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

[Art]

Over the past 18 months or so the Russian president Putin has leveled criticisms against the West on a raft of issues. The most recent complaint was in his address today to the Russian parliament wherein amongst other things he complained about the US defense shield.

In response Condoleezza Rice said

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed Russian concerns over the missile shield as "ludicrous".

Ludicrous or not this is hardly what one would call a diplomatic response by a senior member of the US gov't to concerns expressed by the president of what is still a major military power.

The strident language emanating from both sides is more reminiscent of the megaphone diplomacy of the cold war and so the question is are we heading for cold war II and if so is this something the West should be concerned about?

Russia in defense warning to US
Russia may stop implementing a key defense treaty because of concerns over US plans for a missile shield in Europe, President Vladimir Putin said.
Mr Putin made the threat during his annual address to parliament - which he said would be his last as president.

He also hit out at an influx of foreign money which he said was being used to meddle in Russia's internal affairs.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed Russian concerns over the missile shield as "ludicrous".

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Mr Putin's speech marks a significant raising of diplomatic stakes.

The Russian president suggested that his country should freeze its compliance with the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty - which limits military deployments across the continent - until all Nato countries had ratified it.
cont'd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6594379.stm

 

[Anttech]

the question is are we heading for cold war II and if so is this something the West should be concerned about?

Nahh Soviet block collapsed, won't be another cold war. However it doesn't mean that Russia in its new form won't try bullying America or its neighbors to get what it wants..

 

[russ_watters]

Russia doesn't have the money for another Cold War. The only possibility is China and we can give them a few decades to catch up before we join...

 

[Art]

Perhaps the Russians and some of the US's NATO allies don't see it that way.

Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence

Kremlin accuses US of deception on east European interceptor bases

Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday April 11, 2007


Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a cold war-style arms race.
The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic stability".
<snip>
The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says.

But this claim has been greeted with widespread incredulity, not just in Russia but also among some of the US's nervous Nato allies. They include Germany, where the Social Democrat leader, Kurt Beck, warned last month that the US and Russia were on the brink of another arms race "on European soil".

Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The geography of the deployment doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."

The threat of a new arms race comes at a time when relations between Russia and the US are at their worst for a decade. In February Mr Putin accused the Bush administration during a speech in Munich of seeking a "world of one master, one sovereign". On Friday Russia's duma, or lower house or parliament, warned that the US's plans could ignite a second cold war. "Such decisions, which are useless in terms of preventing potential or imaginary threats from countries of the middle and far-east, are already bringing about a new split in Europe and unleashing another arms race," the declaration - passed unanimously by Russian MPs - said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2054142,00.html#article_continue

 

[Manchot]

Russia doesn't have the money for another Cold War. The only possibility is China and we can give them a few decades to catch up before we join...

In the meantime, we'll just send all of our money there.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps the Russians and some of the US's NATO allies don't see it that way.

It doesn't much matter how they see it or talk about it. What matters is what they can do. And they quite simply don't have the money to start an arms race.

 

[Anttech]

It doesn't much matter how they see it or talk about it. What matters is what they can do. And they quite simply don't have the money to start an arms race.

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.

 

[waht]

Not to mention Russia is the richest country in natural recources. The whole periodic table is in siberia just waiting to be tapped.

 

[Art]

It doesn't much matter how they see it or talk about it. What matters is what they can do. And they quite simply don't have the money to start an arms race.

Russia gets most of it's income from selling fuel to europe. They have already massively increased prices for natural gas over the past 2 years so if there is an arms race Russia will finance it's build up out of the rest of Europe's pockets.

It is also worth bearing in mind that Russia doesn't have to compete in an arms race $ for $. They have only to spend a relatively small amount to create a plausible threat in strategic areas such as on Poland's borders to necessitate a much larger expense from the West in counter measures.

