Groundhog day in central Europe

CG

The reaction of the Czech and Polish politicians doesn't make sense. These anti-missile batteries were going to be aimed at Irainian missiles, not Russian, so they and the reflex anti-Obama crowd, including the writer of this article, are throwing in a complete red herring. I applaud the President's action. Kissingerian Realism is back and not before time.

Ian C

This is an interesting and potentially defining moment for Obama. Will events prove him prescient, or result in him being labelled Jimmy Carter II?

I saw a snippet in The Times a couple of days before this announcement (a week perhaps) that was curiously only a small para on the International pages, saying that Medvedev had contradicted what his Foreign Minister had said about sanctions on Iran being out of the question at the UN Security Council.

That struck me as big news and yet was treated as an aside by the all press. Yet yesterday's announcement suggests that a deal may have been done to get Russian help with Iran. If that is the case then Obama will look good - and, incidentally, Bush would look better for providing something that was pretty marginalso it could be later bargained away in the pursuit of Iran by other means.

Certainly at this moment it appears that a deal has been done (what was Netanyahu's recent secret trip to Moscow recently all about?).

Things maybe afoot regarding the whole of the Middle East. If not, then Obama has dropped a Carter sized clanger and he will suffer for it - as will the rest of us.

Brian O'Connor

Yeah . . . so the administration trusts the same intel community it vociferously condemned for failing to accurately assess the state of Iraq's WMD.

Meh

The article quotes the headline of a Polish Tabloid as evidence for how an entire country feels about this move. Intersting. I do wonder if the UK is reported abroad as being incredibly worried about Freddie Star eating hamster.

Also Lech Kaczynski comment was in reference to a grey zone between wester europe and the old soviet sphere. It had nothing to do with Iran.

Brian O'Connor

Of course, the real damage done here is to the country's credibility: who now would be foolish enough to trust that the US would keep its word and follow through on its commitments?

Credibility is a non-renewable resource, and I fear the effects of this reversal will take decades to undo if undoing is possible at all.

As a sidelight — the announcement was made on September 17, 70 years to the day when the Ribbentrop and Molotov signed their infamous non-aggression pact, of which one of the (secret) provisions was to partition Poland. So when Hitler marched into Western Poland, the Soviet Union marched into Eastern Poland.

What ghastly and shocking amateurism on the part of the administration.

John from Toronto

Israel is the canary in the coal mine. Throw your allies under the bus to appease your enemies.

nosmo29

Interestingly, one of the beneficiaries of this decision is Israel (along with Azerbaijan) where part of the system is already (?) based. It is said to be "working perfectly."

Adam B.

CG, I think you misunderstand. Even though the system is aimed at the Iranian threat (and my worry is that the existence of such a system would mean that the US wouldn't be stopping Iran acquiring nukes in the first place), it put the Czech Republic and Poland firmly in the US camp. The mere presence of these US installations would be a protection against Russia. Instead, Obama, as always, has screwed his friends to try to appease a Russia which won't reciprocate anyway. Yeah, real smart! If Obama continues like this, the US won't have any allies anywhere.

Pinkie Brown

The US will still have allies. Of course, they will not trust the US worth a damn to keep its word and will not feel in the slightest obligated to keep their word to the US. But the latter is nothing new. At the very least, since the US said it was a defense against Iran, shouldn't Obama have kept it on the table so as to negotiate a deal to both get Russian backing and to make Iran desist from any attempt at getting nuclear weapons. The simple answer is that Obama doesn't have any intentions of taking a hard line with enemies of the west. So much easier to beat up on Israel. Like the guy who has a bad day at work so he goes home and beats his wife.

Dixon

The entire debate is utterly confused in the media because so few people understand the essentially quite simple technical facts involved.

The system proposed for Poland et al was a "mid-course" interceptor. It would be of no use to protect any country in Europe from missiles coming either from Russia or Iran. Missiles from Russia would travel at too low a trajectory to Western European targets. Fired at East European targets they would be at the end of their trajectory. As would missiles fired from Iran at anywhere in Europe. To protect any country in Europe from either Russian or Iranian missiles will require a terminal phase system, such as THAADS. Or a mid-course system based further South.

The interceptors in East Europe...of which less than a dozen would have been deployed anyway, could ONLY protect the USA against Iranian missiles on a Polar trajectory. They would be utterly incapable of intercepting Russian missiles fired at the USA which, so many people seem unable to understand, would travel NORTHWARDS NOT WESTWARDS. Missiles fired at the USA would travel OVER THE NORTH POLE, not along airline routes accross the Atlantic!

