Printable View
Apparently they don't have the money to handle this. They have asked Norway to contribute to the 9 billion it will cost to bury this threat for good. And here was I thinking that oil & gas nations were filthy rich. I guess their slush fund is meant for other situations ... like another arms race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Russia is huge. Their existing infrastructure is bare. Their tech programmes, however advanced, were always done on a budget. If the West were smart, we'd pay the Russians the full amount to keep these things safe. Not only would this be money they need but don't have (or at least not once maintenance costs for that gargantuan nation have been shared out), but it would be a tangible gesture of good intent from us, that could help calm any tensions and misunderstandings. It would probably be considerably cheaper for us than running up another Cold War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Missunderstand me correctly. I'll be more than happy to pay up the entire 9 billion to clean up their mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I think however that is all we can contribute with. Norway is not a nuclear nation and I am unsure if we have competence in this area.
Russia surely have capable people and have been in the nuclear business since the beginning of the nuclear age.
I'm just a little aggitated that they put us in this peril.
I have to disagree with you for once, the missile shield does NOTHING to protect Europe, it's for targeting ICBMs in flight, not when they're about to land. The shield only benefits the US (perhaps western Europe is far enough away too, but I digress). If they want the shield up in our backyard, they'd better be paying us enough for it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Now against Russia, we need a strong front. Heck, we just need a strong front, some sort of European Defense Force, a *defensive* army which would only operate within our borders unless it's in retaliation, following an official declaration of war. Countries can still have their own armies all over the world and do with them what they want, but we need some sort of unified defensive army.
All this episode really shows me is that Bush doesn't give a :flower: about Europe anymore, he's just using us so he has a place to dump his overpriced toys. You don't think Iran has ICBMs do you ? The whole missile shield is a farce, and as Putin has shown, a dangerous one at that. The arms race is on again.
Agreed, but does one really trust that they would actually use the money to take care of the problem? Putin & Comrades main concern is keeping the club in power, and they appear to be more than willing to employ any means possible to accomplish that. I wouldn't trust them to follow through on any subsidized clean up funding. What would be the stick to this carrot? Global condemnation? pfft. Getting kicked out of the G8 club? Hah, I'd be surprised if they were officially admonished, let alone shown the door. Corporate 'birds of a feather' flock together, and it doesn't much matter what political system they have to deal with. When $$$ is > than or = to "free speech" then who's is going to call the tune? The technology is available to deal with the environmental problem, but I fear the will of the deciders is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I don't know if Putin's Russia is quite ready to take on the world. Russia may be recovering from the brink of Economic, Military, and Political Disaster. But it hasn't fully recovered yet, in fact its no where near fully recovering yet, I think this could be Putin's white elephant, to detract from Political Entanglements that make his regime appear weak. This "Cold War" could have the west in a flurry of Military Activity and Arms Building under a preconceived notion that Russia is presenting a very real and dangerous threat, but behind the Walls of the Kremlin the Russian Government snickers and pays only token attention to the State of their Military until the West becomes tired knowing that nothing has ever really happened, and then it becomes time to build.
The rot started before Putin came to power. It began when the Soviet Union couln't hold the state together any more, and state employees and projects were let go as the money (never plentiful) wasn't there any more. Putin has spent most of his time trying to claw back the state's authority, and to some extent he's succeeded, as we now at least know what hasn't been done but needs to be done (whereas before, no-one including the Russian government knew what was going on).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Even if Putin and his buddies embezzle large amounts of the money we give them for safeguarding the nukes, it would still be more cost-effective for us than guarding our purses and hoping the Russians can make do with what they already have. The latter is known not to work, so why not assess how much it's going to cost, add on a bit more as "incentives" for Putin's mates, and pay them to take care of the problem? If I want a job done, I can only demand a low price if there are competitors to drive the price down. If the service is only available from a single supplier, and said supplier wants a "premium" for this service which is absolutely vital to me, I can only grit my teeth and fork out the cash. Putin has us by the :juggle2: , and we can only hope he doesn't squeeze.
