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

[Storebought]

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??

[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".

[Silent Hunter]

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?

Fairly recently- Tu-95 and Tu-160s have been doing the mock attacks the former was doing on a very frequent basis during the Cold War, including one on Hull (maybe they don't like the football team).

The Tu-95 is an insanely loud aircraft, which can be picked up by submarine sonar underwater and routinely causes hearing problems among crews and intercepting pilots.

[AkSaber]

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?

Fairly recently- Tu-95 and Tu-160s have been doing the mock attacks the former was doing on a very frequent basis during the Cold War, including one on Hull (maybe they don't like the football team).

The Tu-95 is an insanely loud aircraft, which can be picked up by submarine sonar underwater and routinely causes hearing problems among crews and intercepting pilots.

Whoa, I never knew that about the Tu-95. Are all turboprop heavy bombers like that?

[dead0man]

There are no other turboprop heavy bombers.  The rest of the world went to jet engines a long time ago for their bombers*.  Turboprops are loud generally, I've heard a lot of C130s take off and they are loud.  But not louder than a fighter jet.  F15s make your insides jiggle when they fly close by.



*not to say the tu95 isn't a good plane, but it's certainly no B52

[Silent Hunter]

The Tu-95's prop tips break the sound barrier when they go round. That's why they're loud.

The Tu-160, on the other hand, is superior in some respects to the B-1B.

[Silent Hunter]

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?

[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?

[MasterJedi]

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.

[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?

[AkSaber]

Let's look at this from Russia's perspective. The first President Bush and President Clinton both said that NATO's presence and military infrastructure wouldn't extend into Eastern Europe. Four and a half years after Clinton's first inauguration, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, were invited to join NATO. Five years after that, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria, were invited to join in what is NATO's largest ever expansion.

So, what the Russians have to be thinking is that we haven't kept our word about increasing our military influence in Eastern Europe, so why should this instance be any different.

Also, the Russians have offered to let us put a missile defense system in Azerbaijan. They wouldn't be bothered with that. Besides, of all the independent countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union (former Soviet Socialist Republics), it is Azerbaijan that is described as our closest ally among them. Keep in mind that 3 former Soviet Socialist Republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) are in NATO.

[Silent Hunter]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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?

[Silent Hunter]

Russia wouldn't need to spend that much on increasing its missile system- basically a conversion of the S-400 system, which is already road-mobile.

[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.

[Silent Hunter]

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.

[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.