Congratulations, Mr. Obama. Here's a missile deployment.

[GMantis]

The sensible thing would be the removal of the missile shield. Of course it shouldn't have been placed at all - another Bush "present" to Obama.
The Russian reaction is the correct response, even if the timing is rather bad.

[GMantis]

The sensible thing would be the removal of the missile shield. Of course it shouldn't have been placed at all - another Bush "present" to Obama.
The Russian reaction is the correct response, even if the timing is rather bad.

It hasn't been placed as yet, IIRC. It's what, 10 interceptors against how many Russian ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers?

It can easily be expanded and it also be reconfigured for offensive use.

Russia to deploy short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad enclave.

So Medvedev/Putin created a crisis earlier than Biden thought...

It's only a start, just wait and see what Putin does after Obama is actually in the White House.

They would have done the same if McCain was elected, but thankfully, under Obama the danger of a confrontation are much lower than under McCain (let's not even mention Palin).

[GMantis]

Putin doesn't want a war, he's not ignorant just arrogant.  He wants us to back down so he can do what he wants to do.  He, like you, expects a lot less push back from an Obama administration than a McCain one.  That leads me to think he's likely to push harder now that Obama has won.  He will test Obama.  The movement mentioned in this thread is just a teaser.

And I fully expect Obama to stand up to him.

That is partly true. However, Russia is backed to the wall, metaphorically speaking. They have to react to American expansionism. For example, the war against Georgia was disastrous from the viewpoint of international relations, but it simply had to be done. Russia would have lost all credibility otherwise. It seems that both Obama and McCainwould pursue expansionist goals against Russia and that there would be an inevitable confrontation. And if (hopefully not) that happens, it's Obama's better mental stability over McCain that is preferable, not his "softness" (I disagree that he would be softer on Russia than McCain).

The sensible thing would be the removal of the missile shield. Of course it shouldn't have been placed at all - another Bush "present" to Obama.
The Russian reaction is the correct response, even if the timing is rather bad.

It hasn't been placed as yet, IIRC. It's what, 10 interceptors against how many Russian ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers?

It can easily be expanded and it also be reconfigured for offensive use.

A lot of things can be easily done- you could easily modify the "Backfire" to have intercontinental range by sticking the refuelling probes back in, you could easily stick a stand-off nuke on an Su-35 and you can easily download porn of Paris Hilton.

Doesn't mean Medvedev, Putin or Obama will do those things, of course.

The actions of the US in the last 17 years have not been conductive to persuading the Russians of American goodwill or trustfulness.

[GMantis]

Neither have the actions of the Russian Federation these last 17 years inspired American trust and goodwill.

Especially in regards with gas flows.

For most of this period Russia tried to be friendly with the US and to follow their lead in foreign policy. As gratitude, NATO was enormously expanded, separatists were tacitly supported and Russia continued to be treated as an enemy. And let's not start about the economy. It's the Russians who have more reason to be distrustful.
About the gas flows - it's a bit hypocritical of the US to support pro-market policies and at the same time to demand Russia to continue subsidising all their neighbours.

[GMantis]

GMantis is a hack for the Soviets.

The Soviets don't exist any more. But don't let reality come in the way of your hackery.

[GMantis]

For most of this period Russia tried to be friendly with the US and to follow their lead in foreign policy.

They essentially prevented a UN resolution on Kosova, then jumped into Pristina Airport at the last moment.

They sold fighters to Iran until recently, as well as to China.

The USSR doesn't exist, but to quote a James Bond movie, different name, same friendly service- polonium is on the house.

Yes, it was the Kosovo war which started the estrangement between the US and Russia... which didn't stop Putin from offering the US immediately help after 9/11, which also received little gratitude.
I don't agree that the Russians were behind Litvinenko's poisoning, but there's little point in arguing about it. Russia is in many ways very different than the Soviet Union and it's stupid to pretend that nothing's changed.
And which helped China more - the Russians selling them some planes or the US awarding them Most Favoured Nation status, so they have money to build planes on their own?
The US also sold weapons to Iran, though they were less open about it.

[GMantis]

For most of this period Russia tried to be friendly with the US and to follow their lead in foreign policy.

They essentially prevented a UN resolution on Kosova, then jumped into Pristina Airport at the last moment.

They sold fighters to Iran until recently, as well as to China.

The USSR doesn't exist, but to quote a James Bond movie, different name, same friendly service- polonium is on the house.

And which helped China more - the Russians selling them some planes or the US awarding them Most Favoured Nation status, so they have money to build planes on their own?
The US also sold weapons to Iran, though they were less open about it.

The former really- the J-7 is a MiG-21 modification, the H-6 is a Tu-16, the Q-5 is a MiG-15 and, in a slightly different area, there's Varyag...

All those transfers happened in the 60s. What have the Russians done more recently which is more beneficial than the MFN status?

[GMantis]

For most of this period Russia tried to be friendly with the US and to follow their lead in foreign policy.

They essentially prevented a UN resolution on Kosova, then jumped into Pristina Airport at the last moment.

They sold fighters to Iran until recently, as well as to China.

The USSR doesn't exist, but to quote a James Bond movie, different name, same friendly service- polonium is on the house.

And which helped China more - the Russians selling them some planes or the US awarding them Most Favoured Nation status, so they have money to build planes on their own?
The US also sold weapons to Iran, though they were less open about it.