I dont know if I would be willing to give them that much credit. The way I see it Russian threats, even hollow ones might serve domestic consumption but also serves to bring the EU and the U.S. closer in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
thats not a net gain for Russia, not only that but the view you took might be applied to the U.S. They are talking about a missle defense system that isnt fully operational yet, against a threat that dosent exsist yet (Iran dosent have ICBM capability yet).
If anything this is pushing Russia to a point of having to enter another arms race, which essentially is how they lost the cold war (over Star Wars, sound familiar?)
Russia wants to be able to influence world politics to a greater extent and gain part of the status the USA has held between 1945 and 2001. I'm not surprised that they point nukes at the European countries that have allowed military access for the USA to point nukes at Russia. These nuke pointings at Russia may however be in response to the Cuba crisis in which there was a threat of Russian nukes pointed at USA. But I don't think it's really justifed to point nukes against the current regime of Russia since it's an enemy of the communist regime that pointed nukes at the USA, and in fact overthrew the communist regime. There should therefore be a good reason for both sides to now forget what has happened in the past and withdraw the nukes on both sides. I hope both sides are willing to negotiate as soon as possible. Neither side has any justifiable reason, given the current situation, to point nukes at the other side, unless the other side does so. However if one side does so, then the other side has an excuse to do it. A treaty of mutual respect is the only solution.
I, for one, don't disagree with you, I just see it from a different perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I don't think this missile shield / warning system works in the first place. And I don't care. To me, this is about the sovereignity of former Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe. Yes, colonies, states brutally subjugated to Russia.
This is about Warsaw and Prague deciding for themselves who gets to build what in their countries. If they want to build a two-hundred meter tall statue of a drunk Pole mooning eastwards, then that's none of Russia's business either. It's the historical right of central Europe.
Note to self: Build Giant Statue Depicting a Drunken Pole Mooning Russia. :laugh4:
Although in all serious, I don't get the whole hubbub why Russia feels as though it's being threatened. As Louis has said, I think its more of a symbolic defeat for Russia rather than an economic or Military One. But Russia is too touchy when it comes to defacing what pride they may think they have left. Its been stated over and over that those Missile Shields couldn't touch a Russian ICBM, and are too close to the border, Unless the Bushys and Co. aren't telling us something, which in this instance I do doubt.
I also have little doubt as Odin stated that the US is doing this for the exact same reasons as Russia, its a save of face in light of both Internal and External Embarresments. What both sides need to do is to take a 10 minute breather, have a cup of Earl Grey and rethink the strategy, the US, Europe, and Russia could all benefit far more from mutual economic interest, rather than Baboon Fight over who has the reddest ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I'm not going to protest the Eastern EU countries placing the defenses if they so choose, I just think it's a bad idea. They are sovereign nations, and I'd fully support fighting the Ruski's if they decide that all those extra troops they want to put near the borders should have something to do (not bloody likely, but still). I just *hate* that Bush is polarizing the world, yet again, for his personal gain or glory. So if they're going to cooperate with the shield, they'd better demand some €€€.
MY usual comparison and most fitting one - though I am not sure if Putin is more like Gustav Stresemann or going towards the one after him Mr. H...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
During recent estonian crisis he managed to say few kind words supporting Russia - he really is in love...:shame: the money he gets are another factor though.Quote:
Germany has of course a complicated relationship with central and Eastern Europe, of which Schröder had to take notice in his dealings with Russia. But there is a fine line between being emphathy and identification. Schröder's personal relationship with Putin was outstanding. His foreign policy beneficial to the strategic interests needs of Russia and it's gas and oil industry. So beneficial to Russia in fact, that they offered Schröder a position at Gazprom immediately following his chancellorship, which he eagerly accepted.
This, the more cynically inclined would describe as a German chancellor apparantly having been on Russia's payroll. :wall:
These made France really 'popular' in Poland.:laugh4:Quote:
And Chirac, who followed the ancient Gaullist reflex of a 'Europe of nations, from the Atlantic to the Ural', in dealing with Russia. Gah! All those little get-togethers between Chirac, Schröder and Putin were becoming increasingly embarrassing. :no:
OVERALL
I wouldn't forget that it is the ELECTION YEAR in Russia. Putin's faction is only one of rivaling sides - most are somehow linked to him, but the man is not a real dictator - rather one of ex-KGB Petersburg 'school'.
