# Russia scraps plan to deploy missles



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

Russia says it has scrapped plans to deploy missiles in a region near Poland after U.S. President Barack Obama canceled plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

In a radio interview Saturday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Mr. Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.

President Obama said Thursday he is replacing the planned missile defense system with what he called a new approach for defending the United States and its NATO allies from a missile threat from Iran. 

VOA News - Russia Scraps Missile Deployment after Obama Cancels Missile Shield


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Funny, the article ignores the current anti-Moscow strife and security issues in Kaliningrad Oblast.  That makes for an incomplete analysis by the article.


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Funny, the article ignores the current anti-Moscow strife and security issues in Kaliningrad Oblast.  That makes for an incomplete analysis by the article.



Oh MY GOD!!!!

IT IGNORES THE SECURITY ISSUES IN KALININGRAD OBLAST!!!

That is so important to us!


----------



## publicprotector (Sep 19, 2009)

Its just mere posturing nothing else, given that the bulk of Russia's systems are mobile that can be deployed by them where they like any time they like. Its just pointless shuffling on the chess board of power. That is the advantage that Russia has over the US, Russia is so large that it can deploy its weapons anywhere and to use them in any region of the World unlike the US that has to put bases where it can to do same.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

This move has proven to be an outstanding polocy success for Pres. Obama


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, the article ignores the current anti-Moscow strife and security issues in Kaliningrad Oblast.  That makes for an incomplete analysis by the article.
> ...


It may be unimportant to you, but I prefer to make my analysis of a situation based on thorough information.  Security issues with anti-Moscow factions in Kaliningrad Oblast have been going on for some time.

Read up:  
From 2004, to indicate that the anti-Moscow dissent in the Oblast has been in existence for some time.


> &#8230;.
> The most conspicuous asymmetry is not the geographical one to which Ivanov mainly alludes. Rather, the asymmetry resides in the offensive purpose and mission of the Russian missiles that would be deployed, versus the purely defensive anti-missile elements proposed to be sited in Poland and the Czech Republic.
> &#8230;.


 RUSSIA WARNS OF MISSILE FORWARD-DEPLOYMENT IN KALININGRAD REGION - The Jamestown Foundation

Getting information on those security issues and anti-Moscow strife from those in Kaliningrad itself are difficult at best as Moscow has arrested those who go public with the dissent.  For example, Rustam Vasiliev has been able to stay out of jail for now (although he has been arrested several times) and he gives a good account of the anti-Moscow mentality of the Oblast:  Independence for Kaliningrad! Those fighting for independence in the Oblast never wanted the Russian missiles there.  From the time Moscow announced their intent, there has been significant increased dissent in Kaliningrad, something the Russians certainly took into consideration in their decision.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 19, 2009)

Eh, Russia is looking for a figleaf to hide behind. Chances are that they were not going to deploy these missiles anyway. Hell, the new system is geared towards short and medium range missiles....which Russia was going to deploy.

Oh, and I think Obama's change of direction on the missile defense was the right way to go. The original system was geared towards long range missiles. The new one is more adaptable and "mobile", in that it can shift mission purpose more easily. And it's actually geared towards the short and medium range missiles which Iran is developing.


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Eh, Russia is looking for a figleaf to hide behind. Chances are that they were not going to deploy these missiles anyway. Hell, the new system is geared towards short and medium range missiles....which Russia was going to deploy.
> 
> Oh, and I think Obama's change of direction on the missile defense was the right way to go. The original system was geared towards long range missiles. The new one is more adaptable and "mobile", in that it can shift mission purpose more easily. And it's actually geared towards the short and medium range missiles which Iran is developing.



Which is exactly why he did it.

He is taking the advice of a very good defense secretary.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, Russia is looking for a figleaf to hide behind. Chances are that they were not going to deploy these missiles anyway. Hell, the new system is geared towards short and medium range missiles....which Russia was going to deploy.
> ...



Maybe. But my point was that Russia is FOS.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, Russia is looking for a figleaf to hide behind. Chances are that they were not going to deploy these missiles anyway. Hell, the new system is geared towards short and medium range missiles....which Russia was going to deploy.
> ...


yeah, he did pick a good Sec Def


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 19, 2009)

Given Obamas announcement that the missle shield in Poland/Tchech republich is axed, Russia claimed it would withdraw the nuclear long range rockets it placed in Kaliningrad (Polish border), citing that, without the threat of the anti missle system, there is no need to escalate things.
The Russian minister of defense claimed to be "happy that common sense prevailed".


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

isn't there like 3 other threads on this?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/88807-russia-scraps-plan-to-deploy-missles.html


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Who cares about Russia?

China already owns us thanks to George Bush!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



/looks at the OP poster...looks at last post...


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

These security concerns are ridiculous.

