retaliation.

[Xaito]

Slight difference between offensive and defensive weapons.

actually the concept of the action is very similar - at the time of cuba crisis the missiles didn't have the range that missiles of today have so Soviet Union had to move them as close as possible to the USA for best effect - same thing with todays ABM and in case of nuclear deterrence I think a "defensive weapon" is no joke to be taken lightly.

[TheStorm]

To clarify this a bit, imagine a goaltender of your team who makes a tremendous save. And then imagine a center who shots on goal and scores. Which one of these did a better job for his team/did more damage to the opponent? The most people would probably say that it is the scorer, but is it really so?

The ABM system is not capable of making a 'tremendous save'. It's only useful against small strikers, such as Iran and North Korea.


Or NATO will be more at ease of striking first, knowing the that the ABM shield will protect them from retaliation.

Except it won't. It's almost useless against a counterattack of the scale Russia could launch.

[Windsurfer]

Not intending to defend Putin's threats but I think there is some logic there I can see..

It is all about nuclear balance, ergo keeping the principle of mutually assured destruction. According to this logic, having nuclear missiles or a defensive ABM umbrella 100 miles off your coast is the same.

To clarify this a bit, imagine a goaltender of your team who makes a tremendous save. And then imagine a center who shots on goal and scores. Which one of these did a better job for his team/did more damage to the opponent? The most people would probably say that it is the scorer, but is it really so?
That was then and we live in the now. Perspectives change.

[Mr.K]

The ABM system is not capable of making a 'tremendous save'. It's only useful against small strikers, such as Iran and North Korea.



Except it won't. It's almost useless against a counterattack of the scale Russia could launch.

In that case the location for it is questionable, but that has been debated here many times already.

[Windsurfer]

Tell me then why does so much stink arises when Russia attempts to sell simple air-defence systems to other countries ?
Er, what kind of stink? If you sell defensive missiles to a country and I will target that area with nuclear missiles. Do you mean that type of stink?

[cepera]

Er, what kind of stink? If you sell defensive missiles to a country and I will target that area with nuclear missiles. Do you mean that type of stink?

No. The kind of stink when I sell defencive missiles to a country that refuses to be your b!tch and wants to run things their own way. When you dislike their views or opinions you want to take military actions against them but you cant, because I sold them my missiles. And so you start to stink..
Does that clear it up for you, Er...?

[Windsurfer]

No. The kind of stink when I sell defencive missiles to a country that refuses to be your b!tch and wants to run things their own way. When you dislike their views or opinions you want to take military actions against them but you cant, because I sold them my missiles. And so you start to stink..
Does that clear it up for you, Er...?
Let me guess, intelligent debate is not one of your strong points?

[D.U.C.K.S.]

The ABM system is not capable of making a 'tremendous save'. It's only useful against small strikers, such as Iran and North Korea.You have to start somewhere...


Except it won't. It's almost useless against a counterattack of the scale Russia could launch.I agree.

[Kroforit]

Oh noes.. I am 100% sure that Russia never intended to hit Europe before this conflict....


In spite of arguing against Putin you post such mindless crap. Or do you really mean what you said?

[CPL Trevoga]

Oh noes, "Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles." Headlined brought you buy our sponsor, Mr. Berezovski, Putin hater and Litvienko killer.

[Freibier]

I have a cunning plan.
Let's target each other again with a ****load of nuclear missles, rebuild ze wall (hate those pesky east germans anyway) and pretend that 1989-2007 didn't happen.
Ah, how I miss ze good old days

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oh noes.. I am 100% sure that Russia never intended to hit Europe before this conflict....

Exactly :)

Has anyone in Europe been daft enough to assume that, over say the last 15 years, that Russian nukes were not targeted on Europe.

Putin is a complete headbanger. I can only assume his remarks are directed at his own public because no one in Europe is going to be impressed by his BS.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I have a cunning plan.
Let's target each other again with a ****load of nuclear missles, rebuild ze wall (hate those pesky east germans anyway) and pretend that 1989-2007 didn't happen.
Ah, how I miss ze good old days


Me too.
I'm positively nostalgic for the Cold War.:)
My wife's Swabian relatives all want to kick out all the Ossies and fake Russian Volga Germans too

[nick_ua]

Or NATO will be more at ease of striking first, knowing the that the ABM shield will protect them from retaliation.
that stupid shield u boys crying about wont protect either Poland or Chezk (don't understand why Chezk trying to get on this ****).
So get over it. In case smth bad happened Poland would be the first on a target list.
So face it, and keep telling your scary stories about how evil Russia and how good are neighbors.
Almost forgot, don't you forget what happened to your country almost 70 years ago, how Brits and French "protect" you from evil Germany, guess what, that will keep happening to you, cause old Europe don't give a **** about you, they never did. All this NATO stuff you proudly joining, same, good way to sell you this "NATO" equipmnt nobody wants to buy ;-)
THis guys playing on your Emperor feelings which you lost 300 years ago, and they doing it very good.
Well, bon voyage (pardon my French) my friends


Putin is a complete headbanger. I can only assume his remarks are directed at his own public because no one in Europe is going to be impressed by his BS.
Putin targetin EU is crap which had been produced my the new memebers of US. it just like a small kid trying to get soem attention from dad and mom/
How exactly Putin going to impress Russian people by saying we keep targeting EU, of course you do will say most of them, thats your job to protect us.

[phoebus]

Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles

That's too much of a title I'd say, maybe some US-backed east european countries are playing silly games with Russia, but that's just a percentage of a rather naive part of Europe (with a proven record of disregareding the overall EU and collective European interests). Whoever is wise in this situation follows policies of cooperating with the Russians because the Cold War is over and we shouldn't be the tools of US policies anymore.

Opening new bases in Europe for US ABMs, in the heart of Europe, is not at all related with Iran or any other fantastic threats (much like the fictious Saddam threat in the past). Whoever buys this excusse, is simply too naive to understand the actual US policy of division in Europe. At least I thought, us Europeans, were smarter than that. Europe can sufficiently protect itself on its own soil, the same applies for USA. In fact USA has a new protectorate in Iraq and many others all over the globe, I'm sure they can abuse those instead and surely not with our Euros.

Finally, if those specific european countries have such a great need to serve US interests in such an absurd manner, they might as well get out of EU altogether and receive their funds directly from USA. We can certainly not afford to polarize with Russia again, so that some minority war-maniacs and their associated interests (in both USA and Europe) would get pleased with increased defence spending and all the rest of the immature opinions & policies randomly promoted in our times. Europe's best interest is to be united; which requires mutual respect among all European nations and that includes fully respecting Russia as well.

[Switek]

Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles

Btw: this is no language of cooperation and looking for compromise... :roll:

[phoebus]

Btw: this is no language of cooperation and looking for compromise...

Neither are the actions of the opposing east european parties and their sponsors, seeking to alter the status quo of the region. Although I agree in this case that both sides should back down, for the collective european interest. Nobody is serious when expecting Russia to unilateraly back down. Hence, whatever cooperation or compromise takes place, it should surely be mutual.

[Switek]

Neither are the actions of the opposing east european parties and their sponsors. ...

This is misleading info. Poland oficially started negotiations with US. Nothing have been decided yet. It is US job to convince Russia and its European allies about defensive character of AMD bases... .

Poland, from historical experiences have to defend our national interest. Saying "yes" for US offer is the same risky for us like saying "no". I'm fed up for making my country a scapegoat and only guilty ...

[phoebus]

This is misleading info. Poland oficially started negotiations with US. Nothing have been decided yet. It is US job to convince Russia and its European allies about defensive character of AMD bases... .

Poland, from historical experiences have to defend our national interest. Saying "yes" for US offer is the same risky for us like saying "no". I'm fed up for making my country a scapegoat and only guilty ...

Since your national government is considering to proceed with hosting US bases and/or missiles (hence openly promoting purely US interests and maybe some opportunist local sentiments), then you're purely getting a likely responce and a rather soft one. There's no need to portray Russia as being aggressive, they're are just letting you know of the facts.

Poland will do what they think suits their short-term interest, Russia will do the same, plus collectively EU will also do something equivalent. I think it's clear who has to lose more from the US policy in the matter, which is clearly reflected in that situation.

In the end of the day Poland has no serious reason for asking such protection, through the scope of US bases and missiles. For once I think the polish nation can protect itself more effectively and without any patrons of that kind. NATO is already there for anything needed, that's enough for every member nation, the rest sounds like a witch hunt, relic of the Cold War.

[Xaito]

Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles
that title is wrong anyway - Putin was not threatening anyone.
He was asked in an interview what the consequences would be and he answered - its a fact that Russia will pick important targets and point its missiles at them if installations with relevance to a nuclear war pop up near its borders - its a logical consequence - some people will of course feel threatened by it because the idea of nuclear war is never pleasent - that is also one reason why Russia doesn't want the ABMs stationed right under its nose.

[Switek]

Since your national government is considering to proceed with hosting US bases and/or missiles (hence openly promoting purely US interests and maybe some opportunist local sentiments), then you're purely getting a likely responce and a rather soft one. There's no need to portray Russia as being aggressive, they're are just letting you know of the facts.

Poland will do what they think suits their short-term interest, Russia will do the same, plus collectively EU will also do something equivalent. I think it's clear who has to lose more from the US policy in the matter, which is clearly reflected in that situation.

In the end of the day Poland has no serious reason for asking such protection, through the scope of US bases and missiles. For once I think the polish nation can protect itself more effectively and without any patrons of that kind. NATO is already there for anything needed, that's enough for every member nation, the rest sounds like a witch hunt, relic of the Cold War.


We differ in terms of defining current threats. In short-terms there is no real military threat for Polnd. In long-term no one is able to say what's going to be for sure. The ABM base is a long-term investment. The very likely yes for it will limit sovereignty of Polish foreign policy this why we want and demand to increase our national security.

[Thor]

that title is wrong anyway - Putin was not threatening anyone.
The title is very much correct - Putin threatened to target Europe.


Having an anti-missile defence is like having any other type of air defence. It's a defensive measure and doesn't threaten other nations. Russia is free to have whatever air defence they want just as every other nation is free to have theirs.

Anti-missile defence: Aims to save lives.
Nuclear missiles: Aims to kill millions of people.

Go figure who the evil one is.

[Vorian]

Anti-missile defence: Aims to save lives.
Nuclear missiles: Aims to kill millions of people.

Go figure who the evil one is.

Hmm...USA, Russia, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, soon enough Iran...missed anyone?

[Xaito]

The ABM base is a long-term investment. The very likely yes for it will limit sovereignty of Polish foreign policy this why we want and demand to increase our national security.

I think you mixed up something - the ABM bases will not be polish and not there to protect Poland - the only long term investment for you is the rent the USA will pay for the land they use. By allowing a US ABM base in Poland you will decrease your national security big time. Thats double true for the "long term" - If Iran or ... (<- insert country you don't like or fear here) ever have nukes on ICBM's (which I doubt they will for a long long time - but lets say if) you'll be another priority target.

edit:

Anti-missile defence: Aims to save lives.
Nuclear missiles: Aims to kill millions of people.
you forgot one:
Anti nuclear missile defence: aims to buy you some time so you can kill a few millions of people more then the other one.