BTW, the interceptors DO NOT CARRY A WARHEAD, but "kill" missiles by direct impact ( "kinetically" ). And the system has been proven effective in multiple tests. The US already has an operational mid-course system deployed at Fort Greely in Alaska to deal with Korean missiles. NUMEROUS interceptor systems are deployed already on the Aegis class cruisers. We saw their effectiveness when one shot a sattelite not long ago.

So both sides in the popular debate are very confused. The European based interceptors would pose no threat to Russian capabilities and at the same time would protect no country in Europe. They would solely be able to intercept Iranian missiles heading for the USA.

Nonetheless, the Polish and Czechs are right to say they have been thrown to the Russians. The missile interceptors would not have served their defence, but would have been a tangible sign of their independence from the USSR...I mean Russia. The scrapping of the scheme more or less declares them to be, as before, subordinates of their bullying neighbour.

All that aside, we do not know if Obammie actually got something in return by way of a discreet deal with the Russians. At the time of the Cuban crisis, the Kennedy myth was boosted by the narrative of his having forced the Soviets to back down and withdraw their missiles. It wasnt until 30 years later that it was revealed that JFK in fact had struck a deal with the Soviets to withdraw Thor missiles from Britain and Greece in exchange for the USSR taking the missiles off Cuba.

We do not know if Obammie has done a trade. Maybe ( as a pure conjecture ) in exchange for the Russians not selling air-defence systems to Iran?

James

"betraying America’s friends, grovelling to its enemies and recklessly endangering the world" - Why does all this seem familiar? Oh yeah, Jimmy Carter.

Vision Aforethought

Well people, we're either all doomed or Mr. President is a very crafty fellow and playing some equally crafty games to get Russia to stop giving presents to Iran. Me thinks and hopes the latter. While like many, one can have trust issues with Obama, he is exceptionally intelligent and fully aware that if he steps out of line, he may trigger events that he (and the rest of the world) may regret.

daniel maris

A bit hysterical I'd say. Central Europeans are right to be nervous of Putin's Russia (and it really does belong to him now).

The way for the USA and other European countries to help it number one develop energy independence.

Secondly we need to develop robotic warfare capability as soon as possible, so any Russian tank army would be completely wiped out and that technology should be exported to all good democratic friends.

But it is pointless to provoke the Russian bear unnecessarily. Continual expansion of NATO was a stupid policy. It was never meant as an aggressive alliance.

Stephen Fox

thanks for that Dixon, clears up some aspects of this. What do you make of the stuff about 'mobile interceptors' which would replace the static system? Sounds like putting it off till 2015 is kicking it into the long grass in any case.

I heard a BBC world service news presenter wondering whether not getting a quid pro quo from the Russians would make Obama look weak.
(!)
Then the pot called the kettle black...
But even Al Beeb caught a whiff of Munich. It's going to stink to the East Europeans...

Brian O'Connor

Thanks, Dixon. That's a very good analysis, and I learned from it.

Bogdan of Australia

We have to remember that one of the main strategic targets of Putin's regime is to destroy Georgia's Saakashwili's Presidency and neutralise Georgia herself as an alternative route for gas supply to the Western Europe.

The second aim is to acquire at last half of Ukraine - the Western part of that country with its mainly Russian speaking population and highly developed manufacturing base.

Aquisition of those two regions (Georgia and Western Ukraine) would consist an enormous bust for Russia in terms of rebulding its decreasing population and industrial power as well.

One of the most prominent sukcesses of Russia's machinations is the prevention of Ukraine from being admitted to NATO structures.

The other victory for Putin is a construction of a Nordsteram gas-pipeline between Germany and Russia along the Baltic sea-bed, bypassing Ukraine, Poland and other Eastern European countries. It gives Russia an enormously powerful tool of a blackmail against Poland, Ukraine and tini Baltic states.

The most immediate threat is, without any doubt, the increasingly likely invasion of Georgia where the Russkies have an unfinished business with Saakashili.

That country is, for sure, having sleepless nights now...

All thanks for the breathtaking cowardice of the so called "Western Europe" and revolting appeasement by American "Democrats" under Obama's "leadreship".

Bogdan of Australia

I ment Eastern Ukraine, of course. Apology...

