Obama jettisons missile shield plans

[OverKnight]

Anyone here remember the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) from the '80s? I'm seeing a lot of parallels between the arc of this system and the last one. I think the only remotely useful thing to come out of it were Patriot missiles, and even that has its detractors.

SDI was a boondoggle, but it was a cool boondoggle. Satellites with frickin' lasers.

Makes me want to go watch Real Genius again.

[Husar]

Not true the Bear does not care what anyone thinks because it has its own agenda.

Who doesn't have their own agenda? The article in the opening post is full of it.

Why does Russia need to get back to the top why this need to fight the inevitable unless its fighting against its own irrelevancy

Why do the USA need a missile shield in Europe except to get back to their now irrelevant cold war world police status?

1200 yrs ago the vikings barely had writing and reading in a tribal culture whats Russia's excuse

Vodka?

[Brenus]

You misspelled "France": It wasn’t intentional… Er, yeah, it is what I was told. It came after the Mirage and the AMX 13, and the Vedettes de Cherbourg, and the French Pilots in Israel (oops, never happened, sorry), well…

“Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.” Ura pobieda.

“Tell it to the Russians.” They know it. They had democracy made by Eltsin or "the Plunder of Russia by Oligarchs" all former communist becoming good capitalists…

“As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.”
Er, Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia were peace was imposed by BOMBING better known as peaceful tool in any language.
Or perhaps use of force in self defined right of intervention for humanitarian need and avoiding human catastrophe is just a Western privilege?
I will not put Georgia in a Democracy side anyway… (that to prevent any counter offensive about Milosevic’s Serbia).

“You mean French still meddle in their former colonies???” Never. It is collateral agreement and Military Cooperation… It is their free will and choice to welcome our soldiers, expat and experts.

[Furunculus]

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.

Well, first of all, there was an overwhelming popular dissent with the decisions of the Eastern European governments, as the people wanted nothing with the missile defences. And as a matter of fact, Eastern Europe is now safer, as Russia no longer has to aim its own atomics at the little nations that would rather mind their own business and prosper than live with the thought of megatons of fusionable material aimed at them.

why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

eastern europe is not safer, not even by a tiny little bit. russia was not going to do anything, it's a dead power that relies to intimidation to do what it is physically incapable of. the only result is that poland feels less safe.

[Furunculus]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.
I doubt the technological and strategic benefits of the proposed missile shield. But I would've liked the marriage of American and East European strategic interests.

But then, part of me secretly rejoices about this as much as I did back when Georgia was left last year to fend the Russians alone. The ultra-nationalists in Poland and Georgia put all their hopes on America (well, on the neo-cons), showing Europe nothing but scorn and insults. With the annual billions of European money steadily flowing into Poland, and the Americans not living up to their promised missile shield, perhaps East Europe will again look to Europe, to democracy, and to the combination of these two, for their safety against Russia.

Guess that life insurance that the Georgians and Poles sought to buy in Iraq didn't pay off after all. Good. Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.

agreed, we have a similar view of the aims of the missile shield, and the impact of its abandonment, and I too want to see the US and europe welded together in strategic interests.

where we differ is this point, you believe it a good thing that obama ditched the poles and czechs, whereas i see it as a tragedy.

apparently not, but this has nothing to do new-world orders, insomuch as the missile shield will still happen, the only result is that they lost some allies within the EU.

[Furunculus]

Anyone here remember the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) from the '80s? I'm seeing a lot of parallels between the arc of this system and the last one. I think the only remotely useful thing to come out of it were Patriot missiles, and even that has its detractors.

SDI was a boondoggle, but it was a cool boondoggle. Satellites with frickin' lasers.

Makes me want to go watch Real Genius again.

except that SDI did its jobs perfectly, along with Cruise and Pershing its upped the stakes of the game to the point where the USSR decided to fold.

[gaelic cowboy]

except that SDI did its jobs perfectly, along with Cruise and Pershing its upped the stakes of the game to the point where the USSR decided to fold.

