Cold War II?

[gc1765]

"In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States."

Link

[GostHacked]

I've been taking note of this in the past week myself. The US says the missile placements in Europe are to thwart off attacks from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. I can see how Russia might see this as a threat to stability in the region. I can also understand why they would want to target European facilities.

The US seems to want this as part of the Ballistic Missile Defence system. Could also be seen as a strategic land gain for the US. The further the fight is from the US the better for them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18916415/ May 29 2007

MOSCOW - Russia on Tuesday test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and a top government official said it could penetrate any defense system, a news agency reported.

“As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems,” ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. “So in terms of defense and security, Russian can look calmly to the country’s future.”

Begs to ask the question, is BMD a viable solution? Like the early Patriot system of the US?

[M.Dancer]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

[Riverwind]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

They have oil , gas and various metals. The economic boom that is going on in Canada is going on in Russia too.

[GostHacked]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

The US outspent the USSR during the first Cold War. The Soviets just could not keep up. They tried to keep up the military and could not afford it. Hence the collapse. It seemed to be more of an economical war than anything. Now I see the tables can be reversed. Russia is still trying to get a grip on capitolism, and with the US in a situation with a stretched military acoss the globe, and the economy seems to be tanking ( judging by my Canadian Dollar is at a 25 year record high compared to the US) things are definately changing.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US outspent the USSR during the first Cold War. The Soviets just could not keep up. They tried to keep up the military and could not afford it. Hence the collapse. It seemed to be more of an economical war than anything. Now I see the tables can be reversed. Russia is still trying to get a grip on capitolism, and with the US in a situation with a stretched military acoss the globe, and the economy seems to be tanking ( judging by my Canadian Dollar is at a 25 year record high compared to the US) things are definately changing.

Things have changed many times in the past as well....the US actually benefits now from a weak US dollar policy. There is much irony in stating that the USA's "stretched" military is "across the globe". Nikita predicted America's demise 50 years ago:

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at reception in Moscow in November, 1956.[1] The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" - a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral". [Wiki}

Nikita was wrong...the Soviet Union is no more.

[B. Max]

What's that commie talking about. Congress has already cut off the money to build the European part of missile defense which were silo based interceptors.

[Argus]

I've been taking note of this in the past week myself. The US says the missile placements in Europe are to thwart off attacks from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. I can see how Russia might see this as a threat to stability in the region. I can also understand why they would want to target European facilities.

You can? perhaps you are unique, then. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to the rest of us. How do a few anti-missile placements in Europe threaten Czar Putin and his kleptocracy? Haven't you people on the Left spent the last ten years sneering at the ineffectiveness of the US's anti-missile research anyway? And yet this somehow justifies Putin targeting nuclear missiles at Europe? I'd really like to see what you consider logical about that.

The US seems to want this as part of the Ballistic Missile Defence system. Could also be seen as a strategic land gain for the US. The further the fight is from the US the better for them.

Another way to look at it is that Eastern Europe is growing increasingly nervous about the grand imperial ambitions of Czar Putin and the avaricious band of Cossacks and thieves who have attached themselves to him. Thus they're looking for closer military ties with the West to counter him.

MOSCOW - Russia on Tuesday test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and a top government official said it could penetrate any defense system, a news agency reported.

Wouldn't that make the placement of us anti-missile batteries completely superfluous? In which case I ask again - just what is it that Putin thinks justifies bringing about a new cold war?

[Argus]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

The US outspent the USSR during the first Cold War. The Soviets just could not keep up. They tried to keep up the military and could not afford it. Hence the collapse. It seemed to be more of an economical war than anything. Now I see the tables can be reversed. Russia is still trying to get a grip on capitolism, and with the US in a situation with a stretched military acoss the globe, and the economy seems to be tanking ( judging by my Canadian Dollar is at a 25 year record high compared to the US) things are definately changing.

Russia is an economic pygmy. Yes, they have oil. So does Nigeria. But like Nigeria, most of the profits from Russian oil are going into Swiss bank accounts owned by government ministers and their friends, not into developing Russia. The principal problem with the US is their idiotic government, which continues to advocate immense tax cuts while spending masses of money on everything under the sun. People think the problem is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are petty things the US can easily afford. Remember, they had no trouble sustaining a half million man army in Vietnam, along with a massive deterrent force in Europe all these years. They're a third larger in size now, and the army is about two thirds smaller. No, it's the big tax cuts the Republicans pushed through that is the major source of their problem.

[Argus]

"In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States."

Link

An even better read is from the same paper, explaining just what has been going on in Putin's Russia, and giving a bleak look at the future of Russia and the West.

Russia and the G8

[bush_cheney2004]

....The principal problem with the US is their idiotic government, which continues to advocate immense tax cuts while spending masses of money on everything under the sun. People think the problem is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are petty things the US can easily afford. Remember, they had no trouble sustaining a half million man army in Vietnam, along with a massive deterrent force in Europe all these years. They're a third larger in size now, and the army is about two thirds smaller. No, it's the big tax cuts the Republicans pushed through that is the major source of their problem.

The Americans also had no trouble funding Great Society programs, interstate highway system, strategic nuclear forces, and manned missions to the moon. But you are only half right about the contribution of "Republican" tax cuts to current operating budget deficits, because that's what the numbers say....about 50% of the problem.

Pelosi is hard pressed to end tax cuts in the face of declining federal deficits and rising revenue, way ahead of the Bush administrations schedule for doing so.