Russia also has a valid point in questioning the continuing existence of NATO. This was originally a military alliance formed as a defense against the Soviet Union yet since the Soviet Union's demise instead of disbanding or at lest scaling back, NATO has actually increased it's membership. One wonders why?

 

[devil-fire]

you know, the usa could be getting a lot more help from other world powers such as russia and china on issues like iraq and iran. the problem is that american interests are apparently not interests that are congruent with other world powers.

for example. why would russia want to try to influence iran to stop supplying IED materials to militias in iraq with the intent of easing pressure on american forces there when the usa insists on ignoring russian concerns in areas like missile defense. perhaps if iran keeps this up, the americans will have more pressing matters to worry about then missile defense.

 

[russ_watters]

Money? You obviously have not been to Moscow recently. There is a LOT of money in Russia right now.

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

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html

China's was $10 trillion and the US $13.98 trillion.

Regardless it never stopped them before...

Are you suggesting they are going to go back to a communist dictatorship? Otherwise, that's also a completely meaningless thing to say.

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.

Well yes, that is the main point: they aren't going to want to start a cold war, even if they could.

 

[russ_watters]

Russia also has a valid point in questioning the continuing existence of NATO. This was originally a military alliance formed as a defense against the Soviet Union yet since the Soviet Union's demise instead of disbanding or at lest scaling back, NATO has actually increased it's membership. One wonders why?

NATO's existence today is a counter to the ineptitude of the UN. The prototypical example of this is Yugoslavia, 1995. It isn't a threat to Russia, but it is a threat to the UN.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the issue in the OP, I don't see any other way to describe Putin's statement besides the word "ludicrous". Perhaps "rediculous", but they pretty much mean the same thing. With a planned missile shield of 10 interceptor's, the purpose is clear and the capabilities are utterly unsuitable for defense against a Russian nuclear attack.

 

[denverdoc]

Irrespective of any actual threat from Russia or China currently, Condy's remark still bothers me--same ole we'll do what we want, when we want, and to hell with everyone else. A secretary of state should at least give the impression of being a diplomat. Course this is the gal who gave us the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud remark GW seized upon in his speech.

 

[Anttech]

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

GDP and the money a country has available to it to tap are not the same thing. GDP is a reflection of work done and payment for that work rather than the amount of cash available to the government. As I already stated Russia has a lot of money...

 

[Art]

GDP and the money a country has available to it to tap are not the same thing. GDP is a reflection of work done and payment for that work rather than the amount of cash available to the government. As I already stated Russia has a lot of money...

Russia now has the third largest reserves in the world with annual growth of 7-8% so they are certainly not anywhere near the economic basket case they used to be plus as I said already an arms race doesn't mean you spend a $ and we'll spend a $ so I think it is fair to say money isn't a decisive factor in whether or not a new cold war develops.

Estonia too is another source of friction, ever since they joined the EU and NATO they seem to be going out of their way to irritate and annoy Russia in any way they can.

 

[Art]

Irrespective of any actual threat from Russia or China currently, Condy's remark still bothers me--same ole we'll do what we want, when we want, and to hell with everyone else. A secretary of state should at least give the impression of being a diplomat. Course this is the gal who gave us the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud remark GW seized upon in his speech.

Probably also didn't help that she referred to the 'Soviet nuclear arsenal' in her comment. A slip of the tongue no doubt but one which could also be construed as an insult by Russia, a little like when people you deal with often forget your name.

 

[Anttech]

Probably also didn't help that she referred to the 'Soviet nuclear arsenal' in her comment. A slip of the tongue no doubt but one which could also be construed as an insult by Russia, a little like when people you deal with often forget your name.

Good point Bob. Errrm I mean Art

 

[russ_watters]

GDP and the money a country has available to it to tap are not the same thing. GDP is a reflection of work done and payment for that work rather than the amount of cash available to the government. As I already stated Russia has a lot of money...