Brian

Excellent move from Bambi....

Let the Euroweenies look after themselves from now on.

Dixon

"Stephen Fox
September 18th, 2009 9:50pm
thanks for that Dixon, clears up some aspects of this. What do you make of the stuff about 'mobile interceptors' which would replace the static system? Sounds like putting it off till 2015 is kicking it into the long grass in any case."

Any information that I have is available to anyone who wants to look it up. But it always tickles me how many people seem to think of the real world as laid out in an Atlas, with the continents alongside each other, rather than, as is the case as far as intercontinental warfare is concerned, radiating outwards from a central axis ( the pole ).

As for mobile systems that you mention, that might be a reference to a number of things. For a start, the Standard Missile which has ABM capability is deployed on Aegis Ticonderoga type cruisers and these can be sailed to where they are thought needed.

Then there is the ambitious Airborne National Laser project. An immensely powerful laser aboard a 747 which is the prototype of a system able to shoot down missiles directly after launch ( "boost phase" ) from a range of hundreds of miles. Clearly, such a system could be operated at forward locations in the event of a crisis. Althought it is so far proceeding as planned, it is liable to be axed by Obama's regime.

There is still a persistent myth that ABM systems are technically unfeasible. In fact the technology for tracking and hitting objects in space and travelling at tens of thousands of miles per hour is quite mature. It was demonstrated by the USA in the early Sixties.

Most people would be as surprised as I was upon discovering that in the Cold War more than 20,000 Nike anti-ballistic capable anti-aircraft missiles armed with nuclear warhheads were deployed right across Europe from north to south.

The problem of course is that no present system could cope with a large number of sophisticated, maneuvering warheads accompanied by decoys. Which is why any idea that an ABM system with but a handful of interceptors poses a threat to Russia is a joke. Whereas, Iran or North Korea clearly will not be deploying weapons in such numbers or with such sophistication.

Moreover, it is also generally not realised that Moscow has been protected by an operational anti-ballistic system for decades. It was exempt from the SALT ban on ABM systems which Bush withdrew the US from not long ago. The benchmark of British nuclear dterrence has always been whether our weapons can penetrate the Moscow defences. This necessitating the costly Chevaline maneuvreable warhead developed by the UK for Polaris, before the advent of the Trident system.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Neville Chamberlain + Jimmy Carter = Obama.
Gee, is that a knife sticking in my back?

terence patrick hewett

Expect Iran now to take it right up to the wire and beyond. They now have Obama's number.

Chris Reason

I think you've nailed it again, Melanie. There just aren't enough missiles in the world. Clearly things won't be sorted till we each have our own individual rocket and nuclear warhead. Preferably with our own individual security wall built around us. What a gutless man Obama is. We need MORE confrontation, not less. Thank you for your voice of sanity.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Russia is going to be a big, big problem ! They will, for their own reasons, back Iran against israel.Obama really has no idea when it comes to these areas.

rmb

Come on Mel, 2 days since the TUC vote on an Israeli boycott and not a squeak?

YA

The time Iranians need to create a stock of reliable IBMs will most likely last longer than the lifetime of their theocratic regime.
On the other hand, the whole Middle East land mass becomes a threat from medium range, less surely detectable, cheaper/simpler missiles. Likely scenario here is an attack by some non-government "freedom fighters" or Sharia promoters, to intimidate/blackmail the EU. Realistic counter-measure for that is the integration of Arrow and Patriot-3 (presently in Israel) and development of the NATO's middle-range missile defence basing on these existing components.

Obama took correct decision.
First, it cuts off unnecessary costly option in Poland/Chzech R.
Second, it improves cooperation with Russia on anti-terror.
Third, it facilitates the work on joint Israel/NATO/US missile shield for the EU.

BTW absence of joyful noises from Tehran on the issue is telling.

phil

Dixon as usual a voice of sanity-personally I am not too worried about the threat from Russia ,they wish to remain alive as much as we do -I cannot feel the same way about the lunatics who presently govern Iran

Stephen Rothbart

We may never know all the machinations of this deal, some say the new missiles are a better alternative and others that they don't work.

What to me is more worrying is that Obama's foreign policy decisions seem to be based on those of China's now that the USA is in hock to China while Obama spends the Chinese loans on shoring up his country's debts and to pay for the new health program.