[Switek]

I think you mixed up something - the ABM bases will not be polish and not there to protect Poland - the only long term investment for you is the rent the USA will pay for the land they use. By allowing a US ABM base in Poland you will decrease your national security big time. Thats double true for the "long term" - If Iran or ... (<- insert country you don't like or fear here) ever have nukes on ICBM's (which I doubt they will for a long long time - but lets say if) you'll be another priority target.

For me it really doesn't matter whether US ABM system is fake or not. For me a key matter is if we say "yes" for US offer would we get what we want to increase our safety or not?

btw, there are few targets in Poland priority aimed by Russian missiles (or being able to aim within 40 minutes, let's say), already. This is no quantity matter (one target more) but real threat, for my country right now and the lack of any effective defence systems in Poland.

[phoebus]

The title is very much correct - Putin threatened to target Europe.

A biased person would say that, having no understanding whatsoever of what Putin said. He clearly said:

"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."

New targets openly suggests certain european nations which managed to successfully enter the list of targets. He's not going to target Malta, Greece or Austria. That is clear from the beggining to those who wish to have a genuie debate and not the typical 80's russian bashing.



Having an anti-missile defence is like having any other type of air defence. It's a defensive measure and doesn't threaten other nations.

Not if it's a foreign system of strategic importance and more importantly a US system on former Warsaw Pact country; part of the overall system of the US Strategic Missile Forces (or whatever they call it in USA). There's no doubt that it will be part of the actual "offensive" US forces.


Russia is free to have whatever air defence they want just as every other nation is free to have theirs.

Anti-missile defence: Aims to save lives.
Nuclear missiles: Aims to kill millions of people.

Go figure who the evil one is.

As I said ( and Susumu) this US Anti-missile defence layer, based on Eastern Europe, will be part of the overall US Strategic Forces, assisting the offensive capabilities of USA, against Russia. If only good and evil were even valid terms in such discussion. Not even close I'm afraid.

All in all Europe has no interest whatsoever to be the "no man's land" of the US or Russian conflicts, so it's sensible to keep it that way, like we achieved in the 90's. Also it would be more constructive if the the Common European Defence policy would make those new EU members feel secure, without having the US getting in between our business, with their bases, projects, ABMs, etc.

[Xaito]

btw, there are few targets in Poland priority aimed by Russian missiles (or being able to aim within 40 minutes, let's say), already. This is no quantity matter (one target more) but real threat, for my country right now and the lack of any effective defence systems in Poland.
almost no countries have any effective defence systems against nuclear weapons and its not like you would need them more then anybody else in the first place.
Furthermore its important that everybody is vulnerable to prevent nuclear war in the first place.
And you still ignore the fact that they will not be there to protect you but the USA.
By the way - didn't you guys say its not against Russia in the first place? ;)

[Ecchi Oni]

if nukes fall on Poland and the Czech Rep, then Europe NATO and the world as a whole would have much greater problems then a couple of nukes lauched at two countries.

Luckily MAD and the basic human instinct for self preservation and the unwillingness to see WWIII will keep statesmen in line.
How many of you westerners are willing to die for Poland? This is not a rhethorical question. And if Russia opens the silo doors and subs surface within striking distance of East and West Coasts of the US. how many americans will be willing to gamble their lives on the fact that Russia will not respond to the theat of installations in Poland. Btw Cuban missiles were an answer to american missiles in Turkey. Would you like Russiam ABMs in Cuba now btw? Or on platforms in international waters around Europe?

[Switek]

almost no countries have any effective defence systems against nuclear weapons and its not like you would need them more then anybody else in the first place.
Furthermore its important that everybody is vulnerable to prevent nuclear war in the first place.
And you still ignore the fact that they will not be there to protect you but the USA.
By the way - didn't you guys say its not against Russia in the first place? ;)

Seems logical that ten ABM missiles aren't able to hold back Russian nuclear power... .

btw I do not ignore the fact what country will be protected, but my concern is what we'll get in return.

[Noble713]

Neither are the actions of the opposing east european parties and their sponsors, seeking to alter the status quo of the region.

Has it occurred to you that the "status quo", where a nation armed with thousands of nukes and with a penchant for bullying its weakling neighbors is right next door, isn't really to the liking of Eastern Europe, especially given their recent (i.e. 20th century) history with the Russians?

What is the rationale behind the ability of the Russian Federation to annihilate most of the continent unimpeded being considered a "Good Thing"? If Russia has no plans to make Europe glow in the dark, then why does it feel threatened by ABMs? The argument that it facilitates a pre-emptive strike (due to the reduced risk of MAD) is just senseless Cold War scaremongering. Do you think anyone is interested in whiping Russia off the map just for sh1ts and giggles?

Now don't get me wrong, the same can be said for the US nuclear arsenal and our unending quest for full-spectrum military overmatch, but I fully admit that such things are good for the US, and pretty much the US only. Likewise, Russian nuclear forces are in the best interests of Russia. I understand that. But don't try to pass it off as somehow being good for Europe as a whole. With Fascism ad Communism gone there should be no reason for cataclysmic conventional warfare to wrack the continent again, so the idea of MAD as a peacekeeping influence diminishes considerably.

The US has its hands full with crazy Muslims for the forseeable future. We aren't likely to invade anywhere in Europe even if we weren't busy. So the only person stirring sh1t in Europe right now is Putin, which is a shame because I kinda like the guy, and think he is one of the few competent leaders in the world today. Seems his KGB habits die hard.

[Atlantic Friend]

To be fair, I have trouble reconciling the aggressive tone charcterizing this :


that stupid shield u boys crying about wont protect either Poland or Chezk (don't understand why Chezk trying to get on this ****).
So get over it. In case smth bad happened Poland would be the first on a target list.So face it, and keep telling your scary stories about how evil Russia and how good are neighbors.

and this :


Almost forgot, don't you forget what happened to your country almost 70 years ago, how Brits and French "protect" you from evil Germany, guess what, that will keep happening to you, cause old Europe don't give a **** about you, they never did.

All this NATO stuff you proudly joining, same, good way to sell you this "NATO" equipmnt nobody wants to buy ;-)
THis guys playing on your Emperor feelings which you lost 300 years ago, and they doing it very good.
Well, bon voyage (pardon my French) my friends

with this :


Putin targetin EU is crap which had been produced my the new memebers of US. it just like a small kid trying to get soem attention from dad and mom/
How exactly Putin going to impress Russian people by saying we keep targeting EU, of course you do will say most of them, thats your job to protect us.

Plus, about this later paragraph, you begin by saying any claim that Putin will target EU country is American propaganda...and then conclude that yes, of course he does that, he's supposed to.

So which Russia are we talking about here ? The one who loves its neighbors, or the one who tells them they're going to be put in first place in the list of targets and nobody will save them ?

[Xaito]

my concern is what we'll get in return.

you are in the NATO already so you don't have to do anybody favours to get protection in case of a conflict.


If Russia has no plans to make Europe glow in the dark, then why does it feel threatened by ABMs?
because it can't be sure that nobody plans to make them glow in the dark anytime in the future and the best thing to prevent that is if all sides are vulnerable.


The argument that it facilitates a pre-emptive strike (due to the reduced risk of MAD) is just senseless Cold War scaremongering. Do you think anyone is interested in whiping Russia off the map just for sh1ts and giggles?
for ****s and giggles? not likely. For the usual reasons because of which wars are started? you never know so you have to be prepared.
Would you want the USA to throw away all their nukes? afterall who would attack it for ****s and giggles? Just think about the stupidity of your suggestion to rely on the others not to attack you without having insurance.

Russia is in a position where it is a nuclear superpower - who would give up a position like this even for a little bit without fighting?

[Snoshi]

Oh not this **** again..

ABM system in Europe will never stop or weaken Russian ballistic arsenal... Its not a threat.

[dundun]

I knew when I first saw this exKGB loverboy that he was a dangerous man, I never understood why the western journalists loved him...
well, the West raised Hitler and Stalin, now they did the same with this jerk...:-*$

Bieriezovsky is the only hope for this nation, russians don't have any idea about freedom - first the zsar demagogy, then the sovjet times and now this new-nazi-sovjet-putinology. And they always follow their leaders to death:cantbeli:

Putin - put these rusty missiles into yours a... and bye bye!

[Xaito]

ABM system in Europe will never stop or weaken Russian ballistic arsenal... Its not a threat.
its a provocation.

edit:
I'm amazed by your eloquence dundun.
your advanced use of smileys further add to your great arguments.
And flamebait never hurts in boring threads like this, eh?
not.

[dundun]

I just read the book Putins Russia by Politkovskaya, LOL, Russia and superpower, good joke, in Putins dreams maybe...
but you russians can't read this book because your Putin doesn't allow it in Russia... FREEDOM OF SPEACH? any bells?

[GazB]

Target again? That will take about half an hour. Maybe even less.

Targetting a modern strategic nuke takes less than 30 seconds... you just give it the coordinates... twice to confirm and give it the authorisation code. In the time it took to post this I could have done it (with the access to the right terminal and the correct access codes of course).

[dundun]

it's not a flame bait, this is my personal opinion about this situation.

[Durandal]

Asked what he might do to retaliate, he said he would return Russia to the Cold War status where missiles were aimed at European targets.

Sort of like the rapist claiming he is going to use a gun now that the victim has a can of mace.

"I feel threatened!"

[asch]

Bieriezovsky is the only hope for this nation
thank you very much but we must refuse your generous offer, because it stinks and don't have appropriate education (he even can't eat babies!) and ugly overall. keep it to yourself, we hope that you will enjoy it.

[dundun]

Ok, then please keep your missiles out of the NATO soil :bash:

[asch]

Ok, then please keep your missiles out of the NATO soil :bash:
sure thing. we not make some missile bases in other countries for now.


nice avatar, btw. very touching.

[Xaito]

Sort of like the rapist claiming he is going to use a gun now that the victim has a can of mace.

"I feel threatened!"

Not that I would care too much about your opinion but in gerneral I think comparing Russia with a rapist is very insulting.

[Mamont]

Targetting a modern strategic nuke takes less than 30 seconds... you just give it the coordinates... twice to confirm and give it the authorisation code. In the time it took to post this I could have done it (with the access to the right terminal and the correct access codes of course).
No. For example in US using old CDB the time needed to re-target one missile was 25 minutes. After REACT time was shortened to 15 minutes. The whole fleet of Minutemans-3 could be re-targeted in under 10 hours. Considering that Russia does not have to re-target all of it's missiles, but about 10 to 20, i guess it's like half an hour job.

[Xaito]

retargeting needs that much time?
My father was stationed at a ICBM base in soviet times when he was in the military and iirc half an hour was about the time they needed to get the older models out of their hangars, erect them and refuel them with a two component rocket fuel.
The newer ICBMs were in silos and with a dry fuel so they needed to open a silo door and could launch it right away.

