Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe

Melugo writes to let us know that Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe. This reader notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again." "'If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,' Putin said... 'It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.'"

Comments

This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The US defenses are oriented and located to where they will NOT be able to counter ANY Russion launches toward the US or Europe.

Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.

Putin is doing what Bush does, just rabble rousing to distract people from all the crap he is pulling behind the scenes.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[WindBourne]

That is false. It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches. Why? Because this gets the rockets in cruise phase as opposed to boost or targeting. So anything that is coming overheard or just to the side will be blocked. The real issue is, how many missiles are we looking to put in? Not many. Russia can easily overrun our number with current inventory. The simple solution for Russia is to have verification of launchers/missiles. But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[mikerich]

It doesn't matter what the current missiles CAN do, its what future missiles COULD do and what the Russians THINK America wants to do.

To clarify. Poland and the Czech Republic are on Russia's doorstep, less than a generation ago they were firmly inside the orbit of Moscow. Now, not only are they members of NATO but they are enthusiastically embracing the policies of the US military. This is bound to set red lights flashing in the Kremlin. Imagine the reaction in Washinton if Ottawa announced it was placing Russian missiles in Ontario - the US would see it as a grave provocation within its sphere of influence.

Secondly, long term treaty aims are to reduce the amount of MIRVing on missiles AND to reduce to the number of missiles. The Russians are already coming from behind on this, they have large fleets of liquid fuelled SS18 missiles, well past their sell-by date, but capable of putting 10 warheads pretty much anywhere in the US. If they go down the treaty route they'll find themselves surrounded by anti-missile stations that MAY be upgradeable to take out Russian missiles.

Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.

American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster, it has provoked confrontation after confrontation, rolled its tanks up to the borders, abbrogated long-standing treaties and acted like Russia was a backward nation. Putin is using national resentment to give America (and Britain in particular) a serious case of the jitters.

Whether American missiles can destroy Russian missiles is almost immaterial, it gives the Russians a chance to throw their not-inconsiderable weight around, and it offers their, let be honest, stunning missile designers, plenty of opportunities to bring in a new generation of planet killers. Putin can now make sure he's succeeded by a fellow strong man and Russia can really start to influence European politics - at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East. And that may not be a good thing.

But you can be sure this will also have been noticed in Beijing - another cash-rich country will soon be pouring money into solid-fuelled, MIRVed missiles. China is almost certain to build a missile submarine fleet and expand its own Pacific fleet - which brings another force into direct conflict with US strategic interests. At the end of the day, can the US compete in an arms race against TWO superpowers?

"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[Kadin2048]

This is the same "targeting" rhetoric from the early 1990s all over again. Pretending that whether missiles are 'targeted' at some city somewhere, really changes the strategic position at all.

It's bullshit. Where a missile is 'targeted' has almost no real-world meaning. You can re-target a missile in a few seconds; in fact all submarine-launched and mobile missile systems have to be targeted right before launch, because the trajectories need to take into account the launch position.

The only scenario in which the 'default target' or preselected target of a missile might matter, would be an accidental launch. But even then, having the missiles aimed at neutral territory might not buy you much, because the unexpected launch itself might be perceived as hostile and engender a response; you can't depend on the mis-targeting for security -- that needs to be built-in to the command-and-control systems absolutely.

Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

To cast little bit more light on the topic. America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech. Since the decision had been taken, Russia started to threaten both countries, we (Poland) have export embargo (for example for meat) and some "warnings" and "good advices" from Russia. Now they try to convince Us other way around... My posting is little bit biased - Forgive me, but I spent all my childhood under the Russian occupation and regime in Poland, sorry, could not resist. So before anyone starting shouting at Bush please - thing twice. First Russia occupied Poland, Czech, Slovakia etc for 40 Years, then, after the collapse of the communism, they were against joining NATO by Our, independent then, countries. Then they are against this shield. Technically shield located partially in Poland and in Czech is no threat for Russia at all, they now this. Also, technically, this shield cannot defend nuclear attack for this part of Europe. Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves. lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