Obama has recently sided with all of China's allies and dropped the USA's traditional alliances with Taiwan, Israel, Honduras, South Korea and Japan all being put in harm's way by the feebleness of Obama's responses to each crisis.

This will be noted by Russia, who will rush to exploit it. Those countries with large Russian populations, such as Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania are already nervous, and Poland and the Czechs have a right to think that they may also be on the list someway down the line. As a Brit living in Prague, I am aware of how much the Czechs distrust and dislike Russian governments.

GeoffM

The Marxist lunatics have taken over the White House (can we still call it that?).

The web of marxist influence from the corrupt Acorn organisation, through the Weather Underground, and on to George Soros is inescapable.

Just like in the UK, marxists have worked in the background to take control of key areas of public life - community Organisations, the Democratic Party, the left wing media.

We live in dangerous times. We took our eye off the ball.

We nedd to clear these people out.

As for the UK the Labour, or should we say Communist, Party has taken over the Civil service, the media and has set up 100's of unelected quango's. We need to expose the communist links. Where is Common Purpose in this mix? Why do we have a self proclaimed communist for a Home Secretary and closet ones for Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House?

Alex Bensky

I blame the Czechs for this. The west sold them out in 1938 and 1948. What made them think we'd do anything differently this time?

Obama has made it clear that his sympathies are with America's foes and not its friends. The Czechs should have seen this coming.

Dixon

"Chris Reason
September 19th, 2009 7:47am
I think you've nailed it again, Melanie. There just aren't enough missiles in the world. Clearly things won't be sorted till we each have our own individual rocket and nuclear warhead."

Perfect example of the kind of comment I mentioned earlier, from someone who clearly knows absolutely nothing, nada, zilch about the topic under discussion. A comment coming also after I had bothered to point out that the ABM missiles in question HAVE NO WARHEADS! They destroy attacking missiles purely by kinetic energy upon impact.

Dixon

"YA", I agree...the Iranian threat is not from missiles but the shipping of nuclear devices aboard regular freight containers to just about any place they fancy sending them. Hundreds of thousands of these a year cannot all be checked. Until a means of "scanning" every freight shipment has been developed ( if it is ever cheap enough to deploy to all ports ) there will never be a defence against smuggled nuclear devices.

The ABM system I am keen to see deployed is the Israeli "Iron Dome", which is intended to knock down shells and rockets as small as 150mm. This could very well represent an end to Hamas attacks from Gaza the way that the wall stopped most suicide attacks from the West Bank. And what is the media going to say about it? How are they going to pretend that ( like the wall ) it is somehow an aggressive measure?

If it ever gets deployed.

Sleeping dolls

Dixon, are you American? I can't help feeling that Chris's contribution contained more than a little irony! Assuming I'm correct, thank you, Chris, I couldn't have put it better myself.

John

Dixon - Iron Dome will indeed be interesting. I think there is quite a lot of scepticism that it will work for very short range targets (Ashkelon, Sderot) but it might protect those towns a bit further away Ashdod, Beer Sheva and even Tel Aviv. To say that the wall prevented suicide attacks out of the West Bank is a bit of a simplification. It played a role but bigger roles were almost certainly played by (i) a Hamas Shura Council decision in 2005 to suspend suicide operations because they felt they were bad "PR" (ii) the re-occupation of the West Bank and the internal system of checkpoints, surveillance and intelligence gathering. When someone wanted to launch a suicide attack and were not tracked in advance by Shin Bet(Dimona in 2008) they found it quite easy to walk out of Hebron through the large sections of the green line where the wall is incomplete. A few thousand West Bankers jump the fence every day to work in Israel or Israeli settlements. A pair of yellow car number plates and a kippa would get you a 98% chance of driving through a checkpoint such as Hizma unmolested. Or else you can bribe one of the Bedouin Border Police guards who man the dirt tracks in the middle of nowhere to let you through.

Augustus

I dunno Dixon. Your analysis may be good, I agree with that, but I can't help feeling that this is still a sellout. Russia is stronger and more agressive than the Star Wars period, and Putin has demonstrated his determination to retake former Soviet territories with his invasion of Georgia, and by repeatedly ratcheting up the tension with the Ukraine. The missile defence shield was a symbol of American commitment to
defend the liberated nations of Europe. Now it's been abandoned,
can you honestly deny that Putin hasn't been given the green light to begin preparing Russia's invasion plans?