This I agree with the big power game if you want to call it is essentially a game of poker where no wants to cash in there chips.

Each side knows the other has cards that can win so they constantly check and raise each other.

The game depends on both sides understanding that neither side will react stupidly to the others raising of the stakes.

This however is the flaw in the game as it essentially becomes a game where you must decide the likely outcome of your action in the others mind.

The Russian still had a hand of cards but where eventually going to run out of chips which meant they either must call or fold. The entire Reagan era was essentially a spending spree of massive proportions the Soviets had only a few chips left so they had to fold and the wall came down.

The only problem with this type of game is not that people have nukes but that they must decide what the other thinks of their own actions the Cold War essentially settled into a rut it followed for years.

One point the missile shield is addressing is the problem with major proliferation and what the reduction of nuclear weapons has in this nuclear era. Put simply the less nuclear weapons there are in the equation of power between two states the more likely they are to be used in this post Cold War era.

In effect it didn't matter if it never worked as long as Iran thought it could.

[Sarmatian]

You missed my central point both countries interests conflict with the others long term interest

I also acknowledged straight off in my post that not wanting to be surrounded was Moscows central plan.

US Russian relations are still going to be based on mutual distrust which is kept in bounds as it always has been by mutual annihilation.

Your assertation that you can only poke the Bear so long works both ways Russia can only play at the bully as long as it has a big stick and it can only afford the stick by selling oil and gas to Europe. Russia may get some short term advantages by following these plans but eventually the bullied gets fed up calls the bluff and finds it was all just bluster. Hence the real reason for intervention in Georgia inserting complient governments in the region prevents all sorts of long term pipeline projects etc.

The Cold War may be over but the politics will as always be about the cash as it always really has been.

No, you missed my point. Since the end of the cold war, what has Russia done to threaten NATO? Are there any invasion plans, troops on the border, closed borders, general hostility? Does Russia want to conquer Norway, Germany, France, Italy... ?

No, in the last 20 years, Russia has opened it's borders to the West, it trades with west more than ever before, they've opened new lines communication with NATO, they didn't hinder Americans in Afghanistan (and believe me, they could have), they actually helped. They've given access across their territory for easier logistics etc... Russia has done nothing to threaten core nato members. In fact, if someone in the 70's said that this level of cooperation and dialogue between Russia and NATO would happen in the 21st century, he would've been probably considered crazy. And what has Russia gotten in return? A NATO that wants to surround it from all sides. A US that backs, arms and trains the army of less than democratic regimes on Russian borders, that exerts great pressure on political leadership in Ukraine to join nato even though it is clear that Ukrainians aren't that happy with that idea...

That is my point, Russia isn't a threat to NATO unless NATO makes it a threat. What has NATO been doing for the last 20 years is pushing Russia closer to China. Even though Russia naturally is leaning to the west, it's not easy to do that when the west not just doesn't want you there, but is actively pushing you away.

why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

eastern europe is not safer, not even by a tiny little bit. russia was not going to do anything, it's a dead power that relies to intimidation to do what it is physically incapable of. the only result is that poland feels less safe.

Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cake. The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.

Also, let's be realistic, not that many Poles were actually happy that shield is gonna be based in Poland. Czechs were even less enthusiastic. Out of the Poles that were happy about it, well, a significant majority of them were far right nutjobs whose frame of mind is: anything that pisses off Russia = Good. You may also insert Germany instead of Russia, it won't lose much accuracy.

[Zim]

Too bad, although I can see why he chose to drop that program. Seems a bit of a waste for Poland after they risked so much to accept it, though.

[Furunculus]

why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cake. The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.

i refer to the fact that 20% of Poland's population disappeared because of WW2, not about whether they lost a bit of land or not, and i couldn't care less whether some people think it was a utopia pre WW2. poland was butchered and brutalised horrifically only seventy years ago, security from belligerant over-sized neighbours IS important to them.

[Lemur]

Seems a bit of a waste for Poland after they risked so much to accept it, though.

Maybe tough on the Polish government, but polls show the Polish people are fine with the change.