Talking about prolonging the second term doesn't matter he will stay - but that can be used for the guy who will replace Putin.
THe new person would be someone from the 'Putin's guards' for sure and he will retain much influence, but the main question is how much.
I thionk that the main factor now is to convince the Russian population about the threat to the 'holy Russia' as usual when politics are concerned.
The next year will be full of incidents - I bet at least 5 with Poland - we are the usual enemy to demonise - Russians still manage to accuse us for sacking and occupying Moscow in 1610-12...
Imagine the UK so bitter about Dutch attacks in the XVIIth century - it might be funny, but it WORKS with Russian population.:wall:
The second objective, though is to divide the EU, play one country against another - mainly 'old Europe' against the 'new'. It worked to some extent earlier, so it is a very GOOD THING that as usual Kremlin 'overcharged' and pre-Russian leaders are slowly replaced by much more sceptical Sarkozy, Merkel etc.
About the 'cold war' - it is unlikely, but tension will remian - Ukraine, Belorus, Georgia, Moldova - will remain the tough issues.
Poland for at least last 150 years tries to undermine influence of Russia in those states (search for PROMETHEISM ideology for details) - now it is the entire EU which wakes up and moves towards such policy - I am glad it happens.:egypt:
Appeasement as we know is the worst solution.:thumbsdown:
Well, yes. I mean considering even Gorbachov is in the news every now and then... The issue is, is Putin's successor going to be more conservative in the Mussolini style, or more foreign policy oriented. The thing is, Russia needs a tight state control over the industry, which is something Putin has been relaxing somewhat, to favour friends and colleagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Ah, well. In fairness though, the poles manage to mention it everytime Russia is in the headlines. Maybe Poland should get over it too...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
I agree with you here. Europe should eventually slap Russia so that they start doing something productive in the international scheme instead of bullying neighbours with their gas reserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Maybe Russians should stop acussing us for imperialism every time - 1610-12 and the 'extermination of Soviet POWs in 1920' are the usual accusations - never mind if those are true at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Every time there is something to discuss I hear the same complains - it is like the Spanish never recovering from the defeat at Rocroi...
Why ? Because it is used again and again - all former and present enemies are mixed together with myths and ignorance so you get results like accuring Mongols for supporting catholic invasion or Poles, Jews, Georgians, Germans etc for oppressing Russian people and creating the Soviet Union...
It is madness - I am getting more and more frustrated with Russians - complete lack of knowledge, amnesia, conspiracy theories, inability to feel any responsibility - it is SCHIZOPHRENIC.
As much as Estonia is accused for Nazism, Georgia for supporting terrorism, Finland for killing of civilians in 1941 - the list of accusations addressed towards Poland is either very long and very faulty or short and composed of lies and amnesia.
Mind that present Russian schoolboks manage to remove everything considered 'non patriotic' - this is exactly the approach present in time of Weimar Republic - myths, complains and conspiracy theories mixed with nostalgia and dreams of revenge.
Considering the demographic situation of Russian Federation we will see it getting worse. I try to stay optimistic, but there is more and more to worry about.::skull:
You need to update your library, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
So what happened to Igor Doluskiy's books ?:inquisitive:
Please. If you asked the spanish pres, he wouldn't know what the hell Rocroi is, and neither would most spanish people. Besides, if Spain needed something to rant about against France, it would surely be Napoleon...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
I think that any of these ultra-nationalistic ourbursts that are plaguing eastern europe at the moment (your president isn't all that cute and fuzzy either, btw) are just a sign of ignorance and frustration. Be it polish, russian, moldavian or estonian.
Thing is the frustration is not directed at themselves, which is what grown-ups do, but at the most suitable neigbour.
Lol, Freudian slip, Louis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Rather amusingly (if it wasn't so serious) President Putin has called Bush's bluff.
Since the missile defence system is to protect the West from rogue states like Iran, Putin has offered the option of a joint Russian/US project based in their leased based in Azerbaijan. This would be much closer to the trouble spots, and cover Europe well too. And guarantees no threat to Russia. Oh and undermines NATO and the allies who wanted the security.
Clever.
It seems at times (reading present posts here and in other threads) that the historys of Europe and Russia play a pivitol role in the diplomacy and perceptions of the present day nations dealings with one another. Or, is it simply a method employed by the submitting participants nation to justify their present day actions?