[oldsoak]

To be frank, I'm not sure if the French or the UK are factors in the Russian nuke deterrant now. Neither are going to go it alone against Russia, neither can even contemplate invasion ( there is a minor issue of troops and distances ) and both would only use it for national survival as the results are terrible beyond comprehension. Unless Russia intends to invade Europe with the idea of occupying France and Britain ( very unlikely, trade is much better for all ) - isnt this all rather a storm in a teacup ?

[Xaito]

Unless Russia intends to invade Europe with the idea of occupying France and Britain ( very unlikely, trade is much better for all ) - isnt this all rather a storm in a teacup ?

basically youre right - it is a storm in a teacup.
I think its not about europe in gerneral - its about USA who wants to put its military bases right at Russia's front door and Poland who wants to allow that to provoke Russia.

[Durandal]

...I think comparing Russia with a rapist is very insulting.

Awwwwwwww....too bad.

That said, I am not too sure where I said "Russia" is no different than a rapist.

I think we are commenting on PUTIN'S comments not generalizing about the Russian people.

Get some thicker skin kid and quit whining.

[Switek]

basically youre right - it is a storm in a teacup.
I think its not about europe in gerneral - its about USA who wants to put its military bases right at Russia's front door and Poland who wants to allow that to provoke Russia.

Oh, no Poland again! I'm starting to believe that this all mess begun in my country an US help us to piss Russia off

rofl

[MZKT]

Bieriezovsky is the only hope for this nation

Best joke so far.
BTW Nice avatar with the Grozny-Jane

[nahimov]

I knew when I first saw this exKGB loverboy that he was a dangerous man, I never understood why the western journalists loved him...
well, the West raised Hitler and Stalin, now they did the same with this jerk...:-*$

Bieriezovsky is the only hope for this nation, russians don't have any idea about freedom - first the zsar demagogy, then the sovjet times and now this new-nazi-sovjet-putinology. And they always follow their leaders to death:cantbeli:

Putin - put these rusty missiles into yours a... and bye bye!

So how do you feel about Berezovsky giving money to Russia's #1 terrorist Basaev? You trust a guy who supports terrorists?

[Snoshi]

So how do you feel about Berezovsky giving money to Russia's #1 terrorist Basaev? You trust a guy who supports terrorists?

I never heard of that. Do you have a source?

[IvanIII]

Soon Russia will be a superpower again where it belongs , all this sh*t is a pure sign of how weak the US is right now
-they are failing in Iraq
-south america more anti US then ever with Chaves in the lead
-the nut in Iran going nukler
So now they are trying to divade europe again , its a nice try but it will fail.

[Snoshi]

Soon Russia will be a superpower again where it belongs , all this sh*t is a pure sign of how weak the US is right now
-they are failing in Iraq
-south america more anti US then ever with Chaves in the lead
-the nut in Iran going nukler
So now they are trying to divade europe again , its a nice try but it will fail.

Oh boy.. Russia is so far away from being a superpower... Btw you should worry more about China.

[Xaito]

Oh, no Poland again! I'm starting to believe that this all mess begun in my country an US help us to piss Russia off

rofl

glad we agree ;)

seriously though I blamed Poland because there are enough people blaming Russia already in this thread - of course its not one sided - but you know how people are (us two included) they like to blame somebody else more then to blame themselves and thats what the majority of people in Russia and Poland do and will do in the future if this tit for tat game keeps going on.


Btw you should worry more about China.
why? I think China is a country that when treated with respect will respect you too.
Problems with China arise when somebody tries to tell them what to do but as long as you stay out of their business they stay out of yours.

[daily666]

basically youre right - it is a storm in a teacup.
I think its not about europe in gerneral - its about USA who wants to put its military bases right at Russia's front door and Poland who wants to allow that to provoke Russia.

All I get from your posts is that the whole thing is Polish provocation. Well, at least you didn't forget Poland.

[Xaito]

this ABM story is IMHO a Polish provocation yes - that and sucking up to the US - killing two flies with one blow so to say.

[Mamont]

Speaking about ABM against so-called "rogue" states - actually how many are there? And how many could develop and deploy ICBM's? Is US so affraid about even possibility of opposition?

[SOG]

MOSCOW - Russian President
Vladimir Putin warned that Moscow could take "retaliatory steps" if Washington proceeds with plans to build a missile defense system for Europe, including possibly aiming nuclear weapons at targets on the continent.

Speaking to foreign reporters days before he travels to Germany for the annual summit with President Bush and the other Group of Eight leaders, Putin assailed the White House plan to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland. Washington says the system is needed to counter a potential threat from Iran.

In an interview released Monday, Putin suggested that Russia may respond to the threat by aiming its nuclear weapons at Europe.

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin. These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system" he said.

On Monday, Iran's top security official called the U.S. plans for the missile defense shield a "joke," saying Iranian missiles do not have the capability to reach Europe.

"Claims by U.S. officials that installing a missile defense system in Europe is aimed at confronting Iranian missiles and protecting Europe against Iran is the joke of the year," Ali Larijani told the state-run IRNA news agency.

"The range of Iran's missiles doesn't reach Europe at all," IRNA quoted Larijani as saying in Iran's first public reaction to the plans. Larijani is secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top security decision-making body.

Iran is known to possess a medium-range ballistic missile called the Shahab-3 that has a range of at least 800 miles, capable of striking
Israel. In 2005, Iranian officials said they had improved the range of the Shahab-3 to 1,200 miles.

Although Western experts believe Iran is developing the Shahab-4 missile — thought to have a range between 1,200 and 1,900 miles, which would enable it to hit much of Europe — Iran has not confirmed such reports.

Iran initially acknowledged in 1999 it was developing the Shahab-4, but claimed it would be used only as a space launch vehicle for commercial satellites.

Putin told reporters that he hoped U.S. officials would change their minds regarding the missile plan, warning that Moscow was preparing a response.

"If this doesn't happen, then we disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race, which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe," he said.

"The strategic balance in the world is being upset and in order to restore this balance without creating an anti-missile defense on our territory we will be creating a system of countering that anti-missile system, which is what we are doing now," Putin said.

Last week, Russia tested a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile. While Western analysts said the system has probably been under development for several years, Putin has described the test as part of Moscow's response to the U.S. anti-missile plan.

Relations between Moscow and Washington have soured in the past year. The two former Cold War foes are at odds over Washington's missile plans, over Russia's conflicts with former Soviet nations — including Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia — and over U.S. concerns of democratic backsliding in Russia.

Putin, who is nine months from the end of his second and final four-year term in office, also said Russia's presidents should serve longer terms.

The Russian leader has consistently rejected suggestions that the constitution be amended to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, and during his annual address to parliament in April said it would be his last as president.

But his ambiguous comments to reporters from G-8 nations seemed certain to feed speculation that he would seek to stay in power beyond the spring of 2008. His suggestion, just days before the G-8 summit in Germany, could ensure other leaders treat him as a figure to be reckoned with — rather than as a lame duck.

"Four years is a fairly short time," Putin said according to a transcript of the interview. "It seems to me that in today's Russia five, six or seven years would be acceptable, but the number of terms still should be limited."

Russia is scheduled to hold presidential elections in March. Putin, who was re-elected in 1994 with over 71 percent of the vote, has presided over one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history and enjoys sky-high approval ratings in the polls.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missiles

pretty interesting

article says the missle shield is for iran. wrong, its against all rogue states as mentioned many times INCLUDING Iran. talk about iran+media pushing agenda.

also i dont understand, the missle shield is deemed wholly incapable of stopping russias latest and greatest. wouldnt russia be happy that the US is wasting billions on yet another useless project? putins extreme persistence in the matter make me think there is something else afoot. and how is a inefective system as putin put it: part of our strategic nuclear potential?

aslo putin stumbles over his own wording:
including possibly aiming nuclear weapons at targets on the continent.
so that means no nuclear weapons are currently aimed at the european continent?

We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said
so your adding more targets? well if you have a few already aimed then whats the harm in a few more?

[Switek]

this ABM story is IMHO a Polish provocation yes - that and sucking up to the US - killing two flies with one blow so to say.

It isn't funny. Is just miserable, so to say. Susumu, the fact you feel offended by other posts against Russia and its leader Putin does not excuse your insultings against my country... bad taste, really.

[SOG]

I think Putin has a valid point. Don't target his country in the first place. All this talk about "Missile Shield" positioned in E.Europe against Iran and other rogue countries is pure BS.
how does a defense offensively target another country? it can work to make a offense more productive when used but cannot be used in actual offensive measures... unless it can...


And who are the UK and French nuclear forces targeting?
exactly, we all got our aim on each other already, how would that change?


They definitely fake it, just as most of the women do.
ZING!


You missed Pakistan, India, Israel, South Afica (officially removed some time ago)...
ZING ZING!


what you guys crying about?
Its your own fault - you don't feel comfortable hearing you'll be targeted oficially again? well then don't build a ABM shield which makes Russia feel uncomfortable as well, easy as that.
You say Russia threatens others to do what they want - ever tried looking at it from an other perspective?
Its a security risk for Russia and it doesn't matter how big it is - if Russia doesn't act what comes next?
officially targeted? LOL. before you were unofficially ****ed, but now its official!


Russia should point them at Poland and czech republic where the shield/radar gona be.
But i see this missile shield thing as a way for US to split EU from Russia.
putin is more or less saying if anyone excepts EVERYONE takes the blame. insane to say the least.
wasnt europe already divided against russia from the cold war for how many years?


Care to explain how is the offensive nuclear instalation in Cuba relevant to the defensive ABM station in EE?

Why didn't Russians whine few years ago when ABM station became fully operational few hundred miles from their coast?


Does anybody remember how the US reacted when Russians wanted to put nuclear installations in Cuba...?
yes and now we remember how rusiaa acted when the US built a DEFENSIVE SHIELD in its backyard. as manny others said hardly the same.


Bert..can you go a little bit further then just calling Putin an idiot and see why russians actually do this ?
Russia would love to live at peace with their neighnours if only one smart@ss "former rival" wasnt subsidizing political turnovers in nearly all former soviet republics and installing American-grown puppets there. Im not discussing Poland or the Baltics here..they've never gotten along with us for reasons I can understand.
Its like building a fire at a gas station.....you just dont do it!
russia would love to engulf former USSR states and push its ideals back into europe once more. i think SOMEONE other than the US wouldnt want that to happen, like oh say, the majority of europe?

and i like how you label any former USSR puppet who now cooperates with the US is now our puppet. somebody's jealous.


Im saying that any military installation, directed against somebody gives them direct reason to take actions.
for every action there is a equal and opposite... threat of nuclear re-action.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Soon Russia will be a superpower again where it belongs


LOL roflroflroflroflroflroflroflrofl

The term 'giant with feet of clay' comes to mind.

Wannabe superpowers tend not to have rapidly declining populations.