Having a lot of mineral wealth and having a lot of money are not the same thing. Most of Russia's mineral wealth is unrealized: it costs money to dig/pump it out of the ground and that is money they don't have.

You talk like there is money sitting in banks ready to be spent on weapons. There isn't: Russia has a relatively low public debt (8%), but it also doesn't have good enough credit to get more.

If Russia switched back to dictatorial communism tomorrow, making every penny of their GDP run through the government, they would still have less money available than our government does - and with more responsibilities to spend it on. Add to that the loss of the breakaway republics which decreased their population and other resources, they are a long, long way from being able even to turn their military back into something that the rest of the world considers functional, much less a force worthy of paying attention to.

So for the way you are using the word, you are incorrect. No, Russia does not have a lot of money.

All that said, if you have some actual facts (such as financial stats) that back up your claim, I'd be glad to evaluate them...

 

[Anttech]

Having a lot of mineral wealth and having a lot of money are not the same thing. Most of Russia's mineral wealth is unrealized: it costs money to dig/pump it out of the ground and that is money they don't have.

I didnt say that... Honestly I don't have the energy to traipse through the internet to satisfy your need for some accountants figures who just so happens to have counted all the money in Russia. So you will just have to take my word for it that there is a LOT of money in Russia, and GDP is totally irrelevant to what I am saying, as I hope you know. Your facts are a best guess anyway, so instead of attempting to undermine my statement you should look at yours first. I am not going to try and redefine or attempt to argue with you on "what is money" I will simply say this:
If you honestly think that Russia doesn't have "the money" to start an arms race against the USA, you are very wrong. However there are other far more important reasons why you are correct in saying there will not be an arms race, money isn't one of them.

 

[Office_Shredder]

There's a difference between there being money in Russia, and Russia having money.

It's like saying the US is rich because Bill Gates has fifty billion dollars

 

[devil-fire]

its strange how ICBMs cost a lot of money to make effective intimidation but a cargo container send to new york could be just as effective, if not more effective then an ICBM as a delivery system.

if it comes right down to it, i don't think the ability to back up implied threats would cost as much money as it used to

 

[denverdoc]

Probably also didn't help that she referred to the 'Soviet nuclear arsenal' in her comment. A slip of the tongue no doubt but one which could also be construed as an insult by Russia, a little like when people you deal with often forget your name.

agreed frightening that she might be the smartest in the pack. I recall a Dan Rather debate between he and Amy Goodman where he explains in her defense after all she has an oil tanker named afer her. Like she invented the notion of double hulled tankers? Shes a prop, Astronuc pointed out that the real wordsmith was another agent entirely. And they had enuf smarts to float a test firing via her mouth and then GW's. Maybe the most brilliant test of spin in the 21'th century? Maybe me too sensitive, listening to her is for me at least like interviewing a sociopath. Bristle emoticon.

 

[Art]

Estonia is still yanking Russia's chain;

Estonia unEarth's Soviet war dead
The Estonian authorities say they have found the coffins of 12 Soviet soldiers buried at a controversial war memorial, amid a continuing row with Russia.
Estonia's decision to remove the statue of a Red Army soldier sparked riots last week. One Russian died and 153 were injured in clashes with police.

Protesters are now blockading Estonia's Moscow embassy, according to officials.

cont'd

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6608053.stm

Published: 2007/04/30 14:59:29 GMT

© BBC MMVII

This follows on from Estonia's criminalistion of all soviet symbols with jail terms of up to three years. At the time the Russian foreign minister said

"It is blasphemous to equate the hammer and sickle with Nazi emblems." and "recently the Estonian side has been obstinately taking provocative steps aimed at seriously aggravating our relations".

"The Estonian authorities are continuing their blasphemous attempts to rewrite the history, bracketing Nazi crimes with the feat of the Soviet people, who made a decisive contribution to the liberation of Europe from fascism,"

IMO Estonia is abusing her recent membership of the EU emboldened in her assumption that europe will protect her from Russian reprisals.

