Is Russia's recent warning about a potential Cold War 2.0 a cause for concern?

[Mallignamius]

The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.

 

[drankin]

The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.

Who are our friends?

 

[devil-fire]

The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.

this is vary true.

one way to combat the threat of north korea or any other "rogue state" that intents to use a WMD tipped missile would be to share the anti-missile technology with russia and make a cooperative effort to make a missile shield. that way you have russia covering some of the bill as well as being a regional supporter of the project. this might be taking it a little far, but it sounds like there was no effort made to include russia in the project so of course they are going to feel like there was a reason for excluding russian control or oversight.

there are tons and tons of other things involved with the war on terror where the paranoia of the current admin has alienated potential allies.

ps. "you are either with us or against us" need i say more?

 

[Astronuc]

Who are our friends?

Tony Blair and John Howard?

 

[Mallignamius]

Who are our friends?

That's a question I wish no one would need ask. And that's very much the point I was making. We're losing friends. We're supposed to be gaining new ones and strengthening the ones we have. I'm optimistic that the potential, given proper diplomatic efforts, to rebuild or form new friendships exists.

 

[Anttech]

Well it seem Mr Putin has completely outflanked Mr Bush...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

Now will Bush listen, I hope so...

 

[Art]

Well it seem Mr Putin has completely outflanked Mr Bush...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

Now will Bush listen, I hope so...

On the other hand I believe the US has outflanked Europe. This missile shield presents a major setback for those who wish to see Europe develop as a cohesive entity with the ability to project real power in the world.

By appointing themselves as the 'protectors' of the eastern european countries the US has effectively nullified the attempts of western europe to assume that role and so negated the current drive for greater military cohesion between 'old' europe and the former members of the Soviet bloc.

A weaker Europe is obviously a good thing from a US and (for different reasons) a UK viewpoint but just as obviously this is not so good for the EU. It will be interesting to see what countersteps the EU takes next.

 

[moose]

Militarily I would speculate your technology is better, but when MAD comes into the game it becomes almost irrelevant. Financially you are waaaaaay more debt. So as I said; even with your very thin remit, you arent.

Pointless arguments.. well kettle pot black is all I can say to that

Financially, our GDP is far greater than Russia's GDP.

Also, according to the CIA world factbook, the US made up 40% of the entire world's military spending in 2006. It is believed that so far in 2007, that percent is 50. That means we spend more on our military now than every other country in the world combined.

 

[Art]

Financially, our GDP is far greater than Russia's GDP.

Also, according to the CIA world factbook, the US made up 40% of the entire world's military spending in 2006. It is believed that so far in 2007, that percent is 50. That means we spend more on our military now than every other country in the world combined.

As I've stated previously who spends the most is not what determines the outcome of an arms race. Here is a quote from Putin from the article linked above which exemplifies this

We have taken into account the experience of the Soviet Union and we are not going to get entangled into the arms race.

We're not going to reciprocate actions, we're not going to mirror such actions. We are going to find other ways. This will be an asymmetric answer.

For instance, the US is creating a huge AMD system which will cost billions and billions of dollars. We said, we are not going to go this way, we will build much cheaper but very effective systems of overriding such a missile-defence system. Through this, we will maintain the balance of forces.

So as Anttech rightly says so long as Russia retains the ability to fire off its thousands of nuclear warheads MAD reigns.

 

[moose]

So as Anttech rightly says so long as Russia retains the ability to fire off its thousands of nuclear warheads MAD reigns.

Well of course MAD continues. I was mainly referring to Anttech's financial comment.

 

[Astronuc]

Well here's a twist -

Putin Offers to Base U.S. Missile Shield in Azerbaijan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801011

Morning Edition, June 7, 2007 · Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a surprise compromise Thursday on a U.S. missile shield, saying he would drop his objections to it if President Bush agreed to base the system in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe.

During a meeting on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if the United States agrees to put the radar-based system in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic bordering the Caspian Sea.

Bush's reaction to Putin's idea was: "Interesting proposal — let's let our experts have a look at it," according to White House National Security Adviser Steve Hadley. Hadley was in their hourlong meeting on the sidelines of a summit of the world's eight major industrialized democracies — the leaders' first since the dispute erupted earlier this year.

Bush has proposed basing the radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor rockets in Poland, rousing Moscow's suspicions that a system built in its backyard had to be aimed at it. The United States insisted the shield was aimed at potential nuclear threats from Iran, not Russia.

Putin said the existing Soviet-era radar station is rented by Russia under a continuing agreement between Moscow and the government of Azerbaijan.

He argued the benefits of his suggested substitute: An Azerbaijan-based system would cover all of Europe rather than just part of it, and destroyed missile debris would fall in the ocean rather than on land.

Missiles in Poland?! to protect against whom?