[Lazy Lob]

Soon Russia will be a superpower again where it belongs , all this sh*t is a pure sign of how weak the US is right now
-they are failing in Iraq
-south america more anti US then ever with Chaves in the lead
-the nut in Iran going nukler
So now they are trying to divade europe again , its a nice try but it will fail.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1566/800pxdrevilpc2.jpg

[bart2000]

this ABM story is IMHO a Polish provocation yes - that and sucking up to the US - killing two flies with one blow so to say.
what would be a purpose of such provocation ?? all those affairs with polish meat and Russia- EU summit isnt diretcted against Russai but against some tendecies inside EU, the ABM system in Poland was considered to be build somewhere in 1999 after NAto accessment and was diracted by Polish position in Treatment (again NOT against Russia) I can agree that those movements are stupid becouse polish goverment didnt take Russias oppinion into consideration and that was very ignorant and stupid. But stupidity and aimed provocation are two digfferent things!!

[daily666]

As I said, Poland WILL be an enemy of Russia if it's media says so. This means if Putin says so.

One more Russian beaten in Warsaw and off we go- WWIII is looming across the continent p-)


Yeah, you're right, daily666. Actually i find nuclear explosions quite beautifull, although a terrifying sight. The epitome of human's search for power. Even without russian icbms, if ABM will be used on live targets Poland surely will experience the full glory of them.


You know, you have to look at picture from a distance to grasp it's beauty.:) And nuke is such a big picture that requires big distance. :)

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6411/kermitpsycho4wa.jpg

[Serjey]

The term 'giant with feet of clay' comes to mind.


Its Hitler`s phrase as i remember(or Napoleon), whatever, they both failed.



russia would love to engulf former USSR states and push its ideals back into europe once more


Nobody(or so few) in russia would love to return soviet times, russia wants independence political and economic, not to be USA`s bitches as alot of countries do(or trying to). For independence and freedom russia MUST have enough military power that can threaten any country and any alliance.

Why u think that power increasing and nuclear threats are so bad? When there is sphere of influence for 2 superpower countries that fears each other anger like the rest of the world, its good. Remember how few military conflicts during Cold war USSR and USA was involved, and how many they were after Cold War? Numerous of USA agression into foreign local conflicts and countries bombing and ect. MILITARY BALLANCE=GOOD FOR EVERYONE

[SOG]

Remember how few military conflicts during Cold war USSR and USA was involved, and how many they were after Cold War? Numerous of USA agression into foreign local conflicts and countries bombing and ect. MILITARY BALLANCE=GOOD FOR EVERYONE

actually cold war times were much hotter than now and the battles such as korea, vietnam and russias afghanistan were incredibly huge. all part of the cold war all fought to gain ground and oppose sweeping ideologies. not to mention how many hundreds of small conflicts across every continent? it was called the cold war because there was no direct (read hot) MASS engagement between the two main countries. but there was an incredible amount of war all the same.

sorry, trying to pin all modern conflict and war on the US is a simple joke.

[Turhapuro]

Remember how few military conflicts during Cold war USSR and USA was involved, and how many they were after Cold War?
How about Korea, Vietnam, Aganistan, arab-israeli war x 3? And there were always some civil wars going with commies vs others and USSR/USA pouring guns to their own sides.


Numerous of USA agression into foreign local conflicts and countries bombing and ect. MILITARY BALLANCE=GOOD FOR EVERYONE
Clearly military dominance is good for dominant side, otherwise no-one would pursue it.

[maa3057]

This all reminds me of the trailer to that Tom Clancy game, EndWar.

[SHAM]

So when CCCP existed, there was control of the press, state propoganda that the great satan that was the west was out to get every commi hiding under his bed, nukes would fall etc etc.
So what has changed?
Freedom of the press, kinda.
Freedom of movement.
And russians still seem to think there is something Russia has that the west / america wants other than good relations, free trade, good business sense?
So what is it that Russia thinks it has that everyone wants so bad, and will imminently invade for.
Can we not get something put in writing at the g7 + russia meeting that states the rest of the world thinks russia is a hole and whats nothing from it, other than trade. And russia can add a line stating the rest of the world is a hole and wants nothing from it, other than trade.
And then everyone can get on with life, becoz all this chest poofing is getting real old, in a 70's or 80's kinda way.
Lets do business.

[IvanIII]

LOL roflroflroflroflroflroflroflrofl

The term 'giant with feet of clay' comes to mind.

Wannabe superpowers tend not to have rapidly declining populations.

During the Soviet era how much money did we have back then? and we where a super power.
Super power dosen't allways meen who has the most $$$$ , Russia is the only country in the world who can put up a fight vs US that should be enuogh to make them listen to us p-)
US has to realise Ivan drago is backp-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQ1hw2bkdA&mode=related&search=

[Noble713]

for ****s and giggles? not likely. For the usual reasons because of which wars are started? you never know so you have to be prepared.

You're kinda dodging the question. No one starts a nuclear war out of the blue; the diplomatic situation has to detoriate immensely over a considerable period of time for things to get THAT hostile. Russia isn't going to get caught with its pants down overnight.



Would you want the USA to throw away all their nukes? afterall who would attack it for ****s and giggles? Just think about the stupidity of your suggestion to rely on the others not to attack you without having insurance.

Russia is in a position where it is a nuclear superpower - who would give up a position like this even for a little bit without fighting?

Of course I don't expect any nation to give up their nuclear arsenal freely, but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit when someone develops a method of defense either.

Russia's argument is essentially as follows:
Russia isn't targetting parts of Europe with missiles, but if those parts of Europe decide to build defenses to protect against our missiles — which aren't targetting them — then of course we will target them.

Which is such an asinine position it isn't funny.

Think of it like this: The UK has nukes. India has nukes. If India were to build an ABM shield, do you think the UK would complain because they are no longer capable of blasting India into oblivion? No. Why? Because the two countries are not enemies. The Cold War is over. We aren't enemies anymore, but many people in Russia (particularly in the government) don't seem to have snuffed out their antagonism yet.

[Mamont]

NRDC: The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change. (2001)


We stress the fact that the act of targeting an individual, a group, or a nation defines it as an enemy. It is this first step that we must reverse. We do not target friends or allies—Canada, Britain, Italy, for example—but we do target Russia, China, and several others. The United States still seems to be confused about our relationship to Russia. In his speech at the National Defense University, President Bush said, “Today’s Russia is not our enemy.” But our actions with regard to nuclear war planning project the exact opposite implication and assumption. If our words and our actions are to correspond, then it is obvious that changes must take place in the way the United States postures its forces and plans for their use. Having a permanent war plan in place that demands widespread target coverage with thousands of weapons on high-alert is a recipe for unceasing arms requirements by the Pentagon and a continuing competition with Russia. It is for this reason that we conclude that the overambitious war plan is the key source of the problem.



The Bush administration spokesmen pay little regard to domestic or international criticism of their ideas and policies for ballistic missile defense, and tend to downplay them. In his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the ABM Treaty as “ancient history,” and a “straightjacket” that limits thechoices that America might or must take. If the shoe were on the other foot, it is doubtful that the United States would stand idly by and do nothing if faced with a similar situation. From the Bush perspective, other nations are expected to be calmed by mere ****ouncements that we intend no harm, and therefore no one should worry about what we do. In fact, it is highly likely that going forward with a missile defense system will have widespread ramifications, including the obvious response of causing certain nations to build more offensive weapons to overwhelm the defense. The logic is as old as warfare itself and was the dynamic that the original ABM Treaty was intended to prevent. Prudent military planners, wherever they are, plan on the basis of capabilities rather than intentions, which are much harder to divine. Actions and hardware speak louder than words when militaries view one another. Russian generals and admirals, like our own, build their assumptions on a worst-case analysis. The statement by Admiral Mies could just as easily have been said by his Russian counterpart: “Our force structure needs to be robust, flexible and credible enough to meet the worst threats we can reasonably postulate.” From the Russian vantage point, the planners must assume that defense and offense are integrated. The Russians have threatened to renege on several agreements if the United States withdraws from the ABM Treaty, an action not without consequence.
4 For example, the START II Treaty bans MIRVed ICBMs, a positive security advantage for the United States. If the United States proceeds to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, it is likely that Russia would retain its present force of MIRVed ICBMs and possibly even MIRV a single-warhead missile like the SS-27.




Report is not that big - 208 pages. But definitely worth a read.




The question stands - what are rogue states, that threaten US so badly, that such thrfeats require development of ABM?

[SOG]

I think you mixed up something - the ABM bases will not be polish and not there to protect Poland - the only long term investment for you is the rent the USA will pay for the land they use.

incorrect. if enemies launch at our allies in poland then we will defend them with whatever we can, PERIOD. trying to say the US is simply making poland a HUGE target is laughable. poland already was a target concerning russia.

[Noble713]

For independence and freedom russia MUST have enough military power that can threaten any country and any alliance.


There's a good number of large, populous countries that are independent and free of US "domination", while lacking the ability to pulverize their neighbors. Brazil and Indonesia come to mind, as well as Nigeria.


And russians still seem to think there is something Russia has that the west / America wants other than good relations, free trade, good business sense? .......Lets do business.

Amen to that! We just want to buy up your natural resources (which Russia seems eager to exploit) and in return sell you a bunch of Microsoft products, Ford automobiles, and Girls Gone Wild videos. Oh, and put a McDonald's and Taco Bell on every corner. :)

[SOG]

glad we agree ;)
why? I think China is a country that when treated with respect will respect you too.
Problems with China arise when somebody tries to tell them what to do but as long as you stay out of their business they stay out of yours.

history says otherwise. then again, all countries have had their aggresive moments. china is currently gearing up for another. as it is, NO ONE IS BOSSING CHINA AROUND, yet they are gearing for large scale war. i wonder why that is.

as you stay out of their business they stay out of yours

oh, of course.

[MichaelF]

This all reminds me of the trailer to that Tom Clancy game, EndWar.

Putin-Bush-Sarkozy: XBOX Live. Winner take all.

[SOG]

Putin-Bush-Sarkozy: XBOX Live. Winner take all.

ill put a franklin on Sarkozy anyday. defeating socialists and taking the helm in france is solid. not hard but notable.

on a side note id like to thank our russian friends here for not getting too upset and being pretty damn civil in talking in this thread.

[Xaito]

It isn't funny. Is just miserable, so to say. Susumu, the fact you feel offended by other posts against Russia and its leader Putin does not excuse your insultings against my country... bad taste, really.

I'm not trying to insult your country - if thats how it looked like I'm sorry. I'm just saying how I perceive its behaviour.
Also I'm sorry that I'm too lazy to go and research who has which position in your country - so I just say Poland when I mean parts of its government and some of its supporters.
And especially I don't mean you, Switek - even though I know you like to tease Russians ;) iirc you were against the ABM site yourself. (at least you were last year)


If India were to build an ABM shield, do you think the UK would complain because they are no longer capable of blasting India into oblivion? No. Why?
you see there's also the difference of where they position it - If India would build its ABM's in north France and say it puts it there to defend itself against Pakistan you bet UK would be pissed.
Russia hasn't said anything as long as USA build them on its own soil.


incorrect. if enemies launch at our allies in poland then we will defend them with whatever we can, PERIOD
you are a nice guy - too bad its not you who will make the decisions in case of trouble.
Also - as long as there isn't a ABM base in Poland nobody would even want to launch something at Poland in the first place.


china is currently gearing up for another. as it is, NO ONE IS BOSSING CHINA AROUND, yet they are gearing for large scale war. i wonder why that is.
China is modernizing its military and thats the right thing to do - look at their equipment - they need a modernization.
And yes there is somebody who is constantly bossing around china (and others) - the USA has big influence and tries to mix it at the top all the time.
Why else do you think there are always quarrels between USA and China?
Especially when it comes to the Taiwan conflict - which is one of the biggest examples where others stick their nose in China's affairs and one of the biggest reasons China needs a modernization of its military.