A Polish-speaking reader sends over this early poll from the GfK Polonia Research Institute on Obama's decision to cancel the missile defense site in Poland.

The result: A plurality think it's a "good decision for Poland," while only 31% think it's a bad decision.

The poll exposes what's long been a divide in those countries: The leaders don't want to appear weak vis-a-vis Russia and are focused on broad strategic questions; the people are often to their left on security matters.

The poll is interesting, although I don't understand the way the author is using the word "left" here. Not wanting another nation to base expensive weapons in your backyard is "left"? What's wrong with the far clearer word "nationalist"?

[Zim]

Interesting, I had thought the people in Poland were for it.

In many countries there seems to be a trend to ascribe views to left or right that don't really fit in either. I wonder if it's the tendency in Anglophone countries to have only two major political parties.

[Sarmatian]

security from belligerant over-sized neighbours IS important to them.

Agreed, but that issue here is whether missile shield is the way to do it.

[Furunculus]

the missiles really didn't matter, what counted was that american soldiers become a trip-wire placed in front of any potential aggressor, which is precisely why poland insisted on american boots on the ground.

poland is quite familiar with defensive treaties whose provisions are not respected until it's too late, dead americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured.

[HoreTore]

the missiles really didn't matter, what counted was that american soldiers become a trip-wire placed in front of any potential aggressor, which is precisely why poland insisted on american boots on the ground.

poland is quite familiar with defensive treaties whose provisions are not respected until it's too late, dead americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured.

If Poland gets whacked, then they have noone but themselves to blame.

They should join the european integration like the rest of europe, including the balkans, is doing. Europe is what will provide Poland and the other eastern european states with security. But instead of contributing to a safer, peaceful europe, Poland does its best to increase hostilities and piss off everyone else.

And then they want the US to pay for all that and keep them safe. It's a good thing that the US has given them the finger, maybe they'll finally learn now. The people of Poland already know it, it should only be a matter of time before their leadership realizes that peace is preferable to bullying.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Leaving one or two allies in the lurch to appease a power which, quite frankly, has not been very friendly is not what I consider to be good diplomacy, but we'll see how it turns out.

[HoreTore]

Leaving one or two allies in the lurch to appease a power which, quite frankly, has not been very friendly is not what I consider to be good diplomacy, but we'll see how it turns out.

Leaving one or two allies?

Poland's problem is that they've left a dozen allies, the EU, and put all their eggs in one basket, the US. And just how smart is that? "Left" is an understatement too, they've used every opportunity they've had to increase hostilities and alienate themselves even further.

Instead of aiming for the US to provide their entire defence plan, they should aim for european integration, which will still mean that the US will be a close ally.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Leaving one or two allies?

Poland's problem is that they've left a dozen allies, the EU, and put all their eggs in one basket, the US. And just how smart is that? "Left" is an understatement too, they've used every opportunity they've had to increase hostilities and alienate themselves even further.

Instead of aiming for the US to provide their entire defence plan, they should aim for european integration, which will still mean that the US will be a close ally.

You're forgetting that I see European integration as fundamentally wrong. Military alliances with Europe are fine, but as has been said, Poland has had enough of unhonoured alliances. It is still in the European Union, and yet maintains stronger relations with the United States of America than much of the rest of the EU does. Far from putting all of their eggs in one basket, they've maximized them.

If they are attacked and Europe does nothing, America will (or would have), and vice versa.

[HoreTore]

You're forgetting that I see European integration as fundamentally wrong. Military alliances with Europe are fine, but as has been said, Poland has had enough of unhonoured alliances. It is still in the European Union, and yet maintains stronger relations with the United States of America than much of the rest of the EU does. Far from putting all of their eggs in one basket, they've maximized them.

If they are attacked and Europe does nothing, America will (or would have), and vice versa.

Forgetting that EMFM is anti-EU is like forgetting that water is wet

Yes, Poland is a member of the EU. Why they are a member is a mystery to me, as they're attacking the other european states at every opportunity, especially Germany.