[like in the usa]
Going back 800 years to justify an action taken today seems a bit of a stretch - radical even. As in the Jihadists claims to fighting against the new crusade of the Bushys and those nations that support him.
History can be used to demonstrate a nations repeating a failed policy (as in US's 'nam experience and todays Iraq policy), and an assortment of why one fears another or reason for the degree (s) of mistrust. But, using them (a 200 or 800 year event) to justify a present day 21st century policy seems a stretch to this descendent of a former colonialist (and revollusionary). Especially when there are so many examples of the past century that may demonstrate the "why" easier.
Still, since our ignorance of world history (we tend to think of it beginning with WWI and ending with WWII) is generally limited, this is probably a minority opinion.
P.S. The problem in Norway with the Soviet nuclear submarine rods is a crime. Since Russia cannot be depended on to resolve this, those that can must do so asap.
Quote:
Rather amusingly (if it wasn't so serious) President Putin has called Bush's bluff.
Again, this is the same missle defense system that isnt fully operational deployed against a threat that dosent exsist yet? :dizzy2:
Bush handed Putin a gift for domestic consumption, has offerred it up as an option for eastern Europe to accept it or not, and changed the subject of the G8 from climate issues to Russian/U.S. relations.
Who's bluffing who?
of course i understand its not attractive to give bush credit for being savvy in anything, but the headlines coming out of Germany arent reading "U.S. fails to take lead on global warming" are they?
EU has nothing to do with peace between West European states. The coal and steel union and war fatigue after ww2 however has. The EU is a stupid waste of money with idiots spending tax money on deciding that banans can't be less than 11.65 centimeters and with abnormal curvature and that you can't call strawberries strawberries and has conferences about solving world poverty on a cruise in the Pacific with champagne and wives brought. The EU is an anti-democratic money wasting corrupt madhouse led by control freaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
We don't need the EU to resist aggressive Russian policies. Mutual guarantees and defensive pacts work a lot better. And then we may actually have some tax money left to use on our military forces, rather than sending the money to champagne for Merkel, Sarkozy and Blair.
Interesting viewpoint, although I can assure you that climate change is still the headline over this side of the pond. As usual Blair is claiming credit for persuading President Bush to a Damascene conversion over global warming, and as usual he is overstating the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Over here its been primarily U.S./ Russian relations. The way its playing out apparantly in the US and Russia is to a purely domestic crowd. I wont claim they are working together on it, but Bush premepted his visit to Germany with a new initiative on global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Essentially its discussing what happens after Kyoto (he's buying time so his successor can handle it). So the Russians take offense to the missle shield, conviently before the G8 for bushy. Is he savvy enough to trump up the issue to take the heat off (pun intended) of his lack of action on global warming, and the europeans strident desire for the U.S. to climb on board with them?
I dont know, but I do know that international summits allow opporunity to change the subject (north korea is shooting off missles again, coincidence?). Bush dosent want to do move on global warming, and the main gist of this G8, was that issue.
Yes, Putin's Russia is a threat to global security.
Russia faces:
1) A population crisis that will see the number of Russians halve in the next 50 years, needless to say those who remain will be pensioners not workers.
2) A decline in gas and oil resources that keep Russia's moribund economy afloat, and an inability to start large-scale mining of Siberia's mineral wealth.
3) Rampant cronyism and corruption in both the public and the private sector within Russia, that will cripple any attempt to grow new sectors of Russian economic expertise to replace exhausted natural resources.
4) A Russian military that is underpaid, ill-equipped, and badly maintained resulting from Putin's desire to preserve a semblance of Soviet might via Russia's tiny economy means.
5) Russia watching almost all of its former Soviet satellite states desert in favour of the EU and NATO and thus representing a massive diminution of its sphere of influence.
6) The inexorable erosion of all mechanisms that facilitate and encourage good representative government in favour of an unaccountable autocracy.
7) An unwelcome flood of immigration in Siberia that now contains more Chinese than Russians, and an unwanted explosion in the Muslim population of the Caucasus regions, both of which promise social/political tension in future.