And russians still seem to think there is something Russia has that the west / America wants other than good relations, free trade, good business sense?
that would be correct for smaller countries that get invaded because of recourses etc - with Russia there's another reason for war - because Russia is a big competitor in the world's affairs - after the breakdown of the Soviet Union there was a big power vacuum where the US spread its influence as much as possible - now Russia gets back on its feet and wants to claim back its position in the world which collides with US interests - thats where all the recent conflicts come from and where conflicts in the future will come from.

[signatory]

Do people actually believe these ballistic missiles get launched from ramps positioned towards the target kind of like artillery guns... ? :cantbeli:

The Russian answer to the missile defense system is... new rhetoric.

[Mamont]

The Russian answer to the missile defense system is... new rhetoric.
If it's not on TV or in newspaper - it didn't exist... Oh, dear...

I think in upcoming weeks there will be a couple of translations about new ways of development of warheads in Russia. Stay tuned.

[Noble713]

that would be correct for smaller countries that get invaded because of recourses etc - with Russia there's another reason for war - because Russia is a big competitor in the world's affairs - after the breakdown of the Soviet Union there was a big power vacuum where the US spread its influence as much as possible - now Russia gets back on its feet and wants to claim back its position in the world which collides with US interests - thats where all the recent conflicts come from and where conflicts in the future will come from.


So it all boils down to megalomania on the part of Russia? Can't you just be content to sit back, and get rich like most countries? The average American actually has an isolationist slant; we don't really run the world's affairs because we LOVE doing it, but because we more or less have to. Other than the Brits (back in their Imperial days), we are the only nation that seems to have been a successful caretaker of the integrated capitalist global economy. We just want to facilitate our own enrichment, much of which is trade-based, and therefore we need stable market-oriented friends in as many parts of the world as possible.

I don't see Russia's desire for world influence taking a similar slant; in my eyes it stems from a simple desire to put people back under their thumb *cough* Georgia, Ukraine *cough*. It's power just for its own sake. Given how poorly managed that power was in the last century, and given the historical Russian penchant for autocracy in general, I (and obviously many others) look at the rise of Russia with more than a bit of trepidation.

It'd probably be better for everyone if you guys just stuck to drinking vodka, selling weapons, and ****ing down hot Siberia chicks (which clearly you aren't doing enough of, else you wouldn't have such a rapidly declining population).

The Chinese are another rising power and they do their damnedest to downplay any potential hostilities outside of the Taiwan issue. Perhaps its due to their much smoother transition from Communism to capitalist authoritarianism, or perhaps they simply have enough sense to realize that waving your nuclear boomstick in the faces of all your neighbors isn't likely to endear you to anyone.

[phoebus]

Now don't get me wrong, the same can be said for the US nuclear arsenal and our unending quest for full-spectrum military overmatch, but I fully admit that such things are good for the US, and pretty much the US only. Likewise, Russian nuclear forces are in the best interests of Russia. I understand that. But don't try to pass it off as somehow being good for Europe as a whole.

You got me very wrong I'm afraid, if you may, read my very last post. Also their "sponsors", as I said, are indeed seeking to alter the status quo; no question about that either.

[Shturman]

just now, i again watched Putin's speech with journalists, and of course those sh...ty journalists heard what they wanted to hear. They need hot news.

[Shturman]

It'd probably be better for everyone if you guys just stuck to drinking vodka, selling weapons, and ****ing down hot Siberia chicks (which clearly you aren't doing enough of, else you wouldn't have such a rapidly declining population).


kill yourself, do the only one good thing in your life

[Atlantic Friend]

Hmm...USA, Russia, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, soon enough Iran...missed anyone?

China and the UK.

[MichaelF]

(which clearly you aren't doing enough of, else you wouldn't have such a rapidly declining population).
.

In all fairness, the Russian birth rate is just behind the UK (9.95 per 1000, the UK clocking in at 10.71 and the US having a whopping 14.14, amigo) and rising pretty rapidly (as these things go).

The nadir was in 1998, when it bottomed out at 8.27 per 1000. The rebounding economy seems to have stimulated things a little.


The death rate has leveled out similarly. A lot of the morality is likely caused by retirees/elderly running into the lack of Soviet-era geriatric care (the chronically ill die). Alcohol is also a causative agent.

Russia has -always- had a low population for it's size, even during the USSR. It only become a problem if the country suffers another demogrpahic crash, or gets into a US/Mexico-style situation with China.

[Kilgor]

In all fairness, the Russian birth rate is just behind the UK (9.95 per 1000, the UK clocking in at 10.71 and the US having a whopping 14.14, amigo) and rising pretty rapidly (as these things go).

The nadir was in 1998, when it bottomed out at 8.27 per 1000. The rebounding economy seems to have stimulated things a little.
.

The death rate is also very high, resulting in the declining population.

[MichaelF]

The death rate is also very high, resulting in the declining population.

As I noted above, it's declining. Whether it will continue to decline and reach a US/EU standard......depends on economic and social conditions.

[Switek]

The death rate is also very high, resulting in the declining population.


What about life expectancy rate and others indicators concerning civilisation diferences between nuclear power: Russia and the rest of the world (non-democratic west, for example)?

I'd like to see mr. Putin successes in that matter... ;)

[Ecchi Oni]

Switek here's a piece of information for you concerning life expectancy. A State is not interested in high life expectancy because people past their prime and still living at the expence of others are a burden. Cynical? Yes. True. Also yes. There're exceptions to the rule, true, but mostly once a person is unable to work, thus produce he/she becomes a liability not an asset. Russia is now in the demographic hole left by the USSR without the ability to attract migrants like Europe and the US do. But populations always bounce back on their own, if however you substitute the declying population with migrants... well go learn arabic :p

[Mamont]

Kilgor and Switek found a new horse to beat.

Current Russia is a product of SU. Children in SU are now adults of Russia. And they see, that all things they've been told in their childhood are actually quite real.


"For the American people the cosmic tragedy of the interventions in Russia does not exist, or it was an unimportant incident long forgotten. But for the Soviet peoples and their leaders the period was a time of endless killing, of looting and rapine, of plague and famine, of measureless suffering for scores of millions— an experience burned into the very soul of a nation, not to be forgotten for many generations, if ever. Also for many years the harsh Soviet regimentations could all be justified by fear that the capitalist powers would be back to finish the job."


"We in the West are never allowed to forget the political shortcomings (real and bogus) of the Soviet Union; at the same time we are never reminded of the history which lies behind it."

[Switek]

No arguments... I see. :|

"Current Polish Republic is a product of Polish People Republic. Children in PPR are now adults of Poland. ..."

[Mamont]

What do you expect to see, Switek? Look at Poland - population decreasing, people leaving. Sort you garden out, than look farther.

[MichaelF]

What about life expectancy rate and others indicators concerning civilisation diferences between nuclear power: Russia and the rest of the world (non-democratic west, for example)?

I'd like to see mr. Putin successes in that matter... ;)


Putin or no Putin, Russia will need another 20-30* years to fully recover from the postSoviet crash. Not simply economically (the Petroruble seems to be moving that along as quickly as can be expected), but demographically and socially. Much of the infrastructure (technical, industrial and social) is a least a generation out of date.

I'm not a great fan of FDR (using the Constitution for toilet paper as he did), but if Putin (or his successor) could translate those incoming Petrodollars into a New Deal-style program (.gov.ru creates employment by fiat) and overhaul the national infrastructure at the same time, it could possibly accelerate the recovery.

Cracking down on the ownership of banks by the Oligarchs (who often use the deposits to make loans to their own businesses, thus reducing the availability of capital) would be a major step forward, as well. It may happen, as Putin has not been a fan of the Oligarchy system.


*-not counting some wild outside stimulation of the economy (as happened to the US in WWII).

[MZKT]

So it all boils down to megalomania on the part of Russia? Can't you just be content to sit back, and get rich like most countries? The average American actually has an isolationist slant; we don't really run the world's affairs because we LOVE doing it, but because we more or less have to. Other than the Brits (back in their Imperial days), we are the only nation that seems to have been a successful caretaker of the integrated capitalist global economy. We just want to facilitate our own enrichment, much of which is trade-based, and therefore we need stable market-oriented friends in as many parts of the world as possible.

I don't see Russia's desire for world influence taking a similar slant; in my eyes it stems from a simple desire to put people back under their thumb *cough* Georgia, Ukraine *cough*. It's power just for its own sake. Given how poorly managed that power was in the last century, and given the historical Russian penchant for autocracy in general, I (and obviously many others) look at the rise of Russia with more than a bit of trepidation.

It'd probably be better for everyone if you guys just stuck to drinking vodka, selling weapons, and ****ing down hot Siberia chicks (which clearly you aren't doing enough of, else you wouldn't have such a rapidly declining population).

The Chinese are another rising power and they do their damnedest to downplay any potential hostilities outside of the Taiwan issue. Perhaps its due to their much smoother transition from Communism to capitalist authoritarianism, or perhaps they simply have enough sense to realize that waving your nuclear boomstick in the faces of all your neighbors isn't likely to endear you to anyone.


Well an interesting theory, so USA are seeking world power and support all pro-US-dictatorships because of some higher "free trade"-ideology while when russia do the same it's for their own evil we-control-you desire?
how doews Cuban blockade fits into the theory. Really free-trade-spreading?
And USA is of course not supporting Georgia to have it "under the thumb" (Nabucco-pipline) but because of the noble desire to help "96%-democrat" Saakashwili (who last year imprisoned opposition leaders for state treason, something even "evil dictator Putin" didn't done).

And financial support for Ukrainian president which party got 13% votes in the following paralamental elections and who recently blocked decisions from supreme court about his order to relieve old parlament was of course also "only to spread free trade.

Not to mention such close "democratic" US-friends like Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia Azerbaijan, Tadschikistan etc.

You should wake up from your ideologistic dreams. USA supported and still supports every pro-US-regime regardless if democracy, dictatorship, terrorists or freedom fighters. Exactly like Sovietunion did which also supported capitalist countries as long they were pro-SU. It's not bad and not good it's the nature of real politics, there are no higher ideological motivations behind it. Talks about democracy-spreading or communistic world revolution are only medial covers for pragmatic national interests in fforeign states.

[Durandal]

The average American actually has an isolationist slant

Quoted for truth...its been this way during every conflict.

We just want to do business, but these damn corporations, defense contractors, and politicos keep dragging us into BS...usually for the worst...or at best, lamest...reasons.

