Russia Declares Latitude on Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes

[Don Corleone]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days?

[Strike For The South]

Just one more reason why Iran can't have nukes. I was origanlly happy about scraping the missle defense sheild as I felt that there was no reason to be so provactive in Russias backyard so to speak.

Maybe this is Putins way of trying to make us bluff so he can scoop up all those little ethnic Russian enclaves. Maybe it's something more.

You can take the Russian out of the Soviet but not the Soviet out of the Russian.

[Centurion1]

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating. Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

[Aemilius Paulus]

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating.

Hehe, how true. Putin is taking advantage of Obama's willingness to actually conduct something called "diplomacy" - a word unknown to President Bush, who always thought it meant "Us telling them what to do"

Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

Hehe, no. For the second time you sound like someone who is parroting some other source... You cannot make such a mind-boggling comparison. You can generalise characteristics of groups of people, with mixed success, but to generalise historical lessons, and apply them to other events is an abomination. Your statement inflames me with its acute absolutism and short-sightedness.

Now, I realise that you merely wrote a forum post, just as anyone else would, and all of our posts contain inaccuracies and most likely, overtly rapid jumps to conclusions - especially true of me. That is the problem with all forum posts quite a bit of times.

But seriously, what do you view as "appeasement"? You did not seem to fully grasp its meaning there. Appeasement is merely another term for "giving ground in an argument". Appeasement is meant to indicate an extreme of conceding to demands, but in practicality, no one definitely, precisely knows where the extremes lie. Diplomacy is all about giving and taking. For example, Cuban Missile Crisis: Russia gives US the assurance that the Soviet missiles will be removed from Cuba and in return takes the assurance that the American missiles will be removed from Turkey. There is diplomacy for you. I know this may be annoying, but I had the impression you missed the essence of appeasement.

"Appeasement" is the opinion that too much is given with too little return. Go figure how to apply that to the current situation... Your categorical post assertion that 'appeasement simply never works' can be incensing. The reader may perceive the post as a mark of an history-undereducated child, which is most certainly not you. in general, I try to avoid categorical statements, especially ones with such dubious parallels .

[Ice]

Nuclear weapons in this day in age would almost always equate to the end of the world and the destruction of most of humanity. Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.

[Don Corleone]

Sabre-rattling, sure, but with regards to what? What is Putin telling the rest of the world to backoff on?

I seriously think he's going to invade and re-annex Georgia this winter.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.

Indeed, none of us deny it. So what? I would rather have sabre-rattling than the US style sabre-slashes, in the form of their military invasions. Granted, that is on a different level, but vague, seemingly undirected threats are preferable to outright armed attacks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days?

There are situations wherein any international actor will pre-empt another. One would hope that such situations would be restricted to in extremis, but we shall see. Humanity doesn't have a great track record of NOT using weapons it has. While the language used was vague, I think you're correct that this is mostly sabre-rattling/posturing during the negotiations. The Obama administration is far less likely to "go cowboy" or walk out based on such statements, so it makes sense for Russian officials to play that card a time or two to see if it can engender a few concessions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, America is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what America considers to be a local matter, American defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a war.

I understand that this is probably Bush:

1) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Baghdad and reintegrate Afghanistan or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Israel and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Israel, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Washington are up to these days?

Right or wrong, the above is how Russia sees the world. And it doesn't even include yet NATO's encroachment on Russia's traditional spheres of influence.
Hence, Moscow feels completely entitled to what it sees as a reaction against American aggression.

[Vladimir]

That's strange, I haven't commented yet.

But yea. It's an interesting Russian twist on 43's preemptive strike grandstanding. It's not that I disagree but the presentation and forethought were lacking.