Unless Poland changes their attitude and begins working towards peace and cooperation, I say let 'em rot.

[Brenus]

“dead Americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured” As the South Vietnam and Cambodia can give testimony…

“If they are attacked and Europe does nothing” Er, how?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Poland is a member of the EU. Why they are a member is a mystery to me

I can think of an annual 11 billion reasons why Poland wishes to be an EU member...

At any rate, the Polish nationalists have been defeated in elections nearly two years ago. The Polish centre is in power. Anti-German, anti-Russian, anti-European agitation* is mostly a thing of the past.

Only the Polish nationalists and those most peculiar allies of theirs, the British Conservative Party, believe anymore that ultra-nationalist agitation is the way forward for Poland.

*anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-minority, anti-Non Catholic etc etc. Anti-everything, in fact, except for George Bush, who is going to build them a big missile shield under which to hide!!1!

Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cake

The prize for top-3 three victim complex in Europe:

3 - The Serbians
2 - The Poles
1 - The UK Conservative Party.


Back when reason governed the UK Conservatives:
Malcolm Rifkink, former Conservative foreign secretary, about the Russian bear and the complementary workings of NATO and the EU to promote European safety:

[...]
But for the Europeans, including Britain, the weakening of Article 5 would require major increases in defence expenditure and force the British Government into a more substantial common European defence policy, probably under the EU. This would suit some, but the Conservative party, in particular, must be alert to this risk.

The alternative to Nato membership is not to throw Ukraine or Georgia to the Russian wolves. The main prize they should and can be offered is membership of the EU - bringing economic benefits and greatly increasing their political security. Finland, Austria and Sweden are no less secure from Russian aggression than Lithuania or Latvia, despite not being members of Nato.

In any event, in a real crisis, Nato is able to intervene with military force if it wishes to do so, even on behalf of non-members. This is what it did, rightly or wrongly, in Kosovo. The difference is that Nato had choice. It had no treaty obligation.

So Europe must be tough but also realistic with Russia. Putin - who remains the real power in the country - is no new Lenin waging ideological war. He is more like a 19th-century tsar trying to extend Russian power, like all tsars since Ivan the Terrible.

[Xiahou]

Obama still continues to lie about the reason for dropping the plan.

My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday.

Seriously, does anyone believe that? The report that the administration was waving around only concluded that Iran's long-range missile program was 3-5 years behind schedule, not that it was of no concern. And even that NIE is suspect, considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit. The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.

In other news, former Polish president and nobel prize winner, Lech Welesa has weighed in:

"Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Walesa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don't like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

[gaelic cowboy]

The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.

Are you kidding seriously you are kidding right Stalin marches troops into Poland they massacred the officers at Katyn and tried to cover it up.

My brothers wifes grand uncle was hunted first by the nazi's and then rewarded with a spell down the mines by the soviets.

Your talking like they had it coming there country has been dismembered not just once but two or three time in last 150yrs you name someone he has tried to claim it.

The Belorussians and Ukrainians cheered for a bit of peace but what they got was a madman every bit as lunatic as Hitler.

I have said about twenty times now but I think I must say it again the missile shield is being abandoned in order to gain support against Iran.

Russian objections of its placement are rubbish of the highest order everyone on this forum is convinced including me it would never work and they knew it too.

The reason for the row is for other countries benefit and to make sure they cow down and to ensure that even a slight possibility of the reduction of Russia power is removed.

The Kremlin is afraid of a colour revolution thats the real reason for the row. Of course everyone here knows thats impossible there will not be any popular uprising storming the Kremlin this century but hey look at the type of people running things the ex KGB types etc they didnt get to where they are by not covering every eventuallity.

Every peice of Russian influence is bound up in three cards

1 nuclear weapons
2 oil and gas
3 instability in nearby regions which allows for the selling of weapons and transfer of technology

Any diminution of these will cause a degradation of Russian influence.