[Shadowstorm]

Another cold war deja vu. Damn a lot defense contractors worldwide going to love this.

[Durandal]

Another cold war deja vu. Damn a lot defense contractors worldwide going to love this.

Maybe you missed how much the U.S. and China are spending these days...

p-)

Who needs another Cold War when you have The War On Terror

[Macs.]

It's "The Global War On Terror™".

[Kroforit]

Quoted for truth...its been this way during every conflict.

We just want to do business, but these damn corporations, defense contractors, and politicos keep dragging us into BS...usually for the worst...or at best, lamest...reasons.

and without them there would be no business, atleast not on the scale it is now. you might mention europeans who have their paws in less BS and still have good business, but European business relies on US business which relies on US coorporations.

[Durandal]

It's "The Global War On Terror™".

I know, I simply wanted to avoid having to pay a royalty fee.

[Macs.]

I know, I simply waned to avoid having to pay a royalty fee.

You, Sir, are a disgusting supporter of international Terrorism.

[Satellite Weapon]

Let Russia do as they wish, frankly it is better for NATO to have Russia as an enemy, it would encourage some political unity at a time when it is badly needed between the NATO allies and other European nations.

I am sure Russians have more than enough sense not to actually launch those missiles, and the US nor Europe will likely strike first anyhow, so hopefully this issue will ensure the Europeans move into cooperation with the Americans.

another debate here
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113010

[a_very_ex_STAB]

During the Soviet era how much money did we have back then? and we where a super power.
Super power dosen't allways meen who has the most $$$$ , Russia is the only country in the world who can put up a fight vs US that should be enuogh to make them listen to us p-)
US has to realise Ivan drago is backp-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQ1hw2bkdA&mode=related&search=


Really? The Chinese could give them a run for their money. In fact a rag tag bunch of Arab insurgents are giving the US a run for their money right now so you're not exceptional. The US and Europe are a bit bigger than Chechenya you know:roll:

So what if you've got enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over - it can only be destroyed once and we also have enough nukes to bring about global catastrophe so bigging it up about your nuclear forces isn't going to impress anyone.

The truth is if you act childishly and want to try to push Europe around your army is going to have to travel a lot further to do it than it would have had to in the past.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Its Hitler`s phrase as i remember(or Napoleon), whatever, they both failed.

I don't recall Hitler saying that about Russia but it's not important. The problem you Russians have now is the exact inverse of that which faced Napoleon and Hitler. You now have to traverse MUCH great distances to impact militarily on Europe. The irony is great isn't it :)

Everything changes but everything stays the same eh:)

[Switek]

What do you expect to see, Switek? Look at Poland - population decreasing, people leaving. Sort you garden out, than look farther.


You should add decreasing of unemployment rate, GDP growth above 7%...
btw Many rich Russians buys real estates in Europe, I'm curious why?

Life expectancy (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/6.html) is an indicator about life quality. I see that mr. Putin works hard to make those much more equal (after nuke strike). ;)

[Player]

my super microsoft paint skillz

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/5391/mapzc0.jpg

[GazB]

Sort of like the rapist claiming he is going to use a gun now that the victim has a can of mace.

"I feel threatened!"

Except the ABM system in Europe with a radar in the Czech republic that faces east so that long range launches of Russian ICBMs can be properly and accuractely tracked rather than just detected with IR satellites initiated this situaiton... so a more accurate analogy would be rapist pulls a knife on a woman because he feels "threatened" and as he unbuttons her dress she tells him she has a gun and if he goes ahead and tries to "take advantage" of her she will use it.


Ok, then please keep your missiles out of the NATO soil

Most will be airburst to maximise damage, though those targeted against underground facilities might explode at ground level or below.


No. For example in US using old CDB the time needed to re-target one missile was 25 minutes. After REACT time was shortened to 15 minutes. The whole fleet of Minutemans-3 could be re-targeted in under 10 hours. Considering that Russia does not have to re-target all of it's missiles, but about 10 to 20, i guess it's like half an hour job.

30 years ago maybe, but now it is all computerised. Under current international obligations neither US nor Russia can target each other with missiles to prevent accidentally launched missile hitting anything. Considering you can't check to see if the other guy has his missiles targeted or not the only warning of a first strike by the US might be a mass of IR targets coming up over the horizon... less than 30 minutes warning... perhaps less than 10 minutes for SLBMs.


retargeting needs that much time?
My father was stationed at a ICBM base in soviet times when he was in the military and iirc half an hour was about the time they needed to get the older models out of their hangars, erect them and refuel them with a two component rocket fuel.
The newer ICBMs were in silos and with a dry fuel so they needed to open a silo door and could launch it right away.

Modern liquid fuelled ICBMs and SLBMs use storable liquid propellent missiles that are simply launched without having to fuel the missile. It makes no sense to go to solid fuels and storable liquids if it takes even longer to target things than it does to fuel up the rockets.


To be frank, I'm not sure if the French or the UK are factors in the Russian nuke deterrant now. Neither are going to go it alone against Russia, neither can even contemplate invasion ( there is a minor issue of troops and distances ) and both would only use it for national survival as the results are terrible beyond comprehension. Unless Russia intends to invade Europe with the idea of occupying France and Britain ( very unlikely, trade is much better for all ) - isnt this all rather a storm in a teacup ?

Britain and France are part of NATO. In a war with the US the Brits and French would be obliged to help and can expect to be fired upon.... large military alliances are fun like that... hense WWI. If the Russians though this ABM system rendered their strategic nuclear forces impotent they wouldn't just point some nukes at them they would preemptively attack to prevent them from being built or threaten much more than pointing some weapons.
The reality is that they can see ABM systems as slightly diminishing their deterrence and they are talking about the steps they will take to counter that. If the US etc ignore this and go ahead with their plans the world will not end. The US and poland will feel safer, despite Iran not having nuclear weapons let alone anything small enough to fit into an ICBM let alone an intermediate range ballistic missile let alone an intercontinental BM. Building an ABM site in Poland might actually make the cheaper option of sticking a nuclear warhead in a shipping crate and sailing a nuclear bomb into a western harbour... the delivery method is cheap and available now, and it would be harder to work out who was responsible in a harbour with hundreds of container ships... while your billion dollar ABM system sits and watches... birds.


Oh boy.. Russia is so far away from being a superpower... Btw you should worry more about China.

In my opionion the greatest threat of nuclear war isn't Iran or Pakistan and India... it is Taiwan becoming independant and the US jumping in to guarantee its independance...



article says the missle shield is for iran. wrong, its against all rogue states as mentioned many times INCLUDING Iran. talk about iran+media pushing agenda.

Well tell that to the Americans. When they released details about the system they have stated clearly every time that this system is to stop Iranian missiles going for the US's west coast (ie opposite side to Alaska where the other ABM site is to defend the US from NK missiles over the Pacific.) and also to stop North Korean missiles aimed at Europe. (NK missiles aimed at the US would go the opposite way and ABM missiles in Poland would be useless in that regard).




also i dont understand, the missle shield is deemed wholly incapable of stopping russias latest and greatest.

Russia's latest and greatest TOPOL-M warhead wont enter service till after 2010 and the vast majority of ICBM warheads will be carried by the SS-18 (ten warheads each missile) and the SS-19 (6 warheads each missile). The Topol was designed after START II was talked about and was designed to carry only one warhead (START II banned MIRVS but has not been ratified by the US and has been replaced by the Moscow Treaty).




putins extreme persistence in the matter make me think there is something else afoot. and how is a inefective system as putin put it: part of our strategic nuclear potential?


It is all about MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. As long as both sides have the capability to wipe out the other completely no matter who strikes first then no one will strike because everyone loses. When you start adding defence systems and of course the US's stealth aircraft then the US in particular might get to the point where ABM tests are going so well and numbers of nuclear weapons so low (say 1,000 or 800) that the US might think it could survive a nuclear war by striking first and trying to take out all of Russias nuclear weapons. If it can get a large number before they are launched with their own ICBMs or SLBMs or stealth bombers they might think their ABM systems might be able to knock down the rest few missiles the Russians could then launch in retaliation. It is dangerous because it makes nuclear war thinkable and the more thinkable it is the more likely it is to happen. Better everyone thinks it is mad and unwinnable... well it has worked well so far...




aslo putin stumbles over his own wording:
including possibly aiming nuclear weapons at targets on the continent.
so that means no nuclear weapons are currently aimed at the european continent?

By agreement there are no strategic nuclear weapons in Russia or the US pointed at targets. It prevents accidentally launched weapons hitting anything. Of course accidents are so unlikely they can be ignored. Retargetting takes less than 30 seconds anyway.




We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said
so your adding more targets? well if you have a few already aimed then whats the harm in a few more?

Perhaps the people who live in cities nearest where this radar and ABM system are being built might think otherwise... there was previously no reason to waste a missile there before...


it can work to make a offense more productive when used but cannot be used in actual offensive measures... unless it can...


So an enormous EW radar that can see Russian missiles within seconds of takeoff that can calculate trajectories within a minute or so to alert the defence and define where all the missiles are headed, not to mention monitor any missile tests in Russia in the future would never be of any assistence to the US agaisnt Russia? Why do you think they even bother to mention its use against North Korean missiles aimed at Europe? Why would NK ever aim missiles at Europe... it is the US it is at war with.


yes and now we remember how rusiaa acted when the US built a DEFENSIVE SHIELD in its backyard. as manny others said hardly the same.


Bullet proof vests, helmets and the armour on MBTs are defensive... are all soldiers and tanks defensive are they? A system might have a defensive function but be used for attack. Stealth is a defence... but are stealth bombers really just defending themselves or are they for attacking targets in enemy territory? Sounds offensive to me.

Regarding Grid Iron... with defensive, attacking and kicking teams... I guess it is only the defensive teams that wear helmets and protective gear right?


russia would love to engulf former USSR states and push its ideals back into europe once more.

Where were you in the 90s? The Ukraine, Georgia, and the baltic states chose to leave the union but the other states were pushed by Yeltsen. Russia doesn't want the former soviet states back.


i think SOMEONE other than the US wouldnt want that to happen, like oh say, the majority of europe?


They have a great history of ignoring each other acting like colonial powers all over the world.


and i like how you label any former USSR puppet who now cooperates with the US is now our puppet. somebody's jealous.


The US has just as bad a record as anyone else in the world at practising what they preach. Look at the model dmocracies of Saudi Arabia... men got the vote in 2005, women don't have it yet, Pakistan... no one votes at all... a military dictatorship...


Russia isn't targetting parts of Europe with missiles, but if those parts of Europe decide to build defenses to protect against our missiles — which aren't targetting them — then of course we will target them.

More accurately the Russians have said they will want to study the ABM system built before they formulate their final reaction to it but if it represents something that could be used agaisnt them directly then they will take measures to meet that threat, including aiming missiles at the bases.


Because the two countries are not enemies. The Cold War is over. We aren't enemies anymore, but many people in Russia (particularly in the government) don't seem to have snuffed out their antagonism yet.

