Russia Wins

[tomahawk6]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm

US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says.

He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski's office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.

But Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, denied this.

Russia opposes the US scheme and has announced plans to deploy missiles on Poland's border as a counter-measure.

On Friday, EU leaders said the decision would not contribute to creating a climate of confidence or to the improvement of security.

'No commitment'

In a statement published on his website on Saturday, Poland's president said Mr Obama had "emphasised the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military co-operation between our countries."

"He also said that the missile defence project would continue," the statement added.

When asked about the declaration, McDonough said that the US president-elect had had "a good conversation" with Mr Kaczynski about the American-Polish alliance and discussed missile defence, but "made no commitment on it".

"His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable," Mr McDonough told the Associated Press.

In the past, Mr Obama has said he wants to review the plans for a missile defence system in central Europe to ensure it would be effective and not target Russia.

But the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says the Russian government believes the plan to locate 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic will do exactly that.

In his first state of the nation address on Wednesday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Moscow would neutralise the system by deploying short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland's border.

The US military insists the shield is incapable of destroying Russian rockets and is designed solely to guard against missile attack by so-called "rogue states", such as Iran.

 

[a_majoor]

While not exactly surprising, there are some alternatives.

In the larger region, Israel has the Arrow and Patriot PAC III, and Oman is bidding on the THAAD (Theater High Altitude Air Defence) system. The US Navy has one or more Aegis cruisers in the Mediterranean with ABM capabilities as well.

Should Eastern European nations desire ABM systems and the Obama administration refuse them, they can go to Israel for the Arrow, as a developed ABM platform.

 

[tomahawk6]

My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.

 

[vonGarvin]

My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.

I think that in a few years, G.W. may not look so bad in hindsight, especially with Russia Resurgent.

 

[Kat Stevens]

In the future I can see us looking back on the Gee Dubyah years with much fondness

 

[a_majoor]

And to no real surprise; North Korea is now dealing in:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/01/29/a-change-of-strategy/

A Change of Strategy

January 29, 2009 8:18 pm Arran Gold American Politics

First it was the Russians, and now it is North Koreas who are taking steps after taking measure of President Obama.  Russia dropped their plans to deploy missiles near the Polish border, after Obama negated the plans to deploy missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.  A press report states:

An unnamed official in the Russian military’s general staff said: “The implementation of these plans has been halted in connection with the fact that the new US administration is not rushing through plans to deploy” elements of its missile defence shield in eastern Europe, according to the Interfax news agency.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, had warned that the US shield - which the Bush White House said was necessary to defend against potential attacks from the Middle East - would be interpreted by Moscow as a direct provocation.

Now North Korea is changing tack as well.

North Korea said it is scrapping all military and political agreements with South Korea, accusing the government in Seoul of pushing inter-Korean relations to “the brink of war.”

“All the agreed points concerning the issue of putting an end to the political and military confrontation between the north and south will be nullified,” the reunification committee in Pyongyang said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency today.

I guess we won't even have to wait until 0300 for that phone call......

 

[tomahawk6]

I guess we won't even have to wait until 0300 for that phone call......

When they call it will be forwarded to voicemail.

 

[geo]

... especially with Russia Resurgent.

With the current economic downturn.... Russia doesn't have the petrocash to continue funding all those new projects.

Wither the Russian military once again ???

 

[The Bread Guy]

When they call it will be forwarded to voicemail.

"Your call is important to us.  If this is a weapons of mass destruction threat, press 1.  If this is an encroachment on traditionally friendly areas, press 2....."

 

[a_majoor]

If this is the first 30 days, then the remaining four years will be.....interesting:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/02/20/the_biden_prophecy?page=full

The Biden Prophecy
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, had predicted last October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.

Preliminary X-rays are not very encouraging.

Consider the long list of brazen Russian provocations:

(a) Pressuring Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. air base in Manas, an absolutely crucial NATO conduit into Afghanistan.

(b) Announcing the formation of a "rapid reaction force" with six former Soviet republics, a regional Russian-led strike force meant to reassert Russian hegemony in the Muslim belt north of Afghanistan.