The surrounding of Russia will continue because it must the US and more specifically the EU must have access to oil and gas this is a requirment and cannot be relied on by Russia as they have already demonstrated they are willing to turn taps off.

Do you think any of those countries that were prised from its orbit where somehow just floating around there on there own or something. They most certainly were not were not they were vassals same as in Soviet days

Entry into the EU and NATO is good for these countries FACT

Pushing Russia into Chinese arms bah rubbish they have been selling them stuff for years long before this row.

They should just simply give up trying to face up to the US but they cannot because thats how there game is played the people who matter make money from all this and so these rows will continue.

You ask what has Russia done to earn emnity maybe it should read what have they done to earn trust.

Until the people running things are gone no change will happen I say again they are making money from this and they intend to prevent America and Europe getting around them to make money too.

Control of the Gas and Oil is control of Russia so every single thing that can be done will be done to ensure its price is kept high threats of turning off the Tap doing side deals with EU goverments for pipeline access will continue it all feeds back to this eventually.

Thankfully in 50 yrs time we will all be wondering what the fuss was about because time is not on Russia's side if they changed there tune soonish they might hang on to a good bit of what they have now but if they play this game too long it will backfire.

Russia lives beside all these countries it interferes with the US does not ergo the US can afford to slip up every once in a while but not the Kremlin.

[seireikhaan]

Obama still continues to lie about the reason for dropping the plan.
Seriously, does anyone believe that? The report that the administration was waving around only concluded that Iran's long-range missile program was 3-5 years behind schedule, not that it was of no concern. And even that NIE is suspect, considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit. The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.

In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air.

So we've scrapped a missile defense plan in favor of...

a different missile defense plan.

[Xiahou]

So we've scrapped a missile defense plan in favor of...

a different missile defense plan.

Read my post again- this in particular:

The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.

The Aegis system is designed for in-theatre missile defence. Meaning short to medium range. The planned missiles in Poland were designed for long-range, as in ICBMs.

Both are valuable. Obama isn't replacing the proposed shield with Aegis, he's just flat out abandoning it. The Aegis system has it's roots in the Reagan administration with the SDI- which I believe someone else erroneously called a boondoggle. Before, we were working on both options, now we've dumped the long-range option in an attempt to appease the Russians.

[Tribesman]

considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit.

A rocket that can go up into space is very different from a rocket that can go up and come down again in the right place.
If Russia wanted to put an anti missile defence system in Cuba the same people who are complaining about the cancellaion of the polish base and saying there is nothing wrong with it would be screaming against the provocative plan and calling for action against cuba and russia.

[Furunculus]

I can think of an annual 11 billion reasons why Poland wishes to be an EU member...
At any rate, the Polish nationalists have been defeated in elections nearly two years ago. The Polish centre is in power. Anti-German, anti-Russian, anti-European agitation* is mostly a thing of the past.
Only the Polish nationalists and those most peculiar allies of theirs, the British Conservative Party, believe anymore that ultra-nationalist agitation is the way forward for Poland.
*anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-minority, anti-Non Catholic etc etc. Anti-everything, in fact, except for George Bush, who is going to build them a big missile shield under which to hide!!1!


The prize for top-3 three victim complex in Europe:
3 - The Serbians
2 - The Poles
1 - The UK Conservative Party.

you might not be snide if you came from a country that was in living lifetime carved up by like a turkey by neighbouring nations and then watched as 20% of its population was wiped out.

the cons don't have a victim complex, they just are not interested in unnecessarily divesting sovereignty to foriegn entities.

[Sarmatian]

Are you kidding seriously you are kidding right Stalin marches troops into Poland they massacred the officers at Katyn and tried to cover it up.
My brothers wifes grand uncle was hunted first by the nazi's and then rewarded with a spell down the mines by the soviets.

And my brothers wifes grandfathers mothers uncles daughters ex roommate is a real scumbag, what can I say...

Your talking like they had it coming there country has been dismembered not just once but two or three time in last 150yrs you name someone he has tried to claim it.

Austrian empire was dismembered by France, UK and US and yet Austria today actually cooperates with those countries... Go figure...