Missiles and Radar in Azerbaijan or even Romania/Bulgaria near the Black Sea would make sense assuming the missiles come from SE of Europe.

Actually I would prefer no missiles, just as I would prefer no war.

 

[MeJennifer]

Isn't it obvious Astronuc, the USA already has military bases in western Europe, now they are looking for an excuse to put them in eastern Europe as well.

How about a US military station near every big city in the world to "protect" the world from terrorism.

 

[devil-fire]

good thing i thought of this sort of thing on the 6th instead of the 7th or i would be looking the fool.

does anyone know much about the "the existing Soviet-era radar station" in Azerbaijan? I am wondering if the station is staffed by Azerbaijanis and used by russia or if it is more like a russian base on azerbaijan soil. the thing is the russians would love to have a sophisticated facility like an american anti-missile radar system close by so they could learn about it. if the americans are truly not interested in using this system as a protection against russia then this might be a good solution with some tweaking. if however the americans want to keep this technology firmly out of russian hands they would likely offer to take over the russian leased facility, build some high walls with razor wire and put a "no fly zone" into effect 100 miles in every direction from the place. this wouldn't suit russia because it would be the exact same problem as before

 

[Cyrus]

Well here's a twist -

Putin Offers to Base U.S. Missile Shield in Azerbaijan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801011


Missiles in Poland?! to protect against whom?

My guess is Iran.

Actually I would prefer no missiles, just as I would prefer no war.

there's nothing wrong with interceptor missiles. They are designed to destroy other missiles, not kill people.

 

[Anttech]

On the other hand I believe the US has outflanked Europe. This missile shield presents a major setback for those who wish to see Europe develop as a cohesive entity with the ability to project real power in the world.

By appointing themselves as the 'protectors' of the eastern european countries the US has effectively nullified the attempts of western europe to assume that role and so negated the current drive for greater military cohesion between 'old' europe and the former members of the Soviet bloc.

A weaker Europe is obviously a good thing from a US and (for different reasons) a UK viewpoint but just as obviously this is not so good for the EU. It will be interesting to see what countersteps the EU takes next.

To be outflanked you have to have players on the field, do you not?
The USA are also the self appointed protectors of the middle east, and to be very frank, they are, rather there politics are as hated in *eastern* europe as they are in the middle east. So who won what? All I see is a *weak* Russia tell the USA where they can put there *might* ,, leave it or lumpt it THAT is where they will have to put it, since no other pill will be swallowed!

Hearts and minds... Democracy... Hearts and minds...

 

[momentum_waves]

During the G8 debate & previous comments by Putin, has anyone noticed the apparent intelligence comparison between Putin & Bush?

Putin's thought processes & word selection seem fairly advanced.

 

[devil-fire]

To be outflanked you have to have players on the field, do you not?
The USA are also the self appointed protectors of the middle east, and to be very frank, they are, rather there politics are as hated in *eastern* europe as they are in the middle east. So who won what? All I see is a *weak* Russia tell the USA where they can put there *might* ,, leave it or lumpt it THAT is where they will have to put it, since no other pill will be swallowed!

Hearts and minds... Democracy... Hearts and minds...

the whole issue here is that the polices of the usa are causing hostilities between east and west and that doesn't benefit anyone except maybe the usa. if the usa is intent on a policy that's going to lower the stability in the region, anyone who's interests lay with stability (basically everyone in the region) will oppose the usa's policy there. if the americans agree to work with russia to combat what sounds like a potentially catastrophic threat, then people are going to be much more friendly

it isn't as simple as being "with or against" though because when people are considering their choices, they have to think of the impact of the american policy and the impact of the russian policy and the impact of their own choices (or lack there of) and how all that will play out. people are trying to side themselves with the lesser of 2 evils. a lot of this political maneuvering is about both putin and bush trying to advance their political and strategic goals without having everyone around them jump up and yell "they have an agenda that isn't good for me, i have to work against them!"

bottom line---
is bush positioning himself to start a war with russia like putin implies he is ( as per the whole arms race thing)? or is putin crying wolf to further some hidden agenda?

 

[mheslep]

Money? You obviously have not been to Moscow recently. There is a LOT of money in Russia right now. Regardless it never stopped them before... I don't think that would the reason why they won't start another cold war, its because the global political climate is very different than that of after ww2. The soviets are gone, and we have a new Russia, who is getting more and more rich.

That's a completely meaningless thing to say. Here's the fact: Russia's PPP GDP last year was $1.73 trillion. ...

Just noticed this fact so I'm adding to this old thread. Moscow is now the http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm" per the Economist Intel Unit. There's not that much GDP in Russia as a whole as Russ showed, but thanks to Putin et al what there is almost completely concentrated in Moscow since all of the power is there. So yes, if you visited Moscow now you would get the impression the country is loaded.