To follow up on this excellent post, I'd like to point out that I'm American and I've spent a good deal of time in Ukraine in the past. My Ukrainian ex-girlfriend had 2 great-grandparents who were murdered by Stalin's henchmen while her grandfather was forced to watch for the "crime" of supposedly being Ukrainian nationalists. Putin is drunk with power and money thanks to Russia's oil and gas reserves. Times are more or less good in Russia for people who live in bigger cities. Even for common people. They're making more money than ever before and they credit Putin. He not only has little real opposition, but what little there is has been suppressed by him and he's stacked the deck to be sure that his party and his eventual hand picked successor will become the next president. Putin is an ex-KGB guy and he laments the breakup of the USSR. His wet dream is to rebuild the USSR, but I think at some level he knows that won't happen, so he'd prefer to have vassal states that pay homage to him and give him a virtual USSR to rule. He flipped out when Ukraiane protested the bogus presidential elections in late 2004 and eventually elected Yushchenko in a fair election. He wasn't happy with what happened in Georgia first in the Rose Revolution, but I think until Ukraine elected Yushchenko, he thought he could just bully Georgia back into line. I have little doubt that Putin would love to tell all of the old Warsaw Pact countries what to do just like in the "good old days". The US has stated that they intend to put 10, yes, 10 interceptor missles in Poland. Since Russia has well over 1000 nuclear missles, this is just more of Putin's nonsense that such interceptor missles are a "threat" to Russia. My ex-girlfriend and her family knew first hand what kind of "love" Mother Russia gives to her children and I can't say I blame thelima for not being interested in falling under Russian influence again.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[rumith]

Sure, North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years... that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those bases?

Besides, something tells me that if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose. Just because somebody is at peace with you now, doesn't mean that he won't be at war with you some time later, especially if you're dealing with the world's mightiest and most aggressive superpower.

Mental illness feeds on itself.

[Futurepower(R)]

Putin wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.

Bush wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.

Bush's actions give Putin a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.

Then threatening actions by Putin give Bush a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.

Mental illness feeds on itself.

See the free 3-part BBC movie: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

Threatening violence is only one of the formulas of manipulation. Here are others: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation.

(If you are a U.S. citizen and you don't like my summary of U.S. government corruption, you must write your own. You can't say you love your country if you abandon thinking clearly when your country is in trouble.)

"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[XNormal]

Yes, only this time Europe goes dark without access to Russian natural gas.

Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[janrinok]

The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power. The radar system is also capable of observing activity inside Russian airspace. Of course, the US will claim that they wouldn't use it like that, but there are many threads on /. which point out that, if a system can be abused, then at some point it will. US actions around the globe can appear to some to be expansionist and bullying. Now a lot of this is Russian rhetoric - i.e. 'they would say that, wouldn't they?' but with the US recently withdrawing from at least one treaty with Russia, with its current propensity of using force to resolve issues that could, and should, be resolved diplomatically and with Western forces having established a significant presence on many of Russia's borders, you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view. No, I don't think that they are correct, but I can understand how they might feel.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

When the Kremlin threatens nuclear annihilation against Eastern Europe, the very least that we can do is to expel Russia from the G-8. That's exactly the kind of escalation mentality that brought us the Cold War. Russia is NOT threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear annihilation. Putin simply stated that the missile defense bases will be included in the Russian military's nuclear target list. That makes a lot of sense and is actually a measured response. If the Russians planted anti-missile-missile batteries around Guadalajara tomorrow, Bush would have them bombed the day after. Putin simply cannot afford that US military types begin to believe they could "win" a nuclear exchange because that would threaten the very existence of Russia. That is the only button you can push to make him behave aggressively right now, and Bush is pushing it, hard. Witness Putin's lame reaction when US troops landed in Afghanistan - Russia does not want conflict and cannot afford conflict even if it wanted it.

Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this: the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes) and normalize your relations with China while you're at it. No-one much minds that you're carrying a big stick, as long as you walk softly. Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory. Try to change mentalities and regimes if you so wish - but not by force of weapons. And finally, and most importantly, _bring_the_boys_back_home. The US military, as it is now deployed, seems ready to make war on the whole world. That is insane.