[myata]

Here's more on the missile defence: CBC story. Now both Russia and China are telling very clearly that this missile defence idea is a major concern for the world's stabilty and may spark a new round of arms race. Not to worry. Oral assurances and the all-time liberty speeches should suffice. It's that kind of attitude that drives credibility of the US foreign policies straight into the ground. And with that attitude they have so little chance of being recongnized as a leader internationally no matter how much they'd talk about it.

[gc1765]

The latest...

"Russian President Vladimir Putin is making an astonishing bid to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic - so he can tap its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wealth.

His scientists claim an underwater ridge near the North Pole is really part of Russia's continental shelf.

One newspaper printed a map of the "new addition", a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia. "

Link

Should we be worried?

[capricorn]

There's a power shift going on in the world. The US's influence is in decline. Iran and China are flexing their muscles. Putin is testing the waters. Is it a cold war or a realignment of power?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246080.stm

[Mad_Michael]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

Methinks you are taking an overly simplistic view of such matters. The Russians don't have to 'win' an arms race for such a policy to have some benefit to them.

And Putin is way smarter cookie than Bush is. Don't 'misunderestimate' Putin. He doesn't seem to make many stupid mistakes.

[BC_chick]

There's a power shift going on in the world. The US's influence is in decline. Iran and China are flexing their muscles. Putin is testing the waters. Is it a cold war or a realignment of power?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246080.stm

If the world only had room for one superpower and my choices were the US, Russia, China or Iran, hands down I would choose the one that at least pretends to be a civilised society. But given the choice of whether I would rather have one superpower or several major powers, I'm all for spreading things out a little bit.

[M.Dancer]

There's a power shift going on in the world. The US's influence is in decline. Iran and China are flexing their muscles. Putin is testing the waters. Is it a cold war or a realignment of power?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246080.stm

If the world only had room for one superpower and my choices were the US, Russia, China or Iran, hands down I would choose the one that at least pretends to be a civilised society. But given the choice of whether I would rather have one superpower or several major powers, I'm all for spreading things out a little bit.

You would prefer a state that has no apprehensions about being barbarian savages? I can assure you that you would not like living in a living hell.....

[M.Dancer]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

Methinks you are taking an overly simplistic view of such matters. The Russians don't have to 'win' an arms race for such a policy to have some benefit to them.

And Putin is way smarter cookie than Bush is. Don't 'misunderestimate' Putin. He doesn't seem to make many stupid mistakes.

Luckily the US system isn't dependant on whether Bush is smart or not. The fact is that Russia doesn't have the depth to engage in a high tech arms race...

[BC_chick]

If the world only had room for one superpower and my choices were the US, Russia, China or Iran, hands down I would choose the one that at least pretends to be a civilised society. But given the choice of whether I would rather have one superpower or several major powers, I'm all for spreading things out a little bit.

You would prefer a state that has no apprehensions about being barbarian savages? I can assure you that you would not like living in a living hell.....

Imputing again are we? But reread that again.....

[M.Dancer]

If the world only had room for one superpower and my choices were the US, Russia, China or Iran, hands down I would choose the one that at least pretends to be a civilised society. But given the choice of whether I would rather have one superpower or several major powers, I'm all for spreading things out a little bit.

You would prefer a state that has no apprehensions about being barbarian savages? I can assure you that you would not like living in a living hell.....

Imputing again are we? But reread that again.....

Okay....

If the world only had room for one superpower and my choices were the US, Russia, China or Iran, hands down I would choose the one that at least pretends to be a civilised society.

I missed the "at" and read ....The one that least pretends.....

So why would you want to live in China?

[BC_chick]

I missed the "at" and read ....The one that least pretends.....

So why would you want to live in China?

Now that you read the "at" you are still imputing?

Sad, sad, sad. How old are you again?

[Argus]

One must always be wary of nations whose soldiers goose step.

Russia pulls out of arms pact

[marcinmoka]

Russia pulls out of arms pact

Troops look like Conrad Black. Odd.

Luckily the US system isn't dependant on whether Bush is smart or not. The fact is that Russia doesn't have the depth to engage in a high tech arms race.

But even better, the fact Russia doesn't have the strategic need either to engage in a race with the U.S. China, yes, however you cannot rile up nationalist sentiment by making overt threats to your biggest client of Military Hardware.

While the Russian political power base is centered in Europe, it's vast resource wealth sits to the east of the Urals, in a region were China has increasingly more economic and military clout.

Edited July 16, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Hobbes]

"In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States."

Link

If he did you can't blame him....Yesterday (July 16th) Bush met with the Polish President and they've decided to put an american missel defense system in the Poland. Guess where it's pointing. Russia isn't the pushover it was in the mid 90s. There's alot of national pride there and biterness reminas towards the west. Look out for Putin's successor, especially if it's Ivanov.

[Hobbes]

I've been taking note of this in the past week myself. The US says the missile placements in Europe are to thwart off attacks from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. I can see how Russia might see this as a threat to stability in the region. I can also understand why they would want to target European facilities.

The US seems to want this as part of the Ballistic Missile Defence system. Could also be seen as a strategic land gain for the US. The further the fight is from the US the better for them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18916415/ May 29 2007

MOSCOW - Russia on Tuesday test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and a top government official said it could penetrate any defense system, a news agency reported.

“As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems,” ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. “So in terms of defense and security, Russian can look calmly to the country’s future.”

Begs to ask the question, is BMD a viable solution? Like the early Patriot system of the US?

The patriot system didn't work...a suceesful launch was not a direct hit, but rather when the interceptor fired from the patrio crossed the pat of the missle, the ods of the patriot making contact were between 0-11% and that's only because mathematiclly it's not impossible. In realty they've never had a direct hit