Of course Russia and the US are enemies. They are certainly not friends. If they were friends they would be in the WTO, they would be in NATO or at least been offered membership. Other former Soviet republics have been offered or at least not refused outright the opportunity to join, yet Russia is not welcome under any circumstances now or in the forseeable future.

The reality is that despite its fall Russia can still wipe out the west just as the west can wipe out them. They will never be friends as there is no will to even try. Russia makes the changes the west demands or they are sliding into dictatorship and communism. It seems only big business can own Russian oil, the Russian people cannot have a stake in it and still be a democracy. Demcoracy also seems to require a free press, which doesn't make much sense either... the amount of rubbish that is in the western press...


From the Bush perspective, other nations are expected to be calmed by mere ****ouncements that we intend no harm, and therefore no one should worry about what we do.

And Russia has already seen how much it can trust the word of the US... No NATO expansion into Warsaw Pact, no NATO expansion into former Soviet Republics...


Amen to that! We just want to buy up your natural resources (which Russia seems eager to exploit) and in return sell you a bunch of Microsoft products, Ford automobiles, and Girls Gone Wild videos. Oh, and put a McDonald's and Taco Bell on every corner.

Congrats... you make a nuclear winter seem appealing...


The Russian answer to the missile defense system is... new rhetoric.

The first answer is rhetoric... it is free and if it stops an arms race then it saves wasting a lot of money later on... and certainly worth a try. The second answer will depend upon the radars field of view... and how it is pointed. If it covers Russia too much then things like interfering with the signal and funding protests might be options but the site will also be targetted by missiles... most likely low flying cruise missiles an ABM radar would not be able to detect and track and ABM missiles would not be able to engage.


I think in upcoming weeks there will be a couple of translations about new ways of development of warheads in Russia. Stay tuned.

The Russians have already test launched the RS-24. A Topol like missile designed to carry 10 warhead instead of 1 like the Topol. This would violate START II if that were ratified, which it isn't and wont be. It means that the Russians will be able to maintain warhead numbers as the SS-18s and SS-19s are retired. Unless they start making 200 Topols a year they will find replacing SS-18s with 10 warheads each and SS-19s with 6 warheads each with Topols with 1 warhead each might lead to reduced numbers of warheads in service. This new missile will help by reducing the number of missiles required to hold their allowed warhead count making it cheaper overall and reducing the average age of Russian ICBMs which should improve safety and again reduce costs without returning to cold war missile production rates.


It's power just for its own sake. Given how poorly managed that power was in the last century, and given the historical Russian penchant for autocracy in general, I (and obviously many others) look at the rise of Russia with more than a bit of trepidation.

So Russia becoming more powerful is bad but being under US's thumb is OK. Ask an Iranian about the US's fair policy in the ME... in fact government dictatorships, religious autocracies, demcoracies... it really doesn't matter to the US. It is who deals in US currency and who lets western companies get the contracts that determines who the good guys are...

Britain and France get together and draw lines on a map to seperate their colonies in the ME and create royal families that have no history and countries and dictators are created. Is it any wonder that Iraq should be three seperate states, one of which should have included part of Turkey, Syria, and Iran, while other parts of Iraq should have included Saudi Arabia.
Wonder why they wont be getting peace any time soon...
But american caretakership has kept a lid on... just a shame they turned the element on high and cant find their oven gloves ready to lift the lid quickly when it boils over... but in other areas excellent... I hear Haiti is still a Sht hole, as is Somalia, Kosovo still has problems, and of course Afghanistan is still trying to deal with the utopia the US congressmen predicted would occur when the Soviets left in 1989. Yeah... the US... the wondercop.


What about life expectancy rate and others indicators concerning civilisation diferences between nuclear power: Russia and the rest of the world (non-democratic west, for example)?

So high death rate makes them uncivilised?


Really? The Chinese could give them a run for their money. In fact a rag tag bunch of Arab insurgents are giving the US a run for their money right now so you're not exceptional. The US and Europe are a bit bigger than Chechenya you know

Don't confuse a guerilla war with a conventional war. Russia fighting China would be like NATO bombing Serbia without worrying about civilian casualties...


You now have to traverse MUCH great distances to impact militarily on Europe. The irony is great isn't it

Would only apply if Russia actually wanted to occupy Europe, which I rather doubt it would considering the pointless waste of time the Warsaw Pact was (other than what it was really intended to be... a buffer zone of friendly to the Soviets countries between the Soviets and the Americans/British/Germans).


Many rich Russians buys real estates in Europe, I'm curious why?


Look up investment in a dictionary. I could own property in Australia... doesn't mean I want to live there... too hot for me, plus I don't like snakes and large poisonous spiders.

[GazB]

my super microsoft paint skillz

Which would seem to suggest Spain and Italy are not well covered by an ABM missile base in Poland and that Bulgaria, Roumania or Greece would have been better locations for the missiles.

The polish leader has been quoted as saying the real purpose of the ABM base in Poland is to move Poland from Russias Sphere once and for all. Perhaps WWII led them to not trust promises of support from countries far away (britain...).

[Noble713]

kill yourself, do the only one good thing in your life

What's wrong, you don't like nailing Siberian women? I do. :) Have a drink and calm down. Or better yet, contribute something of substance to the thread.




how does Cuban blockade fits into the theory. Really free-trade-spreading?

An unfortunate hold-over from all the Cold War craziness (we have a lot of these loose ends, like the whole North Korea issue), and one that I strongly oppose.



USA supported and still supports every pro-US-regime regardless if democracy, dictatorship, terrorists or freedom fighters. Exactly like Sovietunion did which also supported capitalist countries as long they were pro-SU. It's not bad and not good it's the nature of real politics, there are no higher ideological motivations behind it. Talks about democracy-spreading or communistic world revolution are only medial covers for pragmatic national interests in fforeign states.

Re-read my post. At no point did I mention democracy; I said "integrated capitalist global economy". As the Chinese are proving, you can be a capitalist pig without having a democracy. US hegemony is about stabilizing and developing markets in our favor. Stability is good for business. Instability is (generally) bad for business. Of course we support despotic regimes as long as they don't rock the boat (Pakistan).

Since the Soviet Union was built on a centrally-planned socialist economic system, it's pretty obvious that the expansion of their world influence was not for capitalistic purposes. We've seen what Soviet influence usually brings: economic stagnation or ruin. Granted, Russia embraced free-market reforms in the early 90's and it blew up in their faces, so I can understand that people are a bit leery of economic liberalization (again). However, as I said, considering that your current crop of rulers was raised in the "old school" of Communist thought, no one is eager to see Russia gain influence again as that influence is expected to be bad for everyone else's business.

Like I said before, look to the Chinese for how to do things the right way. The Chinese "Communist" Party has turned into the most ruthless bunch of capitalists on the planet. They've been making resource deals and investments all over Africa while everyone else is distracted by the Taiwan issue. They constantly speak of a "peaceful rise", doing their damnedest to improve their public image, and it's working. They've been surrounded by US allies for decades and you don't see them flipping out in an international forum every time we move some strategic bombers to the Pacific, or station some SAM sites in Korea. They know that in business, image is important, and most people don't want to do business with a paranoid bully.


Frankly I think the US could benefit from sending our NeoCon and LLF (that's Lunatic Left Fringe, in case you were wondering) politicians to China for training. They might learn a thing or two.....or end up as organ donors. Either way everybody wins.

[Fieri1989]

What Putin says make no sense. Half of Russian missiles aim US targets and the other half aim at Europe. May be some of them aim now at China. But either way Europe is already targeted by Russian missiles.

[Lapata]

So it all boils down to megalomania on the part of Russia? Can't you just be content to sit back, and get rich like most countries? The average American actually has an isolationist slant; we don't really run the world's affairs because we LOVE doing it, but because we more or less have to. Other than the Brits (back in their Imperial days), we are the only nation that seems to have been a successful caretaker of the integrated capitalist global economy. We just want to facilitate our own enrichment, much of which is trade-based, and therefore we need stable market-oriented friends in as many parts of the world as possible.

I don't see Russia's desire for world influence taking a similar slant; in my eyes it stems from a simple desire to put people back under their thumb *cough* Georgia, Ukraine *cough*. It's power just for its own sake. Given how poorly managed that power was in the last century, and given the historical Russian penchant for autocracy in general, I (and obviously many others) look at the rise of Russia with more than a bit of trepidation.

It'd probably be better for everyone if you guys just stuck to drinking vodka, selling weapons, and ****ing down hot Siberia chicks (which clearly you aren't doing enough of, else you wouldn't have such a rapidly declining population).

The Chinese are another rising power and they do their damnedest to downplay any potential hostilities outside of the Taiwan issue. Perhaps its due to their much smoother transition from Communism to capitalist authoritarianism, or perhaps they simply have enough sense to realize that waving your nuclear boomstick in the faces of all your neighbors isn't likely to endear you to anyone.

Makes sence.I dont see why its such a big deal missiles were aimed at Europe and the States for ages nothing new.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What Putin says make no sense. Half of Russian missiles aim US targets and the other half aim at Europe. May be some of them aim now at China. But either way Europe is already targeted by Russian missiles.

Exactly. Putin makes these threats like it's something new. :roll:
Most if not all of my life we've had Russian missiles pointed at us.
Big fcuking deal!

I can't help wondering with all this posturing coming from the Kremlin all the time whether Putin is trying to make up for a lack of something in the trouser department.

[BugHunt]

Always thought due to missle disarmament treaties the missles stopped being targetted?

Its a symbolic step backwards, more sterling diplomatic work being done by Bush and the lads.....

[Lapata]

I think what makes this controversial is that new rs-24’s and topol-m's missiles will be aimed at Europe .

[Mamont]

You should add decreasing of unemployment rate,
Yes, because those unemployed are fleeing the country for work. How much of polish population is living beyond the gates of Great Poland? I heard it's close to 15% and growing.



GDP growth above 7%...
It will eventually lower to 4.



btw Many rich Russians buys real estates in Europe, I'm curious why?
Because they can. Or are you trying to say that polish rich coldn't afford to do the same? Anyway, how much is many? Be more specific.



Life expectancy (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/6.html) is an indicator about life quality. I see that mr. Putin works hard to make those much more equal (after nuke strike). ;)
Yes, longer life is a great achievement. Especially when in upcoming years Poland is expected to loose 3-5 millions of people. Number of marriages is decreasing, number of divorses rising. 1/5 of all females are not married. I find it curious, that under unbearable communst oppression Poland's population was rising, now, in the light of democracy and freedom it's decreasing.

Back to the clash

Clinton in 1997 sighned directive of a new nuclear stragtegy PDD-60, targets in former SU republics were excluded from target list - Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan. Target list in 2000 contained over 2200 targets in Russia. SIOP conated 65 plans for limited nuclear strikes at Russa(from 2 to 120 warheads), and several massive strikes with more than 1k warheads(in the smallest one). Several hundred targets were designated in China, Iran, NK.

GazB. My information about re-target time is from 2000. I doubt, that since REACT program continues much had changed. 30 years ago time to re-target missile was several hours.