Elise

Well, here's one American who can say I didn't vote for him. The problem was that nobody paid attention to anything he was saying, including European leaders who rejoiced at Obama's election. Remember the old adage, becareful what you wish for...

Dixon

"Sleeping dolls
September 19th, 2009 5:21pm
Dixon, are you American? I can't help feeling that Chris's contribution contained more than a little irony! Assuming I'm correct, thank you, Chris, I couldn't have put it better myself."

Unless you mean that his irony is a conceit upon the parody of another irony baldly stated what you have just said makes no sense. I treated the comment as an irony didnt I, from someone displaying a commonplace attitude rooted in ignorance.

No Im not American, though Ive a brother who is. Do you see everyone in terms of ethnic stereotypes?

Dixon

John, thanks for explaining that to me. I shall bear that in mind in future. But I still think it would be interesting to see if the media attempts to portray Israeli defensive measures as aggression, even to the extent of the wall, being applied to the entirely defensive Iron Dome.

Dixon

Augustus, I basically agree that, notwithstanding the possibility of a hidden deal, this does look like a sell-out. Moreover, I agree that basically it is a symbolic betrayal of the Czechs and Poles, even though not directly affecting their security. Such symbolic gestures being, of course, sometimes critical in shaping events. But I wouldnt go as far as seeing Russia militarily acting against those more immediately European neighbours ( as opposed to Georgia et al ). For one thing, I imagine they will now feel confident in their ability to get what they want simply by the application of indirect pressure, political and otherwise, as they have this time.

Archie

Another thank you to Dixon; and yet another thought : could any of this be connected to Netanyahu's recent visit to Moscow - by private jet, I understand? As I posted elsewhere (please forgive the laziness of comfortable middle-age!) "I see very little evidence thus far - or at least since Brer Putin has been running the show - of the Russians doing the swords to ploughshares thing. Thus Obama's gambit is in truth a gamble. We shall see".

Sleeping dolls

Dixon, for what it's worth I value your contributions which are thoughtful and avoid the kind of knee jerk hatred and vindictiveness I associate with this place. Americans are supposedly famous for their inability to understand the British "ironic" humour. This is of course, as you point out, a ridiculous stereotype, so ridiculous I never thought anyone would take it seriously. I apologise unreservedly.

I still don't think you get it. Never mind. It's really not important.

In the Wilderness in America

Thanks Bogdan of Australia for reminding us of the intentions of Vladimir Putin (or should I say "Rasputin" as he is known in the Czech Republic. The Georgian leadership, the gas lines, and the Ukraine are of utmost importance to the Russian bear. And Obama will let those two states twist in the wind in addition to letting Poland and the Czech Republic suffer for their audacity to believe in America's integrity.

YA

Dixon: Iron Dome is deployed in the North and South. It is mobile-based, 4-layered, designed to protect important (military) objects and moving troops against barrages of (70km max range Syrian Smerch) and alike. It was successfuly tested on 120mm mortar shells but not cost effective in this case. It might be used to protect civilians in Sderot for very short time while they open bomb shelters but not longer. The bulk of response to mortars/Qassams isn't supposed to be defensive.

Neil Craig

If they really were as "supposed2 aumed at preventing an Iranian attack on Poland then I do not think that is a serious risk.

In fact they were aimed at Russia, a country with which we have been trying to pick fights. However it is not credible to say that Russia is planning to invade either country as Germany did in 1939. Quite obviously all Russia wants is not to be threatened which is a reasonable desire & the complete antithesis of what happened at Munich.

Incidentally if Russia expected missiles to be based there then the only possible defence against a NATO first strike would be launch on warning - nothing could be more dangerous to everybody.

Simon Brock

Hokum

Sergey

Irony of the situation is that nobody declares his true motives and instead put forward very transparent lies. Yes, these interceptors were aimed against Iran, because traectories of Russian intercontinental balistic missiles targeting USA run over Arctic ocean, and interceptors in Czech Republic can no way intercept them. But this was not the main reason to place them here: the reason was to push NATO military infrastructure close to Russian border and to have a pretext to stay here, with possible further expansion of this presence. Exactly this pissed off Russian leadership. Anti-missile defence does not threaten Russia military, but humilates her politically, since she often declare that will not tolerate advance of NATO infrastructure to her borders. As for fears of Poland and Czech Repablic of Russian invasion, this no more than paranoid fantasies. Russian ground forces are in so ramshackle condition that this is physically impossible in forseable future. This also absolutely impossible politically and economically. Such paranoid thinking is historically understandable but still is beyond realm of rational thought. Ukraine and Georgia have vastly more reasons to fear. Not of actual occupation, of course, but of regional separatism and of pro-Russian sentiments of large portion of their own citizenry.