Take down the morons running America, get a new government that is strong enough to afford putting the leash on Israel, effect regime change in Iran (no, nuking Teheran does not count as regime change, yes, it is possible and has been done before, no, bringing back the Shah's cronies is also not an option) and re-instate the kind of policy that has kept NK in check for as long as Kim Ir Sen was in power. Better yet, give China carte blanche in NK - they'd like nothing more than to serve Kim Jong Il the traditional last cup o' tea, if only paranoid americans would not fear them more than they fear the Koreans. Those are the real nuclear threats, not the two paper-tiger ex-superpowers.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[TapeCutter]

What on earth makes you think the neo-cons have suddenly started telling the truth?

Have you not noticed that the US are building "shields" in the Pacific and have them planned for the eastern edge of the the EU?

Miss the fact that an invasion of Iraq puts a large chunk of the US military slap in the middle of the chess board...err...middle east?

Ooooo and then there are little details like Pakistan, a few decades back they were a stone age soviet ally, now they're a nuclear armed US ally on the door-step of the Caspian sea. NATO stomping around Afghanistan looking to kill the people who the CIA trained and supplied to kick the soviets out (OBL/Taliban).

OTOH: Ten anti-missle misslies (by themselves) are certainly not a realistic defense against Russia (not even enogh to stop Isreal) but I'm sure they will be very effective at stopping Iranian WMD's that only the neo-cons can find.

Speaking of Iran reminds me of another "supreme council", do you think that maybe the veto holders in the UNSC are stll fighting each other in proxy wars just as they have done since the end of WWII? Has the underlying "competition" for ever dwindling resources somehow been solved or have the peices just moved around on the "chess board"?

Meditate and discuss: The real moral behind the story of Adam and Eve is: Don't let anyone spoonfeed you apple-pie.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Point One: Who defines defensive? Missile Shield == missiles. Russian missiles == missiles. Defensive defines how they are used, not what they are.

An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature. Do you really think that a kinetic kill vehicle can wipe out a city?

Point Two: You, and the rest of the US are terrified of the Iranian boogeyman

So is Europe, apparently, because they have largely supported our efforts in this area. Indeed, they were leading the effort against the Iranian nuclear program for quite awhile. Russia (and China to a lesser extent) are the ones throwing up roadblocks.

Those of us in Europe, caught between two monolithic, stupid, agressive, violent and unreasonable powers are beginning to wonder why we need either of you.

Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.

Perhaps you should be more worried about the EU turning round and atomic-bitchslapping you both - because that is, overwhelmingly, what the population seems to want right now, regardless of whther that's a good strategic choice.

The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return. And that seems like an awful lot of posturing to be making when the EU can't even agree on internal trade quotas or policies. And a lot of Europeans I've met seem to think that the EU is nothing more then a means for Paris and Berlin to dominate Europe and they are less then happy to be a part of it.

Fuck You, Fuck the US, Fuck Russia, and get the fuck out of our countries you arrogant pricks.

Kind of ironic since you are posting on an American website. I bet you are even using American software on your computer. Oh, and your apartment is probably heated with natural gas from Russia ;) But, by all means, let's isolate the EU from the US and Russia. I bet you'd fall upon yourselves within a matter of decades.

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.

I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?

Nice fantasy, though.

Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. And lately, there seems to be a much stronger push to force "little USAs" even if people don't actually want them. An assumption of moral superiority.

Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial. Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Or compare the USSR-supported North with the US-supported South Koreas... Or look at how the US-assisted Western Europe recovered after WW2 and then consider the USSR-controlled Eastern Europe (including Eastern Germany!)

These are just the most obvious cases...

Every culture wants its presence felt (just listen to all the noise the French are making). But America's empire is the benevolent one — and the "way of life" it (strongly) suggests is the one of prosperity and comfort. And not necessarily due to the benevolence of all Americans — simply because for us to prosper, it is better to have prosperous (and peaceful!) neighbors. And we are willing to shove that prosperity and peacefulness down a throat or two...

Russians, on the other hand, just want an empire for the sake of empire — yes, we have huge rates of alcoholism, our population is declining, our former subjects all hate us, AIDS is rising, natural resources are our only sources of currency. But we are citizens of a Great Empire, you see, and that is somehow comforting on its own...