[MZKT]

Since the Soviet Union was built on a centrally-planned socialist economic system, it's pretty obvious that the expansion of their world influence was not for capitalistic purposes. We've seen what Soviet influence usually brings: economic stagnation or ruin. Granted, Russia embraced free-market reforms in the early 90's and it blew up in their faces, so I can understand that people are a bit leery of economic liberalization (again). However, as I said, considering that your current crop of rulers was raised in the "old school" of Communist thought,

Aha, so it's about stability and economic growth? So supporting orange revolution in ukraine to bring a president into power who caused a constiturional crisis is for stability? And how much economy growth was brought to Vietnam? And finally the recent "stabilization" of Iraq was pretty the opposite of stabilizing the region and containing militant islamism. Supporting Contras-Terror didn't really stabilized Nicaragua either.

[QUOTE]no one is eager to see Russia gain influence again as that influence is expected to be bad for everyone else's business.

Wow what happened to the capitalist idea of free competition again? Every competitior is bad for the own business.



Like I said before, look to the Chinese for how to do things the right way. The Chinese "Communist" Party has turned into the most ruthless bunch of capitalists on the planet. They've been making resource deals and investments all over Africa while everyone else is distracted by the Taiwan issue. They constantly speak of a "peaceful rise", doing their damnedest to improve their public image, and it's working. They've been surrounded by US allies for decades and you don't see them flipping out in an international forum every time we move some strategic bombers to the Pacific, or station some SAM sites in Korea. They know that in business, image is important, and most people don't want to do business with a paranoid bully.

So russia is a paranoid bully? Is NATO trying to get Taiwan to join? Is USA supporting overthrows of pro-chinese regimes?
Interesting question, why NATO wants Georgia to join (despite all russian generals strictly denied possibility of miltary actions against it) but Taiwan, one of the best western allies is not invited (despite being threated with invasion on weekly basis).
From Russian point of view the expansion of the NATO is pretty odd, it has only one direction. Israel for example is a western friendly democracy and needs NATO-protection far more but is not invited. But a country at russian perimeter, with two separatism conflict, imprisoned opposition leaders and 96%-elections is called "an example of democracy" by western media and invited to join the NATO.
How do you expect Putin to react on such obvious poliy. surely not with believeing NATO's promises "It's not again you". Add to this the broken "not an inch east"-promise and you will understand why russia's reaction is so sharp. Maybe it's paranoia ,but NATO is doing absolutely anything to prove that it's expansion against Russia is reality.

Here was an interesting artcile posted: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113495

[Switek]

Yes, because those unemployed are fleeing the country for work. How much of polish population is living beyond the gates of Great Poland? I heard it's close to 15% and growing.

Change your sources of information... :roll:


Unemployment rate drops to 13%
Warsaw, Poland June 5, 2007
Poland's unemployment rate dropped to 13-13.1% in May, according to preliminary figures released Monday by the Labor Ministry.

Labor Minister Anna Kalata said that the jobless rate fell from 13.7% in April thanks to jobs created by seasonal work in gardening, construction, road building and tourism.

Strong economic growth (7.4% in the first quarter) is largely responsible for the drop as is emigration.

Unemployment has fallen thanks to the departure of hundreds of thousands of Poles to Britain and Ireland to work. There is currently concern that too many skilled, young workers have bolted from the country.
The Warsaw Voice (www.warsawvoice.pl)

left - decreasing of lvel of unemployment ......................... right - increasing of wages
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/3756/m3756402.jpg


It will eventually lower to 4.

Again you're making misinformation... :roll:


GDP surged 7.4% in first quarter
Warsaw, Poland June 1, 2007
Consumption exceeded investments as a driver of Poland's Q1 economic expansion, despite nearly 30% annual growth in investments during the quarter, the Q1 GDP report from the Central Statistical Office (GUS) showed.

The Polish economy grew at an annual rate of 7.4% in Q1, edging out expectations and trouncing both the 6.6% growth from Q4 and all prior quarters on recent record.

Growth is fully domestic, with domestic demand providing 8.5 percentage points of the 7.4% growth total. Net exports provided negative 1.1 pps.

Consumption, which grew 5.7% in Q1, provided 4.8 pps of the total GDP growth figure, including household consumption with 4.6 pps contribution, itself up 6.9% for the period.

Investments, while growing at a more torrid pace of nearly 30% year on year (thanks largely to warm weather in Q1), provided only 3.6 pps of the 7.4% GDP growth total
The Warsaw Voice (www.warsawvoice.pl)


Yes, longer life is a great achievement. Especially when in upcoming years Poland is expected to loose 3-5 millions of people. Number of marriages is decreasing, number of divorses rising. 1/5 of all females are not married. I find it curious, that under unbearable communst oppression Poland's population was rising, now, in the light of democracy and freedom it's decreasing.

Couse having kids requires lots of money... Do not worry Poland will fulfil demographic shortages with lots of immigrannts from Russia, Bielarussia, Ukraine and others...

[Mamont]

:) Yes Switek. Poland is prospering, population is dying, and your goverment is doing all it could to push this process to move faster. Even forcing Russia to point it's missiles at your country. I don't understand - are you proud of all this?

[CPL Trevoga]

Couse having kids requires lots of money... Do not worry Poland will fulfil demographic shortages with lots of immigrannts from Russia, Bielarussia, Ukraine and others...

Others... in a few generations Poland will be full certain people with certain different religion and will be called Kalifat of Poland. :)

[Switek]

:) Yes Switek. Poland is prospering, population is dying, and your goverment is doing all it could to push this process to move faster. Even forcing Russia to point it's missiles at your country. I don't understand - are you proud of all this?

WFT? Mamont, change your sources ... and hire your brain. :roll:

[Switek]

Others... in a few generation Poland will be full certain people with certain different religion and will be called Kalifat of Poland. :)

No way... every immigrant will be baptised p-)

[Fieri1989]

Others... in a few generations Poland will be full certain people with certain different religion and will be called Kalifat of Poland. :)
And London will be named..... let me guess. New Warsaw???
It works both ways. :)

[Xaito]

Others... in a few generations Poland will be full certain people with certain different religion and will be called Kalifat of Poland. :)

anything just to stand out from Russia ;)

[Switek]

anything just to stand out from Russia ;)

Taking into consideration that 15%-20% of citizens of Russian Federation are muslims, this is not good way....

[CPL Trevoga]

Taking into consideration that 15%-20% of citizens of Russian Federation are muslims, this is not good way....

But they are natives, yours will be from all those sunny sandy places.

[Switek]

But they are natives, yours will be from all those sunny sandy places.


Looking what global warming does in my area they'll feel like at home...

[Fieri1989]

This thread is going way to off topic and ...... I am out. Have fun.

[Mamont]

:) Major 4ss-kissing from Czech defence minister Vlasta Parkanova:

1. Celý svět listoval denním tiskem,
celý svět zanechal hovorů,
já jsem Vás uvítal ruky stiskem
a zvedl pohled svůj nahoru.
2. Dobrý den, prapore hvězd a pruhů,
tak už ses rozvinul nad náma,
dobrý den, prapore našich druhů,
co jsme je vítali s džípama.
3. Dobrý den, radare, prostě welcome,
tak jsme se konečně dočkali,
dobrý den, radare, já ti tleskám,
kámoši usárnou mávali.
4. Vyřiď tam prosím do vesmíru,
vyřiď tam mezi hvězdama,
že chcem žít nadál s každým v míru,
radši však šijeme U Sama.
5.= 3. Dobrý den, radare, prostě welcome...
6. Vyřiď tam prosím, že my víme,
kdo nám kdy přines svobodu,
kde Masaryk s prezidentem Wilsonem
pomoh našemu národu.
7.=2. Dobrý den, prapore hvězd a pruhů...

I cannot translate it because the full glory will surely escapes from such masterpiece and i actually laughing madly. So if anyone know czech please translate it for the audience here. The only sad part that they used song "Good day, major Gagarin"... Already mp3 is being spreaded through e-mule. :) Here (http://www.radio.cz/en/article/92087) you can hear samples and comments(there is a box "listen : 16kb/s, 32kb/s").

One must wander what poles have prepared for Bush? :)

[Switek]

One must wander what poles have prepared for Bush? :)


Hel(l)


http://83.15.236.10/allegro/nasaworld/hel.jpg

;)

[D.U.C.K.S.]

1. Celý svět listoval denním tiskem,
celý svět zanechal hovorů,
já jsem Vás uvítal ruky stiskem
a zvedl pohled svůj nahoru.
2. Dobrý den, prapore hvězd a pruhů,
tak už ses rozvinul nad náma,
dobrý den, prapore našich druhů,
co jsme je vítali s džípama.
3. Dobrý den, radare, prostě welcome,
tak jsme se konečně dočkali,
dobrý den, radare, já ti tleskám,
kámoši usárnou mávali.
4. Vyřiď tam prosím do vesmíru,
vyřiď tam mezi hvězdama,
že chcem žít nadál s každým v míru,
radši však šijeme U Sama.
5.= 3. Dobrý den, radare, prostě welcome...
6. Vyřiď tam prosím, že my víme,
kdo nám kdy přines svobodu,
kde Masaryk s prezidentem Wilsonem
pomoh našemu národu.
7.=2. Dobrý den, prapore hvězd a pruhů...

I cannot translate it because the full glory will surely escapes from such masterpiece and i actually laughing madly. So if anyone know czech please translate it for the audience here. The only sad part that they used song "Good day, major Gagarin"... here the rough translation:
The whole world ran over the pages of worldwide press
The whole world quit their calls
I welcomed you with a handshake
and raised my eyes upwards

Good day, a flag of stars and stripes
so you finally spread over us
Good day, a flag of our comrades/allies
which we were welcoming with jeeps

good day, radar, simply welcome
we already could not wait
good day, radar, I applaud you
our friends have vawed with blankets

please, send a message up to the universe
spread it over the stars
that we want to live in peace with everyone
nevertheless, we rather live wih (Uncle) Sam

good day, radar, simply welcome
we already could not wait
good day, radar, I applaud you
our friends have vawed with blankets

Please, tell everyone that we know
who ever brought us freedom
when (Czech ex-president) Masaryk with president Wilson
helped our nation

Good day, a flag of stars and stripes
so you finally spread over us
Good day, a flag of our comrades/allies
w hich we were welcoming with jeeps

Jeeez, what a load of crap... p-) I cannot believe that Czechs could fall that deep.

[Xaito]

lol wtf is that? their new national anthem? ;)

[nick_ua]

Jeeez, what a load of crap... I cannot believe that Czechs could fall that deep.
u right I always like that country, but suckung like this, mannnnnnnnnn\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEUpjrCtCyk

[Lapata]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486345,00.html

'I am a True Democrat'

Russian President Vladimir Putin discusses the missile dispute with the United States, the risks of cooperating with Western companies in the production of Russian natural gas and what he describes as democratic deficiencies in the United States and Europe.

[MZKT]

please, send a message up to the universe
spread it over the stars
that we want to live in peace with everyone
nevertheless, we rather live wih (Uncle) Sam


Wow. And that from a defense minister of an (at least so far) independent country. USA should make them a federal state and send her to Eurovision.