Ronnie

As I understand it, last year the Russian airforce took delivery of two new aircraft and one was a transport plane. Perhaps Dixon can confirm.

Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy and an economy in dreadful trouble not withstanding their relative increases in defence spending from a very low base.

The Czech Republic and Poland are full members of the E.U. and NATO and are hardly going to rush to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact anytime soon.

The actual technical utility of the missile systems has been dealt with by Dixon. And their deployment was only a piece of Bushian bluster in any case.

I have no doubt that deals have been done of which this decision is merely an integral part, including Russia not siting missiles in Venezuela, not going ahead with supplying anti-missile systems to Iran and greater co-operation in dealing with Islamic terrorists.

I have decided not to follow Mel in her knicker-twisting fest.

GeoffM. Great contribution. I am a UK citizen and I hope you realise that I am being sarcastic.

Dixon

"Neil Craig
September 20th, 2009 4:41pm
If they really were as "supposed2 aumed at preventing an Iranian attack on Poland then I do not think that is a serious risk.

In fact they were aimed at Russia, a country with which we have been trying to pick fights. However it is not credible to say that Russia is planning to invade either country as Germany did in 1939. Quite obviously all Russia wants is not to be threatened which is a reasonable desire & the complete antithesis of what happened at Munich."

I can forgive the dyslexia and the inability to formulate a comprehensible sentence...but it seems that Neil is simply exemplifying the kind of blathering cluelessness I referred to earlier: Missiles a threat to Russia! DOH, the fact is they were but a handful...having NO WARHEADS. I say again, DOH!

But really, what can you say, but "doh!"

Dixon

Sleeping Dolls, for what its worth I kept open the possibility that there was some additional stratospheric realm of irony to be discerned and that I didnt get it...but I thought I allowed for that in my comment, ie referring to a hypothetical irony in the parody of a common irony! Maybe you didnt get that either.

Ironic subtlety is really only reliably apparent when one knows the propensities of the person issuing it. Whereas on the internet you have no idea who is making a statement and whether they are or are not liable to intend that it be taken at face value.

Dixon

Ya, thats interesting, so its already technically viable yet hindered by expense.

Dixon

"Ronnie
September 20th, 2009 8:59pm
As I understand it, last year the Russian airforce took delivery of two new aircraft and one was a transport plane. Perhaps Dixon can confirm."

I dont know about that. But the Russians have certainly been deploying new truck-launched mobile land-based Intercontinental ballistic missiles every year for the past decade. They are called Topol-M. The most "modern" land-based US ICBMs are the updated version of one that was first deployed forty years ago ( Minuteman 3 ). Their more recent MX were all scrapped as part of SALT 2.

The Russian air-force has doubled the size of its TU160 strategic bomber fleet by buying back the ones previously deployed in the Ukraine. They have in recent years been on deployment to bases in Venezuela as well as performing trans-polar sorties to US air-space, for the first time since the Cold War. The heaviest bomber ever built. Heavier than the B52 and with as large a payload, but unlike the American plane also supersonic.

Dixon

Sergey: "... Anti-missile defence does not threaten Russia military, but humilates her politically, since she often declare that will not tolerate advance of NATO infrastructure to her borders..."

But the question is, why is it thought legitimate for Russia to consider its neighbours affairs any of their business?

Yes, Russia is structurally, industrially and militarily weak. Therefore prone to hysterical bullying of those weaker than itself. That doesnt legitimise it. Moreover,their one strength is their natural resources, which they need us to buy from them. Our aim should be to obtain those resources as cheaply as possible. We should not repeat the mistake that was made when Saudi Arabia was elevated to the status of an equal, legitimate state, which we have been paying for ever since. Our interest is best served by Russia remaining weak. If they are "pissed off" about our actions, that in itself makes those actions the right thing to do. Piss them off as far as we can to make the leadership appear weaker yet in the eyes of its people. Sow ills and discontent among any camp that is not avowedly of our kin.

That said, if America wants to keep its space station after next year, they will have to continue buying seats on Russian flights to it, the shuttle being retired then. What a ridiculous situation in that predicament they have created for themselves.

Ronnie

Dixon.