Russian objections of its placement are rubbish of the highest order everyone on this forum is convinced including me it would never work and they knew it too.

Maybe you should organize a petition on the .org and send it to Putin and Medvedev

We, the Orgahs, strongly object to your insistence that missile shield is a danger to Russia blah, blah... blah, blah, blah.... would you just understand that you should shut up and do as you're told.

Sincerely yours....

The Kremlin is afraid of a colour revolution thats the real reason for the row. Of course everyone here knows thats impossible there will not be any popular uprising storming the Kremlin this century but hey look at the type of people running things the ex KGB types etc they didnt get to where they are by not covering every eventuallity.

Oh, yeah, colour revolutions... Smart... Support for leaders of the colour revolutions range from 5-15% nowadays.

The surrounding of Russia will continue because it must the US and more specifically the EU must have access to oil and gas this is a requirment and cannot be relied on by Russia as they have already demonstrated they are willing to turn taps off.

Freakin' bastards, they actually want to get paid for their gas. How dare they!?

Do you think any of those countries that were prised from its orbit where somehow just floating around there on there own or something. They most certainly were not were not they were vassals same as in Soviet days

?
I don't get this.

Entry into the EU and NATO is good for these countries FACT

Debatable...

Pushing Russia into Chinese arms bah rubbish they have been selling them stuff for years long before this row.

Selling stuff isn't the same as being closest political and military allies.

You ask what has Russia done to earn emnity maybe it should read what have they done to earn trust.

There's trust to be earned on both sides, you know. It takes a long time, it doesn't happen instantly. It involves a lot of small steps by both sides. So far, Russia has made a lot more steps.

Until the people running things are gone no change will happen I say again they are making money from this and they intend to prevent America and Europe getting around them to make money too.

By selling their energy and resources to Europe they're preventing America and Europe to make money???

Control of the Gas and Oil is control of Russia so every single thing that can be done will be done to ensure its price is kept high threats of turning off the Tap doing side deals with EU goverments for pipeline access will continue it all feeds back to this eventually.

Oh, yeah, the reason for turning the taps off was to show the EU who's boss

Do you bother to inform yourself about an issue before you speak about it???

Fact 1 - during he soviet era, not once were energy supplies cut off from the western Europe, even during the most serious crises.
Fact 2 - Ukraine syphoned gas, which is extremely dangerous as there has to be enough gas to keep the pressure in the system. That's called technical gas. If there isn't enough, entire system may collapse.
Fact 3 - Ukraine didn't pay for that gas and was already running a big debt they couldn't cover.
Fact 4 - Big, rich western European countries (France, Germany...) have gas storages. In those storages they have more than enough gas for the entire country for one winter, not just a couple of weeks.
Fact 5 - Smaller, poorer countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia...) don't have that. So, by turning off gas, they've hurt smaller countries, not the big ones as russophobes like to think.
Fact 6 - There's different prices for gas depending on the season. In winter, gas is more expensive. It's in Russian interest to sell more gas in winter.
Fact 7 - Russia makes huge amounts of money by selling energy and resources to the west. It's in their interest to keep selling.

Now, you may choose to ignore all this and cry "Russia is teh evil empire!", with Darth Vader music in the background.

[HoreTore]

Obama still continues to lie about the reason for dropping the plan.

So?

At least his lies are believable, unlike the outright lies of his opponents.

And hey, maybe it's true that he didn't do this to please Russia? Considering that every single one of his important allies are happy about this decision, perhaps he did it to make his allies happy?

[Lemur]

Obama still continues to lie about the reason for dropping the plan.

If we read the second half of the quote from your link:

"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."

Seems reasonable, if you don't assume from the get-go that the President of the United States is a lying traitor who wants to sell America to the Muslins. SecDef says, again, in your article:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that the United States is not walking away from European allies to appease Russia.

"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue," Gates wrote in an essay in The New York Times. He said he would be surprised if Russia likes the replacement European missile defense plan much better.