America greatest enemy is the Republican Party.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


yet you applaud Obama selling us to them even more


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> These security concerns are ridiculous.
> 
> America greatest enemy is the Republican Party.


more proof you are a fucking idiot


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> These security concerns are ridiculous.  ...


In what way are they ridiculous?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > These security concerns are ridiculous.  ...
> ...


you are asking more from him than he is capable of delivering


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > These security concerns are ridiculous.  ...
> ...



A fraction of our nuclear capacity could destroy Russia.

They know it, and we know it.

But the Republicans and their buddies in the military industrial complex have to keep creating threats to justify the huge expenditures of money we put out. Like being afraid of 50 guys in a cave in Pakistan. AQ is no real threat to a country of 300 million people.

The real threat is the reduction of taxes on the rich which has created this massive National Debt. And Reagan and Bush are responsible.


----------



## elvis (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Obama is DOUBLING that debt, you fucking mental midget.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

Russia: Wonât deploy missiles near Poland - Russia- msnbc.com



> MOSCOW - Russia said Saturday it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Washington has dumped a planned missile shield in Eastern Europe. It also harshly criticized Iran's president for new comments denying the Holocaust.



I'd call this progress...Good job, President Obama!


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


shhhh, he dont want to know that
he also ignores what Carter and Clinton added to the debt


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


What the hell does this have to do with your claim that the security issues in Kaliningrad Oblast are ridiculous?


----------



## elvis (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Very few people know it, but Carter actually increased military spending by 50 percent and also made it law for all 18 yr old males to register for selective service.  This was all a result of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.  
he also boycotted the Moscow olympics for the same reason.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/88807-russia-scraps-plan-to-deploy-missles.html


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

another one


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

It would be nice to have the discussion of this in a single thread so that I can see all input in one place and not have to cross post my points in several threads.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


yup
but the thing was, the military was in such disarray under carter he had very little else he could do
and Clinton and the GOP congress did the same thing in the 90's


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

Si modo said:


> It would be nice to have the discussion of this in a single thread so that I can see all input in one place and not have to cross post my points in several threads.



It would APPEAR someone has taken care of this for you.  Good evening Si modo!


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It would be nice to have the discussion of this in a single thread so that I can see all input in one place and not have to cross post my points in several threads.
> ...


'Sup, Yank?  Good to see you online.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Good to see you as well.  So, do you still believe Obama screwed up with this move?


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 19, 2009)

*Threads merged

~A15*


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


yes, he broke treaty's
that's something you DON'T do unilaterally for no reason


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I'll do the homework, but which Treaty(ies) are you referring to specifically?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

And why did this get moved out of the "politics" arena?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


Taking all into consideration?  Yes, yes I do and if any other president had done this, I would say the same.

First, I am in favor of continuing to perfect this mid-range level of BMD.  You and I are not in agreement on that, so that is a given.

But, let's assume I was willing to give up further development of a mid-range system so that we are on the same page.

I would still disagree for the following reasons:

1.  One of my original disagreements with this is that we got nothing in return from the Russians.  Although this may appear to be something in return, I don't find it nearly adequate.  First, what the Russians had planned for Kaliningrad Oblast was completely offensive and not comparable to our system.  In fact, it was an escalation of offensive arms by the Russians.  Thus, this is an inequitable trade of concessions.  Secondly, considering the security issues in Kaliningrad with their anti-Moscow factions, the Russians' planned deployment of _offensive_ arms in an unfriendly environment was not a given at all.

2.  Part of the deal to the Poles was to give them Patriot missiles in return for their allowing us the use of their territory.  We aren't getting that use any longer, but we are still shipping the Patriots to them.  That's a ridiculous waste of our resources for nothing.

3.  As it became clear that we actually did piss off the Poles, still shipping the Patriots certainly makes them happier.  However, any trust the Poles were willing to extend to the USA is less solid after this.

4.  Finally, with what appeared to me as backpeddling after realizing the ramifications of backing out of this deal, all of this seems poorly thought out and I believe that had we honored the original deal, we would be in a better position as far as goodwill is concerned with the countries involved.  Russia and the USA will always have tentative goodwill, IMO, until another generation dies off.

No doubt others will not agree with my analysis and that's fine.  I do like the opportunity to voice it with those interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

How about you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2009)

Divecon, your assignment is to go find the treaties that Bush unilaterally broke in 2001 and 2002 getting ready for war.  Many of them had to with bailing out on international war crimes agreements.  I amazed how you righturds keep stirring up your own stink.  Michael Medved has it right: solid conservative values, good moderate voice, get rid of the far rightoid agenda-driven whackos.  He is 100% correct.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

1. One of my original disagreements with this is that we got nothing in return from the Russians. Although this may appear to be something in return, I don't find it nearly adequate. *First, what the Russians had planned for Kaliningrad Oblast was completely offensive *and not comparable to our system. *In fact, it was an escalation of offensive arms by the Russians. *Thus, this is an inequitable trade of concessions. Secondly, considering the security issues in Kaliningrad with their anti-Moscow factions, the Russians' planned deployment of offensive arms in an unfriendly environment was not a given at all.