The former really- the J-7 is a MiG-21 modification, the H-6 is a Tu-16, the Q-5 is a MiG-15 and, in a slightly different area, there's Varyag...

All those transfers happened in the 60s. What have the Russians done more recently which is more beneficial than the MFN status?

Varyag was early 1990s. The Su-35 probable transfer is at the present...

The Varyag was sold by the Ukraine. And it's in pretty poor condition
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2007/11/23/analysis_china_seeks_new_russian_technology/7924/
They're still negotiating about the Su-35 and before that, their millitary cooperation reached a nadir - exactly during the time in which Russia mostly followed the US in foreign affairs.

[GMantis]

Still, it's the Si-35, which is a pretty good plane...

And the Russians are no longer trying to please the US, which they did during most of the 90s. You were arguing that the Russians were continuously hostile to US interests during this period, but the facts don't back you up.

[GMantis]

They may not have been hostile, but their actions weren't exactly encouraging to US trust and goodwill.

Unless I'm forgeting something, the Russians were mostly inactive during this period in foreign afairs. Even during the Kosovo war, they didn't seriosly attempt to stop the war.
Are you admitting that to earn the US trust and goodwill, you must bend backward in helping their national interests (a mostly true statement)?

[GMantis]

No, but you still shouldn't fly the aerial equivalent of a Disaster Area concert on mock attacks against North America.

When did this happen?

[GMantis]

Russia to deploy short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad enclave.

So Medvedev/Putin created a crisis earlier than Biden thought...

It's only a start, just wait and see what Putin does after Obama is actually in the White House.

The very fact that Putin intends to reelect himself president even without giving Medvedev the courtesy of a full term just demonstrates his arrogance. It's like he's daring the EU or Obama to make an issue of his power grab.

Oh, and I agree with StatesRights about the extent of GMantis's pro-Kremlin spinning. "I don't believe that the Russians were behind Litovenko's poisoning." Do you expect anyone to actually believe that??

No, not really.
However, the case against Russia seems a bit too perfect. Using Plutonium (which is mainly produced in Russia) which can be easily traced right back to them, especially in the way they did it. Isn't that a bit too obvious?
And where does the article say that Putin intends to get reelected? Apart from the sentence starting with "speculation".

[GMantis]

With regards to this ABM deployment, why not have the US and Russia negotiate a new ABM Treaty as part of the START renewal talks?

The US would be limited to a set number of interceptors and Russia would be able to increase the number it had to that level. 500 each sound good?

There was an existing treaty, which the US abandoned. Why should they enter a new treaty?

[GMantis]

GMantis is basically anti-American so anything any country does against the US or any interest the US has in the world (even if it is beneficial to the world) is automatically bad. So that's why he'll support the fascists in Russia no matter what they do. Have fun in the future with another term of President Putin.

Congratulations for knowing me better than I know myself:)
I'm not anti-American, but I'm against the US government, especially it's aggressive foreign policy. I'm afraid that very often, America's interests abroad, serve mainly America. I have many reasons to support those "fascists" (another overused word who few understand). In this case the Russians were quite clearly responding to aggression. Why don't you give some arguments against this instead of insinuating?

[GMantis]

For most of this period Russia tried to be friendly with the US and to follow their lead in foreign policy.

They essentially prevented a UN resolution on Kosova, then jumped into Pristina Airport at the last moment.

Yes, it was the Kosovo war which started the estrangement between the US and Russia... which didn't stop Putin from offering the US immediately help after 9/11, which also received little gratitude.

Ah yes, the wonderful Balkans, where even what to name a place is fighting words.  If it weren't for the fact that the Serbs would object just as vehemently to the suggestion of Dardania, (after the old 3rd-5th c. Roman province) I think it would make perfect sense.  It certainly would be more substantial that arguing over whether English uses a Anglified version of the name as rendered under the conventions of applying suffixes in the Serbian or Albanian languages.

Actually, I think Dardania is a good name - it's better than mutilating a Slavic borrowing. But then I'm not a Serb.

With regards to this ABM deployment, why not have the US and Russia negotiate a new ABM Treaty as part of the START renewal talks?

The US would be limited to a set number of interceptors and Russia would be able to increase the number it had to that level. 500 each sound good?

There was an existing treaty, which the US abandoned. Why should they enter a new treaty?

Because they support the intrinsic idea of a missile shield against rogue states like Iran? After all, they offered the use of Qadala for it.

The 1972 ABM Treaty limited the two superpowers to one collection of interceptors each, with up to 100 interceptors in total. However, we are not in the Cold War any more.

An ABM II would take this into account and allow Russia to maintain a reasonable nuclear deterrent.

So that now the Cold war is over, there should be a stronger military expansion? Your idea allows the US to expand its shield, forcing Russia to spend even more on the military to compensate. Well, bankrupting the Soviet Union in this way worked once - why not try again?

[GMantis]

Yes, such an ABM treaty would be better than the current situation, but the US hasn't indicated any interest, leaving Russia no choice.

[GMantis]

Yes, such an ABM treaty would be better than the current situation, but the US hasn't indicated any interest, leaving Russia no choice.

There's always a choice. They could make the first move.

A while ago, they suggested moving the systen to Azerbajdan. The US has yet to answer this.
As I've said before, the US actions are not inspiring trust or goodwill in Russia.
In any case, it's the US responsibility to create a new ABM treaty, as they destroyed the last one.