All of this while Putin encourages Russia's population with a visceral and volatile brand of nationalism that encourages people to hark back to the status of Soviet times.
In short; the people of Russia are watching their nations status as a Great Power slip from their fingers, and they are encouraged to hate and reject the fact.
It is going to be a nervous quarter century coming up for eastern european countries as Russia gets more and more desperate in the face of its own unwanted decline, but if they survive the next 25 years they are probably safe as Russia will by then be a toothless bear, far beyond any claim to Great Power status in the 21st century.
Q - How should the UK react?
A - We should increase the Defence budget from 2.2% of GDP to a more sensible 2.8% to show Russia that we are serious about insisting on a free, un-intimidated, and independent eastern europe forever.
Usually, population decline doesn't result in expansionism, imperialism and offensive warfare. On the contrary, the opposite more commonly does so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
A smaller population means lower state incomes are needed to keep things afloat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
And also along with population decrease cripple any attempts at military expansion of any more ambitious kind. Only a lunatic would attack any larger country or support a leader doing so, in the state Russia is in at the moment. Still, we should always be vigilant and prepared for lunatics and unlikely actions, since lack of preparedness makes it more inviting for a lunatic to attempt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
None of these things sound like really dangerous for non-Russians. It's the Russian population that will mainly suffer. Internal regime overthrowal struggles or breakout factions are far more likely than Russian offensive against anything more than a small country/province of a size and military strength comparable to Chechnya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
This is a good thing, if the money is taken from the EU control freaks. Then I doubt it will weaken the long term economy, since the EU taxation and corruption is quite considerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
Perhaps I was ironic , don't you think so ?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Ohh no you will not throw Estonia, Poland, Moldova etc to the same basket with Russia - different thing to be offended and different is to insult someone else.Quote:
I think that any of these ultra-nationalistic ourbursts that are plaguing eastern europe at the moment (your president isn't all that cute and fuzzy either, btw) are just a sign of ignorance and frustration. Be it polish, russian, moldavian or estonian.
Thing is the frustration is not directed at themselves, which is what grown-ups do, but at the most suitable neigbour.
It is like saying that Jews are to sensitive about this little H. event during the war...
I don't recall any of those countries starting a nation-wide hysteria like it is in Russia recently.
Of course anti-Russian sentiments are used, but Russia FUELS them more and more. Look around in the whole Europe - who says now 'we should be kind to Mr. Putin' - Zapatero ? I don't remember him talking about it at all and the rest are not very keen on the whole trouble with 'controlled democracy' in Russia.
When it comes to the RF.
It seems noone moderate is left out there - at least that is from my personal experience.
Hawkish attitude seems to dominate utterly and people either support it or remain silent.
Banquo's Ghost
Quote:
Rather amusingly (if it wasn't so serious) President Putin has called Bush's bluff.
Since the missile defence system is to protect the West from rogue states like Iran, Putin has offered the option of a joint Russian/US project based in their leased based in Azerbaijan. This would be much closer to the trouble spots, and cover Europe well too.
Well... rather it is IN a trouble spot already. Azeris warned a couple of times that they can shut the base down..
Show to the press, nothing more.
A delaying action - I can't imagine Americans deploying anything larger out there. A supplementary station would be the only foreseenable (and unlikely) option.Quote:
And guarantees no threat to Russia.
Oh and undermines NATO and the allies who wanted the security.
Plays for the public inside Russia - 'we showed them again' etc.:yes:Quote:
Clever.
So what you are doing now... you're not really doing? Also, because you don't like the ancient evil Zerg spawn that is Russia, it doesn't matter what Poland does now?Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Also, I really hope you realize that the Jews were not the only ones who suffered in the Holocaust.
a population of 100 million russians is still more than enough to consider taking on 80 million germans, let alone 40 millions poles and a few millions baltics.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
a deceasing/aging population combined with desperation could lead to all kinds of trouble, especially when combined with an agrieved nationalism.
agreed, preparedness is exactly what is needed, please let europe prepare away, if only for the sake of the poor baltic states.
i'm not so sure, it wouldn't be dangerous if it wasn't being fueled by a very nasty breed of chippy nationalism, that feels the loss of the soviet empire and russian regional power to be a bad thing.
you lost me on the last comment,