A somewhat dangerous and reckless assumption I fear as already such actions are destroying what had been very good relations between the EU and Russia and is tearing Estonia itself apart with it's 1.3 million ethnic Russians half of which are denied Estonian citizenship because of a law the Estonian gov't passed that to qualify for citizenship you and both of your parents must have been born in Estonia.

 

[Art]

It seems relations between Russia and the West are continuing to plummet.

EU-Russian talks end in acrimony
The leaders of the European Union and Russia have traded sharp criticism over human rights, at a summit that exposed the divisions between the two sides.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed alarm at the detention of activists intending to protest against the Russian government.

Vladimir Putin retorted that Estonia's ethnic Russians were being persecuted.

Correspondents said the exchanges just illustrated the souring mood between the EU and its eastern neighbour.

There are a number of prickly issues between the two, including trade, energy supplies and Kosovo.

In a break with previous practice, no joint declaration was prepared before the summit at Volzhsky Utyos government resort, near the Russian city of Samara.

If the atmosphere at the post-summit news conference was anything to go by, the relationship has reached a new low, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow.

President Putin turned the tables on the EU, accusing members Estonia and Latvia of violating the human rights of their Russian minority.
<snip>
EU leaders have recently expressed alarm about Russian threats to veto a UN Security Council resolution proposing Kosovo's de facto independence from Serbia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6668111.stm

 

[devil-fire]

it would seem that russia still has the funds to support advancements in ICBM technology after all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6668328,00.html

 

[Surrealist]

If Russia switched back to dictatorial communism tomorrow, making every penny of their GDP run through the government, they would still have less money available than our government does - and with more responsibilities to spend it on. Add to that the loss of the breakaway republics which decreased their population and other resources, they are a long, long way from being able even to turn their military back into something that the rest of the world considers functional, much less a force worthy of paying attention to.

I fear that many people on these boards fail to recognize the growing threat that Russia poses to US security.

First of all, we have to recognize something... the Putin Regime has one item (and only one item) on its agenda: RETURN TO WORLD POWER STATUS!

It is in fact impossible for Russia to attain world power status in the next 100 years. Economically, Russia is a third world country. It has a declining population with virtually no citizens in the prime reproductive age group. However, the Post-Soviet economy has been experiencing a temporary rise due to the raping of Russia's natural resources. In terms of oil, Russia's years of extraction are numbered. In terms of natural gas, it has the capability of supplying the needs of Western Europe for a few centuries. Other than that, their entire manufacturing industry is dedicated to the production of arms. However in terms of generating revenue, this is nothing to scoff at. They have sold more tanks to China than they have in their own army. In fact, about 80% of their arms production is intended for export. Also, let's not forget that Russia is still a nuclear power.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is nothing special about Putin. He was a high ranking officer of the KGB, but when he was selected by his party (which shares the mindset of regaining world power status), there were about ten other potential candidates with virtually the same qualifications as his. In other words, Putin is not the guiding force of his party, and he is replaceable at the drop of a hat. His party is supported by the ruling class. It is interesting to take note of the fact that Russia has more billionaires than any other country. Anyway, the Putin regime has its roots in Gorbachev philosophy. Remember that up until the early 90s, the Soviet-Union was spending roughly two thirds of its GDP on its peace-time military budget--that is a higher fraction than the US would spend during war-time.

So here is what we have so far. Russia is ruled by a regime that wishes to neglect its people in order to put all its effort towards military power. Their primary concern is to use their temporary wealth to curb the power that the US holds over the rest of the world. Anyone who has their eyes open (i.e. reads the Economist and watches programs like BBC World News) knows that the Russia's missile testing is only a protest to the US missile shield in Europe. But let's look at the bigger picture, recently China has tested a missile in space. We are looking at the possiblity of a multi-national arms race. There is a threat to the super power status that the US holds over the rest of the world, and there is a serious threat to US security. These are not issues to be taken lightly.