(c) Planning to establish a Black Sea naval base in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia, conquered by Moscow last summer.

(d) Declaring Russia's intention to deploy offensive Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if Poland and the Czech Republic go ahead with plans to station an American (anti-Iranian) missile defense system.

President Bush's response to the Kaliningrad deployment -- the threat was issued the day after Obama's election -- was firm. He refused to back down because giving in to Russian threats would leave Poles and Czechs exposed and show the world that, contrary to post-Cold War assumptions, the U.S. could not be trusted to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying.

The Obama response? "Biden Signals U.S. Is Open to Russia Missile Deal," as The New York Times headlined Biden's Feb. 7 Munich speech to a major international gathering. This followed strong messages from the Obama transition team even before the inauguration that Obama was not committed to the missile shield. And just to make sure everyone understood that the Bush policy no longer held, Biden in Munich said the U.S. wanted to "press the reset button" on NATO-Russian relations.

Not surprisingly, the Obama wobble elicited a favorable reaction from Russia. (There are conflicting reports that Russia might suspend the Kaliningrad blackmail deployment.) The Kremlin must have been equally impressed that the other provocations -- Abkhazia, Kyrgyzstan, the rapid reaction force -- elicited barely a peep from Washington.

Iran has been similarly charmed by Obama's overtures. A week after the new president went about sending sweet peace signals via al-Arabiya, Iran launched its first homemade Earth satellite. The message is clear. If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile, North America included.

And for emphasis, after the roundhouse hook, came the poke in the eye. A U.S. women's badminton team had been invited to Iran. Here was a chance for "ping-pong diplomacy" with the accommodating new president, a sporting venture meant to suggest the possibility of warmer relations.

On Feb. 4, Tehran denied the team entry into Iran.

Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you.

With a grinning Goliath staggering about sporting a "kick me" sign on his back, even reputed allies joined the fun. Pakistan freed from house arrest A.Q. Khan, the notorious proliferator who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Ten days later, Islamabad capitulated to the Taliban, turning over to its tender mercies the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the capital. Not only will sharia law now reign there, but the democratically elected secular party will be hunted down as the Pakistani army stands down.

These Pakistani capitulations may account for Obama's hastily announced 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan even before his various heralded reviews of the mission have been completed. Hasty, unexplained, but at least something. Other than that, a month of pummeling has been met with utter passivity.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e. domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chavez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part ... a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.

 

[oligarch]

My concern is Obama's commitment to NATO period. If he will back down over this issue when the chips are down he isnt going to stand up to Putin.

Your comments are misplaced. The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side - Poland and the Czech Republic. In fact, the public in the Czech Republic is vehemently opposed to having the project in their country. They even had a hunger strike against it.

 

[geo]

the public in the Czech Republic is vehemently opposed to having the project in their country

Really? haven,t seen or read anywhere that they are that opposed.  They are opposed to the concept of being swatted down like they were in 1968.

When was the last demonstration of such rabid opposition ?

 

[old medic]

Your comments are misplaced. The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side

WRONG !  - NATO has backed this.  Get your facts straight, or don't post on subjects you are unfamiliar with.

 

[oligarch]

Really? haven,t seen or read anywhere that they are that opposed.  They are opposed to the concept of being swatted down like they were in 1968.

When was the last demonstration of such rabid opposition ?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=85469&sectionid=351020606

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=312240

http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2008-06-04/Pressure_grows_as_more_join_Czech_hunger_strike.html

WRONG !  - NATO has backed this.  Get your facts straight, or don't post on subjects you are unfamiliar with.

I am fairly familiar with the subject. Please read my post again and see that my comments did not say anything about whether NATO has "backed" the [US] project or not, but stated an undeniable fact that the project is not a deal with NATO, but a bilateral deal that would have taken place even without NATO backing. The US approached the specific countries first and engaged in dialogue with them for several years, not NATO. It is also paying the countries for the use of their land, improving Poland's millitary, and it is not paying NATO to the best of my knowledge. Hence, The missile shield in Europe is not a NATO project, it is a bilateral agreement between the US and each side, which just happened to be backed by NATO.