'Piss them off as far as we can to make the leadership appear weaker yet in the eyes of its people.'

Yes, that would work if virtually all of the Russian media was not controlled by Putin. The people there have no idea what is going on. They are fed a lot of information telling them how strong they are and that it's time to flex their muscles.

They don't realise that they don't actually have very much muscle. All they really have is the power of blackmail through their oil and gas resources.

Dixon

Ronnie:Yes, that would work if virtually all of the Russian media was not controlled by Putin. The people there have no idea what is going on. They are fed a lot of information telling them how strong they are and that it's time to flex their muscles. "

I agree. So really what Sergey was saying really only makes sense from the point of view of a member of the Russian ruling Oligarchies. They are the ones "pissed off" as he put it.

I personally dont see Russia as any kind of major "threat". Its more of a mildly problematic gangster and criminal facilitator with friends in low places. To which maybe we must now add the White House.

hippiepooter

Watched the film '13 Days' about the Cuban Missile crisis at the weekend. When withdrawing missiles from Turkey as a quid pro quo was mooted Ken O'Donnell, the character played by Kevin Costner, said: "And the whole world is going to say we've abandoned a friend to make friends with the Soviet Union". I wonder what Hollywood liberals are saying about Obama's appalling actions?

Ronnie

Dixon.

The people in the Kremlin don't have friends. They have business associates.

David Nally

Didn't a Soviet General once say it was his ambition to have his troops dangle their heels in the water of the English Channel.

Ronnie

David Nally.

I once said I'm going to have a Ferarri.

Dave M

This is a smart move by Obama and totally logical. Modern day Russia poses no threat at all to its neighbours. True, Russia did launch a cyber attack on Estonia not too long ago (which can't be justified) but it does need to be understood Russia was hugely provoked (by the removal of a Russian monument to the Russian dead, fallen in WW2). The thing to remember here is Russia sacrificed thousands of lives fighting Hitler on the front line and also freed many thousands of Jews from concentration camps. Many of Russia's neighbours supported Hitler which is why there are raw wounds to this day.
Yes, there is a possibility of Russia posing some threat to Georgia or the Baltics but only in the context of some sort of inter ethnic crisis. However, to Poland or Czech Republic there is no way Russia would pose a threat. I believe if Obama recognises Russia is now a peaceful, gradually developing democracy, there is hope of Russia turning the screws on Iran.
Last point: Russia has always been anti semitic although you need to bear in mind Lenin himself was half Jewish and many Soviet leaders were Jewish. Modern Russian politicians probably recognise Israel and don't follow the old Soviet stance. It would be a mistake to view Russia just in black and white and assuming there is a threat.

Dave M

"The most immediate threat is, without any doubt, the increasingly likely invasion of Georgia where the Russkies have an unfinished business with Saakashili."

The Georgian leader opened an all out assault on ethnic Russians within Georgia. This would be akin to Nicaragua rounding up Americans in their borders and shooting them dead. This is also a dangerous man who seems to not realise the danger of involving NATO in his regional disputes with Russia, which could have led to a full blown military escalation. Besides, the French and Cheques seemed to feel Russia had been hugely provoked in that conflict.
Let's remember, Gorbachev was promised when he tore down the Berlin Wall there would be no encirclement by NATO or former Russian territory such as Ukraine or Georgia. On that score Russia was cheated. One of the main reasons Russian democracy has stalled is due to the threat around its borders. The country has been on a defensive footing till recently but it's hard to believe why the U.S. wanted to target Putin in the first place rather than defending its borders from Iran and the Middle East. After all Russia has also had grave problems with Islamic fanaticism and Putin was the first leader to warn a 9/11 (and Islamization of Europe) could be on the cards. Needless to say Russia is hugely concerned over extreme Islam in the U.K. and the fact thousands of radicals are hiding out in London.

Sergey

Russia now is in the same situation as Weimar Germany was in 1929. To humilate her is a very dangerous game for West: She can easily turn into post-Weimar state, and her wast resources, if mobilized for forced militarization, will actually re-create 1939. And nuclear stand-off will practically guarantee that US and EU will have no other option than to agree with reoccupation of Eastern Europe.

alexander

There clearly was a deal - Russia dropped its plans to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad - this was widely reported on the 18 September but doesn't seem to have influenced the debate as much as it might - see http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/world/Russia-drops-Kaliningrad-missile-threat/Article1-455455.aspx