 

[Surrealist]

its strange how ICBMs cost a lot of money to make effective intimidation but a cargo container send to new york could be just as effective, if not more effective then an ICBM as a delivery system.

You should quote Frontline when you rip them off.

 

[devil-fire]

You should quote Frontline when you rip them off.

rip them off? what episode would this be?

 

[Surrealist]

rip them off? what episode would this be?

Missile Wars

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/

 

[Art]

It doesn't much matter how they see it or talk about it. What matters is what they can do. And they quite simply don't have the money to start an arms race.

Looks like they 'can do' and they 'have' and they are .

Putin gears up for Russia-US "arms race"
Thursday, 31 May 2007 19:45
Vladimir Putin's stance is becoming increasingly confrontational Russian president Vladimir Putin has said Russia is engaged in an "arms race" with the US caused by American "imperialism".

Speaking in a joint press conference with Greek president Karolos Papoulias in Moscow, Mr Putin accused the US of acting provocatively in ways which undermined Russian national security.

His criticisms focussed on the US' installation of an anti-ballistic missile shield in eastern Europe, rejecting American claims it is being used purely as a defensive military deployment.

"What we are supposed to do? We can't just sit back and stare at them doing that," he said.

Mr Putin emphasised that ballistic missile tests carried out this week, which the Russian military claims is capable of getting past the US defences, should not be interpreted as being motivated in hostile terms.

"There is no reason to fear these actions by Russia - they are not aggressive. It's merely a response to tough and unfounded unilateral actions by our partners," he insisted.
<snip>
And in April he warned the US against the risk of "mutual destruction" caused by the European missile interceptors, warning that Russia would take "appropriate measures" to secure itself against the threat

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/autocodes/countries/russia/putin-gears-up-russia-us-arms-race-$1092507.htm

 

[Office_Shredder]

I would support Bush's decision to fly over there, say "History is on our side, we will crush you" and leave

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like they 'can do' and they 'have' and they are.

Heh - the part you highlighted is more saying, not "doing". What are they doing that should make us notice? Testing an ICBM? That's it? That's not an arms race. If it were, we'd be in one with North Korea too.

 

[momentum_waves]

Heh - the part you highlighted is more saying, not "doing". What are they doing that should make us notice? Testing an ICBM? That's it? That's not an arms race. If it were, we'd be in one with North Korea too.

The US(S)A, would not bother to 'race' against North Korea, as their arms would be considered a step backwards. They consider themselves above such plebs.

The new USSR (Russia) would give them a total run for their money. The Russians now have both money (cash) & available expertise which would seriously put the US(S)A to shame. Don't make the mistake of underestimating Russia.

 

[russ_watters]

The new USSR (Russia) would give them a total run for their money. The Russians now have both money (cash) & available expertise which would seriously put the US(S)A to shame. Don't make the mistake of underestimating Russia.

We've gone through some of the numbers before. Here are some more (most recent, 2005): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Defense appropriations emerged as the top priority in the draft budget approved 23 August 2004 by the Russian cabinet. Military spending is due to rise to 528 billion rubles ($18 billion - $1 is about 29 rubles) in 2005, up 28 percent from last year's 411 billion rubles ($14 billion). The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP. Years of neglect and under-funding have left the Russian forces in desperate need of extra funds. For 2005 the military was supposed to spend 146 billion rubles [$5 billion] for modernization.

The US defense budget is on the order of $500 billion. So if Russia increases theirs by 20 times, it'll be almost as big as ours, while consuming 1/4 of the country's GDP.

Russia is not in a position to start an arms race.

 

[Anttech]

the new USSR (Russia) would give them a total run for their money

The "new ussr" lol... What are you trying to say by making such a statement?