Let me try to put this another way, if I back this project publically, will I become a party to it? I certainly think that I will not.

Further, and this is a personal opinion, I believe NATO's backing of the shield was a PR excercise. NATO simply didn't want to look toothless in the face of the US and didn't want to demonstrate to the world the lack of internal solidarity that it experiences due to continued expansion. Since the project would have continued bilaterally anyway - as it is today - they might as well sound in on it to make themselves look like they are in control. But this is a personal opinion, please don't ask me for references because then I would have to reference myself ))

Cheers!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So with over an hour of searching you got,....ONE poll, ONE hunger striker, whoops, sorry that now is "a chain"?? of hunger strikers, willing to fast for 24 hours in turn.

Heady opposition, I must say.......

 

[geo]

Most voters are afraid the radar base, which the Bush administration claimed to be aimed at deterring attacks from "rouge states" against its European allies, could expose the nation to terrorist or military attacks in the event of a conflict between the United States and another country.

The rising concerns also pertain to severe opposition to the plan from Russia, which has strongly objected to the programs as a grave threat to its security. Moscow is threatening to take retaliatory measures "if the United States continues to bring elements of its strategic forces closer to Russia's borders, including missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic."

Oligarch...
From what I can see, the Czech population are afraid of the Russians.... which brings us back to what happened in 1968

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It seems a touch premature to say that shutting down a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a sign of Obama backing down to the Russians.  There are a couple of reasons:

A.  The missile shield can't ACTUALLY stop Russian missiles; and

B. All the missile shield was really accomplishing was speeding up the Russian resurgence by boxing them in and making them feel threatened.

Last time I checked, Russia was supposed to be friendly with us.  It would seem to be the west more than Russia itself that is pushing a new cold war by building anti missile systems around a "friend"

 

[a_majoor]

It seems a touch premature to say that shutting down a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a sign of Obama backing down to the Russians.  There are a couple of reasons:

A.  The missile shield can't ACTUALLY stop Russian missiles; and

B. All the missile shield was really accomplishing was speeding up the Russian resurgence by boxing them in and making them feel threatened.

Last time I checked, Russia was supposed to be friendly with us.  It would seem to be the west more than Russia itself that is pushing a new cold war by building anti missile systems around a "friend"

The missile shield is directed towards Iranian missiles (more prescient since Iran has launched a satellite, indicating the capability to reach targets throughout Europe).

As for Russia's supposed friendship, you should review their actions after Boris Yeltsin's administration to judge how "friendly" they have been. If it wasn't the missile shield then other pressure points would have been targeted like the US airbase in central Asia or energy supplies to the EU (and thus NATO alliance). Oh wait.....

 

[oligarch]

Oligarch...
From what I can see, the Czech population are afraid of the Russians.... which brings us back to what happened in 1968

They oppose the project, whatever their reason may be. If the Czechs are "only opposed because they are afraid of the Russians", does it suddenly make it morally right to force a shield on them and forego democratic principles?


[quote author=Bruce Monkhouse ]
So with over an hour of searching you got,....ONE poll, ONE hunger striker, whoops, sorry that now is "a chain"?? of hunger strikers, willing to fast for 24 hours in turn.
[/quote]

Yes Bruce, I've spent the whole hour time searching the internet just for you. I've provided three links. Next time you want to prove something, I suggest you find ways to do it constructively. Descructive criticism is only practiced in kindergarden, not in the area of intelligent discussion. For example, a constructive argument would entail finding a quote that says the Czech public wants the shield or explaining why the government doesn't want the issue to go to referendum.

And yes, I've been thinking of this response since the last time I wrote. I didn't sleep, I didn't eat, just sat here thinking.

lol

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And here I'm thinking that before I claimed I was "fairly familiar with the subject", I would be able to produce a whole lot more than what you did.

Remember, I don't claim to know SFA about this subject, I'm just here waiting with bated breath for you to convince me since state you have the knowledge.