So, are you saying trading our DEFENSIVE weaponry for their OFEENSIVE weaponry is not equitable?  I don't think I follow you on this one?  By them not deploying their offensive weapons, we are not going to spend more money on a defensive countermeasure.  Sounds like a good business decision to me.

2. Part of the deal to the Poles was to give them Patriot missiles in return for their allowing us the use of their territory. We aren't getting that use any longer, but we are still shipping the Patriots to them. That's a ridiculous waste of our resources for nothing.

I agree.  We should not be "giving" weapons systems to anyone, if we are getting nothing tangible in return.

3. As it became clear that we actually did piss off the Poles, still shipping the Patriots certainly makes them happier. However, any trust the Poles were willing to extend to the USA is less credible after this.

OK, but honestly, so what?

4. Finally, with what appeared to me as backpeddling after realizing the ramifications of backing out of this deal, all of this seems poorly thought out and I belive that had we honored the original deal, we would be in a better position as far as goodwill is concerned with the countries involved. Russia and the USA will always have tentative goodwill, IMO, until another generation dies off.

What was the original deal with Russia?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


we had treaty's with both Czech Republic and Poland for these bases


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Divecon, your assignment is to go find the treaties that Bush unilaterally broke in 2001 and 2002 getting ready for war.  Many of them had to with bailing out on international war crimes agreements.  I amazed how you righturds keep stirring up your own stink.  Michael Medved has it right: solid conservative values, good moderate voice, get rid of the far rightoid agenda-driven whackos.  He is 100% correct.


naw, why dont you do that, since i dont believe we did break any unilaterally
the ABM treaty had an escape clause that either nation could use
and we did
now, you find the ones you are talking about and provide proof we broke them unilaterally


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Treaties?  When were they signed and by whom?  I thought treaties went into effect after you had gone to war?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yeah, its wiki, but it should suffice the purpose


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Fair enough.  I was wrong yet again.  Thanks for the head's up.  I still don't know what treaties we signed with Poland and CZ that woud allow us to park missiles there?


----------



## garyd (Sep 19, 2009)

It doesn't matter even short range missle these days have sufficient range to hit poland from the other side of the Urals. The only reason to move them closer was to shorten reponse time to a launch of Russia's offensive armament should the Russian choose to attack Poland.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Good idea.  This is much easier than the quote function whenever discussing with someone who will not alter my words.

_1. One of my original disagreements with this is that we got nothing in return from the Russians. Although this may appear to be something in return, I don't find it nearly adequate. *First, what the Russians had planned for Kaliningrad Oblast was completely offensive *and not comparable to our system. *In fact, it was an escalation of offensive arms by the Russians. *Thus, this is an inequitable trade of concessions. Secondly, considering the security issues in Kaliningrad with their anti-Moscow factions, the Russians' planned deployment of offensive arms in an unfriendly environment was not a given at all._

So, are you saying trading our DEFENSIVE weaponry for their OFEENSIVE weaponry is not equitable?  I don't think I follow you on this one?  By them not deploying their offensive weapons, we are not going to spend more money on a defensive countermeasure.  Sounds like a good business decision to me.

I'm glad you picked up on that.  As the world is interested in keeping the Cold War dead and in keeping arms escalation to a minimum, it should be an expectation  that Russia will not resume an arms race.  This expectation in this case is further magnified whenever one realizes that Russia's claim to escalate is in response to some offensive escalation on our part.  That is not the case.  It was a gratuituous arms escalation by Russia.  And, as I said, they were planning a deployment of offensive missiles in an unfriendly environment.  I find it difficult to imagine that Russia was not so insecure about that situation that they would have decided on their own to scrap deployment.

_2. Part of the deal to the Poles was to give them Patriot missiles in return for their allowing us the use of their territory. We aren't getting that use any longer, but we are still shipping the Patriots to them. That's a ridiculous waste of our resources for nothing._

I agree.  We should not be "giving" weapons systems to anyone, if we are getting nothing tangible in return.

Cool.  Although, being accused of supporting the military corporate infrastructure (or whatever the catchy phrase for it is), I suppose I should be happy that we will need to manufacture more Patriots.  But, I'm not.

_3. As it became clear that we actually did piss off the Poles, still shipping the Patriots certainly makes them happier. However, any trust the Poles were willing to extend to the USA is less credible after this._

OK, but honestly, so what?