Perhaps you need to brush up on your Geography and History, the USSR fell apart in the 90's in fact the rot started in the 80's.

http://europa.eu/abc/maps/index_en.htm <--- See how most of the ex-USSR countries are now part of the EU?

Yes there is loads of money in Russia, but its not the USSR nor will it ever be again.

 

[Anttech]

We've gone through some of the numbers before. Here are some more (most recent, 2005): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm The US defense budget is on the order of $500 billion. So if Russia increases theirs by 20 times, it'll be almost as big as ours, while consuming 1/4 of the country's GDP.

Russia is not in a position to start an arms race.

Neither are you, unless of course you want to completely wreck your economy.

 

[Art]

Heh - the part you highlighted is more saying, not "doing". What are they doing that should make us notice? Testing an ICBM? That's it? That's not an arms race. If it were, we'd be in one with North Korea too.

Let's see now, Russian President Putin says Russia is in an arms race with the USA whereas Russ says he is wrong and they are not. Mmmm on reflection I think I'll trust Putin's analysis of Russia's current military activity and motivations .

btw you seem to be confusing an arms race with a competition to see who can spend the most. As evidenced by Iraq there is little correlation between money spent and military success. I think you should look up the definition of 'arms race'. You will find 'who spends the most' does not form a part of the definition it's more action - reaction. Specifically in this instance the Russians are developing counter measures to the US anti-missile system.

 

[drankin]

Should we bomb them now or wait until they have more nukes?

 

[Art]

Should we bomb them now or wait until they have more nukes?

I think you will find that just as before the break up of the USSR the Russians already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over.

 

[drankin]

I think you will find that just as before the break up of the USSR the Russians already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over.

That's no fun. Cold wars are boring.

My question would have to be, "How is the US a threat to Russia?". The USSR broke up, we weren't hostile, we didn't go in and physically take anything over (as far as I know, anyway). We didn't kick them while they were down.

I'm sure Russia still has a substantial arsenal but I'd really wonder how well it has been maintained. Doesn't the nuclear material have to regularly replenished?

 

[devil-fire]

Missile Wars

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/

is this the quote you are saying i ripped off? "we have many many more things to worry about then the vary unlikely probability of a missile from rouge state coming across the horizon. i mean if we're going to start allocating resources, let start thinking about how we're going to control or monitor all those tens of thousands of con-x containers that come into the United States on cargo ships every day, tens of thousands. all you have to do is build a nuclear device with a remote control trigger on it and when that con-x container gets in lower manhattan, you set it off. how do you protect against that?"- gen. eugene habiger, cmndr, strategic command 96-98. this isn't quite what i was talking about. he's talking about how the ports are vulnerable whereas i was talking about how russia would not necessarily need a budget for defense comparable to that of the usa to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon past the defense shield because the ports are vulnerable. mind you, a 5 year old episode of frontline is not the only reason to think port security is low.

the frontline link is a great piece of information on how ineffective the missile defense shield was as of 2002. "if the north koreans were to launch one missile, after giving you a weeks notice of where they were going to launch that one missile from and also informing you that there would be no decoys, just one missile. after sixty billion dollars, what is the probability that you could shoot that one missile down? zero as of today. however, if i might expand on that, if we go according to our current plan by the year 2004 it would be vary much higher then zero."

 

[devil-fire]

My question would have to be, "How is the US a threat to Russia?". The USSR broke up, we weren't hostile, ...We didn't kick them while they were down.

do you mean a threat today? or during the cold war, just before the ussr broke up? if you mean the later, then the usa and ussr were quite hostile. the invasion of afghanistan by the ussr was extremely costly to the ussr while it was in a weakening condition because the usa gave anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the afghanistan fighters at a time when the ussr forces were vary dependent on aircraft and tanks.

if russia was supplying weapons that could effectively take out abram tanks and american air support, you could bet the usa would start taking an extremely hostile stance with russia

 

[drankin]

I'm talking after the break up. Is/should Russia be threatened by the US now? Is Russia's defensive posture justified? Or is it a case of Russia trying to regain world power status. Which brings another question, do we want them to regain that status?