I view Poland as a strategic new ally, I prefer that we have well established trust with our allies.  And, others may look at this and if we are involved in some deal with them in the future, this breaking of trust (or tendency to do so) will weigh into their decision to favorably deal with us.

_4. Finally, with what appeared to me as backpeddling after realizing the ramifications of backing out of this deal, all of this seems poorly thought out and I belive that had we honored the original deal, we would be in a better position as far as goodwill is concerned with the countries involved. Russia and the USA will always have tentative goodwill, IMO, until another generation dies off._

What was the original deal with Russia?

I'm speaking of the deal with the Poles and the Czech Republic.  We had no deal with the Russians as they never had any rational interest in this at all.  They were not a player nor were they affected.  YET, the Russian rhetoric (combined with the misinformation in the media affecting public opinion buying that our BDMS is offensive based on Russian rhetoric) allowed them to get into this for free.  I mean free in the sense that there is not a valid grievance on their part with respect to this, yet they get in on it.


Bottom line, I believe there is much more to this that none of us will know publicly because so much of it does not jibe with me.  I am going with public information and basing my analysis on that, as is what we all have done.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> *Threads merged
> 
> ~A15*


Just noticed.  Thanks!


----------



## Polk (Sep 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Neither party has the political courage to make the hard choices on budget priorities.


----------



## Polk (Sep 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That's an interesting statement, since the deals with Poland and the Czech Republic were not part of a treaty.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...


really?
i do believe they were
and since we are still sending Poland Patriot missiles as a part of that treaty, i would say you are mistaken


----------



## Polk (Sep 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It wasn't part of a treaty. There was a deal made between our government and theirs, but it was never approved on their end (and on our end, they took for the form of executive agreements).


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


i guess it depends on who's definition of "treaty" you use


----------



## Polk (Sep 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



In our system of government, treaty has a very specific definition. That being said, going back on these deals isn't likely to hurt our future relations with these states, as the deals were deeply unpopular in both of them.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


unpopular?
really?


----------



## Polk (Sep 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Sorry that for the Czech Republic, I couldn't find source polling that wasn't in Czech.

2/3rds of Czechs Oppose Missile Shield 
(rozhodn&#283; means strongly, spí&#353;e means more, souhlasí means agree, nesouhlasí means disagree)

Majority of Poles Oppose Deployment of Anti-Missile Shield


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


of course it depends on how the questions were worded as well


----------



## Chris (Sep 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Bullshit.

Clinton left office with a surplus.

It is the Reagan fantasy of tax cut and spend that bankrupted us. Bush adopted it, and included borrowing money from the Chinese.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


WOW, you are really too fucking stupid
the surplus was a MYTH
and, even using those records, he didnt have that "surplus" every year he was in office
and he had a GOP controlled congress that didnt spend more thann he asked for
infact it spent LESS than what he asked for


----------



## Douger (Sep 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> These security concerns are ridiculous.
> 
> America greatest enemy is the Republican Party.



Americas greatest enemy is Americans...errrrr Amurkinz.
They are the most easily bullshitted and manipulated critters on earth.
No chillunz leff behine.
Look at how excited they get

They adore games, entertainment and liars.

And they even had a "king"


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 22, 2009)

German newspapers reported that Shimon Perez was apperantly involved in bargaining the affair, it appaerantly also includes that Israel will not first strike Iran militarily, in return Russia will be much more suppurtive of a sanction regime.
That Nethanjahu was a on secret visit to Russia last week also points into this direction.
If I would be Iran, I would be quite worried


----------



## ekrem (Sep 23, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> German newspapers reported that Shimon Perez was apperantly involved in bargaining the affair, it appaerantly also includes that Israel will not first strike Iran militarily, in return Russia will be much more suppurtive of a sanction regime.
> That Nethanjahu was a on secret visit to Russia last week also points into this direction.
> If I would be Iran, I would be quite worried



Iran is for Russia its biggest trump card for diverting US ressources/capabilities away from the Russian Hinterland, where Russia seeks revival of its past influence. 

An "I abandon missile shield, you get out of my Iran business"-thing won't happen. 
Russia will continue its policy of ensuring Iran is a trouble for USA. With US' capabiliuties bound elsewhere, Russia faces only low-level US resistance in its Hinterland.


----------



## mightypeon (Oct 7, 2009)

Well, since the Russians got something like informal guarantees of non violence out of the Israelis, they can happily say "screw the missle shield deal, you broke it!" when things come to a close.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
No wonder Libruls hate facts; facts consistently make Libruls look like idiots.


----------



## mightypeon (Dec 15, 2009)

Security issues in the Kaliningrad Oblast? Not more than in Mainland Russia. And wishing self gouverment is unlikely to make them stage a nuclear uprising too ;D

Should the Russians be worried about US nukes because there are Anti War protestors in Washington?


----------