 

[JasonRox]

Why would any country even attempt going at war with the US or try to bully the US around? It would be a waste of time and effort and money since the US is driving itself into bankruptcy. The US will be broke in the not so distant future.

 

[devil-fire]

I'm talking after the break up. Is/should Russia be threatened by the US now? Is Russia's defensive posture justified? Or is it a case of Russia trying to regain world power status. Which brings another question, do we want them to regain that status?

russia is not terribly threatened by the us at the moment, but there is the usual 'american interests are not russian interests' involved with regional politics that is always going on.

russia's posturing isn't defensive, its vary much in the "offensive" category in my view. i think it should be expected though. as soon as any offensive weapon becomes moot, it needs an upgrade and it looks like this is what is happening. but mind you, the missile shield isn't vary effective by most accounts so the russian missile arsenal is still vary far from moot in practice. i think the idea here really is to tell anyone who feels they might be protected from russia by the shield (eastern europe let's say) that infact, russia is still vary much in control if they are still breathing tomorrow.

russia is always trying to increase their regional and global influence, aka. become a global super power. this can also be said for china, india, pakistan, britain, france, venezuela, or many other nations. this is just a characteristic that is fairly common among countries. naturally any american would not like it if people in europe sooner listening to russia then america, but i don't think this is going to happen vary soon. this whole thing with missile shields and missiles that get through shields isn't terribly important to american interests. not as important as let's say what iran agrees to do in regards to iraq.

 

[momentum_waves]

We've gone through some of the numbers before. Here are some more (most recent, 2005): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm The US defense budget is on the order of $500 billion. So if Russia increases theirs by 20 times, it'll be almost as big as ours, while consuming 1/4 of the country's GDP.

Russia is not in a position to start an arms race.

Russ, have you had the opportunity to visit Russia?

I've been a few times on business, with one prolonged stay in Siberia - in Winter. I came away with a clear understanding of a nation that has an enormous amount of wealth, should it decide to use it. It also has a cultural heritage of which many countries would be envious. Contrast this against US(S)A's brief presence as a nation.

Many of the foremost thinkers in Mathematics & Physics originate from, or are
still resident in, Russia & the former USSR. Their engineers can often develop excellent concepts on a budget that would be considered paltry in US(S)A eyes. I have witnessed some pretty remarkable engineering.

It would be a gross mistake to underestimate Russia at this point in time. Arrogance causes blindness.

 

[drankin]

Russ, have you had the opportunity to visit Russia?

I've been a few times on business, with one prolonged stay in Siberia - in Winter. I came away with a clear understanding of a nation that has an enormous amount of wealth, should it decide to use it. It also has a cultural heritage of which many countries would be envious. Contrast this against US(S)A's brief presence as a nation.

Many of the foremost thinkers in Mathematics & Physics originate from, or are
still resident in, Russia & the former USSR. Their engineers can often develop excellent concepts on a budget that would be considered paltry in US(S)A eyes. I have witnessed some pretty remarkable engineering.

It would be a gross mistake to underestimate Russia at this point in time. Arrogance causes blindness.

So, what's their problem?

 

[russ_watters]

Neither are you, unless of course you want to completely wreck your economy.

When did I say I wanted one?

Regardless, if we did, we're in pretty much the same place as we were when the Cold War ended. Russia, on the other hand, is not. Like I said before, if they want an arms race and we decide to join, we'll have to give them a decade or two of a head start before we join, just to let them catch up.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's see now, Russian President Putin says Russia is in an arms race with the USA whereas Russ says he is wrong and they are not. Mmmm on reflection I think I'll trust Putin's analysis of Russia's current military activity and motivations .

I suppose you trust 'lil Kim's too?

People like to talk, Art - especially politicians. It doesn't mean anything.